On Hubski, you follow people, which determines which posts you see. This is how the site has worked for about 9 years. As time has passed, I have increasingly scrutinized the intent and outcome of this approach. These are two primary reasons why:
1) In our 10 years, Hubski has never grown large enough that the global feed is significantly different from the feed of someone that follows a modest amount of active users. In theory, as Hubski gets more users, different user's feeds will show different content as the people they follow post and share a subset of the global content. In reality, Hubski has a small active userbase, and any significantly active post gets shared to most users. Basically everyone sees the same posts.
2) Comments, not posts, are how users most potently add/subtract value to/from Hubski. We have a mechanism to follow people, but it applies to content they post (primarily external), instead of the comments (primarily personal) that they make.
For the past several months, I have been thinking about the site critically. I have been questioning every aspect of it, and trying to reassess every assumption that I have made.
One important assumption that I made early on was that posts should earn their audience, but comments need not. To be honest, I never actually thought about it in that way. It is the web forum default. Reddit, Hacker News, and most other sites let comments come in, and then moderate them after they have been posted. It makes sense. Who wants to comment on a forum where every comment must be approved?
Once I did begin to challenge this assumption, however, I started to view Hubski's sharing mechanic differently, as well as our moderation tools (which are primarily focused upon countering offending comments).
Challenging this assumption has led me to contemplate an experiment with this change:
Your feed will be determined by the tags that you follow. The comments you see will be determined by the people you follow.
Your feed will be determined by the tags on them. Posts won't be added to your feed by others. Circledotting a post will increase its visibility by giving it a higher rank over time relative to posts with fewer circledots in the same feed (this happens now). There will be a global feed where you can see all posts.
The posts you view will only show comments from people that you follow, and those comments that they share. Circledotting a comment will make it visible to anyone that follows you. There will be a global comment stream where you can see all comments.
If you filter a user, you won't see their posts or comments, regardless of whether you follow the tag on their post, or if their comment was shared with you.
Mute might no longer be necessary.
The goal of Hubski has always been to create a place for thoughtful discussion on the web. I'm happy to discuss my reasoning for this experiment below. I do ask that you consider it with an open mind before taking a strong position either for or against. Also, we have experimented with changes before and discarded them, reverting back. If we try this as an experiment, that would not be an unlikely outcome.
Thoughts are appreciated!
tags straight up don't work without enough people to codify what each one means and every time i use tags i feel like i'm shouting into the void following people only works when there are enough people using the site enough to justify looking at the feed instead of just looking at global - there's what, like 10 posts a day? hubski as of right now is a hangout spot for the stevegang and their friends plus a couple other people that's open to the internet at large instead of being like a mailing list on some server somewhere nothing needs to change about hubski if the current track is the way you want things to be, first you need a ton more people to use the site even like 50 new posters? a hundred? maybe then it'll be worth it to change up the features, but not now, as of right now about half the features of the site could disappear and nothing would change about the way i use it - i use global chatter and /chat and between both of those things i catch near everything what's going on the site is your baby so it's yours to do what you want with it but i think this is silly
then i think your first priority should be to attract people to the site and not fiddle around with the deck chairs on the titanic so to speak sometimes i question why I'm here now that pabs is gone and galen never posts anymore, spoons is gone, SBG is mostly gone - my cohort on the site is gone and when i come on here there are fewer and fewer people i feel like i can relate to i think the problem of muting and moderation has sucked up too much oxygen on here when both can be solved with a larger userbase and the current system of filtering/mutes like.little hubble bubbles on the spokes of the hubwheel fibonacci hootenanny, small communities lead to segregation and less friction i don't know, i just know that the community is why I'm here and not the features of the site and i don't feel like i fit in with the users here and maybe that's just on me
Didn't notice many new user migrations from Reddit before the spam-gate occurred, but growth was all the more stunted without allowing new users to post. Barrier to entry isn't welcoming, and even making a new account can be disheartening. (Captcha bugged) Hubski needs new blood more than anything.then i think your first priority should be to attract people to the site and not fiddle around with the deck chairs on the titanic so to speak
you just freaked me out. I had to go check... though they may not have posted in a while, nowaypablo and coffeesp00ns are still here.pabs is gone
spoons is gone
Idunno what happened to make me stop coming around. I think it was just a very stressful time to be a trans person online. I use social media a lot differently than I used to now - I spend more time on things like discord and twitter, and less time on places like reddit. Since this is the second time I've been brought up her in the past few months, I figure I'll give the ol' gal another try, and see what's up on hubski these days.
i know it's the nature of the site to pop in and out but when "popping in and out" means posting once in the last 3 years like spoons or even just looong gaps between spurts of activity like pabs i don't think it's helpful to call people still here i haven't talked to either of them in a very long time
100%. It’s magical thinking to be coding up massive changes to a site that isn’t actively attracting new users. I’d much rather see time and energy go towards recruiting awesome people to the site. I used to check Hubski every single day at least a dozen times. Now I check once Every other day. Because I know I’m not missing anything. That’s fine. But I don’t think the site is suffering from functionality but rather a lack of people. Also, fwiw. I too miss ‘spoons and pabs. I still occasionally post to #songsforpabs in the hopes that I am sharing music with my old pal.
Too often I take those posts to #songsforpabs for granted tng. So... Thank you.
I resent your sarcasm for I benefit wonderfully from this mantle.
Speak for yourself, I’m literally thinking “nowaypablo,” might specifically dig this. But point taken.
Oh, it was definitely started in the spirit of, “I’m gonna show this cool, much younger person, some music they’ve likely never heard.”
