I don't usually go meta because this is a great place that runs really well, but I happen to have some thoughts to share.
Was reading this article about the pointlessness of sharing opinions on twitter (or something), and the author had an idea that I've been wondering about a lot recently. Does twitter by nature, like a bad presidential cabinet, surround its users with "yes-men"? Unless you actively follow people you disagree with, studies seem to show that you're wrapping yourself in a bubble as surely as if you get a liberal arts degree at a small private college.
That's all well and good, but I don't remotely care about twitter. What I care about is hubski, and hubski's founders have in the past mentioned twitter when attempting to explain what hubski's model and mission is. The following and sharing aspects are at least relatively similar. So that of course makes me wonder -- are we encouraging a homogenization bias on hubski? (Or is it too small at the moment for such a bias, but could eventually end up there?)
I think it's possible. We have a small active userbase, admittedly, but I'm not actually sure how small -- because the same people pop up on my feed day after day. Threads have been made in the past about how, while we don't have power users in a conventional sense, we certainly have them in an accidental sense, and that's completely true. 10-15 users consistently either are on my feed, or share a lot of what's on my feed, and that's got to encourage homogenization of opinion. Maybe everyone's feed has their own individual "power users" -- but that still seems to limit the sorts of opinions we might see.
Is this a symptom of the following system, and of the attempts made by both twitter and hubski to build community to an extent not seen on agg. sites like reddit and slashdot? Is it fixable/worth fixing? Am I wrong? There are some counterarguments, at least when it comes to hubski. We have big weekly and monthly threads that are so big that I imagine almost ever active user of hubski is aware of them -- music sharing, book group, podcasts, etc. This should limit the natural segmentation I'm talking about. We also, of course, have tools to find users who aren't on our radar naturally -- the no-share hub at the top is the big one, but also the list of badges makes it hard to miss the site's great posts, and chatter means you can always have a quick conversation about something even if your specific feed isn't too active.
So maybe those fixes are enough to alleviate this problem that twitter demonstrably has and hubski might have now or in the future. Maybe not. Thoughts?
Unfortunately, for the time being we just don't have enough really active users. We get a lot of unique visitors some day, but the same users are still generating the vast majority of the content sitewide (not just in your feed). It's a mystery how to get these other, invisible folks to participate. I wish I had a good answer, but sadly, it remains elusive. They must like reading, since they keep coming back, but maybe many people just think their opinion isn't wanted. Fear of being wrong keeps people silent. This is a well known phenomenon the world over, not just online. The question is how to encourage people to get over that.
I'm a huge lurker on many, many sites, but I probably lurk the hardest on HN, Reddit and Hubski. Fear of being wrong, and a lack of respect for one's own opinion I'll admit are big factors, but I think there's also an issue of being late to the party. I see threads on Reddit's 'Hot' feed, that have been weeded out by the Reddit hive-mind as being full of good discussion and content. But as soon as I get to the comments I suddenly get extremely disappointed because there's been a discussion raging for the past day or so. I, personally, feel that often a lot of what needs to be said, has been said. On the flip-side, when I do have something to say, often I feel that there will be very little audience to see it and to respond to it. It's a bit like, 'what's the point' (I don't feel this applies to Hubski, which puts new comments up the top) Hubski really solves a lot of this problem by allowing people with a large numbers of followers to share threads and links posted by an occasional lurker that comes out of the woodwork. However, I think it's intimidating for some new users to see people with a huge amount of followers and make huge contributions to the Hubski community. Maybe a way to search and subscribe to new users that have certain interests? To join a new website and be quickly greeted by a "### has started following you" would really really encourage new people to feel like they have an audience that they feel like they can connect with. Just my two cents.
Interesting. We'll talk about it. In the mean time, there is always the "global" feeds, which are found in the upper right next to the submit button. There, anyone can explore everything that has been submitted, organized by number of shares, and by time of submission within each section.Maybe a way to search and subscribe to new users that have certain interests? To join a new website and be quickly greeted by a "### has started following you" would really really encourage new people to feel like they have an audience that they feel like they can connect with.
