I reckon that last thread is about to crash. Hubski is an awesome site for discussion so long as those discussions involve 50 or less comments. So let me address the biggest misconceptions I see over there, because it's my soapbox and I'm sick of saying the same things eight different ways:
ignoring is not censorship.
See, I can ignore you all now. For several of you, I already have. I could absolutely go through every #reddit thread I see and manually ignore every user I don't recognize. None of those users would be aware of the change, none of those users would be impacted in any way other than their interactions with me and while I'll bet more than a few people would comment on the antisocial qualities of my behavior, nobody would take that option away from me.
As it stands, un-ignoring any of those unfortunates would involve me clicking on my page, clicking on who I have ignored, clicking over to their page and then clicking 'un-ignore.' I must do this with each and every person I've ignored and sheer inertia generally keeps me from doing that. Once I've made the active decision to ignore you, I must make yet another active decision to un-ignore you.
On the other hand, if I simply choose to filter you out for a few days, you're right back up in my feeds without me doing a damn thing. Or, if I decide I have the goodness of heart and patience of mind to wade into a newbie thread, I can let the clamor of children penetrate my Unibomber shack as easily as opening a window. It's my choice, it's reversible, and it impacts only me.
To the contrary: As things stand now, I could post a comment in someone else's post and every n00b on the block could, en masse, comment as to what a goose-stepping doodyhead I truly am. there would be exactly fuckall I could do about it, nor should there be. I'm under no compulsion to comment and should have no ability to silence others in content that is not my own.
And that's where people like flagamuffin run off the rails with comparison to shadowbanning: when an admin shadowbans someone on Reddit, they're silenced for everybody else. Up until recently, shadowbanned comments and posts were still in the feeds for moderators. Shadowbanned users could still message mods. As it stands, they're opt-in... but admins on Reddit can effectively mute users for the entire userbase. THAT is censorship, and they make no bones about it.
Ignoring is user-facing behavior.
There's a real "skateboarding is not a crime" ethic at play here, as if my choice to ignore new users until they're no longer new is somehow akin to keeping your dog on a leash or... well, almost went Godwin there. It's more accurately a cloak of invisibility for the skateboarders so they can thrash at the park without suffering the tirades of cranky old-timers in their wheelchairs.
Gawker is, now and forever, ignored in my feed. I see no Gawker articles. I see no comments associated with Gawker. This does not prevent others from posting Gawker links, nor does it prevent others from commenting on Gawker articles. I have no interest in Gawker. Others do. I have no wish to impinge on their ability to read Gawker articles, I simply do not wish to interact with them. That does not mean I can't - I can find my way towards a Gawker article simply by cruising through global comments and seeing what shows up. I do that sometimes. I have to work at it, though.
Likewise, many people on Reddit don't subscribe to /r/spacedicks. They are not censoring /r/spacedicks, they are simply choosing not to view its content. Granted: the systems are a little different... but if someone I follow decided to share an /r/spacedicks link on Hubski, I would see it. Again, nothing I choose to ignore makes the slightest impact on anyone else's viewership.
Ignoring does not impede worthwhile communication.
Plenty of people I have ignored reply to my comments all the time. If I'm looking at the page I see it, I just don't get notifications. Thing of it is, I probably don't want to see what they have to say unless I'm feeling generous. And if I'm not feeling generous, it's doubtful that interaction is going to be worthwhile for either one of us.
There's this sense around here that if one user chooses to ignore an entire class of people for a certain time period, everyone might choose to ignore an entire class of people for a certain time period. For starters, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense - if someone else suggests it, and you're against it, there's at least two different opinions between two people so adoption is likely to be less than 100%.
There's also this sense that people should somehow be entitled to muck up the feeds of those that have deliberately chosen not to have those very people muck up their feeds, despite the fact that this is a site with ignore, mute and hush functionality (as well as the ability to ignore tags and entire domains).
I have absolutely nothing positive to say about Gawker. I probably never will. Right now, today, I have very little positive to say about newbies. Tomorrow? Maybe. Next week? Probably. Those that are still here two weeks from now will most likely reflect the culture here, rather than the culture they came from, and I'm likely to need a lot less patience to interact with them in a civil manner. And that's beneficial for everyone.