Hey friendos, I’m here (thanks steve!) in my own capacity. I actually check hubski instinctively on a daily basis, like I would reddit or facebook. I haven’t heard from galen in a moment though, but I know he’s kicking ass in school abroad last I heard, and I’m rooting for him. I check Hubski like I’d pop into a room to check on a group of people: “Hey, yall doing alright? you need anything? Cool, have fun.” Im active in spurts because its only every once in a while that I have to bring someone a glass of water, so to speak. Or, I’m having the kind of day where I need to take a knee and see what’s going on outside of my head; I pop over to a room where I can rely on many users doing their best to be their version of a good person. There was a time when I was posting, sharing and commenting all day long (sometimes on alias accounts) and was always given a healthy combo-dose of guidance and encouragement. I just don’t have the luxury to commit to that right now, but I highly doubt the site is at any a loss if some of the hubsquids in my “peer group” dont saturate the feed. edit: since I’m already in this thread and have yet to be muted by our benevolent developer megamind, I think no magnitude of algorithmic glory and website-design strategy will accomplish the key task of growth in numbers, or depth of field (both vertically in value of content/users and horizontally in range of content/users). Good marketing and good luck will do that as you likely just have to knock enough heads against the site to stick ones that are tensile enough to hold on. All your vision for a philosophically and mechanically perfect site does accomplish has already long been achieved on Hubski... a kick-ass site full of meaningful content that people love. If you’re feeling doldrums, slap a decent throwback-to-quality-content mechanism on this site and indulge in the insane amount of valuable thought people put on this platform.
having a community based around discussion means you need to be able to take a break from certain discussions - there are people here where i know what their responses will be to my posts and i'm not interested in hearing them, or people i think are disruptive and unhelpful the fact that you're still focused on muting is really bad
Muting would be gone. I don’t mute people, but people here do, and get angry at each other about it. I have the sense that people aren’t fully understanding how this will all work. You will be able to take a break from talking with users, it won’t be by blocking their replies, however.
Let's be clear, then: what you're trying to do is prevent people from getting mad at each other. During a pandemic. Under the most controversial president we've ever had. While there's a recession on. And 58 million people are unemployed. I know you hate muting but look: you can't have a conversation on the Internet without some sort of moderation. Heavy, light, top-down, bottom-up, whatever: this functionality is required even on the chans. And I know you think what you're doing isn't muting, but it's worse: it's giving everyone earplugs and requiring them to opt into hearing literally everyone. You can't attempt to "solve" muting if it's not even a feature you use. The fact that you can ban spammers and the rest of us can't means that your experience does not match that of any other user.
Personally, I really hate the mute feature, for one reason; some years ago kleinbloo muted me because I disagreed with him about something. He posts 90% of the things that interest me here, and because of that I'm unable to comment on 90% of the stuff that interests me. Is that really necessary? Why can't I just be muted for him, why do I have to be banned from every post he ever makes? Honestly, it's a wonder I'm still hanging out here, it's such a toxic feature.
Look, this happened 5 years ago, and you probably don't even remember it. I, however, have been reminded of it every time I couldn't comment on one of your posts. I didn't think it was fair when you muted me, so honestly I'm still a little bit salty about it. I think you post a lot of good content, and I'm interested in what you have to say. That doesn't mean I agree with everything, and the fact that I disagree is not meant as some personal attack towards you, and it doesn't mean that I don't have any respect for you. It's just that I have a different point of view, sometimes very much so. I don't want to re-open some five year old argument, so let's please just move past this. Next time I start a debate I'll try to be less aggressive, and conversely I hope you can bear in mind that I'm actually not an idiot, so please try to read me charitably.
It's important to examine the dynamic here because I think you'll find it illuminating. I think others will, too. I absolutely remember our last interaction. You picked a fight with me, I told you to back off, and then you opted to gripe to someone else about what an asshat I was. You went from zero to ad hominem in three posts, and decided to bring others into the dispute. Meanwhile, you assume I don't remember it, while also arguing that it's fresh in your memory. In other words, the interaction was de facto more important to you than to me, despite the fact that I was the one who took action over it. Moving on, I point out that what's really needed is an apology, an argument I have made at length. You claim to like my content, you claim to like my insights, yet the idea that I might want to not suffer ad hominem attacks for making them does not strike you as relevant enough to do what I'm asking point blank. And when I point out that you were insulting, you argue that you have a different view, not that my "hey dude try not to be such a dick" was actually an entreaty to not be such a dick. That is something you haven't considered: if we're conversing somewhere neither of us have any power, the only thing each of us can do is walk away. But if we're conversing somewhere I've staked a claim to? You have to converse on my terms. FUNDAMENTALLY - I choose what I post and I choose what I say and I have the ability to choose how much I am attacked for doing so. You crossed a line, I told you that you had crossed a line, and you doubled down so I chose to force you to do that elsewhere. This is my choice, and frankly, the only reason I post at all: I'm not interested in engaging in gladiatorial combat every time I opt to share something, been there, done that, got nominated for commenter of the year three years in a row (turned it down each time because really, it was people who loved the beatdowns). SO LOOK: I can avoid people who refuse to stop being dicks two ways. I can not post or comment at all or I can own my posts. Owning my posts means people interact with them on my terms. It's no more or less than what I'd get with a blog or a byline. And I'm here literally asking do you think you could say you're sorry? and you're literally here saying no. So I'll try again: apologize. That's the way you get me to extend you goodwill. You had plenty, you burned through it, I'm telling you how to get it back and refusing to do so isn't going to change my mind because right now? Right now what I'm taking note of is that you still refuse to apologize five years later. mk - this is the problem muting solves, and just because you don't have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On Reddit, content is owned by the moderators. On Hubski, content is owned by the poster. That is a good thing, not a bad thing, and ownership is meaningless without the ability to assert property rights.I don't want to re-open some five year old argument, so let's please just move past this.
