(with thanks or apologies to thenewgreen for the title)
I'm going to start off this post possibly by defeating myself by saying that I don't know how necessary it is. Maybe I will delete all of this instead of posting.
As Hubski grows we necessarily gain more members who aren't aware of previous posts. In addition, perhaps the search feature is not ideal (I don't know. I've always been able to find what I've been looking for but hey, I don't search a lot). #askhubski continues to grow in popularity, and our new users are beginning to be bolder about, well, asking us stuff.
As a result, we've seen some questions crop up again that have been previously asked, and by that I generally mean "previously asked in relatively recent history" as opposed to "previously asked three years ago." This has come up in the comments of the posts I've noticed.
Example 1 - First Love Example 2 - Looking Forward Example 3 - Wants
Now, I feel that I of all people have a certain tendency to get cantakerous and possessive of 'my' Hubski. I have posted long pseudo-rants about influxes of new members before, it takes me a while before I start liking new people, sometimes they are alienated (by my long pseudo-rants). So what I'm about to say might seem like, well, an atypical turn for me.
Maybe it is kleinbl00 who has commented quite articulately on the value (or lack thereof) of reposts. Oh look. I have found it. Warning, Reddit link But that is on Reddit and kb's argument applies more directly (not that it does not apply at all) to Reddit's system of upvotes. With the mute and ignore perhaps some of these problems can be avoided. Hell. I follow 13 people. I get to see what they share and that's how I encounter these reposts if/when/at all.
Some of kb's argument definitely applies. I get that reposts can be infuriating. Sometimes I see an #askhubski thread that has been asked before and my first instinct is to keyboard-mash and scream, "Don't you respect what has come before? Can't you search? DON'T YOU KNOW WE'VE DONE THIS? (And recently?)"
But here's the conclusion I have come to, calling upon the better, more tolerant angel of my nature, and especially in regards to #askhubski (don't ask me about reposts of links that's a different story): I could ask you the same question today, tomorrow, and Saturday, and get a different answer.
Some questions, admittedlly, could be construed as kind of dumb. If you are trying to provide me an example of a question with a changeable answer day-to-day I'd much rather prefer something like "What do you want?" than "What did you have for breakfast today?" I'd prefer "What was the best moment of your day?" to "What was the first thing you thought when you woke up?" I'd prefer "Who was the last person you had an argument with and why?" to "What's the weather like in your area?"
I think that when posting an #askhubski thread it behooves the poster to have an awareness of previous threads. In my examples there are #askhubski reposts that range from less than a month old to almost 4 months old (aka the same question has been asked in a range of less than a month ago to nearly four months ago). I also think that, when it is a repost, it's appropriate to post to the prior thread and say something like "Let's consider this an update to this thread. If you posted then, what's changed?" or "Hey guys, this was posted before and there was a great discussion, you might want to check it out."
I of all people am not well-placed to create unofficial Hubski rules, nor do I want to. That's why I have some reservations about this post. I don't necessarily want to discourage anyone from posting to #askhubski. I would just prefer if we could try to do so mindfully. Contributing to Hubski and asking hubski questions can come with its own sort of thrill, the thrill of attention, good discussion, and unexpected viewpoints (it's really the last that I love most). I am not lambasting anyone for posting questions that have been asked before and I hope the people whose posts I have linked to do not take this personally, it is not meant that way. I have enjoyed your #askhubski threads and I have even contributed different content to one of them than I did previously (here's lookin' at you, kid nowaypablo ). As I said: you could ask the same person the same question three times and get a different answer.
I guess my point in posting this is twofold:
1. I hope that no one on Hubski is excessively irritated at these reposts and if they are I am attempting to appeal to the better angel of your nature. Be forgiving. Maybe this comment is directed as much as myself as anyone else; I have not seen anyone get too snappy about the fact that a given question is a repost, although I also note it has been pointed out each time.
2. For people posting to #askhubski it might be a good idea to search for a keyword of your question.
3. (A wild point appears!) Perhaps we can start using the community tag #repost when we notice reposts. This way those who dislike reposts, for instance kb, and anyone else, can ignore/mute/whatever the tag and avoid any rage-making that may come about - see point 1.
Has anyone else noticed the reposts? Do they bother others? Is my post pointless? What do you think?
The ones offended by people asking questions that have been asked before are the ones who should know better. First, they should know that on a basic level, all search functions for all communities suck and are fail to a large extent. Forum search sucks, Stack Overflow search sucks, Facebook search sucks, Reddit and Hubski search sucks, etc. There is just too much to catalog and too many tiny little use-cases to cover. Nobody can be happy too much of the time with forum search. I've yet to see a community where a newbie, foreign to the interface/rules/community norms/etc can find and use the search button to quickly and easily discover if their particular variation on a question has been answered before. Some can, but on the balance, no site has been able to deliver here. Second, what are new people even saying when they ask a question? I submit that half the time, they're just curious and excited, and they just want to engage with people. 90% of the questions people pose to a community can be answered with a quick Google search. They don't want an answer, they want to talk. Many of these questions are, at heart, about the weather. So as far as I'm concerned, 'ask_xyz' formats are to a large extent for beginners to get up to speed quicker than isolated research alone with the crappy search bar (and no, "spend months lurking until you get it" isn't an answer), and for people to just engage with the same questions that people use to engage in time and time again, in many different places. They're also for people who have been around the site for a while and feel the same way. If you're not down with that, on Hubski you can block the tag. None of this is to say that reposts and search aren't problems to be solved. They are, but looking at it from a 'sytems' perspective, almost none of the anger should be directed at the users, and if it bothers you enough, you should try and come up with some combination of process and technology that ameliorates the situation while respecting all of what people are actually using 'ask_xyz' to do (talk about the weather and navigate beginner functions). And imho, if you go with the 'solving the problem route', you should probably be pretty dispassionate. Getting mad at reposts online is like getting mad at a Winter climate in the city you live in.
