In it's current form, it can be difficult to articulate how Hubski differentiates itself from reddit more than something like "well, it feels more like a community and we shy away from memes and low effort content". Now, I don't think Hubski should change just for the sake of being further differentiated from reddit. But - for better or worse - the format is largely the same, and I think Hubski ought to take the strong points of the reddit format and implement strong points of ye olde-style forums like http://forums.xkcd.com and many others, where the environment was a lot more conducive to forming a community-esque feeling. I'm sure there are lots of possible ideas, but here are the four I think would have the biggest impact:
1. Implement a reputation system. Higher reputation = votes count for more. Have the rep be some sort of function of followers and badges received. Have it on a scale from 1-5 or something so that those with a high reputation don't completely override others. This would dissuade people from creating additional accounts for voting purposes (obviously isn't an issue now, but could quickly become one since the site is growing quickly). It would also be less likely for rehashed content to get voted up a ton. And I have a feeling that most of the people currently here who would have a high rep will be generally more apt to share higher quality content than new users, and this might increasingly be the case as time goes on.
2. Let users set a profile image. And have it so hovering over a user's name for a second or two makes the image crop up. (This was discussed a bit a few days back in the Unfollow Guilt thread.) Would be really great for fostering more personal connections and recognizing users. Also, if clicking on a user's name led first to a popup similar to the markup popup, rather than directly to that user's profile page, I'd be a lot more likely to click their name to learn about them, since I wouldn't have to leave the comment page.
3. Have all posts be "self-posts". I'd be interested in hearing what others think about this. I think it would be more conducive to getting good discussion going. It's really a strong point of older forums that new posts are created not around individual links, but individual topics. It can also typically be seen on Hubski that self-posts have more activity than non-text posts. (I'm using the reddit definition of the term "self-posts": posts that don't go directly to a link, but to the comment section.) If someone wants to specifically share one link, they can have their post specifically just be their link in the textarea. This would also encourage this hypothetical user to give a bit of background or introduction or snippet from the link.
4. New user limits. The other day, mk made it so that users that haven't completed a hubwheel can only send a single PM every 10 minutes, which I think is great. Similarly, I think it'd be great if new users couldn't submit a new post until they've commented 10 (or 25 or some other amount) of times. This would go a long way toward preventing spam posts or product promotion from users who are here only to promote their own product (or their company's product, or whatever), and not actually participate. I think HN might have a feature along these lines.
I think Hubski's in a very unique place to be able to try to capture the spirit of older forums more conducive (I need to find a different word) to community and discussion, but in a better format like that of reddit and HN. These are obviously all just ideas, and I'd love to hear what others have to say about this subject.
First reactions on this: 1. It basically implies that people who have more imaginary points like badges and followers are worth more than those that don't. It will incentivise people to accrue more badges and followers, not because it it nice to have, but because it leads to something else. The equality that is the foundation of hubski's comment section, where it matters more what you say than who says it, is one of the strong points. Any new user can post a comment and will have just as much chance at starting a discussion as someone like kleinbl00. 2. Maybe do it similarly like Facebook? That if you hover (not click) over one's username, that you get to see their bio and maybe a snippet of the rest of their profile. It needs to be quick above all, that you can instantly see more of who the human behind the name is. And people already have their bios setup, with pictures or not. I like that more than having a gaping hole if you don't want to have an avatar. Besides, most are shit anyway. Here's a snippet from my comment in that discussion in the Unfollow Guilt topic that I think is relevant:
[...] A 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. 3. Sounds like a good idea. It makes people discuss more, but a possible downside to this is that people won't read the article anymore. Especially if someone highlights one important paragraph. I prefer it when someone does that, don't get me wrong, but I'd rather see that after reading it. It might negatively influence my article reading, but it is good for discussion nonetheless. Really depends on the direction mk and others want to take the site to. 4. If you impose limits, there will always be people trying to work their way around it. If you have to comment 10 times, they will post ten comments with one letter, then submit their spam post. I'd love to hear how HN combats this problem. One thing I don't like about the old forums is that they have the problem of people talking parallel. If you center a community about a topic, people will comment about that comment and not respond to each other. They say their thing about a subject and barely get responses or respond to people above them. While we're not a forum, and have a much better environment to hold discussions, it is definitely something to keep in mind.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.