I didn't think anything I said in that thread was unreasonable, so I didn't think I had anything to apologise for. Even looking at it now, I don't think I said anything unreasonable. I tried to move past it, but you clearly have much higher standards for how others should behave than yourself. I expected you to not be graceful, but honestly I didn't expect this much vitriol over this. You win, I'll find another community to join.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that you griped about being muted but didn't apologize, I unmuted you and talked at length about the need to apologize, we're still here conversing about the purpose of apologizing, and your move is to - accuse me of hypocrisy - denigrate my ability to converse - remark about how "much vitriol" I've injected into a comment thread you started by accusing me of toxic tyranny. I'm just pointing that out. I think we can both agree that I'm not reacting to it. I'd like to highlight something else: you argue that this has been an ongoing problem for five years due to something "I probably don't even remember" but when I answer that I do remember, and that I will happily extend an olive branch on exactly one condition, you say I "win" by you leaving. I think you're reacting to a power dynamic. "I didn't think anything I said in that thread was unreasonable, so I didn't think I had anything to apologise for" means that you think we're on equal footing. we're not. The adjudicator of our dispute is me if it's on my posts and you if it's on your posts. wasoxygen has chosen to prevent me from commenting on his posts, which is entirely within his rights - he often posts Libertarian screeds that get under my skin like no other and preventing me from opining certainly keeps his comment threads more cordial. I could certainly reach out to him to ask for permission to comment again - he and I have largely civil discussions outside the realm of economics. But I doubt it would end well. If "it" is a dispute between you and me, and that dispute takes place on content I control, "to move past it" you have to meet my terms. I've explained what those terms are calmly and I've explained the thinking behind them. Simply put, you hurt my feelings cannot be answered with I don't think so. I win if you can understand that. So do you.
I thought you wouldn't remember because, unlike me, you don't constantly see "you're muted here". Look man, you've been incredibly condescending towards me, you were back then as well. Demanding an apology from me as if I'm some child you're scolding is just more of the same. I didn't complain that you muted me; I complained that the feature works in a way that I personally find to be a bit much. Why isn't it enough that you don't see my posts? But honestly, I just can't take this toxicity. I've never understood what was so deeply offensive about what I wrote, and I don't understand why, after all this time, you're still that angry about it. You've been really mean to me, and you act as if I'm the asshole. I'm sorry to be leaving Hubski because I've found a lot of interesting content here, but I don't feel welcome, and hopefully there are some decent alternatives out there. Must be.
This is so much simpler than you're making it out to be. If you'd like to interact with me and my content, I'd like you to be civil. My calls for you to be civil have caused to you become accusatory and petulant. Have I been really mean to you today? Or have I been open, candid and forgiving in order to meet you more than halfway? I'm legitimately trying to have an honest and fruitful discussion here and you're taking every opportunity to be confrontational, even when talking about the harmful effects of confrontation. Especially when you seem to believe in your unalienable right to be confrontational on anything I care to post. Put yourself in my shoes. What do I get out of unmuting you? What did I get out of unmuting you last night? What am I getting out of this conversation? What do I get out of allowing you to comment on anything else I share? What, ultimately, is my reward for interacting with you? If we can both get along, that reward is conversation. If we can't, that reward is actually a punishment. My perspective is that I'm not asking for a lot. Your perspective appears to be that I'm asking entirely too much. Let's try this: why don't you tell me why an apology is too big an ask? Because clearly, you hold this belief deeply and just as clearly, you haven't been able to explain it to me.
Alright, I'll play along. Well... yeah. I was complaining about the mute feature, and when you unexpectedly showed up (I didn't even know you could see my posts), I tried to just move past what I perceived to be an unfair appraisal of what I wrote several years ago, and just let it go. You then proceed to act all aggressive, call me a dick, and demand that I submit to you and apologise for some supposed insult. Then you claim that you've been really open and extending an olive branch, but I felt attacked throughout this whole so called peace offering. Muting someone means something like "Your input is so worthless I'd rather never have to consciously ignore one of your posts again." So it's safe to say I felt pretty hurt by that, and I've honestly felt pretty insulted by how you're talking to me in this thread. You accuse me of ad hominems, being a dick, petulant, burning through goodwill, basically being an all round awful poster, when honestly I try to be interesting when I post, and I only post when I think I have something worth saying. You claim that you extended me a lot of goodwill, and I burned through it all. We had ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT before you muted me. I don't post a lot, so I can pretty quickly go through my whole history. We never had an argument before that one time, and I barely even interacted with you before that. Where was all this goodwill you speak of? I felt it was unnecessarily harsh to mute me after a single disagreement. I also feel it's pretty harsh to demand an apology when I probably felt just as insulted as you did, seemingly without having any inkling that perhaps you haven't been that nice to me either. Like I said, I never understood what was so bad about what I wrote. You've made a lot of hyperbolic claims about what I've been saying, but you never quoted anything to make me understand where I offended you. I thought I was making a reasonable point, maybe a little bit aggressive in tone? But you're constantly aggressive, so why is it so awful if I write something pointed?Have I been really mean to you today?
why don't you tell me why an apology is too big an ask?
I said you were blocked for being a dick years ago as part of an attempt to bridge the gap and promote some healing. I'm sorry if that makes you feel attacked (see how easy that was?). It was not my intention. My goal here is to right what you perceive as a wrong - on the basis that if we can both come out of this conversation with an understanding of the other I won't have to wrong that right again. The problem is, you're apparently having a hard time understanding that your perception of your wrongdoing isn't important here, mine is, since it's my content you wish to interact with. We're at an impasse - I'm saying "you were obnoxious, apologize" and you're saying "I wasn't obnoxious, I won't" which means I'm going to have as little luck getting you to be more considerate in the future as I have in the past. Do you see the problem here? You say you're trying to move past this. I'm giving you a roadmap. You do more than perceive this as hostile, you declare it to be antagonistic and rude over and over again. If this is the way my interactions with you are going to go, why would I want them? Do you see the problem?I was complaining about the mute feature, and when you unexpectedly showed up (I didn't even know you could see my posts), I tried to just move past what I perceived to be an unfair appraisal of what I wrote several years ago, and just let it go. You then proceed to act all aggressive, call me a dick, and demand that I submit to you and apologise for some supposed insult.