I agree with your basic assessment - "all search functions suck" and "people just want to talk." _refugee_'s point stands, though - #askhubski is a miasma of tedium, whereas last year, it wasn't. It's not a problem of #askhubski. It's a problem of Hubski becoming a Reddit annex. The "thoughtful web" has become a place where Redditors show up and go "I'm thoughtful! Listen to me being thoughtful! You, over there! Be thoughtful!" The new global options suck ass. Used to be you could look at stuff with seven shares and find decent content. Now you just get the "ZOMG THOUGHTFULNESS SHARE ERRYTHINGS!" overclicked links. Which, by the way, were on /r/foodforthought three days previously. I should know. I moderate it. Hubski is rapidly becoming the new Digg for pseudointellectuals. The worst part is it attracts a specific kind of pseudointellectual - the kind with a blog, the kind with a twitter, the kind with six friends who think he's clever, the kind who has never learned how to handle dispute. Mommy's clever, special flower whose wisdom is complete, whose insight is total, and whose thoughts need not be backed up by research or facts because in these halcyon days of homeschool thinking you're right is the same thing as being right. It's funny. mk pushed some code without telling anybody so when you mute someone, they're muted throughout your post history. So that last blog post had a "conversation" where half of the conversation was censored out. There are three "best of" "conversations" with similar problems - Two where I'd been muted, one where I'd muted someone else. And it all comes down to this - where "I disagree but I can't say why" used to be the norm around here, "I disagree therefore you're wrong shut up" has become the norm. I've muted people before, had conversations with them, and unmuted them. I've been muted before, had conversations with them, and been unmuted. Gotta say, though - this latest round, there's no point. "Eternal September" comes in waves, to be sure, but at some point all the new blood drives the old blood away. That's what that Reddit post was about. A lot of people came here. And the new Reddit blood is driving them out. I know I've not shared things for about a week now because fuck you guys, seriously. "Have an upvote" is rapidly becoming the mentality around here and every time we lose granularity, those of us who use the system differently than the median have less and less motivation to participate. _refugee_'s point is "stop being boring." She's too nice to say it that way. Me? I'm so cantankerous that I know that if you're boring, it's not a choice. "Stop sharing the boring" is why I don't follow hardly anyone - the "have an upvote" mentality combined with the "I'm a clever person" mentality means that anything AdBusters would have run in 1998 ends up with eleventy-seven shares within a day or so. But that also means that "global" became a wasteland the minute we couldn't pick the level of popularity. It really comes down to this: I don't have the time or the patience for "beginners" for "beginner's sake." I'm not here out of altruism, I'm here because interesting discussions used to happen. Lately? "Here are my completely groundless and unexamined thoughts on a subject I barely understand, reward me." Old communities become new communities and the old guard gets flushed out by the new guard. That's how it works. The old guard will mourn the loss of their commons while the new guard sweeps in and says "nice digs! Thanks for painting." And we can stick around, or we can jet - but if we stick around, we stick around on the terms of the new, not the old. And if we jet, …well, we're the new guard. It's easy to say "not to say reposts and search aren't problems to be solved - they are." What's hard is to arrange your social structure such that it can be welcoming to the new while also giving the old a reason to stick around. I'm out. I'm out for the rest of the year at least. I have too much to do and too little to say to people who think they're clever by default. That probably makes me a bitter old man but hey - Green Day didn't invent punk, no matter how many hand grenade stickers you put on your mom's CR-V.
Maybe this is just me, but I've not experienced a degredation with new user influxes because (I'm guessing) I'm pretty careful about who I follow. When an influx was happening it was only apparent through meta-spaces like #askhubski. If I blocked that, I am honestly not sure I would have noticed a change at all.
The takeaway from each new wave is that I've generally picked up a one or two new people (if any) or domains to follow and then moved on, which has worked pretty well. God, you have no idea how close I was to typing this exact thing, but I stopped because #askhubski just wasn't a primary reason I enjoy it. But this is exactly what I was referring to when I said that search was a problem to be solved. I personally don't get the most community value from the 'ask spaces' though, which is where most of the reposts happen. My experience and relationship with content on Hubski has remained nearly identical to what it was years ago, with what can only be described as glacial improvements on something I liked to begin with. I mean that as a compliment and I'm definitely not talking about UI or any of that stuff. I contrast that with Reddit where I don't even feel like I'm on the same sight anymore, and no matter how much effort I put into unscubscribing and searching out the best subs, I can't seem to escape the change in tone. I don't know, -maybe I somehow keep a tighter reign over here. Take it easy for the holidays at least. Of course not. Everybody knows that was Rancid.It's not a problem of #askhubski. It's a problem of Hubski becoming a Reddit annex. The "thoughtful web" has become a place where Redditors show up and go "I'm thoughtful! Listen to me being thoughtful! You, over there! Be thoughtful!"
It's easy to say "not to say reposts and search aren't problems to be solved - they are." What's hard is to arrange your social structure such that it can be welcoming to the new while also giving the old a reason to stick around.
I'm out. I'm out for the rest of the year at least.
That probably makes me a bitter old man but hey - Green Day didn't invent punk, no matter how many hand grenade stickers you put on your mom's CR-V.
I'll bet I'm more careful. But I follow tags. And a lot of them are broad - #technology, for example. Which means either we start parsing things down to nothing, or we put a whole buncha people on ignore. Even that doesn't solve the problem, though. Unless the tags you're following are filled by the people you'd follow if you followed people, you end up with nothing to follow. My own personal queue hasn't moved in weeks. The global stuff? Not worth paying attention to. So really, I'm successfully weeding myself out. Except maybe I like the conversation, too. So what do? …getter of goats.Maybe this is just me, but I've not experienced a degredation with new user influxes because (I'm guessing) I'm pretty careful about who I follow.
Of course not. Everybody knows that was Rancid.
I still mostly follow people, but I've recently switched methods on that too, where as opposed to very slowly adding people based on links they submit, I do the same but only for comments they make that I happen across. I was thinking yesterday how it would be an interesting experiment to follow people strictly via the quality of their comments, ignore links completely, and make your front page the 'chatter' link. Ok, ok, Ramones. None of that proto-punk nonsense, and we'll ignore how much they sound like the Beach Boys.Except maybe I like the conversation, too. So what do?
…getter of goats.
Thanks for putting the vague worry I have lately into words. Too much of these comments feel related to me - I just started a blog, I'm probably trying too hard to be thoughtful, and for fucks sake, I even made that repost in #askhubski in _refugee_'s post. I catch myself sharing posts because I like the person, not just its content. My fear is to become that boring guy. That guy with a blog that nobody cares about. That I don't understand what I write well enough, yet people just share it. I have no clue how to be thoughtful. How to be interesting. How to make something that is of value, that people care about besides me. I'm trying though. But trying alone isn't good enough, just as trying to be an artist doesn't make you one. Kindergarten would be filled with artists if trying was all that's needed to succeed. I always feel like I don't know shit and most people here do, especially you. I keep doubting about every move I make, every sentence I write, hoping it will matter or mean something. Yet I always enjoy reading your posts, as they usually lie close to the real meaning of thoughtful. What I'm trying to ask with a tired, jet-lagged mind, is how can I not be boring? What constitutes an interesting post? What matters?Lately? "Here are my completely groundless and unexamined thoughts on a subject I barely understand, reward me."
