Here's something that I think all of Team Hubski is missing: The customization you guys are pushing requires more mental overhead from me. To make it work my way, I have to have a conversation. I set something up. Someone wants to look at it, they click it. Done. To make it work your way, I have to write #tag.modifier and in order for users to get my functionality out of it, they have to follow #tag and ignore #tag.modifier. It's like that list thing: in order to make it work, I have to remember where to put the colons and shit on the arbitrary six digit string that Hubski generates with the nomenclature that makes Hubski happy. Yeah, neat feature but I'm already suffering under Hubski's arbitrary (and often broken) markup. Now you're going to make me learn site-specific nomenclature? It's a very mk-up approach - "I can alter the codebase so that when I type this secret incantation things change." Except most of us don't want to carry a spell book around with us. We want to press the "up" button on the elevator and get to the 5th floor. We don't need to remember that typing 12356 in the stairwell keypad opens a secret passage to the dumbwaiter. Personal tags are not something I see any need for. Sorry. They're a voluntary way for an individual user to restrict things that works only if both the user and the viewer have perfect understanding of the functionality. The site needs to be easier to get around on, not more complex.
I get that there will inevitably be a learning curve but I'm all for making it more reasonable. That said, it's nice to use a site for a while and be able to navigate it on a fundamental level easily, but over time discover more functions that exist and are unique to the place where you are at. But I don't think these new functions need to be complex or unintuitive. I'm glad mk posted this, it's a good thread with some nice ideas. We will be having more conversations like this prior to making large changes etc. Also, we'll be having IRC time with the Hubski team where we can talk in real time about ideas etc... or what beer we happen to be drinking which is more the likely.The site needs to be easier to get around on, not more complex.
-This is not lost on me. At all. I have had a number of people, smart people, tell me that they tried to use the site but couldn't "figure it out."
Thanks for having this approach to developing this site further. A thing I've been thinking about lately: it might be a good idea to improve the relation between users. I find it quite difficult to go back and look up my previous conversations with people. I'd love to go back and read earlier conversations with people I interact, or read the best conversations, or the most recent. With some people around here, I know I've had good conversations with them, but I'm not grat with names so I'm not going back hundreds of pages into my own comments to find them. And I wouldn't know how to search for it. Ideally, if I went to someone's profile, I'd like to see more info about what our connection is. Like the 'how many posts have you shared by them' but going beyond that. Many things are possible, the conversations just being one.I'm glad mk posted this, it's a good thread with some nice ideas. We will be having more conversations like this prior to making large changes etc.
Hey veen, great suggestions. One thing really quickly that you might dig is that if you hover over a users name it tells you how many of their posts you've shared. After hovering over yours, I see that I've shared 10 of your posts. I like the idea of being able to quickly see more about our specific relationship to one another. mk
It's super subtle and just to the right of the name.
Yeah, I'm not a hero with names, and while I remember quite something about the people behind the usernames, I'd like to be able to go back and look at past interactions with that person. I've thought about the ability to tag people, like in RES. But that might be too intrusive to the layout. Ideally there would be a way to see what that person means to you, but I don't have a clue how to quantify that.I like the idea of being able to quickly see more about our specific relationship to one another. mk
Here's the horrible, ugly truth. If we each had a little image next to our names that was unique to us, you'd remember people a lot more easily. That said, we've discussed such things in the past and it's probably not going to happen. A very long time ago I suggested that people could have images but that these images would be automatically pencil sketched like in the WSJ. Probably a horrible idea, but my reasoning was that it would be in black and white and wouldn't make the page too distracting. I'm up for any suggestions though as to how to show relationship etc.
An image would indeed be easier, which is why I really like it that images can be added to bio pages. I for one always imagine humanodon's drawing when I read his posts, it gives a face to a name. But at the same time there's the problem I've encountered on many forums: I stop reading the usernames, and remember the image alone. People have disappeared for me because they changed their avatar. And in general they're ugly as hell. Let's get our goals clear. What I think the site will benefit from is a better way to foster relationships and connections, both existing and new. One way this would be achieved is to make them more recongnizable, e.g. avatars / images / anything visual. Have you seen this amazing idea before? MIT created a way for everyone to have their own version of their logo, using algorithms to generate 40,000 deviations. I'm not saying we should do the exact same but it is an interesting way to make people recognizable in a large operation. Another example: in WhatsApp groupchats, every person you chat with has a colored name. As I chat more with people, I started to quickly distinguish people because of that visual detail. After a while I stopped looking at the names above the messages and knew by the colors who wrote it. The first weeks here my mind tried to do the same, since I didn't have a lot of lightblue names. But I quickly made mistakes, e.g. confusing you with theadvancedapes because of the long, lightblue name that both start with the. Another way to foster connections is through the information you can know from someone else: right now I can only see how many posts I shared of you (19). It is where my idea for previous conversations comes in. There is a plethora of data that you can show to others. Which one is valuable is something to think of. Preferably, viewing someones profile, you would be able to assess who they are in relation to yourself. Maybe a number that says how many posts you shared that they shared as well. I'd love to hear more thought & discussion on this.
I like veen's thoughts. To add some more: how about being able to set a profile image, and if you hover over someone's name for > 1 second, a little 180x180 profile image pops up. (greater than a second so it doesn't pop up while you're mousing through a page.) Furthermore, how about a popup box when you click someone's username that has all of the info that normally appears in the left column of the profile page, so you can view someone's info without leaving the current page. You could then click their username from the popup or something to view their full profile with posts, shares, comments, etc. This would be similar to how the Twitter webpage (not mobile app) works when you click on someone's name.
mk, b_b, forwardslash, insomniasexx, Some interesting ideas from veen and doesntgolf. -By the way, have you ever tried golfing? It really can be quite fun.
Thanks! Parent twice for my comment by the way. And maybe it is a good time now to start a new post on this? I'm not gonna. I've golfed a bit! I had the chance to get 6 golf courses on stances and movement for free, after which we went to a pitch and putt track to put it to the test. I ended up coming back four more times there, quite like it as a relaxed sport. The satisfaction of landing a perfect shot is really great.