Alright, fair enough. If I hurt your feelings back then, I'm sorry that I did, and I certainly didn't intend to. I'll try to avoid it in the future as well, and hopefully we can have some more productive exchanges.
i guess if I'm not part of the secret club then I'll make my own club
Is there any way to test what the end result should be with more posts? Should I build a bot to repost the front page of reddit/hacker here, so we have way more contents? Because waiting for more people to come, will never work.. even if imho having more user should be the end goal
Alrighty hi friends. mk what's unclear to me is - what problem are you trying to solve? what do you want Hubski to be? yes this one has been discussed over and over but what about today? If you logged on to Hubski for the first time today and were a new user, what would you like your experience to be and what would you like the community to look like?
Thanks. I would want to see interesting posts (not just news), and most importantly, comments on those posts that add to their value. I'd like to see people disagree with each other, but be cool about it. I would not want too see lots of arguments where emotions were running high.
It seems like you've identified a problem that Hubski hasn't grown much in its 10 year lifespan. My experience is that there is never enough content (posts & comments) on the site each day. I'm not sure how showing users even less content (comments from new users) is supposed to address this. The digital marketing growth hacker types like to image a funnel that tracks a user in their journey towards a desired endpoint. Some percentage of users drop off or fail to stick around at each level of the funnel. This makes the higher levels of the funnel the most important places to influence behavior, because you have more users to work with. The experiment here seems to be fiddling with the Retention of users who have already found hubski and registered an account in the Acquisition and Activation levels. I have no insight into this site's actual traffic numbers or how many new visitors check it out, but that is where the focus should be to grow this community. More potential friends need to be browsing the front page so they can be compelled to register some day. It's hard to see names that we know and recognize leave the site, but attrition is natural. Without a consistent source of new members, this site will inevitably shrink into a devoted core. At that point there probably isn't critical mass to keep a site like this alive, and the remaining few will probably transition to a group chat or other private discussion to keep in touch. I love this site because of the serendipitous nature of the content and people here. Without that new energy, I may as well just subscribe to the kleinbl00 newsletter and move on.
I think you’re right. This is not a problem atm. With the exception of maybe #pubski I never have a situation where I am annoyed by the number of comments I have to weed through to get to someone I “follow.” mk, if I’m 100% honest I think the biggest problem with Hubski is that it lacks new users and new comments. We used to spend the time we now spend on other pursuits encouraging others to come to Hubski. Insane amounts of my time were put towards new users and retaining those that came. We don’t have that now. That, imo, is the biggest deficit. I don’t mean just any old person.. but many of the familiar faces here came from links that myself and others would drop on other sites to get them to kick the tires. I don’t think it’s even worth implementing new functions such as this without also actively attempting to court new users. I, like you, have no intention of ever monetizing Hubski and I love it here so fucking much. But it would benefit from some new users. Not thousands, not even hundreds but 5 new, active (Not lurkers) users a month. Seriously. The site functions well. It needs people and new opinions. New functions won’t give the site energy. People will.
You make a joke of it but there's truth lurking there - what's the impetus for engaging with the site? I just checked. I'm 7 of the last 30 posts that I can see and I've been busy this week. What do I get from sharing? What risks do I run? Why post shit here rather than Facebook? Why post shit here rather than Medium? Why post shit here rather than Reddit? I post here because there is a core group of people whose opinions I'm curious about. I presume that core group will attract like-minded people. It's not really anymore, it did occasionally. And I think that's key: if you get into a fight here, it's with someone whose opinion you care about a whole lot more than someone on Reddit. The engagement is a great deal higher even as the activity is much lower.
With basically all other websites I don't feel like starting a new account would mean all that much. Maybe annoying to have to manually follow people, but that's it. With hubski I feel like it would mean something.
I dont think we’ve interacted much but I think I remember when you first joined the site.. apparently in the same year that I did. Good to see ya around!
It's partly a problem of bringing in enough new blood. For a few years, we did. However, the interactions/discussions on the site have evolved over time. Retention is an issue. New and old users find a different site today than they did last time we had this level of activity. I have experienced, and I have been told by many, that comment threads are tiring now. They often cause regret. Showing less comments might make the situation worse, but I am ok with taking that risk given the current trajectory.
I created a hubski account nearly 9 years ago. In those 9 years, I've logged in less than a dozen times. My perspective is more from a new and/or low retention user. - There's no mobile site. I probably login to reddit on my computer once every two months and it's only to post a massive wall of text. Otherwise, I'm on it probably 3 hours a day on my smartphone. I hate it. Most people use their phone for news, so why not have a dedicated app? I would be on that shit nonstop. - I've met more hubski users IRL than I have reddit users (that I know of). I like the community aspect of this site, but as a non-full time user, I can tell that everyone seems to know each other - even if it's only from past comment interaction. Hubski is in a weird limbo. It's trapped between a social media site where I can chat with friends and link a face and personality to their opinion; and reddit where there's no face or personality whatsoever - just comments (mainly from Russian bots). With hubski, you get the sort of personal emotion, but lack of a profile. No photo, no real name, location, etc. Being in this anonymity middle ground is a bit confusing to new users. It's like walking into a party where you only know one person and you try to have a conversation, but everyone clearly has some inside jokes. You just feel awkward and don't want to stick around. - Small user base leads to not a lot of niche subjects. I like baseball and golf. Sadly, I'm stuck with reddit if I want to engage in chats with people on these subjects. This is something that won't really change without a massive increase in users though.
