I think that would cause new users to leave even sooner than before, the opposite of what the site wants.
Not necessarily true. This website isn't about building the biggest userbase. We're not karma or pageview-count-whores. This website could cap out at 300 people and as long as they were the right 300 people, no one would give another damn about the topic. Hubski isn't about numbers. It's about the right people having interesting, thought-provoking discussions about topics that are worth it. It's about people sharing 10-page-long articles because fuck it, I really want to read about the history of shipping pallets. It's not a website that is designed to appeal to everyone and for chrissakes I hope it never does. New users who leave because "they aren't getting enough attention" are the wrong type of user. Just curious, how many new follows have you gotten today, kleinbl00 ?the opposite of what the site wants.
While I understand that new users might be annoying I think that "the right users" could also feel discouraged if no-one interacted with them at all.
The problem is, the structure of the site means that all new users are already globally ignored. Before one has any followers, they are a nobody and the only people who will see their posts are people browsing global or if the tags line up properly. This is already a huge barrier to entry and I imagine a large part of the reason why the retention rate is so low on this site. I myself felt very discouraged when I first came here because it seemed like the old guard of popular users had huge sway, and that if I didn't get noticed by them, my posts would effectively go unnoticed by the site at large. I think framing the discussion in terms of the "right people" and equating that with the people who manage to be patient and persevering enough to make it past the initial wall of obscurity is not really accurate. The site is already frustrating enough to break into, I don't see any good reason to make it even more difficult for new users.
Hmm. This is true, but how many of us 300 wouldn't have stuck around if we'd joined a site where everyone had us ignored for seven days? You can say that the "good guys," the users we want to keep, will start by browsing and reading and not be bothered that no one notices them until day 8, but how many of us who actually joined and have now been here for months actually didn't contribute until the second week?
I'd really like it if we could drop the (in my opinion) utterly hysterical notion that just because this feature might come into existence, therefore every active user on the site will use it in order to block new users out. While I think that feature would be nice, I highly doubt we're going to see mass ignoring of newbies. I doubt that I would use it, I doubt that thenewgreen would use it, I doubt lil and insomniasexx and nowaypablo would use it, and judging by your response you wouldn't use it either. So why are we still dithering about last-world apocalypse "OH NO PEOPLE MIGHT GET IGNORED" scenarios? Flag, for the record, my irritation isn't at you but at the fact that multiple users have now shuddered, clutched their pearls, and gone essentially But - but - but if this exists, new users won't be interacted with in any way at all! a theory which I find alarmist, reactionary, exaggerated, and about as likely as any apocalyptic, 100% use scenario.
One can shut off notifications temporarily, I suppose. I will never forget the warm welcome I had to this site from the ever-present newgreen Hubski is potentially transformative for people who like some of their friends to be warm, supportive, loving, funny, and far away. So I probably would not use the seven-day-newbie block. I've already had some totally positive interactions with our new hubbies. But we seem to have crashed the system.Currently fighting two notifications a minute while trying to accomplish something.
from kb's post. I'm putting it here as I don't want to give him a third notification.
Well if it's really a good feature, then people will use it. If it's not, then we don't need it. I would almost certainly use it. That's the problem. It's good for the existing users (very good) but not for the new ones. That said I thought we were talking about ignore/mute/hush and if it's just ignore that's better. HOWEVER, isn't it much more elegant to just pop a little thing up that says, "Hey, new user of <7 days, you aren't allowed to post yet because we want you to acclimate. We encourage you to read posts, comment intelligently and make friends. After a week you can begin posting." mk, insomniasexx, kleinbl00 - thoughts?
I'm just going to keep linking to past discussions apparently. What Hubski can learn from "old-timey" forums So this amazing post by doesntgolf had so many good talking points but this one specifically got a lot of discussion going: Responses: The other day, mk made it so that users that haven't completed a hubwheel can only send a single PM every 10 minutes, which I think is great. Similarly, I think it'd be great if new users couldn't submit a new post until they've commented 10 (or 25 or some other amount) of times.