I'm someone who doesn't post much. I comment much more than I post links/topics, and I don't comment that much either. Yet, I still come up under "active poster" and "active commenter". Honestly, I was the same way on reddit as well. But for a different reason. On reddit, I wouldn't post because everything I wanted to post had been posted already. Which made it pointless. On hubski, I don't post because I don't find things that I feel are up to the quality standards of hubski. I'm used to seeing long in-depth articles usually discussing some deep topic that many users can post tons of long comments about. A trailer for a new game, for example, doesn't quite achieve that same goal. I'm guessing other's who lurk probably feel the same way.
What I'm gathering from b_b's comment is that hubski more or less follows the 90 percent rule or whatever it's called. I can't believe this, honestly -- in fact I've never believed in that rule, but I've never owned a domain either so what do I know. Are we sure they aren't all bots? I just can't believe anyone who intentionally puts hubski in their rss and keeps up with it doesn't ever have anything to say, or never even bothers to make an account.
I can attest to this being true of Hubski, as it is with most any other aggregator. As you can imagine, when we started Hubski we invited all of our friends to use the site. That's really who the first batch of users were. I have a number of friends that I never see on the site that will tell me in person that they visit Hubski regularly. They treat it like they would any online magazine and just consume content. I'm always shocked when people IRL reference a story or conversation on Hubski that they didn't participate in. Some people just aren't interested in participating but they still enjoy consuming new information. I don't think there is much that can be done to change this. It's only a factor because we have a small (but growing) community. If we had 100k people instead of 10k no one would even notice. But, if you are able to solve the problem of how to get lurkers to feel comfortable in actively engaging, well... you should patent that snake-oil and make a fortune.
Look, I comment rather infrequently and I'd classify myself in the lurker/passive consumer cohort, but seeing all the meta-talk going on recently I figured my thoughts might be useful. Or maybe not. Because that's the crux for me at least. Ninety-nine percent of the time I really don't consider my own opinions interesting enough to present to you lot. Is it an acceptance thing? Maybe. Perhaps it's the idea that my hubski presence needs to be curated in some way, throttled but then distilled. That seems to be the ideal, but if it makes you think that my comment history is going to be an intellectual goldmine or whatever don't even bother looking, because honestly my recent comments have been quite mediocre. It could be just me, in which case I'll get and take what's coming to me, but hubski incubates a fucked up kind of performance anxiety in me. Right now I'm having a bit of an internal conflict about whether or not to just erase everything I wrote and remain silent. Don't get me wrong though, I really like hubski and I really like the conversations and debates and whatnot which take place. If hubski command thinks lurkers are counter to the mission statement, then I hope this kind of info is helpful to you. I think I've said everything that I wanted to (not) say, so two final things: a. If you think this is complete bullshit, does that validate what I was trying to get across? b. Here's some weirdly relevant poetry which may or may not lose its meaning in translation: ...[O you] Controller of Conversations
Sir...
My Lord
No!
guess I'll try again...
later
I don't think lurkers are counter to the mission statement. I think its fine. I lurk many other sites and never comment. You owe us nothing, so don't feel obligated to comment, but also don't be afraid to comment. I follow you, I'd be glad to hear what you have to say. For instance... I dig the poem.It could be just me, in which case I'll get and take what's coming to me, but hubski incubates a fucked up kind of performance anxiety in me. Right now I'm having a bit of an internal conflict about whether or not to just erase everything I wrote and remain silent.
It's not just you. I have friends that I consider very smart and capable people. They post prolifically on FB but are afraid to post on Hubski because they don't think it will be "good enough". It's a mixed bag, part of me thinks this is good and part of me thinks it's too much of a barrier to entry. But unlike you, most of these guys haven't spent time lurking and don't have a feel for the site.