I dislike it. I think it makes things more complex. And in the history of attracting users and improving their experience on a website, the answer has rarely been: "let's make things more obscure and add more option toggles." Not to mention, if you need to introduce a core piece of functionality with the option to turn it off, it's probably not the right direction. You say that people have complained to you that comments are tiring. Isn’t that just a consequence of ‘thoughtful discussion’? Thoughtful discussion demands time, effort and the willingness to be open to and understanding of other views. And sometimes it requires you to look at yourself and reassess what you thought and believed. Sounds tiring to me. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile. So it seems to me that by introducing this functionality, you’re trying to open up spaces where people can more casually chat without the worry of being called out. That’s fair. But the solution to that has little to do with governing the way we share posts and comments. Instead, it’s about increasing the amount of content on the site that offers those opportunities. That either has to come from the existing user base or new users. I do not believe that this experiment will address that. All it does is risk segregating an already small community. Also, I agree with kb. My suggestion for any immediate change would 100% be the UI. I've complained about it before, but it literally goes against a lot of the most basic contemporary UX guidelines. I inject over 100 lines of custom CSS just to make this place look okay. That's not right. Those of you older than me who grew up at the beginnings of the internet may think it's not that bad. But bad web design will absolutely drive newer generation users away before they even look at the content. And if users view the design of a website negatively, that will tinge their experience of the content. I mean, default Hubski is 9pt body text and 30 words per line (though the latter differs based on display size). That is egregious. Not to mention that it defies basic web accessibility standards.
Awesome feedback! I inject over 100 lines of custom CSS just to make this place look okay.
Would you mind sharing a screen shot of what your version of Hubski looks like it how it is improved by your measure? TIA!
----- Feed ----- 1. Increase font size to improve readability 2. Increase spacing between elements to improve readability 3. Domain and tag information moved over to the right to unclutter the left side of small text 4. Increased margins on main div to focus information into the centre as it stretches wide on larger displays ------ Posts ------ 1. Increase title and body font sizes to improve readability 2. Increase spacing between paragraphs to improve readability 3. Limit body text div so it averages around ~15 words per line. This makes it easier to track writing line-to-line and maintain focus ---------- Comments ---------- 1. Similar font and div size adjustments to posts 2. Increase spacing between comments to let them breathe more ----- Chat ----- 1) Import modern font and force it to override retro font 2) Reduce main div width and centre it to focus information 3) Increase font sizes to improve readability. 4) Increase spacing between messages so it doesn't look like one massive block of text 5) Move usernames and timestamp above the message. This gives separation between the username and the message and unclutters the start of the message.
I'd be honoured. Stylus lets you target styles to specific URLs, which you can't do in pure CSS. So I'll create a version that works without that. I'll also make sure it doesn't break the mobile styles as it's only aimed at desktop at the moment. Would it make sense for it to be an optional 'modifier' to the user selected style? That way the user can still choose their own colours.
Awesime! thank you rezzeJ! mk, did you see this?
I am primarily a lurker. I lurked on Hubski for several months without and account, then finally created one and lurked for several more months before I finally created this account for the purpose of actually contributing. Even with how little I contribute here, this is very high amount of interaction for me. Since joining I have only very recently opened up and talked about personal issues I'm going through as well. So keep all that in mind when reading my opinion changes here. I like that hubski has a small user base. I like that I can log in every other day and be caught up with damn near everything in a short amount of time. For me it helps me not feel overwhelmed. I understand that is not going to be the goal for the creators and admins of the site, growth will always be a goal and priority, but for me, it will likely mean I contribute less. This is very small and tight knit community. I spent a lot of time just lurking and reading interactions and arguments that span years. There's a lot of inside jokes and references that I still don't get, but I took a long time to lurk and help myself feel comfortable being a part of the community. I love the self moderation of the site. To me, it is the most powerful and comforting part of it. I particularly like the hush function and I use it a fair amount, If I know I'll disagree with most of someones comments, I don't want to see them at the top of a post. I like the Mute function. I've only used it a couple times, once someone noticed and questioned why in a pubski thread, their past behavior was pointed out to them and they apologized and were unmuted. But ultimately I find comfort in not expecting comments from someone I don't want comments from. If someone has muted me...fine, I don't want to comment where someone doesn't want my comments, even if it's a topic I'm interested in. I dislike the idea of only seeing posts from tags I follow. I want to see all the posts and just have the tags make specific ones stand out. I love that the only thing I don't see on the global feed are things I have personally filtered out. I've never understood peoples frustration with tags, I use them a lot, I often use tags to go back and read posts on past topics I missed or was before my time on the site. and some funny shit sometimes pops up because of that third tag that can be added by others. Someone even once noticed that I follow the "cows" tag and we had a good laugh, that tag is basically never used. I still want to see every comment on a post, I like the idea of people I follows' comments being at the top, and everyone else's below (hushed can stay at the bottom). Having someone else decide what I do or don't see contradicts the self moderation that I love and have come to associate with Hubski. I have become more vocal here and contributed more because I love the self moderation tools here. I know that if someone doesn't care about my sad little posts, they can filter me out, never see my posts and ignore my hushed comments on others posts. I like that if someone becomes hostile I can filter them out and never have to think about them again. With a bigger user base, this could turn into some weird echo chambery type system, but with the size hubski is now, I like it. I'm mostly here because hubski is a content aggregator, I've only recently looked at it more from the social aspect, while it's nice to get fuzzy feelings when others or the site's power users comment or circledot my post, it's not really why I'm here, but I understand that a lot the the site's longtime users are here for the close social circle. In the end I love it here, the type of posts and discussions here seem a hell of a lot more adult than most other aggregators or social platforms, discussions can turn heated because a lot of users are close, but overall the arguments seem less petty that other places. My personal browsing habits have changed a lot for the better since discovering hubski, I browse a lot less clickbaity sites and a have been pointed to more legitimate news sources and interesting places on the web because of everyone here. To sum up, I guess, I like it here because I think the current self moderation tools and small user base it what makes hubski a good place with higher caliber discussions.