The only thing we have in the end is perspective. Your perspective is what makes any facts you know, any stories you tell, any truths you've discovered your own, rather than universal. In an age of Wikipedia, facts are easy to come by. Perspectives become valuable. Seen "Julie & Julia?" It's half-interesting; the Amy Adams portion is dry as dogshit. And it's not because the character played by Amy Adams is uninteresting - she is. It's that no attempt was made to justify her existence. Her uninteresting foil of Julia Child tells me nothing about Julie. Julie's life has all the foibles that anyone's life would have… but there's nothing about her that makes me care about her. She's a stock persona plugged into a stock environment. Now - seen 'Say Anything?' Ione Skye's character is a Rhodes scholar. She volunteers at an old folks home. She's the scream on sound effects tapes. Her dad is an embezzler going to prison. Meanwhile, John Cusack is a schlub who lives with his sister and his sister's kid, whose sole accomplishment is teaching kickboxing to small children. Yet Cusack's character is a hoot to watch. He lives. He breathes. The movie is about his perspective. Compared to him, Ione Skye is wooden and forgettable (and heartbreakingly beautiful; hot damn that girl is something else, even now). Don't try to be thoughtful. Don't try to be interesting. Try to show me the world through your eyes, because I can't see it that way without your help. I used to be criticized regularly on Reddit for making it "all about me." It hurt, mostly because it wasn't true, but partially because the only way I can make you see "my" story is by showing it through my eyes. Facts aren't interesting. Meaning is interesting and meaning is a journey, sometimes self-guided, sometimes led by a tour guide. What meaning have you found for your facts? Note that I won't necessarily agree with you. I may know more facts. We'll trade facts and we'll both leave with a different understanding than we came with. That is how one is thoughtful. That quote up there: "Here are my completely groundless and unexamined thoughts on a subject I barely understand, reward me." Turn it on its head: "I have no grounding in a subject I barely understand but I've been examining it. What are your thoughts?" The former is a mandate. The latter is an invitation. By inspection, which one invites participation? Which one invites dismantling?
God, that's exactly the answer I needed. I just came back from my research trip to Hong Kong. When my group was walking around the older parts of Yuen Long, far away from any tourist, we were suddenly approached by a local. He recognized our Dutch and asked if we were from the Netherlands. Turns out that the man, named Kit, lived half his live in Rotterdam and the other in Hong Kong. He even talked Dutch, invited us into his home and gave us a tour of the area. But most importantly, he showed what daily life there looked like. Like having a shrine in his living room to his ancestors, which is very common. How he just managed to live there, with the expensive housing and all. That he saved up to make sure his cousins could have a better life. Most of all, it gave me the perspective to understand how millions of people live there. The things we have in common, that they all have their lives and aren't just numbers on a population chart. Now I have more grounding on a subject I understand more with every day. I think the main difference between hubski and reddit in this aspect is the axiom of honesty. I think that comments here are genuine opinions, not just the common denominator to gain moar karma. Because there's almost no point in whoring for votes here, comments are only written for their own merit. So it's normal that it's about you. I read comments to know what people I know think of it, or what thought are voiced by people I don't yet know. Reading comments there on the other hand is just to find a rebuttal of the main story, or a nice addition to it. It often doesn't matter by whom. When you make that important, they get upset. What are your thoughts?Try to show me the world through your eyes, because I can't see it that way without your help.
I used to be criticized regularly on Reddit for making it "all about me." It hurt, mostly because it wasn't true, but partially because the only way I can make you see "my" story is by showing it through my eyes.
I think my thoughts are one perspective, and I think we're in a thread that's a week old wherein most everyone who had something to say said it. I think the discussion is worth continuing between more than just you and me… …and that's exactly the sort of thing that makes a good post. Hop to, squire. And don't be afraid to shout out to some peeps. mk thenewgreen _refugee_ theadvancedapes @plentyofpeopleI'mforgetting@
Just drove through said, "ice storm." Stay put pal. I'm not sure why I was shouted out to for this, except for the fact that I shout out to kb at least twice a day. Retribution? veen, you should know that your content is enjoyed here. I'm looking forward to a post about your travels, others are too. Be safe pal!I think that comments here are genuine opinions, not just the common denominator to gain moar karma.
-We are extremely careful not to give "points" out. This is the main reason that it takes a long time to get that hub-wheel to have a full rotation.
It's 2am and I'm typing this from my phone and I don't really have a good question yet to further the discussion. You can start it or I'll sleep on it. Besides, a relaxing Sunday's always the best day to reflect on oneself. On a sidenote, I'm often hesitant to tag people in posts. It always feels like I'm infringing on their time. I'd rather have it that they would respond on their own schedule instead of having me screaming in their inbox for their attention. 'Night
I was ignoring #askhubski for a while until I realized that people were using it to ask about hubski functionality. It's never been my thing, but it has only become less interesting for me. FYI, the comments are still there, they are just collapsed. I assumed that since someone muted a user, they'd rather the user's previous comments be less featured. Maybe that was a poor assumption. minimum_wage expressed some reservations about it if I remember correctly. I don't mind if I was wrong about that. I rarely mute people, and when I do, it's usually preemptive based on their comments on other's posts. I recall a comment recently where you basically told people that they needed to be the change they want to see. Do you feel that's not possible? Serious question, no snark. We had an influx of folk from #askreddit, and many of them stayed. Basically we've got a "You got your #askreddit in my #askhubski" situation. Ideally, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. You should be able to guard and preserve your own Hubski experience. The reality is less than ideal. Cultural shift is a thing, a powerful thing. This is very true. Personally, I'd rather a great place that's hard to get to than a good place that is accessible. I see what you are saying about loss of global granularity. But I think there's a better solution to be had than what we had going.#askhubski is a miasma of tedium, whereas last year, it wasn't.
It's funny. mk pushed some code without telling anybody so when you mute someone, they're muted throughout your post history.
"Have an upvote" is rapidly becoming the mentality around here and every time we lose granularity, those of us who use the system differently than the median have less and less motivation to participate.
What's hard is to arrange your social structure such that it can be welcoming to the new while also giving the old a reason to stick around.