It would be interesting to see if sites where anonymity is prevalent (Like 4chan) also fell under this 90% rule. It wouldn't surprise me if it were different. I'm not trying to argue that Hubski should be more anonymous, it would pretty much counteract most of what Hubski is. But rather I think that this "Snake-oil" isn't that elusive, it's just that the snake oil is more of a double-edged sword. Anonymity - and per extension more content - isn't always what you want. Sure you get more engaging participants in a discussion, and it would probably help creating a more diversely opinionated userbase. But at what cost? I've frequented some of the non-/b/ boards of 4chan for a long while, and while discussion is everywhere, it rarely meets any quality standards except proper spelling and grammar. There are a lot of places on the internet to have that kind of free-for-all debate, of which most remind me more of a gladiatorial arena than of a conversation between differing opinions. I personally don't think that Hubski should strive to be another one of those. I like Hubski quite a lot the way it is, not saying it shouldn't change at all, but I think one of the areas that shouldn't be compromised on are these quality standards.
Glad you like it here, thanks for the feedback.
It would be interesting to see if sites where anonymity is prevalent (Like 4chan) also fell under this 90% rule. It wouldn't surprise me if it were different.
-I actually would be surprised if it were different. I don't think it's that people are afraid to comment, I just think some people don't feel that need or desire. I would guess that close to 9/10 people that visit 4chan do it to read what others are saying etc. If it is a higher ratio, my guess is that it isn't by much. -Just a guess though.
Thanks for responding, I've been here for a year soon enough, but as you might guess I'm just lurking.
Glad to finally meet you! Don't be a stranger, I'm following you now and expect great things...no pressure though ;-)
I know it's certainly the case with other sites (Twitter, Reddit, etc). Tons of people use those sites without an account. I'm guessing hubski is probably similar. I have 39 people following me right now, and last I checked, the majority haven't done anything on the site. Maybe a single comment or two, but pretty much no shares and no posts. Yet, they follow me, and I assume use the site. Also, looking over at the TMI page, there seems to be constantly new users. Yet, the major tags still only have content by the "big players" of hubski.
I think the reason that most users don't "participate" is actually a simple issue, and not necessarily one that can be "fixed." At least in my own case, I don't participate because I don't have much free time and the time I do have is prioritized to reading rather than posting. I often find discussions to which I believe I could make a quality contribution, but I decide against participating because (in my own estimation) the time it would take for me to say what I would want to say is not enough to justify the quality of the contribution I would make. Another way of looking at this situation is that I simply don't invest as much time in using Hubski as other, more "active" users. That is, I am simply a more "casual" user. In this paradigm there isn't really a problem to fix; users are coming to the site from a diversity of life situations, so it is simply impossible that everyone will be participating at a high level. Just my $0.02.
Unless I'm misunderstanding how it works, I browse Hubski a great deal through the Chatter page, scrolling down and reading content first, usernames later and if anything catches my eye, clicking through to the discussion. This brings me into contact with many more people than following or tags might.
i wish chatter had an RSS feed so i could passively monitor it. hey mk, how feasible is this? reddit has a similar feature, and it's actually pretty great http://www.reddit.com/r/all/comments and http://www.reddit.com/r/all/comments.xml etc perhaps some ajax to automatically prepend to the top of the feed would be appropriate as well.
I love chatter. I wish everyone would use it. For the initiated, it allows users to kind of check out what people they follow are discussing without having to click through to each article. Also it may allow you to see posts that aren't in your feed, but that may be interesting.
I'd quite like a 'Zen' version of chatter which doesn't display the username, the comment's hubwheel or the thread, allowing me to contemplate just the words and click through if I'm drawn in.
Honestly, I don't ever feel that my opinion would be completely disrespected; I just feel extremely insecure sharing! The "accidental" power users all share quite thought provoking or at least clever material, it's simply the culture that has been built here. Does anyone else share this feeling?
I think that's the reason they're "power users" in the first place. Combine that with long-time usage and you'll have a lot of followers. I've also seen users who have been active for a couple years with only a dozen followers.The "accidental" power users all share quite thought provoking or at least clever material
of course the mechanic of individually selecting people to follow will create a filter bubble containing a select group of people. of course the potential for homogenization bias exists in such a model. but that potential is based entirely upon the criteria for selection, which is up to each user. if you want homogenization (or don't consciously avoid it), that's what you'll get. the model is partly subverted in hubski due to the presence of features allowing one to follow tags and domains, but those features are subject to "subreddit death" and other detrimental phenomena...