re: #1: Reputation is probably my least favorite attribute of any web community. Reputation should mainly be earned, organic, and kept track of in the minds of the individual users according to their own metrics. If rep is given, it should be given unto discussion or content, -not users. Anything that is too "in your face" about letting a user's reputation precede their output puts the emphasis in the wrong place. I like encouragement and recognition of value, but I prefer Hubski's method of giving a handful of "spokes" before ceasing to count them any longer, and letting you badge a noteworthy comment or link. re: #2: Personal opinion is that images next to usernames have always been extremely annoying and distracting. They also "define and box in" users prematurely in my mind. I much prefer getting to know someone over time via their posts than seeing a "Spock" image right off the bat telling me "Hey, I'm logical sci-fi guy/girl." Maybe it seems trivial, but I'd rather have to work to get to know you a bit. That being said, I guess if the default was hidden it wouldn't be so offensive. But still...meh. re: #3: I've seen this work to good effect in other places, -specifically certain subreddits on Reddit. Being that it inhibits the sharing of some types of media to some degree though, I wonder at its application site-wide on general interest forums like Hubksi or even Reddit. If I'm following someone who posts quality links, I find I'm not minding if they link to interesting content without much to say about it. But it's an intriguing idea. This is an area where I feel I could benefit from other people's perspectives. re: 4: I think this is a fantastic idea right off the bat. Now I'm going to go try and think up reasons why it sucks, but it feels so right to me. (EDIT: Already found good counterpoints in the discussion. Still digging the idea though)
re 2. I actually like this idea, especially if it takes a few seconds of scrolling over for it to populate. I think people would use it creatively too, which I'm all for. -worth considering mk, insomniasexx, forwardslash and b_bwhat do you think? doesntgolf did you know you can embed an image currently on your profile? Check mine out. re#4 This one I'm pretty adamant about; It's my opinion that restricting someone's ability to post until they've commented is a bad idea. Some of my favorite content on the site comes from users that rarely comment. For instance, scrimetime. -The guy might as well have been born a mute, he rarely comments but the links he posts are quality and I can usually count on them to be something I'd like to share. -There's a lot of value in that.Reputation should mainly be earned, organic, and kept track of in the minds of the individual users according to their own metrics. If rep is given, it should be given unto discussion or content, -not users.
I think that you hit the nail right on the head ecib. I like the "decentralized" aspect of Hubski and the minute Hubski starts determining "worth" we're in trouble imo. All the tools that we've implemented to this end, following, badging, ignoring, muting and hushing are all user specific. I like that.
My guess is that 9/10 users have no idea that you can embed an image on your profile page. Maybe that's what we could do. Make it obvious and easy. -No hover image, just profile.
I like your thoughts on point 1 a lot. I agree with you 100% that images next to usernames would suck very badly, because it would clutter everything up way too much. My thinking is that the image would be invisible unless you hover over someone's username for a second (the delay is so it doesn't pop up when you're scrolling through an article), at which point a 90x90 (or whatever size) image would be displayed on hover. EDIT: Another alternative to having the hover-images might be just this part: and have it display basically only what's in the left column of the profile page, which can already include images.Also, if clicking on a user's name led first to a popup similar to the markup popup, rather than directly to that user's profile page, I'd be a lot more likely to click their name to learn about them, since I wouldn't have to leave the comment page.
It could be anything though, I think that's what could be interesting about it. A form of expression more than a "hey this is what I look like." For example, my profile image clearly says, I like Hubski and I drink too much
It would be cool if the image along with some stats populated. mk has been really in to the spark-line graphs of late, that could be cool. We used to have profiles that popped up a while back, right mk? Might be cool to have a little popup teaser where you could see a bit of info as well as a "follow" button.