Considering the screams of unholy terror when I deleted a couple days' worth of comments in a fit of pique, I'd say it was a poor assumption. And that was 2011, when we still sorta had a community. It was also before everybody under the sun started using Hubski to link to their blog. What we have now is bloggers who can not only censor comments on their blog, they can censor comments on links to their blog. Which would be fine, except we've got so many users who are happy to share pseudointellectual blogs that in the end you're left with a circlejerk self-reinforcement of the unexamined life. Serious answer, no snark: You reach a point where it isn't worth the trouble. Y'all oughtta see what the discussions in /mods50k or /defaultmods look like. It's the redditors who were most of the content in 2008, 2009, 2010, who aren't really mixing it up on Reddit anymore but are still keeping the lights on. So there we are, all the old, big, "power user" names, who have become literal power users because it's the only thing worth bothering with anymore. The discussions elswhere have become repetitive, meaningless and tedious. The arguments become facile. Everyone around you is busily being outraged over stuff you worked through ten years ago. The content is stuff that dates back to PHPBB days. So you farmville it up - you kill spam in the queue and you ban reported links and you move on with your day, your "reddit fix" satisfied without having to interact with a single person. You might as well be playing Bingo. My experience here - "huh. A question. I shared my answer six months ago." "Huh. An erroneous conclusion. I could chime in, but that would be breaking the circlejerk." "Huh. A link that's been resoundingly disproven on three other online communities already. I'd link to those discussions but why bother?" In order to "be the change" you have to beat a dead horse. Nobody likes that, least of all the horse. The last three "discussions" I've had on Hubski were them) I have an opinion that I like enough for it to be fact. me) But it's opinion, not fact. Here's a bunch of facts that disprove your opinion. them) I disagree. My opinion is very compelling. me) …but not factual. them) but my opinion is popular. Also, you're not listening. me) …because you keep repeating your opinion. I'm done here. them) That's because you're a doodyhead. Fortunately I'm much too nice to call you one. Also, muted! So even when you put forth the effort to "be the change" you're erased like an errant blog comment. And this is what frustrates the fuck out of me. This is why it gets harder and harder and harder for me to care. You don't ask anyone else, you try something and if it doesn't work, you go "oops." I know you worship Paul Graham. I know you adore Jeff Atwood. But lemme tell ya - coders suck ass at people. There's this idea among them that "you wrote the code, therefore YOU ARE GOD." Fuck everything about that. Your code reinforces with every move it makes that the contribution of the user matters… and then you go and change shit because I AM GOD and it throws it all in the shitter. Message from website: "content matters." Message from website admins: "fuck the users." Community sites are fragile, yo. They're chockablock with opinions. Yet CODERS DON'T GIVE A FUCK. - How many people asked for lists? - How many people helped puzzle out the implementation? - How easy is it going to be to remember how to use it? Vs. - How many people know markup? - How many problems does it solve? - How seamless is it compared to your cobbled-together language? Yet your solution for a common problem is to force me, the user, to learn your language, because YOU ARE GOD. Eventually, it all boils down to the same problem: constant reminders that this ain't my playground. And when you're being pulled in five directions where you actually matter, it gets easier and easier to walk away. Serious answer, no snark: All the change I want to see can be erased at a whim with no discussion or explanation, so what the fuck is the point of even trying?I assumed that since someone muted a user, they'd rather the user's previous comments be less featured. Maybe that was a poor assumption.
I recall a comment recently where you basically told people that they needed to be the change they want to see. Do you feel that's not possible? Serious question, no snark.
I see what you are saying about loss of global granularity. But I think there's a better solution to be had than what we had going.
I've got to drive home, so I have to revisit with a lengthier response, but this is wrong: I don't have much opinion on Graham. I don't know him. I don't follow Atwood at all. Can't tell you much about him. I know many coders do. I'm really not much of a coder. I'm changing this stuff as a user, and as a result of feedback and conversations I'm having with all of you. Having links for 5 shares and 6 shares wasn't very useful. I say that as a user. But having more granularity could very well be.I know you worship Paul Graham. I know you adore Jeff Atwood.
I stand corrected. Apologies. Nonetheless, you're definitely a "easier to ask forgiveness rather than permission" kind of guy. There will always be a "WE CHANGED SOMETHING" announcement. There is almost never a "WE'RE THINKING OF CHANGING SOMETHING OPINIONS PLEASE" announcement. Even when there is, you'll still do your own thing regardless of concensus. Tags, for example.
BAM. cgod sent me the following text last night: RL is kicking my ass atm. The second day of a training I have to be a part of is about to start. I want to write something worthwhile, and I can't do it. TBH, I agree with a lot of what you've said. You and cgod are right in that one way to preserve what we have/had is to have the tools to do it. Share sorting might be a more valuable tool if you don't follow a narrow band of users. That was my approach with lists. It regards a function that people have been asking about for quite some time, the ability to categorically save and share content. Markup is on the shortlist, and forwardslash has designed a more robust implementation. He has a lot more chops than I do in that regard, but his chops have been most recently dedicated to hubski mobile which is another thing that people have been clamoring for. I have more to add to this conversation. I will add more.I miss the ability to see posts with no, one, or two votes badly. Spending way less time on hubski
There is almost never a "WE'RE THINKING OF CHANGING SOMETHING OPINIONS PLEASE" announcement.
So long as it's a two-sided conversation, it's a conversation worth having. Thanks, and good luck with "real life." My schedule at the moment includes eight Youtube episodes that were supposed to be trickled to me two per month starting in September… but which I got the first one of on Dec 4 and which are all due by the end of the year. Wish I could link to 'em - they're gonna be fuckin' AWESOME - but my name's on 'em.
If we really wanted to couldn't we just TinEye your photo, though? I'm saying this on a purely theoretical level, not a stalker-ish one. An #askhubski question I have considered, but not asked, for a while now, is "Do we share too much personal information on Hubski?" Frankly, as someone who's usually pretty tight on my internet identity - i.e., different usernames across websites, no personal identifying information - my use of Hubski just totally blows the lid off my life. It's a huge gaping security hole. I've been considering bombing my Reddit account because of Hubski.Wish I could link to 'em - they're gonna be fuckin' AWESOME - but my name's on 'em.
Thanks. I am going to look for those videos, but won't let on if I find them. I've been thinking on this. IMO one of the problems that Hubski doesn't yet address in a way that is significantly better or different from other places, including Reddit, is that comments are exposed to a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario. As you say, someone voices their valid yet uninteresting top level comment opinion, and upvotes pour in with little regard to its value as a conversational merit. There are a bunch of ways to address this one issue, some global, and some individual. I don't put too much stock in global solutions (for example, comments with long threads could tend to float up over orphan comments, as they are indicative of better conversation), but sometimes they can nudge things in a better direction. Sometimes they go wrong however, as we could just be featuring flame wars with the same mechanism. One global mechanism i have considered is comment length, or even some sort of language score, but there are other unintended consequences there as well. As you know, we've typically tried to make the solutions based on user choice. And yes, sometimes I drag my feet too long, and sometimes I push things out too willy-nilly. I've been thinking about a user-specific way to alter the comment space, and I think we could do an experimental run, and see if it helps, and if so, if it can be improved upon. In short, not everyone's comments need to sort equally. Here's what I am thinking (a rough idea): You can give any given user a rating: poor, neutral, or good. I'm thinking about three face icons on their profile that you see: frown, neutral, smile. Neutral is the default. If you are so motivated, you can rate that user 'poor' or 'good' instead. The user doesn't know how you have rated them, and the way that you rate them only concerns you. However, when you view a post, the way that you rate users provides extra bias to the comment sort. The users you particularly like will tend towards the top, and the users you don't will tend towards the bottom. Everything is still there, but things will tend to sort in a way that reflects your input. There are comments here that wouldn't induce me to ignore or mute, but I'm typically only going to read them if I am burning time. Also, there are people here that make comments that I almost never want to miss. It only addresses one issue, but I could see it going some distance to better insulate from dilution. I'd like to give it a run, or perhaps some variation of it, as an experiment. Nixing shares was a mistake. Actually, now that they are applied to the feed, I like them even more.
