a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by kleinbl00
kleinbl00  ·  2897 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Plato's Republic: The Philosopher-Kings and Hubski

I can speak to this with some authority. I led a 20-person tigerteam several years ago in order to investigate 3rd party Reddit search. I've been invited by four different admins to discuss taxonomy. And when Karmawhores debuted, I was #3 comment karma, #8 well-rounded.

And I'm here to say - dude don't know what the fuck he talkin' bout. Neither do you, neither does Team Hubski.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM

Any aggregator - I don't care who they are, or how much money they have - becomes a piece of Borges' Library. There is bottomless information there, expanding out from singularity at the speed of light. As time goes on, parsing it grows less and less possible; what you want is there, but you'll never find it.

Reddit has no taxonomy whatsoever. Want a subreddit? Make a subreddit. Want a better subreddit? Make a new subreddit and hope the people you like come from the old subreddit you hate. It's a hashtag problem - you follow #yolo because you're a douche, then all these wannabe douches start tagging everything with #yolo, so now you have to tag things with #yolo4lyfe (because some poseur already took #yolo4life) and before you hit 140 characters your interests have been balkanized beyond all recognition.

Things would be better if Reddit allowed spreading of content across multiple subreddits (something I started discussing with the Old Guard back in 2009). That fucks with their power structure, however, and will be even more crippling to their servers. Hubski has an advantage here in that we've got up to 3 tags - something I lobbied for hard. It's imperfect, though, because the only way you know that #writing is a wasteland and the good stuff is in #writebetterdammit is through folklore.

The library of babel has no card catalog; it just has gurus on stacks of books pointing you in the general direction of Canticle for Liebowitz.

HERE'S THE SOLUTION

Any aggregator needs a plaintext, WYSIWYG, idiot-grade search and collation engine so that if I submit an article about Vonnegut, the system KNOWS that it might go in #goodlongread, it might go in #writebetterdammit, it might go in #writing, it might go in #humor. The system then PRESENTS enough information about any possible tagging that the user can correctly assign one or multiple tags to the content such that it's a non-action for him. Additionally, the system presents other users with the content AND other places where the content belongs so that other information can be presented. Finally, the system connects the content with those interested in the discussion such that they perfect the web.

Basically, pearltrees without the java-heavy fail.

Hubski works because it's small. It still doesn't scale and the way it's going, it won't. Reddit ceased to work as soon as they hit ~100k real users (best guess is their numbers are off by a factor of 10). Hubski may scale to usefulness if it can grow slowly but every catastrophic injection of users from Reddit is a body-blow.

You do not grow the library by dumping books on the loading dock. You grow the library by building shelves, hiring librarians and investing in the infrastructure so that your members can always find what they need, when they need it, where they want it.

Reddit is now and has always been about OH SHIT WE GOTTA LOTTA BOOX and fuck all the rest. Hubski thinks of itself as a charming little book club in the corner of the coffee shop, while also insisting that there's room for everyone. I'm here to tell ya - if you don't figure out how to parse a large dataset FIRST, you're going to hit the wall as soon as your schema fails.

Everything else is hand-waving.





b_b  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Any aggregator needs a plaintext, WYSIWYG, idiot-grade search and collation engine so that if I submit an article about Vonnegut, the system KNOWS that it might go in #goodlongread, it might go in #writebetterdammit, it might go in #writing, it might go in #humor. The system then PRESENTS enough information about any possible tagging that the user can correctly assign one or multiple tags to the content such that it's a non-action for him. Additionally, the system presents other users with the content AND other places where the content belongs so that other information can be presented. Finally, the system connects the content with those interested in the discussion such that they perfect the web.

It's not that we disagree with you on this; it's that it's not very easy to do, especially when there are two coders here, both of whom do this as a secondary thing to what they actually do in real life. That type of search would be a dream com true, but until we have money to hire a couple people, probably will remain a pipe dream.

kleinbl00  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It is that you disagree with me on this, though. The way you guys run things is mk saying "hey, I don't think tags are something I want, I'm taking them away." The way you guys run things is mk saying "hey, I think I'm going to optionally get rid of ALL TAXONOMY and call it 'serendipity.'" It's not that you don't have the resources to dedicate to search - it's that you prioritize real-world, conventional search below literally everything else, occasionally injecting quixotic attempts to not only deprecate real-world search results, but to annihilate the ability to organize Hubski by taxonomy at all.