1. fuuuuck that. if yall start giving weight to "reputation" I'm gonna have to unfollow a ton of people and start using hush way more. it would even further cripple new users, who are already crippled enough. 2. this could be solved by allowing image imbeds on profile pages like in comments. in fact this might already be the case? i believe ive seen it before but my profile image link isnt embedded. hover is annoying, so no to that. and the popups are one of the more annoying parts of the site. learn to use tabs 3. maybe 4. no, we already do enough against spam
Thanks for the thoughts. I agree that we shouldn't differentiate ourselves from anyone just for the sake of it. I make a conscious effort not to do that. For my part, what guides my decision-making is whether or not the site is meeting my expectations, compelling, and serving its purpose. I hate to say that I disagree with most of these suggestions, but they are worth discussing. Here are my initial thoughts: 1. I agree with ecib. Reputation should be organic. Our goal has always been to let people to judge for themselves, and to take the average opinion out of the equation. 2. I recognize many users by their names, and most importantly, what they write. I don't feel that an image can influence that in an additive way. Also, users can and do change their profile images, usernames don't change. 3. This is an interesting idea. However any user can choose to only make self-posts. Sometimes I simply want to share the link. As self-posts already have more activity, that seems to be reward enough for that choice. 4. To the extent we can get away with it, I'd rather not decide how people use the site, but let the users decide who to follow and share, or ignore. Although I might not agree with the suggestions, I do appreciate these kinds of posts, as they can often uncover new ideas that we would have otherwise missed.
1. Reputation score I'm hesitant over reputation score. Reddit has enough problems with karmawhoring and spamming, and I feel it would lower the tone and empower those appealing to the lowest common denominator. While I never participated in Digg, I'm also aware of the "Power User" problem there. 2. Profile pics I'd quite like images - IF it was possible to turn them off and choose between seeing them or hovering to see them. Also if it was possible to block certain user images. I'm not prudish but I don't particularly want to see cocks and vaginas or something every other comment. Cute cats, flowers, people's real faces: fine. 3. Self-posts only No - sometimes I want a one-click link. Often in fact. This is a social news site, not a forum. If people want a more "buried" experience, they can use a forum. I actually want the front page to be a list of useful links that can "just get". 4. New users limits No opinion on this, as I have no idea what new user misbehaviour is like. What I would say thought is that currently, while operating from a fairly tight member base, the balance should be tipped towards encouraging new users rather than freezing them out.
4. I think many people post links before sharing. There are several people I follow that almost never comment on anything that they didn't post and the only reason they seem to be here is to get exposure for their personal interest or work. I follow them because I want to see what they will post and give not a fig about the fact they don't comment. We don't have a big spam problem so why would we want to make more hoops to jump through to battle a problem that hardly exist. 2. I like the clean look of Hubski. I think it would be nauseating to destroy the whole aesthetic so people can post a pithy or banal profile pic. 3. Yea, more clicks to get at the goods. Why do you want hoops? People can easily structure their posts like this if they want. Personally I don't want to extra clicks to get to the content that the person intendeds to present.
Why am I commenting in so many different comments. Who knows. Alright - so the way Hubski is set up is that anyone can post anything and personal content is welcomed. People ignore people who they don't want to see. No moderation is needed because everyone is a moderator of sorts. So if you want to spam your own shit, which you can, people are going to ignore you, or that domain, or that tag. If too many people ignore you, you won't show up in global. This allows Hubski to run smoothly and eliminates the need for individuals to make decisions on behalf of the community. The leading cause of drama on reddit is that individuals decide what's allowed and not allowed and other people disagree with the decision. It also leads to people being overly skeptical of content, people hiding and lying about their identity, etc. Now the one exception (which Hubski hasn't encountered yet) is the problem that Twitter had. People can post their own stuff on twitter, no problem, no moderation. BUT! the fake accounts, the real hardcore spam, the phishing links, the @ messages with links, the dms with links, etc. Those became a problem that required Twitter to step in and start actively moderating / implementing automatic spam measures. When Hubski becomes big we will probably have to deal with it too. But for now, oh well. Utilize the follow/unfollow/ignore/mute and moderate yourselves. :P BTW - I hope you don't think I'm shitting on your ideas. I kind of am. But I'm not meaning to. I love that you took the time to write this out and start a conversation about it. Conversations are always worthwhile and I guarantee that all these things will be talked about and reference as Hubski moves forward and grows.This would go a long way toward preventing spam posts or product promotion from users who are here only to promote their own product (or their company's product, or whatever), and not actually participate.