I've been thinking on it for too long myself. For the record: I recognize that I'm often shouting at you for things you do with your website on your time with your money for your entertainment, and that's a dick move. Sorry for that. And for the record, I do it because I've invested a lot of my time in the exact same place and I have nothing to show for it - and whenever something changes without my input, I'm reminded of that fact. Allow me to appeal to you as a scientist: One of the arguments I've made against Team Reddit is that they betatested once. Go check my user page - I got a badge out of it. It worked. They learned a lot. And then they never did it again. I don't know nearly enough about coding to even phrase the conversation in a useful way, but allow me to fumble around for a little: you need a beta interface. You need some code to sit on top of your code that allows users to tweak their own personal functionality. You need a EULA that says "here's what I'm tracking, here's what I'm not, here's why, and by strapping this thing on, you consent to let me watch how you use it." You need to be able to fuck with it regularly. You need to give me the option to turn it on and turn it off and see what it does to functionality. You need to say "we're rolling out this beta feature we've been messing with and we're rolling it out site-wide for a week or until we decide it was a horrible idea, whichever comes first." You do have god-like powers around here - might as well tweak things to see what happens. Perform some versioning, take some notes, run some experiments, see what you get out of it. Shit, write it up well enough and get someone to sign off on it and call it a legit experiment. Maybe get some grant money, who knows? You really do have a unique opportunity here in that you have a small, tight-knit community that doesn't torch'n'pitchfork much. You don't have a massive userbase to rabblerouse. You're a lot more agile than any other aggregator and you have the wherewithal to flight test. No matter what you roll out, you're going to get a global answer. Put the stuff you're thinking about messing with into several peoples' hands before you do it, and you can get a better handle on what you get out of it. Surveymonkey is your friend.
Thanks. No worries. I understand where you are coming from, and know you well enough. The one luxury that Reddit had that we don't is a lack of day jobs. We feel it. There are opportunity costs that we are paying, and many we don't even know about. I wanted to cry when akkartik stepped down. I was drunk at a buddy's birthday party when he sent a text from the Scottish highlands, telling me that he had to pursue a personal coding project that kept eating at him. I was drunk and gobsmacked, but I understood. Hubski is that project for me. forwardslash has been a huge win for Hubski, and the wheels are on tighter than they have ever been. However, we are rationing and it is not ideal. I doubt we can code such a layer, but I do recognize both the experimentation and the approach to it are critical. At the very least, when we do experiment, we can make it clear, and benefit from the discussion that occurs around it. Years ago, I used to be part of this weird blog/rpg thing running among several friends on Blogger. We all grew up gaming, and some sort of rpg/story/rap battle thing organically emerged. One of my pals was the GM and admin, and nothing was more infuriating than the time he started fucking with what people were writing. Sometimes, he deleted posts wholesale. It was supposed to be part of the experience, and the whole thing was a joke to begin with, but our reaction was viscerally negative. As much as I slave over this thing, every one here is here by choice, and I don't want to give the impression that I am not acutely aware of the time and trust people give to the site. There's no getting around that I am always going to be a blackbox of sorts, but I don't want to be arbitrary. Also, I won't pretend that the site's character is a product of my vision alone.
you both have points here. I don't think you've tried to implement anything that didn't come directly from what users request, and you're a user yourself so it's not like you're disconnected from what's going on. Obviously you can't appease every aspect here, but you end up facing the God problem insofar as do too much, villified, do too little, villified. At what point does the authority or your autonomy overreach and at what point does it become syndicalist and at what point does the input of a few users override the rest? Both you and klein know your shit when it comes to this so this exchange directly proves that evne two people that have the same goal have vastly disparate methods and approaches. That's going to happen on every site no matter what happens and they're going to be fragmentation. What's the solution for it you propose, kleinbl00? Where the median?
It's a sore spot based on years of trench warfare with Reddit admins. ADMINS: "So it turns out nobody liked that decision." ME: "Did you ask anyone before you tried it out?" ADMINS: "no." ME: "So why are you surprised?" ADMINS: "because we're understaffed and this isn't really our thing." ME: "So why don't you hire someone to do this?" ADMINS: "We'll get right on that." (wait six months) ADMINS: "Well that wasn't very popular." ME: "Did you ask anybody first?" ADMINS: "Why would we do that?" ME: "Because that's what we discussed last time." ADMINS: "That was before our time. We're new." ME: "…"
Trust me I know. I've been there for 5 years. I don't know how you stayed a mod for as long as you have because I gave the fuck up after my third try. The shit has gotten out of control, and it's based on some flawed libertarian bullshit that admins have always had as a doctrine of running the site. They've never had any idea on how to approach a community correctly and they have no idea that it's failed miserably. Once big money got involved they were completely fucking lost. At least here we have mk attempting things the community says and has a team built out of users. I don't know how involved you are in hubski itself or how much coding experience you have, but I know you have the community experience to make some serious great changes with this site, and we can't have just what people are asking for because they ask for some stupid shit usually, especially when coming from other sites. So how do we go about having a balance between a creator ideas and user ideas and having select users having too much say? If mk asks us "what do you think of this idea?" and they say "we fucking hate it" resoundingly, despite the majority of the naysayers saying "we should implement a karma system!" then what the fuck do we do? Or if there's a new idea that's never been done on any site that's revolutionary and has to be implemented to test the waters?
This is why I'm against followable tags. They promote unpreservable culturesBasically we've got a "You got your #askreddit in my #askhubski" situation. Ideally, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. You should be able to guard and preserve your own Hubski experience. The reality is less than ideal. Cultural shift is a thing, a powerful thing.
So we think we know the problem; what's the proposed solution? I came up with a stupid idea that maybe could be toyed with, if for no other reason than to see how it works in reality: You can only see and interact with accounts from people who registered at the same time you did, within a year, perhaps. If you registered three years ago, you can't see anything from people who registered two years or one year ago, though they can see you if they want. This gets rid of reposts and "newbies", because you hang out with a crowd that has seen what you've probably seen and you never have to deal with the rerun syndrome. Do you really need to interact with all 100,000,000 active users of a site? Even the 1,000 active users of a small site? See all the stuff they post? If you really want to see the stuff newbies make, then you can have the option to see all posts from all users and so on. Or maybe if it gets "upvoted" or starred enough you get to see it despite your settings (though you can disable that if you want) so you don't miss out on a newbie who happens to know what he's talking about because he's an expert in the field. Just a thought, perhaps a completely groundless and unexamined thought on a subject I barely understand, but it is what it is. This post I thought of has to go somewhere, so it may as well be here.