As an aside; you have one of my favorite Hubski user names. I understand that is not going to be the goal for the creators and admins of the site, growth will always be a goal and priority, but for me, it will likely mean I contribute less.
fwiw, I don’t think any of us care about Hubski scaling for the sake of “growth.” IMO, it would be cool if it could grow to a size that had constant new interactions, if wanted, while retaining the small and intimate feel you describe. We have had bursts of new users in the past that were awful and we have had some that were what I just described.
I like Hubski. I check it every day. I frequently encounter interesting ideas and thoughtful discussion here. Can people be aggressive and confrontational here? Yeah, but that’s part of the nature of the discussion and I think a large proportion of people invite a battle of ideas if it is good natured, productive, and fair. Do I think people can be kind, inclusive and supportive here? Yes, I’ve seen It many times even though text conversation over the internet makes that difficult. Do I post often on Hubski? No, primarily for personal reasons so perhaps I have a different perspective from contributors. I really enjoy hearing from people with different perspectives and being introduced to new ideas, and I find that at Hubski. It would be a shame if the new site mechanics made that harder for me. Imagine making a comment but no one sees it until 6 hrs later when someone shares but by then the convo died out? Or making a new tag so no one notices the content until a share from global? The new user experience would be like walking into a ghost town, where there is an energy to the air of which you catch whispers, but it is all hidden to you. The change to the feed requires users to view the feed differently, and puts me in mind of switching from forks and knives to chopsticks. Sure, some meals will be easier to eat with chopsticks and others will slip through but you’re still pulling from the same fridge, so what changed? I’m all for experimentation maybe this merits a beta test at a new url? implementation invites participation (chat?). The problems this post is trying to address are real but slightly different for each community member. I like that mk’s suggested change creates an incentive for you to participate and use the mechanics of the site, otherwise you will miss out on quite a lot. I fear FOMO and people talking behind each other’s back. I think we just need more people participating and contributing, I will make more of an effort.
I, for one, would not like to see this change. I follow people because I'm interested in what those people have to say or links they have to share, whether that's in comments or post. I think tags are far less useful here than they could be (though I don't have a solution for that), with the exception of tags managed by individuals or small groups (#weeklymusicthread, #kleinbl00batshittery, #thesundaypaper when I'm not lazy, etc). Your feed will be determined by the tags that you follow. The comments you see will be determined by the people you follow.
I’m open to it. My first concern would be I worry that I might not “meet” new people. I often decide to follow someone because of an insightful or funny comment they make. If I don’t see the comment, I may not know I would like to follow the user. Unless I misunderstand the proposed mechanism.The posts you view will only show comments from people that you follow
This was what jumped out at me as well. If someone new joins, and no one is following them, how exactly will that first follow happen? Moreover, I for one don't really want to have to go through all that curation, especially at first. We don't really have a problem with unwanted users showing up, so I'm unclear on what exactly this is meant to solve.
Why would locking users' discussions (comments) into bubbles of those users they already follow address this? Wouldn't one expect it to make discussion more stale by introducing miniature echo chambers? I actually like the sharing aspect of Hubski - when I submit a post or click the wheely thing to share a post, I feel I'm curating something for others, and that it's my responsibility to share only what's worth their time. Those others, and that responsibility, feel real to me because they have actively chosen to follow me based on the quality of my past posts and shares. So I had better keep the quality up. I have to suspect this sense of responsibility contributes to the higher quality of both posts and debate on Hubski than on reddit. So both moves to me sound like a shift in an undesirable direction. Restricting comment visibility will cause echo chambers, while basing feeds on tags will remove that element of responsibility not to waste the time of users who have chosen to follow you. Please be careful - Hubski is the only general-purpose site I can think of where debate remains intelligent and polite after 10 years. To the users this is worth more than another site with a large userbase, and more than a torrent of mediocre content.The site has become stale, and in my opinion, I have found discussions more predictable and interactions less cool.
Fair enough, but I don't see how what you're proposing will change that. How is having fewer visible commenters going to make discussion more diverse?
It won't at the start. It might never. But here's the hope: If my comments must earn an audience, and if they can lose the audience that I have earned, I might be more thoughtful about them. In time, this might lead to discussions that seem a bit more like the ones we have when we are in the same room.
while i'm all about thoughtfulness, i feel we're already pretty good. raising the bar even more will have the opposite effect of intimidating new users. That's actually why i've been spending lots of time on the chat. With the removed pressure of always being super insighful, I can have more fun, casual, fresh chats with yall internet buddies.I might be more thoughtful about them
Truth. am_Unition linked to his gun discussion thread and I realized my comment had been shared like 140 times. Total, overwhelming approval right now is like 14 shares. I was reminded today that theoretically I have 1300-something followers. There can't be more than a dozen people here at any given time. It's like deciding you should rearrange the stadium because the one AA meeting that comes in every thursday tends to cluster in one corner.
Man, so many grey usernames for me who shared your top comment in that guns thread. I try to keep track of everyone, to some degree (edit: huehuehuehue), and it had eluded me how far we'd regressed from perhaps peak activity until now. F :(
It might not work for that reason. However, many that have left have told me that they have because of how things currently work. From my best non-subjective take, I don't judge us as a particular standout for our thoughtful discussion. We are ok at times, not great at others. That matches most of the feedback I get.