Hubski is based on this "let's follow people" model, with "ohhhhkay, if you really insist we'll let you find things that interest you the same way everyone else does it, but we want you to know we resent you for it and will thwart you at every turn" as the icing on the cake. And yeah - it works. It works because nobody has more than a thousand followers, three people have more than 500, and a couple dozen have more than 100. But there's already a class system - I gained 200 followers in the recent influx just by existing. Did you? Or did you gain a faction? I've been here a year and change and I'm already "old money." I've already got the "prime real estate." And when the last wave of refugees hit, they all chose to follow me, despite the fact that I hadn't posted anything substantial in weeks, because they had no real alternative.

Let's say the next Reddit Wave brings in ten thousand people. I can expect to get 20% of that. I could start posting gifs and they'd be visible to more than half the site - chasing away the new blood and annoying the old. Because although there are people who have been here longer than me, and although there are plenty of people who post better content and make better comments, I've got the numbers. And everything Hubski does is designed to magnify my advantage.

There's this basic idea at Hubski HQ that search and taxonomy are things you pay lip service to while dedicating your quest to improving the user-following experience. What you guys sullenly refuse to acknowledge is that user-following, the way you intend it, is already broken at the numbers you're experiencing. I'd wager that one of the reasons 90% of new users bail never to return is that their initial experience is poor and has no chance to improve without fully absorbing the folklore of the place... and who has time for that? If, instead, Hubski gave a new user the ability to craft a page based on his interests and then get exposed to new things through people they follow - now that would be something.

Where we disagree is I see the "base" of traditional search and taxonomy to be absolutely crucial to the experience. You, on the other hand, see it as a necessary evil until you find something to replace it.

I'm right. You're wrong.

b_b  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    If, instead, Hubski gave a new user the ability to craft a page based on his interests and then get exposed to new things through people they follow - now that would be something.

And in your estimation, this would be accomplished by the new user entering or choosing from a list tags that may interest them, which the search function would then parse and decide other related tags that have some commonality with whatever was entered in the first place?

For example, I enter science, and the engine says, "You may also enjoy these tags that have been used recently: #space, #biology, etc..."?

As to your last line, I agree with you. We tried removing tags for a while and it was a failure. I supported the idea at the time, and I was not correct. I see tags and users as basic equals. I think more degrees of freedom is better, for the most part. The two tag idea was a compromise that I would like to see abolished. Not sure how likely that is, because I'm in the minority on that.

kleinbl00  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Let's talk about a real world and an ideal world. Let's talk about a baseline user - we'll call him Ronnie Reddit - and let's say he's just found Hubski.

Ronnie is interested in 3D printing (he'll be perfect for this place). And when he joins up, there's a post on the "front page" about 3D printing tagged #3DPrinting, #technology and #stereolithography.

In the real world, #technology can be changed to #b_b_is_a_douche, thereby eliminating it from the #technology tagset in the amount of time it takes Ronnie to read the article and return to the comments. In the real world, Ronnie can choose to follow #stereolithography, despite the fact that this is the one post with that tag in the history of Hubski (it sounds more "science-ey" to Ronnie so he thinks it will have better discussion than #3DPrinting). In the real world, Ronnie is not encouraged to follow #3dPrinting, he's encouraged to follow thenewgreen because he posted it, and encouraged to follow me because TNG tagged me so that I could issue one of my trademark cheerio-pissings about 3d printing.

In the real world, Ronnie saw a post, added the wrong tag to his feed, and is now following two of the three biggest commenters/posters on Hubski. He has done effectively nothing - his feed hasn't changed a whit. Not only that, when he goes out to find more #3dprinting things to add to the discussion, he's howling in an empty room: he tagged his post with #stereolithography, you see, which nobody follows.

The counter-argument to this is that "the information is there, you just have to look." I fully appreciate that mk is a scientist who wanted to be an artist. It's evident in every bit of layout in this place. crucial functions are hidden in the corners. Useful toggles are buried like switches in a game of Myst. And the UI gives you two choices: asphalt or bubble gum.

