I've mentioned that I think the 'all posts' feed is a double-edged sword. It's currently a good place to find content. However, if we remain an open site, the quality of the 'all posts' feed is going to drop, and that will hurt the experience. One way to combat that is through moderation. That has some positive aspects, but also a many detrimental ones. Another way is to remove the 'all posts' feed completely. Of course, that creates other issues that need to be solved. Primarily, these are: 1) How would a post by someone new to the site be seen? 2) How do I find new people to follow? The first is the toughest to solve.

Of course, aside from dropping the 'all post' feed, or heavy moderation, there are some functional ways that we might minimize the effect of dubious posts. For example, if a user didn't have a number of appreciated comments, their posts could fall more quickly. However, systems like that often cause new problems because the first thing spammers do is try to game them. In that instance, you might have lots of spammers commenting and voting each other's comments up.

I remember early on when Twitter actually had a 'all tweets' feed. Obviously, that wouldn't work today, and they abandoned it after they got too popular.

In many ways, Hubski looks and feels like Reddit and Hacker News, but functionally, its content-sharing is more akin to sites like Tumblr or Twitter. Currently, most of us know each other, and the entire site feels like a place. However, as it grows, Hubski is going to stretch into something more like a platform. When that happens, the site as a whole will feel less like a place (it will have lots of unfamiliar content and users), but I think (and hope) our feeds will remain to feel like a place (you will be more familiar with the users, and hopefully remain interested in the content).

Personally, I prefer to simplify rather than add complexity if possible. Rather than fight bad behavior, I'd like to find solutions that make bad behavior unrewarding. In the end, I think that is the more sustainable approach. For that reason, I am quite determined to get to a point where we no longer have a common feed. (If a spam post is never read, is it spam?) But, of course, we are not there yet. However, I am working and thinking on it. I am determined to do it in a way that makes Hubski better.

But, regarding spammy content in 'all posts' for now, I am taking the current approach: If the frequency is low, and the content is arguably reasonable content, I am letting it be. Personally, I hope people share interesting personal content. I am a bit tired of the notion that 'if you made it you can't share it' that is so prevalent about the web. Creativity is a good thing. So I don't want to call personal content spam. As for personal sites, there is one user that submits articles just from braincrave.com, and I'd be surprised if he/she weren't vested in the site. But, it's actually pretty interesting stuff so I don't mind at all. I'm not too interested in hitech24.blogspot.com content so far, but it's arguably ok. (I just posted Prince's P Control today, so I'm in a bit of a glass house atm :)) If the submissions are high frequency and/or low value content, or only commercial, I'll probably ban it for now, and maybe remove the ban if 'all posts' disappears. If a user's posting is borderline problematic and consistent, I'll likely send a message to the user.

If someone wants to post his music videos or extracts from his books or whatnot, that's fine. It's still "sharing thoughtful information and conversation." Posting links to ads for his homemade soap or artisanal cheese or microbrew isn't so okay, because it's not "sharing thoughtful information and conversation."

Purely commercial spam links probably aren't going to get much attention anyhow. Really, I'd be more concerned that, if Hubski grows large enough to attract general interest, it will also attract PR flacks promoting their clients' agendas while pretending that they're just "contributing to the discussion."