I don't want to do too much talking.

Do you have any specific examples of where I did that?

I think the two points that seemed different than your previous interviews:

1. The story about your wife's WP hosting was a bit long. It seemed like you were trying to sell the purpose of Mr. Cohen's service but the story was a bit long-winded.

2. I liked that you summarized the video at the start of the interview - but you should do the summary before your interviewee is on-screen. As soon as his face hits the screen I want to hear him talk...

Other than that, I enjoyed it!

Good point about my story of Olivia's experience. I think I was excited because it happened recently, and I might have been trying to win him over -- which is odd because I don't need to do that.

Glad you said that about the summary. I've been thinking about the comments and assuming the summary is what everyone was talking about.

I wouldn't worry too much about the length of the story - it's probably just an outlier that comes with your style of interviewing.

Great to see you respond here. The time that lost me was when you were telling the story about your wife's issues. I understand your intent with that story, but it was quite long winded and it looked like a few times your guest went to speak and was effectively cut off.

I didn't watch the whole video, I was put off by the signal to noise ratio in the first few minutes.

It seems the criticism goes away once they realize you're a real person.

I remember in the Rob Walling interview the Mixergy host stops Rob mid-sentence in order to talk about his hair and to play with his hair.

Good content, but yes -- more guest less host.

Damn. Have I gone that far?

I have to pull it back.

I used to get criticism for not saying anything about myself. Maybe I'm going too far again.

Thanks. The specific example was especially helpful.

Actually I've noticed you rambling a little as well recently. I kinda like it because I'm a huge fan of the site and its sometimes funny or insightful (I couldn't believe how high spirited you were in Adeo's interview) but I can see how it would be off-putting to a first timer

Andrew, it's a great show. You do a great job. But it did crack me up because I came to Mixergy to watch Rob and it was my first Mixergy episode so I thought it was a bit humorous. Didn't mean anything person by it, youre doing a great job.

as a side note: afaik Rob Walling moved his blog to WPEngine some months ago and he's also a (small) investor

Both true.

I'm guessing people here aren't that familiar with Andrew's work. I've been listening for a long time now and can tell you that few people have done for start-ups everywhere what Andrew has done.

He's interviewing people just about every day, people who are making money, people with stories that can help others looking to do the same. Not every moment is gold, but Andrew is contributing in a major way and it cost you nothing but your time.

It's just upsetting to me to hear these comments on HN. While criticism is good, I'm afraid some of these just sound too unappreciative for me to take.

Andrew - Keep up the good work.

I am not familiar with his work, but I also don't think I should need to know his reputation in order to watch the video.

To me it seemed disrespectful to the person he was interviewing, and honestly a bit egotistical to be talking so much.

Hopefully this feedback reaches him and it's something that can be considered.

He replied to you in this thread.

To me, the phrase "While criticism is good, I'm afraid some of these just sound too unappreciative for me to take" is far more upsetting than anything redguava said.

Redguava - I watched the whole interview. While I was not previously familiar with "Andrew's" history I'm reading about him now, as I somewhat agreed with your take on him and became curious over the course of the interview about his qualifications/accomplishments.

However, do watch the whole interview. Jason Cohen had some great things to say. By the end I felt it had strayed off topic but that it was definitely worth hearing, especially when he got to speak on how he'd have changed the interview.

>is far more upsetting than anything redguava said.

Why?

I think criticism is good. I also think being a troll that contributes nothing and blindly criticizes people who do contribute is bad.

Here's an example:

> Andrew: What about this, is it an advantage that you have over a newer entrepreneur or one that is not as well known is, that if you would have called me up at 1:00 AM, I would have taken your call. I would have woken up and made myself a cup of coffee so that I could be fully aware and give you ever ounce of attention that I could, because we’re friends, but also because you have a reputation in this space, and I know that at some point I’m going to want to work with you, and so the guy who has that has the advantage over the no-name entrepreneur who’s building his first company who then has to talk to 50 people and just getting 50 conversations would take forever because no one knows him and no one has any reason to be there for him.

All this could be shortened to:

> You have been a tech entrepreneur for quite a few years now and you have a massively successful blog which is read by thousands of people. How much of an advantage is the fact that you already have a reputation and a following? How would a newer entrepreneur go about finding 50 people to have these conversations with?

There are many similar examples throughout the transcript.

I don't mind an interviewer talking if they're providing value to the interview, but when they interrupt the guest when the guest is providing information to give their opinion or ask a question it's incredibly annoying. I also quit watching after about 10 minutes for the same reason.

Or just read the transcript on that page.

I could not agree more. I kept fast-forwarding the interview to find where the guest started talking.