Ronnie has joined Hubski. He has participated by "sharing" the most heavily-shared article on Hubski with every single one of his zero followers, and then mis-tagging the article he was hoping to find an audience with the next feckless individual who searches for #stereolithography six months from now. At which point Ronnie will be long gone. And when Hubski comes up on Reddit, /u/RonnieOnReddit will comment that he tried Hubski, discovered it was basically Tumblr but ugly, and that while AdviceAnimals are lame, at least you can figure the place out.

Now let's talk about an ideal world.

Ronnie joins Hubski. He sees a post about 3d printing. There's a button that shows him tags - he sees this article has been tagged with #3dprinting, #technology, #coolstuff, #pipedream, #MIT, #stereolithography, #b_bisadouche, #so_is_kleinbl00, and a half-dozen even-less-useful tags. As the window opens, his cursor gives him a question mark - he's being invited to try hover text! He learns that #3dprinting has 900 followers, #technology has 8000, #coolstuff has 400, #pipedream has 28, #mit has 225, #stereolithography has zero, #b_bisadouche has 2, #so_is_kleinbl00 has 55, and the rest of them are deep in the noise.

This is information that Ronnie had to ask for - but he was invited to ask for it. He now has the option of adding these tags to follow individually - or as a set. Ronnie feels like investigating, so he "adds set." A slider comes up and as he moves it, the number of tags he ends up with changes - at one end, he's adding only #technology. At the other, he's adding #IwishIHadMoreMoney (zero followers, never used before). Ronnie pares it down to three tags, but also selects #so_is_kleinbl00 because he has a hunch.

Now let's say Ronnie feels like adding a post about 3DPrinting from Gizmodo. He clicks the submit button and pastes the URL - suddenly the tag cloud self-populates with #gizmodo, #adrienchen, #MIT, #future, #3dprinting and #singularity, each with an "X" next to their name. Ronnie looks on, puzzled - the singularity is mentioned as a joke by the author and has nothing to do with the article, so he cancels the tab. Then he starts typing into the text field, and as this is his first post, he writes

"Hi guys, this is my first post. I'm still trying to figure out this site but I'm really enthused by what I see so far. I wanted to share this article on 3D Printing."

As he types, the tag cloud adds #newhere and #askhubski. Ronnie, curious and confused, moves his cursor over #askhubski - a question mark appears! He hovers a little longer and the three most recent, most shared #askhubski post titles appear, each of which he can click on to open in another window: "who thinks Hubski has too much new blood?" "Who thinks kleinbl00 is a douche?" "What is the defense of the qualia of color?" Ronnie deduces that #askhubski is an inappropriate tag so he closes it. Hubski, in response, takes note of the fact that it guessed wrong based on its presentation and rejection. However, #newhere was a good guess.

Ronnie submits the post. He's going to see it, because he submitted it... but people with similar interests will also see it because he tagged it #3Dprinting, one of the four tags he's currently following. But the system also tagged it #MIT, #future, #adrienchen, #newhere and #gizmodo.

Now - I'm not going to see his post because I have #adrienchen, #newhere and #gizmodo on my block list. But as it turns out a lot of people like the article and share it - so as soon as its popularity crests my "affinity" slider ("what 'affinity slider?'" gimme a minute) it'll pop into my feed regardless. At which point I will click "ignore" and then Hubski knows that I really mean it when I say "ignore fucking #gizmodo."

HERE'S WHERE IT ALL MATTERS

Right now, every search engine on every social aggregator is a yes/no device. Yes follow Gizmodo, No don't follow 3dprinting. Which is dumb - humans aren't binary, we're fickle clumps of decision trees. Google made a gajillion dollars by using trust to rank search results and retraining its algorithm to get better and better. Hubski needs to do the heavy lifting of knowing that #writing and #writebetterdammit are 95% related just by the content, the sites linked, the people following and the types of comments made. So while I follow #writebetterdammit and will see anything with zero shares in that tag, Hubski should know to throw anything with, say, 3 shares in #writing.

And this should be as easy to set up as the user wants, or as transparent as the user doesn't.