It's my opinion that restricting someone's ability to post until they've commented is a bad idea. Some of my favorite content on the site comes from users that rarely comment. For instance, scrimetime. -The guy might as well have been born a mute, he rarely comments but the links he posts are quality and I can usually count on them to be something I'd like to share. -There's a lot of value in that.
-thenewgreen I think this is a fantastic idea right off the bat. Now I'm going to go try and think up reasons why it sucks, but it feels so right to me. (EDIT: Already found good counterpoints in the discussion. Still digging the idea though)
-ecib4. To the extent we can get away with it, I'd rather not decide how people use the site, but let the users decide who to follow and share, or ignore.
-mkNew users limits No opinion on this, as I have no idea what new user misbehaviour is like. What I would say thought is that currently, while operating from a fairly tight member base, the balance should be tipped towards encouraging new users rather than freezing them out.
-istaraThis is the point I disagree most in your list of propositions. I remember when i first signed up, i actually posted links BEFORE commenting, but the comments and reactions to what I posted led me to stay. Many users rarely or even never comment, but post great links. So if i'm a new user and REALLY want to post something, I'll probably type out 10 low quality comments just to be able to post... Which will actually decrease the overall quality of Hubski since the main appeal are the thoughtful comments.
-elizabeth
Okay, interesting. What I'm saying though, is that the idea I came up with in thirty seconds of thinking that probably isn't very good is better than the alternative (kb's idea) in my opinion. His feels too much like sneaky shadowbanning. I'd prefer to be up-front with new users if we actually go through with something like a time-sensitive posting block.
This is an interesting way of looking at it and I don't agree or disagree. In fact, I'm still out on whether or not kb's idea is good or bad. It isn't transparent but it's also not global in the sense that any one person or persons has control over the global feed. It would be a way for a single user to edit what is shown in their global feed in that moment. If done as a toggle, it would be less powerful that ignoring a user as it would act more like a filter than an action you take against people. The thing that bothers me most about not allowing new users to post, and maybe this is just me, is that forums have done that. They've also shown on every thread how long a user has been around, given them titles for being around longer and being more active. But when you join a new forum, you can't do shit, you feel like a n00b, and, if the forum has been around for a while, there is no way you can ever compete with the top users who have been around forever. By nature, humans are competitive and when I see "most amazing user ever. 5838392 karma. joined 1029 days ago. ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆" it makes me want to make my numbers bigger. But I can't. And that inspires hopelessness and makes it more likely that I won't even stick around and comment and post because there's no way I can ever catch up. By not showing these things next to every users post/comment, it doesn't inspire that competitiveness/hopelessness and I think people are more likely to stick around become part of the community. I may be wrong, but there are a couple forums that I really could've liked but just didn't feel like spending the energy trying to get to a point where I had enough shit not to be seen as a n00b. I also never want Hubski to feel unwelcoming to new users. Ever.His feels too much like sneaky shadowbanning.
elizabeths reply at the bottom is spot on. People will comment meaningless drivel to get to the ability to post. Spot on. It's the beginning of the end if we ever implement such a thing.
And again here I do disagree. Hush, mute, and ignore are great features. I love that I have them. I have ignored one user, muted two users, and hushed three of them. Just because they are great features do not mean that I am using them all the time. I get hush/ignore/mute guilt. It's not an easy decision for me, I hate to feel like I am filtering out things without knowing what I am filtering. You really have to bother me before I use one of these features. Other users implement them with impunity, as is their right, and just because we use those features differently doesn't mean I think either way is better. I think it's all a matter of personality. I think thenewgreen and insom and lil and such people that I named in my post usually love new users. Yes, the influx is a challenge, but some people really love engaging new people. I'm not one of those. I'm one of those to stand in the shadows and bitch about it...but I'm also not going to hide them all. I'd rather see everything so that I can bitch than hide it. Eventually one day my patience may run out and I may echo kleinbl00's approach. But - on the other hand - kb follows global. I don't follow global. So in that my whole experience of this new surge of users is already way, way different from him. If I did follow global maybe I would use this feature. I think that the benefits Hubski offers of personalization mean that the people who feel they need to use this feature will. My feed is virtually unchanged right now. I'm actually scoping out global and #askhubski so I can see what the fuss is about. As a result, I'd never need this feature, but I'd probably see new users in things like comment threads. Just because something is good, does not mean it is good or useful to everyone, I guess. Well if it's really a good feature, then people will use it
And again here I do disagree. Hush, mute, and ignore are great features. I love that I have them. I have ignored one user, muted two users, and hushed three of them. Just because they are great features do not mean that I am using them all the time
Great point. It could be Hubski gets mentioned in buzzfeed (god forbid) and I turn it on for a day or two and then back off again for normal newbie traffic. It could be used as a tool and not a defaulted to "on" type thing.