But interacting with new people is one of the best things about a decent online community. The problem is that when those new people aren't the ones you interact with, and when they outnumber you ten to one, the community stops attracting interesting new people. The comment _refugee_ linked to is actually part 1 of a trilogy. They're all here.
So we want to interact with new people, but obviously not all new people. There are a lot of new people that make it hard for one to talk to new people one wants to talk about. I guess that even my suggestion that the most upvoted or starred, trusting the community to promote a user who makes a new comment, elevating him/her from the rest of the users, isn't good enough with my idea of separation of account ages. Well, it was an admittedly naive suggestion spurred on by: So then my brain clicked with the age separation idea. In any case. Here: Personally I'm inclined to believe that, unless "new" is meant in "familiarity" and not "new user", those interesting people are still going to big places, but are just drowned out. Coming up with a way to undrown them is perhaps something too complicated for me, but I gave it a shot for whatever it's worth. I'm interested in hearing why you think they wouldn't be attracted to coming to a place with users like that. I can hazard a guess and say it has to do with what you've already said on reddit trilogy, and then the question changes to something more structural and probably out of my league.#askhubski is a miasma of tedium, whereas last year, it wasn't.
and when they outnumber you ten to one, the community stops attracting interesting new people.
Totally worth tryin', yo. Wasn't my intention to jump down your throat. I've just seen the idea played out in /r/ideasfortheadmins since 2008. Here's why I liked the old granularity: "Chatter" allowed me to see what the few people I follow were paying attention to. clicking around through the various "hubwheels" allowed me to see old discussions that had gotten popular, to see who was saying interesting things, and to have conversations I wouldn't otherwise. In other words, i could "sneak up" on a discussion without billowing all 800-whatever followers all over it. You don't get the same visibility anymore.
I always default to using google then Hubski search. It may be a carry over from previous sites with shitty search. Hubski search is fairly good but - site:hubski.com love penis - works too.
To a large extent, I have this going on, except I do add people slowly. It has worked well for me. I've also stopped adding people based on the links they submit, but almost exclusively on the comments they make that I happen across. That's been working even better for me.You can only see and interact with accounts from people who registered at the same time you did, within a year, perhaps.
I'm with kleinbl00 mostly on this one. The problem isn't really reposts, per se, it's dilution. We all knew it was going to happen with the last wave of redditors, and despite efforts to keep it down, which we did everything we possibly could to keep it the way it was, you can't stop that mentality. Reddit gets 6% of the American public, and they're absolutely the standard, everyday people you see on every site that don't just lack the ability to find the way the system works, the lack the ability to even see that things work differently in different places and just want to put their own shit forward to get seen and have those fleeting moments of recognition like a heroin addict for some bullshit buzz. The concept of "discussion" has been vastly altered by places like reddit and it shows here, where once we had a topic come up, somebody put forward a thought, and a conversation bloomed from there, we now have a topic come up, and everyone puts in their own thought, all top level, no responses, and no conversation of why or what they want to convey outside of 'here is me saying something'. I sure as fuck don't know how to fix it. Maybe there isn't a way. No matter what you do you can't stop those types of people. This is one of the only places I still come to because I want it to be fixed. Tumblr was a time suck that I was getting nothing from due to diminishing returns. Reddit is a cesspool but it's still a pulse on some of my niche interests, but that pulse is faint. Facebook is facebook. I want Hubski to work because it's the best site I've ever been to in a ton of respects, but there's also not any other option right now.
A confession: When someone says something that rubs me the wrong way, I'll engage them in a conversation that starts out with "I think you're mistaken for the following reasons (1) (2) (3). What was your thought process for getting here?" A useful conversation can come out of this. It used to quite often. There are plenty of opinions around here, and most of the old-school crew has a pretty good idea about how to come across with a differing opinion such that someone's either going to change their mind or at the very least, broaden their horizon a little. If that conversation wasn't useful, the second time I see the same person rubbing me the wrong way, the conversation is "yeah, you're definitely wrong. You didn't consider (4) (5) or (6). Now that I've presented them to you, what do you think?" This breaks things one way or the other. Either they've made me think, I've made them think, or we both know the other person isn't a thinker. Fine by me. Their opinion of me doesn't much matter. Sometimes they'll light up a post about what a big fucking meanie I am. That's fine. That means they're going to flame out and go away soon. Problem solved. Lately, however, the response to the first discussion is "HOW DARE YOU BRING UP REASONS." Fuck it. It's no longer worth my time to put up a defense. So you end up with an environment toxic to discussion and the only people left are the ones who just wanted to speak into the void for more than 140 characters.
You're right. One hundred percent. And it should piss you off to no end. But isn't it worth fighting for a something that has a chance of hope? We both know what Hubski is capable of, and frankly, I'm sick of running from site to site trying to maintain what's been great about being here, I'm at the point where this is where I stick my flag in the ground and yell at them, "no, fuck you, sit down, shut up, and learn" to educate the people rather than hop away to something else and hope it doesn't happen again. There are great fucking people here that I want to keep hearing from, and I'd much rather scare off 85% of new users by intimidating them with our mores and standards than have all the new users and losing yet another place for real discussion. Aren't you tired of having what you believe shit on again and again? You still moderate at reddit even, even though we both know what it's terrible. Why do you do that to yourself then? You must see something worth fighting for there, and if you can, you should definitely see something here too. So I'm all for seeing "HOW DARE YOU BRING UP REASONS" be followed by "sit down, shut up, and learn" backed by the whole community. It's not just a "fuck you". it's a stern "here are facts. I won't present them kindly as you're clearly a rabid manchild." Intimidation. The new users can come in scared and will fucking listen before speaking flippantly. The old guard here is on board with it, it just needs to be enforced in the comments, by whichever way each person who understands sees fit. Leaving won't solve it, because you know they'll follow you eventually, and I'm sure as fuck not giving up on the internet being would it could, because that's what's really happening by migrating. The worthwhile get quiet out of respect or some other misanthropic exhaustion and they lose. I'm so exhausted by fighting it, but it's a fuckload better of an option than reinforcing the bad behavior.