In the real world, Hubski is dumb. It finds you things you ask for and only things you ask for. Team Hubski attempts to circumvent this by suggesting you follow people, presuming that it will give you that "fuzzy logic" that it otherwise so sorely lacks.

In the ideal world, Hubski is smart. It provides the folklore that a "power user" would provide without giving me a platform to share my breakfast with 800 people. Not only that, "it just works" or it invites me under the hood to tweak and refine. Finally, the transition between "what is this interface" and "this is my 200th submission to #bugski" is seamless, without learning curve, and wholly autodidactic.

* * *

I recognize that what I put under "ideal" is going to require NSA-grade server power. I also recognize that with a thousand users it's wholly overkill. But I also wish to point out that when you establish your architecture one way for a thousand people, your site is going to grenade when you have ten thousand people.

The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time to plant a tree is now. I didn't wake up intending to write a manifesto on everything that's wrong with Hubski discovery, but you asked. If it would make you feel any better, I can share the manifesto I wrote for Reddit three years ago along the same lines. no one is immune.

b_b  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    If it would make you feel any better...

It doesn't make me feel bad to read blunt critiques (especially when they're obviously thought out). I sincerely appreciate it (but then again, I just putz around here; I'm not the one who designed or codes the site).

thenewgreen  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Agreed, in no way does what kleinbl00 wrote upset me, this is what we need, more feedback. Your ideal version of the site has some great ideas, some of which I think are actionable and you're are spot on that NOW is when these things need to be done -20 years ago would have been great. We have some new changes in the pipe line that I think you'll appreciate KB.

I definitely agree that if you build a site around following people and immediately expect that someone should know who to follow, well… That just isn't the way the world works. People meet around topics, we should allow people to do the same here easily. Your 3-D printing example of Ronnie is a good one. We have our team call tonight, and we will definitely be discussing this. Thank you for the suggestions and the honest feedback.

ProtrudedDemand  ·  2895 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Perhaps there could be an option to see who the most active posters in certain tags are. Sure you could scan through all the posts in a tag to see who is an active poster but new users aren't usually that dedicated.

There could be a space at the end of the "tag page" or something that would tell users who is the most active in that tag. That would help people figure out who to follow based on what they post.

OftenBen  ·  1986 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    trademark cheerio-pissings

I must read your book.

mk  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It's late, and I'm a bit fuzzy after finishing this. Obviously, the best aggregator provides what any given user wants. I have come to the opinion that enabling is powerful, and encouraging ages and scales poorly. I think the ability to follow and ignore users, tags, and domains equally is one of the things we do right. Suggesting users on signup is a mistake, and we need to stop.

On that point, IMHO there is a valuable difference between some tags that I would not like suggestions to break. For example, #writing and #writebetterdammit overlap, but serve different purposes (you know this, I am explaining my thinking). To me, #writebetterdammit is quirky, and a bit insular. I'll use #writing for more posts than I will #writebetterdammit, for fear of diluting its quality. #writebetterdammit is somewhat shielded by folklore, which in some cases is a good thing; it's a good thing when a newbie is looking to post their 9th grade essay, but it's a bad thing when an author is looking for good content. For that reason, I think the newbie shouldn't be suggested #writebetterdammit as he tags, but the author should find it when she searches for something good to follow.

It's not necessary to discuss whether or not one should follow users or tags. We enable both, thus, one should do what one wants. Most importantly, we should enable the good stuff to happen when a user tries to make it so. Personally, I find that following a certain mix is good for me, but it's not useful for us to push that. What would be useful is for the architecture to enable someone to construct what works for them. Information is what is needed for that. Your idealized examples of what a user might see are good. Even with our limited resources, we can find places where information can be, and we do have existing relationships that have been built by real human use than we can serve up. I would point to the 'recently related' list that we recently added to the top of a [tag page]( a good thing; its a good thing when a newbie is looking to post their 9th grade essay, but its a bad thing when an author is looking for good content. For that reason, I think the newbie shouldnt be suggested #writebetterdammit as he tags, but the author should find it when she searches for something good to follow.