Or, you have exactly one day to research torque wrenches, toddler beds and high chairs while also attempting to procure valve shims from a factory in Italy that's about to close for the summer so that your $16k superbike doesn't fry a cylinder head and the one break you took from doing this and balancing your Quickbooks erupts into two hours of infighting over the evilness of ignoring people and rather than saying "fuck this site I'm done with it" you'd like a simple function that restores its functionality to "un-fucked" for just a day or so. Please. Thanks.
It's also worth noting that if we implement it it's just going to be a toggle that hides those users posts from the global page. Users who comment, engage with the community, etc will still be followed right off the bat. And then, after X days, they will be back in the global feed. It just gives them a few days to settle in. I don't know if I'm 100% on board with actually taking the time to code and implement it but it's an interesting idea that has merit. If the X days was 2 days or something I think that would be more than enough time for people to settle in and make the experience better for the existing community. The influxes are really only bad for 24 hours or so. After that everything goes back to being peachy. I can't even believe some of the amazing users were the last reddit hit anymore. elizabeth. 8bit. They were all knew and quickly became super fucking amazing. I remember thinking, "wait you've only been here for 30 days!?"
Yep. I remember when flagamuffin and humanodon came in an influx. -Maybe not the same one, but still those fellas were once newbies. I remember the moment I thought flag was badass, it was when he told the story of his uncle in the Hubski podcast on silence. -So cool. But yeah, we all started off new. I'm excited to meet the cool people that stick around.
They all blend together... point is, you came from an influx from reddit... and you totally kick ass.
Well, I do think you're making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill with the way you just described that. But anyway. For some reason I was thinking ignore/mute/hush, but just ignore isn't nearly as big of a deal to me. I wouldn't use it though, I think it's better to see the "new from Reddit posts" and whatever else and try to engage in conversation with the new people and talk about Hubski and why certain things are misconceptions or bad ideas. Or why things are good ideas! Edit: On second thought, after seeing it described as more of a tool I'm indifferent to this. Carry on.
I don't blame people for being concerned. It wasn't immediately apparent how something like this would be enacted. What if it were the default? Then, it would surely be cause for alarm. But, it's funny that you mention the Hubski users that you do (including yourself) because when I crafted my initial response to kb, I thought about the implications first. I was reassured by the thought that the you all would most definitely not turn on the ignore for x day feature. And that is indeed comforting.
1) New slogan: Hubski: where we know each other 2) Getting notification errors (deadlinx). Tried to make a bugski post about it. Deadlink. Assume hubski cannot handle the heat it's currently taking. That's okay. Can wait. Specifically if you are curious whenever I try to dismiss a notification I get a deadlink, and when I tried to submit a post I got a deadlink, even on fresh pages (aka had navigated to page w/in last few minutes) mk
I just got online and I'm witnessing the site-wide fallout, I can't log in on my laptop atm and i can't access my own profile so it seems Hubski is taking a knee right now. Edit: Buckle up ladies.
We are aware of the dead links and are attempting to fix. Thanks pal. forwardslash, mk
To quote The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Can you tell I have a Heinlein fixation?) Edit* holy formatting issues batman. 'Functional organization. How does one design an electric
motor? Would you attach a bathtub to it, simply because
one was available? Would a bouquet of flowers help? A
heap of rocks? No, you would use just those elements
necessary to its purpose and make it no larger than
needed--and you would incorporate safety factors.
Function controls design.'
So I took the night off, ignored all emails, and woke up to a massive hangover, 72 emails, and this mess. I've gotten 12 new followers so far. I blame you and tng who BOTH called me out for being AWESOME. Love/Hate you. :P