I don't know if I understand your idea. But I think it's fine here. Especially compared to other websites. I did dip for a while but that was a me problem. I was thinking about online interactions and I think they're by nature just prone to unique problems I was also thinking about how for most of history thoughtful interaction was limited to media that took hours-years. The debate me bros like Ben Shapiro think debate is the finest form of logic when it's just an argument. Philosophers would spend years writing long reactions to some argument they disagreed with that they read years after it was written after taking years to write. I don't have an example but you probably catch my drift. And science? Woo buddy
In that case, I'd like to propose some "make visible" button on filtered posts and comments. My use of filter option is less about "X offends me" and more "what, another post/comment about boring-ass X?". Yeah, I know tags can be filtered, but it didn't work as well as filtering out a user. Doesn't mean I never want to see what they have to say about other topics, but life's too short to wade through a dozen comments wanking about X. EDIT: Also, please, leave 'global chat' as it is, at least as an option.If you filter a user, you won't see their posts or comments, regardless of whether you follow the tag on their post, or if their comment was shared with you.
Ok but what would beta testing look like? Depending on the user numbers it could be that a temporary full shift is the only way to get enough response data. If the user base is large enough you could A/B test I guess. But I’m not sure the case for Hubski. I am pretty risk tolerant through...definitely a bias of mine.
I don't see how I would find an interesting new user...? It seems like a Catch-22... you are either seen by people and your content is shared (thereby exposing you to more people) or you sit in a silent purgatory, with nobody noticing your content because it hasn't been shared. What am I missing? (A little more context: I'm not really sure how Hubski works. I just go to Global and see what's there, then I go to Chatter to see what people are talking about that I missed in Global. Some people and tags show up in green, which makes me think I follow them, or are friends with them, or something... but I'm not sure how that changes my experience in Global or Chatter.)
That's correct. Comments will work like posts currently do. Someone will have to find your comment in the global comment stream and follow you/share it. Following doesn't make a huge difference to the site experience atm. You follow 9 users and 22 tags and our feeds look very similar.
I don't currently follow tags and most the tags I've followed were things I accidentally followed. I think Steve's concern is one I share. I am unexcited for this experiment but also know that experimentation has been a great thing for hubski so you have my full support.
I beta-test for about eight firms. I have three Centercode logins. The worst software I deal with is the stuff without beta-testing. I'll say this: if I've blocked someone? And you decide they can comment on my posts anyway? I'm not going to post. And if you're going to let them comment but not let me see it? My contribution here is done.
I think that could be a toggle. Personally, I don't care if comments on my posts go unanswered if the general understanding is that I might not have seen it. But it seems right that if you posts something, you could choose to see all responses if you like. It'd probably go the same for comments.I'll say this: if I've blocked someone? And you decide they can comment on my posts anyway? I'm not going to post.
This is not a healthy approach in my opinion. The site doesn't run without you and you're opting to increase your toil and drudgery for little added benefit. I would much rather your main job to be doing stuff that is fun. Off the top of my head, what if new accounts had a "spam" button as well as "promote" and if "spam" gets hit a half-dozen times without "promote" getting hit, the comment gets removed? And if an account gets, say, ten comments removed it shows up wherever you look for such stuff to give you the option to remove the user?
I also don't see why making the site more alienating and less clear will somehow make it more user friendly. A new user is going to have zero ability to suss out the logic at play. Finally, we've gone around and around and around on tags: Yet it seems that integrating the voluminous community discussion from previous adventures with content taxonomy does not interest you.
Personally I think you are coming at this a little hard but I don't think you are wrong. These experiments have, over time, made the site better. Many of the experiments were total failures but gave mk and others something to ruminate on. I really have to give mk and the team credit, when they have ruined the site to the point where all I can do is shake my head at their folly they have reversed course in a hurry. I don't know if trying to head this change off at the pass is worth it but something might be gained from things getting smashed up to see what happens. If the problem that is trying to be solved is two groups aren't jiving with each other and we'd like to keep those groups on different sides of the room, than I think this will fail. It will probably make a few people happier to be put in a feelings playpen but I think it would suck more life out of a site that is teetering. My two cents. Please someone post a screen shot of the time they changed the UI into three columns, that was the absolute worst thing ever.
Wow! Thank you for sharing this. A lot of time and effort went in to that. Such a colossal failure, but I still think it looks beautiful.... not functional, but beautiful. My favorite part of seeing that are the names. scrimetime, caio, StJohn, barradarcy, alpha0, NotPhil, insomniasexx, these were some cool hubskiers. (pours out some of his 40oz)
You know, I bet they sell 40’s at the High Dive bar where we met. Perhaps we will have to plan a post-covid reunion? I enjoyed meeting you in person. I would love a Hubski SF meetup
I miss hanging out! That was a great evening, even though your car got very broken into. I would love a post-COVID reunion, but full disclosure, I live in New Orleans these days. You or mkshould give me a jangle if you're ever in town, I know all the best dives. Or did, before they all shut down. Even the Hunk Oasis on Bourbon Street is still shut. Won't someone please spare a thought for all the poor misfortunate hunks who are out of work now?? Adopt a hunk today and you could be saving a life.
And here's why I'm coming at it hard: MK: I have an idea. ME: That is a terrible idea for the following reasons. MK: We're doing it anyway. ME: ... MK, A MONTH LATER: Well that was a terrible idea note that not all changes are terrible and I don't shit on every change. But these little focus groups aren't really about gathering input, they're about paving the way for a change that has already been decided on.I really have to give mk and the team credit, when they have ruined the site to the point where all I can do is shake my head at their folly they have reversed course in a hurry.