Its not necessary to discuss whether or not one should follow users or tags. We enable both, thus, one should do what one wants. Most importantly, we should enable the good stuff to happen when a user tries to make it so. Personally, I find that following a certain mix is good for me, but its not useful for us to push that. What would be useful is for the architecture to enable someone to construct what works for them. Information is what is needed for that. Your idealized examples of what a user might see are good. Even with our limited resources, we can find places where information can be, and we do have existing relationships that have been built by real human use than we can serve up. I would point to the recently related list that we recently added to the top of a tag page. There are more places where information can and should bubble up. The community page could be more information driven.

I am working on something related to both tags and users that will be pushed out in a week or so that I will further enable customization and organization. In general, I think we are going to be looking to pull back encouragement, and replace it with function and information.

We probably want different personal versions of Hubski, but that's a good thing. If we can both get what we want (and keep things simple), we probably have something inherently robust.

    There's this basic idea at Hubski HQ that search and taxonomy are things you pay lip service to while dedicating your quest to improving the user-following experience.

Speaking for myself, I've moved a bit. I'm more interested in the discussion, and the content needs to reach people for that. I wouldn't think to kill tags today.

Thanks for the thoughts. I'll reread this tomorrow with coffee.

mk  ·  2895 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I am working on something related to both tags and users that will be pushed out in a week or so that I will further enable customization and organization.

I did it sooner: http://hubski.com/pub?id=109530

blackbootz  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

How did you imagine your "affinity slider" working exactly? How many of the users you follow chose to share it?

--

Also, there's something that's been bothering me that I think would help me understand this conversation more. What's the difference between following a tag on hubski and subscribing to a subreddit on reddit?

kleinbl00  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

So Harry Hubski has been here a while now. He has tag settings.

- Follow #technology

- Ignore #3dprinting

- Follow #MIT

- Ignore #gizmodo

- Ignore #newhere

He also has some user settings.

- Follow Arnie

- Follow Bob

- Follow Charlie

- Mute Dave

- Mute and ignore Elvis

- Mute and ignore Frank

So let's say he's got his "affinity" slider set to "iron fist." Ronnie's post is going to be invisible to him - he's ignoring #3Dprinting and #newhere.

Let's say he's got his "affinity" sider set to "iron fist in a velvet glove." Ronnie's post might show up because while he's ignoring two tags, he's following two others. It's a spectrum, after all.

Now let's say he's got his "affinity" slider set to "velvet glove." Ronnie's post is going to show up in his feed for sure - while there are a number of things he's ignoring, there are a number of things he's following.

Let's make it interesting. Let's allow me to "train" the engine. I adjust my "affinity" slider and new things pop up. Some I like, some I don't. I x out the ones I don't. I move the slider some more. I x out the bad ones some more. I fiddle with that thing every day - and I'm giving Hubski input on what "affinity" means for me.

It's all data points. What matters is what you do with it.

mk  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I was just thinking about peartrees the other day and how confusing as hell it is.

I'm still reading through this, and will get back to you. Those are some great ideas/suggestions below.

kleinbl00  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It's an awesome idea with piss-poor implementation.

Back in 2010 we were talking to them about literally plugging in to the Reddit API and generating a pearltree for the whole thing. They were, shall we say, gobsmacked. And that was back when it was 5% the size it is now.

achughes  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

This all presumes that the "goal" of aggregators is organizing the library of articles that each person submits. Topic based organization is helpful to users, and conversations certainly develop around topics, but I would argue that simply organizing content is not the goal of an aggregator. If we think about a library, sure I find all of the information that I want, but I don't have conversations in the stacks about what I am looking for. Rather, the goal of an aggregator is to filter good content from shit content, and to foster/moderate discussion.

All that hubski is is a different approach to that problem. If we just follow hashtags, then it is nothing more than a decentralized reddit model (if hashtags are thought of as individual reddits). Your still going to see the same degradation of content around each hashtag. The biggest problem is discovery (the reason that you noted further down) that new users can't make heads or tails of the follow a person model, and hashtags are the only way to keep your feed populated. That doesn't mean that the follow model is wrong, it just means that it hasn't been developed enough.

I don't come here to talk about one thing, Reddit works just fine for that, I come here because I've found a few people to follow who submit consistently high quality content, and I can look through it without having to worry about being inundated with cat pictures. Is it perfect, no, but it works pretty well for what it is.

kleinbl00  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You are incorrect. Unavoidably, wholly and fundamentally incorrect.