Precisely, it is up to each user to determine what he or she will follow. Because of hubski's decentralized nature, it would be hard to call the site as a whole an echo chamber because it's up to each user to make it not so.but that potential is based entirely upon the criteria for selection, which is up to each user. if you want homogenization (or don't consciously avoid it), that's what you'll get.
I believe it's likely that most users will indeed construct an echo chamber. It's very easy to do by accident; most people won't intentionally follow people who share stuff they don't like. I suspect that since the feed shown to logged-out users will be biased according to the collective preferences of the established userbase, it will form a reinforcing effect as new users show up and either participate or decline to participate based upon the content of the site at first glance. There will always be space for 'alternative' views on hubski but they will get harder and harder to find.
Indeed, I often have to make a conscious effort not to construct an echo chamber, and I occasionally stumble upon a new user or tag and think "How am I not already following this?" The answer, of course, is that I was content in my own bubble and it became difficult to break out of. Perhaps the feed shown to logged-out users needs (more) randomization? Maybe some sort of algorithm to ensure it shows posts from different "cliques" of users?
I follow several people that have different viewpoints from me just to get a different perspective. People like minimum_wage, for instance. I also follow people who know things that I don't, people like theadvancedapes. I think what you do depends on who you are. People who want to become insulated in their own perspective or viewpoint are going to become insulated, and people who want to stretch themselves will stretch themselves, and there's nothing much you can do to fix that within the structure of Hubski.
Good questions and definitely worth pondering. But one major correction:
As for the echo chamber, that is entirely up to the user. I intentionally follow and keep an eye out for posts from users who I know often have different ideas than I do. cliffelam, minimum_wage and cgod all come to mind for different reasons based on different topics.hubski's founders have in the past mentioned twitter when attempting to explain what hubski's model and mission is.
We have mentioned Twitter to explain functionality because it's an easy way to familiarize people with the idea of "following people" instead of only having dedicated topical sub-sites. Never though have we used Twitter as a model for our "mission". It may at first seem as though this is a small distinction, but it's not. We have a very specific mission for the site. Our mission is to provide a place for the thoughtful discussion of ideas and information. This isn't a marketing ploy, it's what guides every decision we make. -not splitting hairs here, just want to be very clear that "Twitter" isn't our mission.
I thought about using the word 'mission'. It isn't exactly what I meant. Knowing people's usernames equates more to knowing twitter handles than to knowing reddit handles. I'm not convinced that merely following a handful of people who have outlier opinions on politics or life or music is enough to escape this process I'm thinking about. We'll see.
I see your concerns but I haven't really found that to be a problem in my time here. There are some things about Hubski which work against homogenization such as the emphasis on long-form discussion (as opposed to twitter) or the absence of any sort of "dislike" feature (as opposed to reddit). People here can share their opinions and not really worry about getting an unfair reception. The things I expect to see in a homogenized community are not really things I see in Hubski. I can't, for example, think of an opinion that the average Hubskier would champion. There's a lot of hings that come onto my feed that I'm ambivalent towards. When a post is popular, it's sometimes hard to tell if that is due to people agreeing with the content or arguing against it, and I like that. Although with the way Hubski is set up, I sometimes wonder if there's a whole other part of Hubski that I'm not exposed to because it's not connected in any way to my feed. There could be some bizarro Hubski that I've never seen; regular users I don't know that discuss things when I'm sleeping. Maybe these bizarro Hubskiers have their own bandwagons and hiveminding of opinions. We should probably do something about them.
I hope hubski can be a place where all people can feel comfortable discussing questions that perplex them or explore thoughts that stimulate their imagination and intellect. I know for me I organize my social media to function to get me the information that I feel is the most intelligent and most useful for me personallyl. I organize my hubski in that way and I feel like anyone else can organize their Hubski in that way. Of course information bubbles will emerge - but not all information bubbles are equal.