You can already embed an image in your profile if you want to have a picture. I don't really like the idea of asking people to add an image if they don't have one or don't want to disclose one. Empty avatars are bad because it makes people automatically assume the user is new, even if they simply don't want to be defined in an image. The hover over/pop up thing is worth thinking about. We used to have profile pages set up as a pop up but it became hard to link to profiles, etc because those pages wouldn't have css. What could be worthwhile is having a hover-over (that you can turn on and off in your settings) with quick information with a 2 or 3 second delay. It could include information like: x# of days on site, # of followers, # of badges, recently posted #, etc. Maybe even a quick form that users could fill in that has a short sentence. Something like that. The hard part is how users judge one another. my full comment on the subject So to get a comprehensive look at a user we see: (I started typing stuff here but fuck that. i'm a designer) What do you think, all?2. Let users set a profile image.
Hubski allows you to judge a user based on a myriad of different points. I can immediately tell whether or not I follow someone or they follow me. I have a short description that gives me more information. Even leaving this blank gives me some information about the user. I can tell how many tags or people they follow. I can see the number of people that follow them. I can see how many badges they have given and received. All these points come together to create a comprehensive look at each Hubski user. It also takes away the ultra importance of any given number. Is someone who has a few followers but a lot of badges better than someone with a lot of followers but no badges?
Thanks! I'm wasn't a fan myself because I thought it would be too much information in a small amount of space. But turns out, it works well. I just hope that mk/forwardslash don't kill me for mocking it up as they already have enough on their coding to-do list. :P
This is the point I disagree most in your list of propositions. I remember when i first signed up, i actually posted links BEFORE commenting, but the comments and reactions to what I posted led me to stay. Many users rarely or even never comment, but post great links. So if i'm a new user and REALLY want to post something, I'll probably type out 10 low quality comments just to be able to post... Which will actually decrease the overall quality of Hubski since the main appeal are the thoughtful comments. I can't say I can get 100% behind any idea (what do you mean by making "self-posts"? What will that actually change?) But the idea of checking out someone's profile without leaving the conversation is worth discussing. Maybe make it open in a new tab when somebody clicks on a username?I think it'd be great if new users couldn't submit a new post until they've commented 10 (or 25 or some other amount) of times
| This would dissuade people from creating additional accounts for voting purposes (obviously isn't an issue now, but could quickly become one since the site is growing quickly).| Also, I've said this before but, I am a believer that it is best to deal with issues as they arise because when they arise we will be better prepared to deal with them and have the full amount of information needed to solve the problem. Just like the mail spammer a few days ago - of course we could have preemptively assumed this would happen and set limits but once it actually happened we were able to see how they went about spamming and better address the issue based on the situation.
Metafilter has paid moderators that are very assertive at keeping the community values alive and breathing. They have a sub-forum just for in-house chatter ... basically a chatty-peoples-court that is off the front page and entirely about the community. And they let each sub-forum moderate differently. That has let their ask.metafilter to flourish because they don't allow nearly as much hootenanny there while some of the other subforums allow more shall we say vivid replies. Charge a nominal cash fee to join would stop some signal-less chatter. It would also prove to your advertisers that the community made up of people that have ducats+bank accounts and spends them online on things they find important. Speaking of advertising ... I use adblock ... so if there were some small ads aimed at us that I could block ... I wouldn't mind. And it would be neat if we could become a co-op and offer health insurance and other weird ways to leverage OUR POWERS!
Suggestion #4 is what I had in mind when I made this comment: http://hubski.com/pub?id=88830. I realized that I was wrong... but perhaps there could be admin-verified "organization accounts", and the rule could be in place for individuals?