This all presumes that the "goal" of aggregators is discovery and submission of desirable subject matter. Remember - the content already exists out there somewhere. A google search would likely find it. Where Digg, Hubski, StumbleUpon, Tumblr, Upriser and anything else fit in is in actively pushing interesting content at the intended user, rather than forcing them to search it out themselves.

You also do me a grave disservice by implying that anywhere in the above I said the first thing about "if we just follow hashtags." I said nothing of the sort, have never suggested this to be a desirable modality, and am offended that you would strawman me up like that to try and make a point. What I said was that the method of organization used by Hubski doesn't scale. I further pointed out that Hubski has favored following users rather than tags, often to the great detriment of functionality, and that if this trend continues, Hubski will collapse under its own weight. I used this argument as a justification for improving the searchability and tag extensibility of Hubski, not as a justification to stop following users. An example:

To say "conversations certainly develop around topics" is a gross understatement. I'm not the slightest bit interested in the Detroit Redwings. Therefore, it does not interest me to have a discussion about the Detroit Redwings. I do not follow #redwings, #detroit or #hockey and as a result, I see no discussions about them. However, suppose comments in #redwings erupted about professional sports, the price of entertainment, and the economics of taking a family to a sporting event. Under the current system I would see it in my feed if I were following anybody in the conversation who chose to share it - presuming I don't have any tags set to ignore. Under the proposed system it would start creeping into my feed as it grew "heavier", depending on my settings. If it involved thenewgreen and @refugee@ I'd see it sooner, presumably, because I'm following them - or maybe the system would make me see it sooner simply because it knows how many times I've interacted with one or the other.

Nowhere in there is there anything about "organizing the library" or "ignoring users." That's all about a scalable method for content discovery.

Your reasons for coming here do not have to be my reasons for coming here. A good system accommodates our needs equally. It does NOT work pretty well for what it is - an influx of new users renders the site useless for a few days. A good system would not only accommodate the new users, it would integrate them seamlessly without allowing them to kludge the place up for everyone else or forcing them to spend a day wrapping their heads around the place.

And thus we get to the real problem - I say "make it better" and everyone hears "make it different." I didn't say that. I wouldn't say that. I've never said that. I understand that thinking I said that makes it easier to ignore what I have to say, but it doesn't give your arguments any more grounding in reality.

achughes  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

There is plenty of room for subjectivity when we are talking about the role aggregators play online. If Reddit deleted all of the content that was more than 24 hours old, the front page would look the same. Why, because people upvote the same shit without regards for the organization of past content. You can say that the fundamental problem that aggregators face is organization of content, the act of clicking on links doesn't require any organization. You can say that aggregators are all about organizing interesting content, but that doesn't make me "Unavoidably, wholly and fundamentally incorrect."

If I misrepresented your views on hashtags fine, but I don't think that I misrepresented things so poorly that you should be so offended. If I was wrong, then by all means I recant my statement, but your profile clearly shows that you prefer following tags over following people. Unless my eyes betrayed me, then I was not wrong about your preference, even if you didn't say it above.

As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong, or simple offend you) but your arguments have nothing to do with following people. A tag based organization can be implemented in parallel with the current organizational paradigm without interfering with a tag-based system. From the backend perspective it matters, but to the user it doesn't make one difference. One can exist without killing other. People can use hubski in two different ways.

The fundamental reason that everybody hears "make if different" when you say "make it better" is because you use hubski in a different way than most people do. By saying that the current organization is wrong, you are saying that it should be different. Doesn't mean that your method won't be better, but it will be different.

kleinbl00  ·  2896 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    There is plenty of room for subjectivity when we are talking about the role aggregators play online.

Stating it does not make it so.

    If Reddit deleted all of the content that was more than 24 hours old, the front page would look the same.

That is because the current state of Reddit is end-stage failure. Here's what it looked like 5 years ago. Not at all the same, is it? This is what happens when systems break down.

    You can say that the fundamental problem that aggregators face is organization of content, the act of clicking on links doesn't require any organization.

