...but then, you're often of the mindset that options are mandates. Back in the halcyon days of PHPbbs and forums without voting, it was assumed that lurking was expected behavior. One didn't stumble into a new forum and start out with HEY GUISE NICE CITE WATS UP, one lurked, read the faq, browsed the threads and opined only when one had something to contribute. Then, of course, /b/ won over /. and we ended up with a "digg this" mentality. And now here we are. I never had a Digg account. I browsed it for a week. I browsed Reddit for a month before I had an account and lurked for another month before I posted my first comment. I recognize this makes me positively deviant by today's standards, but the comments you're talking about say, essentially, "that would hurt my feelings." Here's the thing: If I think you'd be better served by sitting down and reading for a while before you contribute, and you think you'd be better served by contributing before you sit down and read, allowing me to ignore your ass for a week serves both our purposes: - I don't have to deal with your "HEY GUISE WHOS ALSO FROM TEH REDDITS" phase - You don't have to deal with my "GET OFF MY LAWN NEWFAG" phase ...and (x) number of days later, we can converse like civil people.
That, or, enough people use this feature that no one sticks around for longer than seven days because it's a bit of a graveyard. This reminds me of shadowbanning. Your solution does not differentiate people who join and immediately "get" hubski ... they get screwed too. Maybe they leave. If it comes to something like this, I think I prefer the up-front approach I mentioned below of alerting new users that they aren't allowed to post for a few days (or maybe until they do their first hubwheel thingie). Essentially forcing them to lurk a bit and learn what sort of content we encourage at hubski -- but not in an underhanded way. Neither of these solutions is perfect.
Hey - enough people bitched about tags going away that we got tags back. Rather than shout-out, lemme just say this: HEY HUBSKI DEVELOPER P33PS: Do me a solid, since you've got the code. Cross-check your list of followers with a list of users active in the past 90 days. How long is the trail of dead? I'm gonna guess "hella long." Rate of attrition is a serious thing around here and, by definition, those that flame out after a week are not a part of the steady-state culture. An optional 1-week ignore would have allowed all of us to bypass the SRS invasion, for example.
And your solution might increase that rate of attrition by causing users who would have become followers to join the "trail of dead" instead of sticking it out. If, when I had joined, certain crucial members hadn't shared my posts, commented on them, responded to my comments, etc -- I probably wouldn't have stayed.I'm gonna guess "hella long." Rate of attrition is a serious thing around here and, by definition, those that flame out after a week are not a part of the steady-state culture.
If I ignored you, would you know? If ten people ignored you, would you be prevented from posting? If a hundred people ignored you, could you not have a conversation? So riddle me this, batman. What was your first post? And how long had you been here when you made it?
You are willfully ignoring my point. If enough people had been using your feature when I joined hubski, ten, a hundred, whatever, then I likely would not have stayed because the conversations would have struck me as nonexistent or very limited. Don't remember/no clue. Probably 2-3 days, which is easily long enough. Six hours is long enough if you're intelligent. Do you have anything to say about this as an alternative?So riddle me this, batman. What was your first post? And how long had you been here when you made it?
If it comes to something like this, I think I prefer the up-front approach I mentioned below of alerting new users that they aren't allowed to post for a few days (or maybe until they do their first hubwheel thingie). Essentially forcing them to lurk a bit and learn what sort of content we encourage at hubski -- but not in an underhanded way.
I'm not. I didn't know that was your point. If this is your point: ...then I would point out that the people that would have ignored you for long enough for you to bounce would not be the people who would have kept you in the first place. Here's another insight: I am not, in general, a hostile and antisocial individual (believe it or not). However, if I am feeling hostile and antisocial, IT BEHOOVES US BOTH not to interact. If I have already concluded that your capacity to irritate is due to your recent appearance, I will prejudge all comments from new people as irritating. If I'm in a state where all new comments irritate me, it benefits not only me, but those new people who are commenting to prevent me from interacting with them. And that's where you're ignoring my point: You see this as censorship. I see this as voluntary withdrawal. I'm not saying "keep the n00bs from posting." I'm not saying "silence the n00bs." I'm saying "let the n00bs go about their business without risking my wrath." I am one user. I wish for better tools to shape one user's experience. The impact of those tools will most directly affect one user, and may or may not have any effect whatsoever on the experience of other users (ignored users' comments still show up in your feed as a strikeout - it's not like they're X'd from the earth). Yet you think this is better: So whereas I'm saying "help me quiet the din of the chattering class with a better set of earplugs" you're saying "let's keep it down by enforcing a code of silence." Your alternative sucks. I'm not attempting to shape anyone's behavior but my own. I'm not attempting to curb anyone's user experience but my own. I'm not attempting to alter the makeup of the site for anyone but myself. You? You're inflicting a draconian and arbitrary solution on everybody.You are willfully ignoring my point.
If enough people had been using your feature when I joined hubski, ten, a hundred, whatever, then I likely would not have stayed because the conversations would have struck me as nonexistent or very limited.
If it comes to something like this, I think I prefer the up-front approach I mentioned below of alerting new users that they aren't allowed to post for a few days (or maybe until they do their first hubwheel thingie).