It's taken me four days for things to slow down enough to respond, but know that I've been meaning to respond. This is actually a function: IF: something has a chance of hope THEN: isn't it worth fighting for? It's a big "if" and it's a big "then" on purpose because "chance of hope" is a hard thing to judge. Honestly, I gave up on greater Reddit the day Jedberg left. Everything I have there now is legacy - I keep /r/favors running because I built it and there's nobility in there. I keep /r/foodforthought running because it's one of the last places to find articles that matter. I'm in /r/movies because I was heavily recruited, but stick around because they really mean it. It's heartening. Funny thing is most of the default subreddits exist to get tedious shit out of pics and askreddit. They were never worth fighting for. I know what Reddit is capable of, too. It could have been incredible. It isn't. And I fought that tide, yo. I fought it street to street. My wife got death threats because I demanded /r/skeptic be "skeptical." and I can tell you with no hesitation that there's only so much one person can do. Without a structure to back you up, you will get buried in bullshit at some point. The ants will strip the ox carcass. And at some point, you have to recognize that you're fighting tooth and claw for something you don't own, something that doesn't love you, and something that will not forget you when you're gone. And there are better things to do with your time.But isn't it worth fighting for a something that has a chance of hope?
I completely agree with you with scaring off new users if that's what it takes. The people being scared off by impressing the fact that discussion matters and that our standards are high are people that probably just want their 10 seconds of attention per comment anyway. I think trying to be proactive about it is a good way to start, and if it doesn't work then going for intimidation and so on and so forth (at least on my end). Pressing people to have a discussion is something we could all pitch at hand at making happen.
You know what I find interesting about this entire submission? The new people that you, kleinbl00, ecib, etc. are talking about are almost nowhere to be found in this discussion. I'm not sure how to feel about this, but this discussion is comprised almost entirely by people who have been here a very long time. I will say that I haven't seen too much in terms of dilution based on who I follow, but I will say that you are absolutely right when it comes to how the comment system has been altered since the last influx. I have noticed a change in "lets have a discussion about this subject" to "here's my opinion because that's what I feel like talking about, not yours".
Their not being here could be a good thing. Maybe they're reading it and getting introspective and learning what they're doing wrong. Maybe they're self aware of what they're doing by it. I hope so. That's my plan with all my long winded posts and the "state of hubski" and quelling issues. But probably not. More than likely they're just not aware of what they're doing wrong or don't care, but eventually they'll see these things and might learn. if there's an old guard, so be it, so long as they're actually guarding.
At first I had no idea how to respond to your simple 4 word question. But after thinking about I think it's best that they have nothing to say, if this discussion is even receiving a lot of views from people outside of those of us talking about it. It would be best to sit down, not say anything, and reflect about this issue. I agree with your other sentiments.
This thread seems to me to boil down to: - How do we create and promote a strong site culture that new users can drop into and participate in without altering the existing site culture to a great degree? - What exactly constitutes a site culture that allows us to converse and share interesting articles, while building community? (I don't know, but I'm interested in participating in experimentation)
I never get upset about the reposts, I will either ignore them (not in an official way) or I will provide a link to the person who posted it to the original post. I definitely notice them when they happen. It's not a regular occurrence though. I know that mk ignores #askhubski and I think that if it got to the point of being too repetitious I might follow suit. I find myself sharing less and less of them. Some of them provide some cool discussions while others are bit too navel-gazy for me. Ideally, people would use the personal tags for their askhubski posts because I would follow your askhubski posts and I would ignore others. That would be ideal.
You know, I was considering unfollowing #askhubski and then insomniasexx went and posted this doozy. However, I still like it's becoming a very banal thing. Part of the problem with reposts is that everyone wants to be heard. Sure, you can link to a submission that has already been made...but a lot of people would rather just go ahead and keep posting content just so that they can be heard. Why bother contributing to something where the last comment was made 4 days ago when everybody can see what you have to say about instead. Maybe I'm just being cynical though.
1. I figured I'd try to add something positive to the tag than gripe about it. 1b. I use the word "gripe" with a lot hesitation. I actually quite like this conversation being had here. It has a healthy debate and various points of view and kleinbl00. All of which I love. But I think it's more productive to do than to talk. Lead by example. 2. I really hope we start to see more and more people commenting on old things and reviving threads. I think this is a holdover from reddit where a comment on an old thread have a 1% chance of being read. On forums, old threads always move to the top and I like that. Hopefully Hubskiers can start realizing that this feature is more like a forum and less like reddit. I always try to read and reply when I see a comment crop up on an old thread. I have also be actively clicking on comment threads I have already read over the course of the day to see and interact with the conversation as it develops. I'm no where near perfect but I'm working on it.
And as for me, I'd unfollowed #askhubski yesterday, having just started following it two days before. nowaypablo's odd little things were kind of inspiring. BUT then I gave up because, well, it was just so much bullshit. Except it's all just so much bullshit. The tip about forum v reddit is a good one. Hadn't thought of it like that. "bump" works here.
I tried my best a half year ago to ridicule askhubski out of existence, but I failed miserably and everyone answered the question like I was serious. Gave up after that.
BAHAHA! How did I miss that? That is glorious (and a little sad)
I think the problem with that is that you tied it back to music...which has a lot of passionate followers here on Hubski. I was this close to realizing what you were doing at the time, based off that comment.
I'm overly dense at times and constantly missing things like what you pulled. It's unfortunate really and I do catch some flak from it in real life.
I got it immediately and answered swiftly with some McCartney. I pictured you as the How Do You Sleep at Night John Lennon. It was a very well played jab, I still tip my hat. I was thinking of that post when we played tennis.
I think this bullshit you're referring to is kind of what bugs me that I try to explain in the rant i just tagged you in. if you have the energy, go find the good shit.
I'm with TNG largely here. I'm a pretty well seasoned veteran of the internet and the occasional repost doesn't bother me. As mentioned above too, most of those posts are simply 'How about that weather eh?' in nature, which isn't harmful in my opinion. Linking to the original post I think provides a continuity that you'd be hard pressed to find elsewhere, and it provides a non-threatening, non-offensive reminder that maybe your topic has been discussed here before.
Hey ecib, _refugee_ and Ben: Don't knock the weather question. I asked the weather question recently here and got 144 responses and almost none of them about the weather. (Eddie and Ben - I know you're not knocking the question). But I want to add something here: There have also been several posts regarding being PRESENT, experiencing your life in the NOW -- Unlike Australia, it's damn cold here right now so we burrow, nest, and hibernate (hubskinate?) indoors a little more.
I can't help but wonder, with all the emphasis on immediate existence, if the population of Hubski, by some weird coincidence is just a little bit Buddhist. The idea of being in the NOW is a very Buddhist concept, and it's actually taught as the first step towards proper meditation.
AlderaanDuran meditates from what I understand. I wonder who else.