The act of finding something to click on does, though. Otherwise, why aren't we all still using Yahoo? It's the original curated content aggregator.

    You can say that aggregators are all about organizing interesting content, but that doesn't make me "Unavoidably, wholly and fundamentally incorrect."

No, everything else makes you unavoidably, wholly and fundamentally incorrect.

    If I misrepresented your views on hashtags fine, but I don't think that I misrepresented things so poorly that you should be so offended.

That sounds very little like an apology.

    your profile clearly shows that you prefer following tags over following people.

And what on earth makes you think I would choose to impose my modalities on others? As a reminder, we're debating a thread you linked in which

1) OP suggested the way towards quality was super-users responsible for curating everything

2) which I lashed out against because it disenfranchises the individual user

3) and then proceeded to write up 2500 words about how the system should empower the individual user to self-discovery

4) and for which you've already issued one non-apology for putting words in my mouth.

    Unless my eyes betrayed me, then I was not wrong about your preference, even if you didn't say it above.

And I have already said, in as many words - "*Your reasons for coming here do not have to be my reasons for coming here. A good system accommodates our needs equally.*"

    As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong, or simple offend you) but your arguments have nothing to do with following people.

My argument is that following people is not enough, and that without some serious groundwork now, when we're all on a first-name basis, we're fucked then, when a thousand users a day join up. Never once have I said that following people is a bad idea. Never once have I said that I think it shouldn't be the focus of Hubski.

    One can exist without killing other. People can use hubski in two different ways.

You weren't here when mk killed tags and the whole thing crashed and burned. See, it's statements like these that give me the grounding to call you wholly and fundamentally incorrect.

    The fundamental reason that everybody hears "make if different" when you say "make it better" is because you use hubski in a different way than most people do.

Why would they? Never once have I said "use it like me" or "if you're like me" or "in my case" or "I find that." Every example I've used is a fabrication that doesn't follow my behavior. YOU are the one that keeps dragging me into this. I haven't mentioned my preferences once. However, since you've dragged me into it:

I follow essentially no one because three influxes ago, everyone I followed (and there were maybe 40 people) ended up following the exact same circle-jerk topics. Everyone kept having the exact same circle-jerk discussions. In order to get new content in my stream, I had to unfollow literally everyone because the circle-jerk got so strong that the exact same links were in the exact same place in slightly different order. The "follow users" paradigm bonked hard for me. So I tried something else.

Further, I've got nigh onto 800 followers. If I enter into a vaguely reciprocal relationship with any of them, I start that feedback loop right back up again. So who do I follow?

Well, funny you mention it, because the stuff I post and the stuff I follow and the conversations I have are usually with the same people. A lot of them don't follow me. yet we end up in the exact same place because we have the same affinity for things.

So the "tags" thing scales. It scales just fine. At my level, "follow" is already kaput. And that's why I haven't brought "me" into things up until now - it's impossible to say "following ceases to work at 500 followers" without sounding like an uberdouche, even when it's true.

    By saying that the current organization is wrong, you are saying that it should be different.

I didn't say the "current organization" was wrong, I argued that the thinking behind it was wrong. It still is. You've made not a single counter-argument against my statements. You're just dancing around semantics and attempting to find my shadow in my statements.

it isn't there. It's an accurate statement regardless of context. And I think you owe me the courtesy to take what I say at face value without assigning ulterior motives to my statements.

casebash  ·  2893 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The fact that you need to individually post to each sub-reddit forces the user to think about the sub-reddit's rules and also allows each sub-reddit to have it's own comments policy

kleinbl00  ·  2893 days ago  ·  link  ·  

...that must be hand- or bot- enforced by humans. More comments and posts, more humans. It took until last year for there to be any heirarchy amongst the humans, and until two years ago to prevent one human from de-modding all the other humans.

There are benefits to curation of subreddits but there are serious drawbacks, too. I would say the statement "forces the user to think about the sub-reddit's rules" is more accurately written "hopes that the user might someday read the subreddit's rules."

casebash  ·  2893 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Users don't read the subreddit rules - they find out about them when their posts are deleted for violating them. Which works well enough for many sub-reddits

kleinbl00  ·  2893 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Spoken like someone who doesn't moderate.