I don’t think browser shortcuts are on topic for lobsters.
[Comment removed by author]
The tags help guide posts towards being on topic, but just because you can find a matching tag does not mean it’s on topic. It’s not the case that every post under the sun that could conceivably match one of the tags is on topic. For example, the “science” tag does not necessarily mean that every scientific article is on topic.
It’s more nuanced. Yes, it’s hard to be sure what’s on topic. Flags on posts (like this case) can help indicate what’s not on topic after the fact.
See the meta discussion for more thoughts about this.
I think self-posts get judged more strictly.
I can see 3 reasons why your story was downvoted:
I expect most Lobsters to be professional computer scientists or engineers that already know how to focus the URL bar with a keyboard shortcut.
Even if you don’t know or remember the shortcut, on a Mac (and it looks like you’re a Mac user), it is usually displayed in the menu bar alongside each menu item. For example, on Chrome, you can click on File in the menu bar, and see that the shortcut for “Open Location…” is Cmd-L.
There is two obvious typos in the two first sentences of your post: “fantasitc” and “brian”, which makes people think the article is low quality.
I agree that Lobsters can be a challenging community and this can be frustrating. But please keep trying. I’m quite sure you’ll eventually share something that will be appreciated by most Lobsters!
I agree with this for the most part, but I find the notion that Seth should keep trying most poignant of all. Please refrain from posting content that’s not the least bit intellectually challenging. If it appeals to a wider audience, post it on HN.
TFA however, is factually incorrect as the default keyboard shortcut for the location bar is ^L. Therefore it may even be considered substandard for Reddit, so your best bet for an audience would more likely be Tumblr.
Seth has cancelled his Lobsters account, probably thanks to your nice message. Are you proud?
If your allegation is true, I’ve merely been part in helping this site retain its quality and not degrade into a cesspool of mediocre content like the ones this site aims to replace. You cannot do that without sacrifice.
Secondly, I’d like to point out that it’s up to each user when to delete ones account and although it may be a regretful choice, one ought not to second guess these decisions but rather respect those who no longer wish to be part of this community to act accordingly.
Your notion of emotional feelings towards the status of any user in particular is lost on me. My aim is to remain as objective as humanly possible, even when I’m being judgemental.
If your allegation is true, I’ve merely been part in helping this site retain its quality […]
I think you can help “this site retain its quality” by downvoting low-quality stories and explaining your downvote without being rude.
[…] degrade into a cesspool of mediocre content […]
A “cesspool”? For sure, there is absolutely no emotional charge in your choice of words!
It’s not a second guess. The temporal correlation between your rude comment and the account deletion made me wonder if there was a causality link. I checked with the account owner through Twitter and he told me that he cancelled because “that community is a toxic group” 
We are human beings, whether you like it or not. Again, you can be intellectually challenging without being rude. This is how communities strive.
I don’t believe your “aim” was to remain objective. Your aim was to harm this guy with your comment.
This was unnecessarily cruel. I think simply submitting something you think is better, and raises the bar for lobsters would be more constructive, and improve the community. I don’t think this kind of behavior is acceptable.