But why ask a question that's not going to get relevant answers? I mean, if none of them were about the weather, then why ask about the weather in the first place? Why not ask about something else? If the question elicits off-topic answers it doesn't matter what the question really was. And besides, the title of your post - that thing that makes people click into the discussion - wasn't about the weather, it was a general "tell me something" sort of thing. The weather was more of a suggestion that was then disregarded.
I'm all about meeting people via weather. I like to think I'm a little more adept at casual conversation and ice-breaking than having to resort to it, but I fully endorse it. Come to think of it, it would be fun to try the inverse. For a period of time, in social settings, initiate all new connections strictly via conversations about the weather...
I appreciate your straightforwardness and honesty. And thanks for calling me out. I don't think you should be upset that people like me can make this little website's history repeat itself. As thenewgreen told me on my very first, and biggest post, he asked the same question just some time beforehand. However, a fresh slate and fresh eyes open the door for a completely, totally, utterly different plethora of possibilities for the discussion to progress to.
I was trying to highlight you more as beneficial than anything - I mentioned that when you repeated a question (and partially because of my fondness for you as a Hubski participant) I not only participated but threw forth new information in an attempt to keep the thread, for me, new and interesting. But it is possible for things to have multiple qualities at once and there was definitely a moment or two when I was like "Yeah I just asked that quesiton." (Which also goes into interesting questions of hubris and perceived 'ownership.' I am not perfect. I am rarely even a better angel. At least I try to be honest.)
I don't think that would work. I want to PARTICIPATE when a question is asked, not read the answers given to that same question a year before. You know, like in a conversation. I don't think a couple of my askhubski answers are relevant anymore. I won't go back and edit them. But I don't think I would mind re-answering in a year. Things like "what are you looking forward too" change, and when the question is asked it allows me to think about it again and reevaluate. And see how the answer changed for the names that are getting more and more familiar here. And then discuss. I would probably be anoyed at that question being asked every month or two. But once in a while, I don't mind.
Here's the thing: people go back and respond to old threads all the time. Besides, that way, people could more easily come up with a follow-up thread for one that interested them. Like, "What are you looking forward to? (Updates from xx/xx/xxxx, new responses welcome)". Now, now, no need to be snarky.I don't think that would work. I want to PARTICIPATE when a question is asked, not read the answers given to that same question a year before.
You know, like in a conversation.
oups, didn't mean to be. I'm sorry. Maybe it's just me but I doubt I would do either of the things you propose. Posting a new update similar question? Well I don't like posting in askhubski much and seeing the responses to refugee's question makes me want to post even less. Answering to a question is just...easier. Answer to an old post? well...maybe but i'd feel a bit wierd doing that. I'm not even sure I can say why. I'll think on that, maybe if I figure out why it feels wierd i'll rethink my position.Now, now, no need to be snarky.
:) I'm not saying I have the answer, but it's an idea and I put it forward. I understand that what I'm suggesting requires a more active user than a reactive user, but personally that's the kind of online community I'm looking for and interested in being a part of.
Since you asked, pretty much yes. If your real life friend kept asking you the same question, you'd get pissed off. You might say: "Weren't you listening? You just asked me that!" or you might whine "You never listen to me." On the other hand, if you and a bunch of friends were belly-up at the bar of reason and sanity, you'd probably just move on to another drink and another conversation at the other end of the bar.Is my post pointless? What do you think?
I suppose there are some questions that will get posted often, because they're interesting topics and get to the heart of #thehumancondition. "Tell me about your first love" is probably one of those. It's unrealistic that people go through the catalog of past posts to see if it has already been discussed. Plus, some newbies could belly up to that bar and therefore there will be an entirely new discussion, new insights etc.
We don't have to read or answer any questions that we don't want to. Anyone who posts a question or contributes an answer does so because it is new to them. Don't feel obliged to re-answer if you answered somewhere else.some newbies could belly up to that bar and therefore there will be an entirely new discussion, new insights etc.
Depends on what they've been drinking.
Perhaps that it isn't that your post is pointless but that the culture of Hubski is changing. No matter what we choose to do, there's going to be a 'tipping point' at which the new users and the culture they bring with them will change how the site works. I'll admit, I came to Hubski with one of the waves of AskReddit threads, but so far (hopefully) managed to stay away from the Reddit-style 'repost' mentality. On the other hand, Hubski is a fantastic place for the exact reasons you're quoting in the post, and this culture should totally be preserved. I, for one, have noticed the reposts, and this, in my personal opinion, reduces the value of subscribing to a certain tag. Most users who I follow are generally from the 'former' generation of Hubskiers, if you could call them that. But subscribing to a tag allows you to follow trends and follow movements, rather than one person's opinion. One of Hubski's most fantastic advantages is to be able to follow a person, because this means that you value their opinions and that you value the links which they curate from around the 'net. If we then say that subscribing to a tag should also be valued highly due to the opinion-broadening effect doing so, then the reposts are a concern if they don't add anything meaningful. And it isn't just the reposts...discussion, discussion, discussion. The comment threads, while I don't participate on a general basis, have generally been more singular than others, and, true, that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, where can we draw the line between a user (or group of users) simply getting used to the unique community of Hubski and the changing of the Hubski inner mindset? I think what I'm trying to say here, is that not all change is bad, but the effects of these new reposts do have significant repercussions if they don't promote discussion and if we value tag subscriptions at a similar level to user subscriptions. Thoughts? ~demure
The best example that I can think of the same question being asked twice was this one: Ask Hubski: What Was The Last Thing You Made? The first one: http://hubski.com/pub?id=45203 The second one: http://hubski.com/pub?id=104096 I think it works because it is more "in the now" and the same people can participate with vastly different answers. "What is love?" is going to generate fairly typical responses.
So there's an important consideration when talking about reposts and ask_X posts in the same breath. Ask posts are a totally different type of content in the sense that they aren't content at all. The comments are the content. Discussions are the content, and those generally don't get copy-pasted from one thread to another... generally. So you could search for an old topic in #askhubski, but why bother? A dusty, fossilized hubski thread isn't interesting. 90% of the interest comes from the fact that the thread is living and active. You could post in an old thread. Who's going to read it? You could respond to an old poster. Who wants to restart a month-old conversation you don't remember? An old ask_X thread is dead and all it's merits are diminished greatly. So thinking of it like that I'm not sure you can call #askhubski posts reposts, at least they don't deserve the same connotations and categorization as a link repost. And that puts reposts on Hubski in an interesting place. If Hubski is really about discussion then are reposted links truly value-less? Perspectives change with time and current events, so does a fresh discussion on an old topic warrant digging up fossils? That would be taking a far too idealized perspective of discussion on Hubski, really, but I think it's utterly simplistic to say that "reposts are bad" or that we should take a hard stance one way or the other with them. Doing that would be missing the point if it's really about discussion.