I have tried to be benevolent and productive. I've failed multiple times. The one thing I like about experiments, is that we can actually see what it feels like, and how it works. I don't see reverting as a complete failure. We haven't done one in a long time. I am ok with being wrong. At the very least, it might be interesting. I do get a good amount of thanks from people here, but over the last few years, I get more expressions of grief. Many tell me that they feel that magic is gone. I feel it too. It makes me sad. I think it's worth trying something new. I don't feel that we have much to lose considering the current state and trajectory. We can always roll it back.
I have been asking people their opinions offline, including you. I do care. This was not my first take by any means, but it's one that is doable. I'm still on the fence about whether or not we try to make following affect posts and comments or just comments. I've gone back and forth on that. In some ways it's simpler if it affects both, but it assumes you want both from a user which might not be the case. Also, it'd be interesting to see what happens with tags if they actually matter, including community and personal tags.
This means only that you've been seeking approval, not that you've actually workshopped the change. At no point did you discuss any of the above with me or I would have told you it's a terrible idea. Then why don't you build out a better tagging system? I have been asking people their opinions offline, including you.
Also, it'd be interesting to see what happens with tags if they actually matter, including community and personal tags.
mk, I love tags. I use the shit out of tags. They're a sorting mechanism for me. I have dedicated 10 years of my life to posting to #hubskioriginalmusicclub and a good amount of effort towards #tngpodcast and #songsforpabs and #higgsy and #feelgoodhubski etc.... Hell, even #wheresthebeef Tags matter.
I thought your critique was that we didn't have enough people. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough. The one thing that most everyone seems to agree on is that the site has declined, and that commenting is not great. I want to make an effort that tries to address that, and maybe improve upon it. Everyone is rightfully skeptical, but if nothing can be done, then Hubski is in very a bad spot. This could prove cause for improving it.At no point did you discuss any of the above with me or I would have told you it's a terrible idea.
Then why don't you build out a better tagging system?
This is interesting... I feel like this... but I acknowledge that it's mostly my lack of interaction that both contributes to this feeling for me, AND others. I don't know that the site has changed... people have. We get different jobs. We have births. We have deaths. We get new jobs. We graduate. People are in different places at different times, and the traffic on the site ebbs and flows. Sure... it's in a pretty big dip these days... but I'm not convinced it's a mechanical thing. I still don't understand (but am trying). There's no doubt that chat has become an EASY way for me to interact quickly with the users on the site without dipping in to the bigger pool. When I have ten minutes, it's easier to pop in to chat and have some laughs than to read a goodlongread and then discuss it at length. In that respect, perhaps chat has reduced my commenting... but arguably, it brings me here more often than not, and then I stick around to read. In the end think comments here are so much better than anywhere else on the web.The one thing that most everyone seems to agree on is that the site has declined,
and that commenting is not great.
It was and is. This will not improve the situation whatsoever. The fact that Hubski requires a tutorial and a video in order to acclimate new users says a lot about the learning curve and you are making it steeper. More than that, you are punishing the people who are contributing. You're effectively giving me Alzheimers - I can say something but I don't know who heard it, and people can respond to stuff I said without me knowing it. You say you're going to solve this problem by adding yet another toggle - in other words, if users are deep enough into the minutiae of driving your site, they can opt out of brain damage. Commenting threads are inane because everyone knows everyone else, everyone knows everyone else's positions, and everyone knows who will add what. Making those conversations harder won't improve the signal to noise ratio, it will reduce the bandwidth. If you had asked me "what can we do to get more users" I would say "100% UI, dude" much like I've been saying "100% UI, dude" for lo this past decade. But you didn't ask me that, because you knew I'd say it, and then you'd have to rationalize yet again why you aren't going to do anything about it.I thought your critique was that we didn't have enough people.
Some clarity: If a comment has no shares, only the person that made the comment, and the users that follow them will see the comment. A comment without shares is a comment with little to no audience. You will have the option to see all comments on your posts and all replies to your comments. The default will likely be off. Sharing propagates content across the userbase quickly. It will take very few users sharing comments from the global stream to get quality comments from unfollowed users across the site. Also, for posters that choose to see all comments on their posts, there is another opportunity for quality comments (and the users that make them) to be seen and appreciated.
Why? Why will the default be off? If I post something, it's because I want people to interact with it. What possible reason would I have for ignoring that interaction? Oh, because you want to get rid of muting. And as far as you're concerned, if someone says nasty shit about you, but you can't see it, it was never said? I know of exactly zero scenarios across the history of publishing where direct correspondence between an author and a reader is visible to other readers but invisible to the author. You're denigrating ownership entirely and you're doing it because you don't like muting. Despite the fact that it's one of the main things that keeps this site together. I know you hate that? But giving people an option to not deal with contentiousness gives them the courage to post. It's clear you're going to do this. It's clear you REALLY REALLY think this is going to fix something. So try this: - By default, comments with zero shares are invisible TO EVERYONE except the poster, the commenter and anyone who follows the commenter. - PER POST, posters can "open" a post to visibility by everyone so that Pubski, the weekly music thread, grubski, craft threads, whatever become an invitation to new people and people without a lot of followers can get visibility. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the solution to Hubski's woes can be found by proliferating shit in here:The default will likely be off.
Sounds very social media, but with strangers. Like when Instagram first launched and you where shown a page of popular accounts you might like to follow. I don’t know much about coding, but is it possible to have suggested tags in addition to the ability for people to input their own based off a link or text somebody adds to their post ? I think that might help people understand better what tags to include so content is seen, especially for new users just starting to share posts. Like, here’s some suggested tags users are currently following that will make your post more visible.