Finally, a seven-day waiting period would have spared all of us from this. It would have prevented me from seeing this, but on balance, the deficits outweigh the surpluses not just for me personally, but for Hubski as a whole.
And I don't reckon how that could EVER be a bad thing.
I don't think this is a good idea. The structure of the site means that every new user is already globally ignored, because they have no followers. A primary way for new users to get noticed and to get followers is through the global feed. I think the costs of allowing people to block them during those crucial first few days of membership sends the wrong message, and encourages an insulated culture that seems very antithetical to how I envision hubski. I see what you're saying that simply having the feature available does not mean that everyone will use it. The problem is, if the feature is available, it's likely that there will be less work done on substantial and effective strategies to integrate new users and prevent junk posts (like ButterflyEffect's suggestion in your other thread). If it happens that this feature becomes popular, especially among the influential users with many followers, it will affect the initial impression users have when they come to the site. If I'm reading you right, your main complaint is that global is full of junk posts right now. Well, I think my response is 'deal with it.' The natural consequence of a global feed is that it will show the good with the bad. There's a reason they were called "The knights of /new" on reddit. Browsing a global feed is not always pretty, especially when there's an influx of new users. But letting people block all new users entirely throws out the baby with the bathwater in my opinion. We only have a couple days to keep new users interested, and if they feel like their contributions are not being noticed or appreciated, they will not stick around, with good reason.
I"m not sure how this entire discussion is anything other than "deal with it." And nobody ever did anything but complain about the knights of /new - they were the trashers of content, the annihilators of anything but memes. There's this notion that a global feed should be crap - rather than holding it to as high a standard as everywhere else. And that's where this discussion starts to bother me - nobody who's bitching reads global. When I pointed out that global chatter had been broken, mk observed that nobody browses global chatter but me. So here I am, speaking about something I use, that nobody else uses, and everyone is up in arms that my arguments for improving the functionality of that thing you don't use might offend those people you don't interact with.
We are all part of this community and this culture, and it's important to structure the site in a way that helps it grow. People having opinions different from yours and expressing them clearly is not bitching, it is simply disagreeing - this is discussion, it is what discussion sites are for.
I'm going to stay out of this beyond saying that I'll usually check the global feed once or twice a day to see what I've missed, and frequently use the chatter feature. So you're not quite entirely alone.And that's where this discussion starts to bother me - nobody who's bitching reads global. When I pointed out that global chatter had been broken, mk observed that nobody browses global chatter but me. So here I am, speaking about something I use, that nobody else uses, and everyone is up in arms that my arguments for improving the functionality of that thing you don't use might offend those people you don't interact with.
I also read global. I agree with what you're proposing.
I would argue it's the message we'd be sending, rather than the actual functionality, that is the problem. It just seems like a insular and over reactionary measure to ignore new users for a week. It sends the message that users who are already established are worth more than a new user. And many established users may agree with that sentiment. However, I think it's a move that will turn off the majority of people who visit. It may intrigue some, but I think overall the negative vibes will outweigh any positive benefits. I honestly really, really do not like this measure. I fear it will hurt Hubski a lot. As Mal-2 said, new users who try to contribute will feel ignored or marginalized, and have little incentive to stay. Again, it sends the message that we are an insular and guarded community, rather than an opening and welcoming community.
No, it sends the message that I am an insular and guarded asshole, rather than an opening and welcoming asshole. If people could see my settings. Which they can't. This is the part I don't understand - we already have forever ignore, forever mute, and forever hush. Yet for some reason, "mute for a little while" is seen as some horrendous over-reach.
It's that you want to blanket ignore people that makes it feel unwelcoming. When you individually mute or ignore someone you have at least seen them around and dislike them as an induvidual and not a group.
But the counterpoint to that is the temporariness, to coin a word, of the measure. KB isn't asking for a permaban of all new users. You're comparing individual mute, a permanent action, to mass-temporary mute, a non-permanent action (as KB suggests it). It's apples and oranges in a way. The temporariness of the action mitigates its potential "unwelcoming-ness" as opposed to straight ignore, which is permanent and generally requires a lot more action on the part of the ignored to reverse.
That is a good point and I'm not against it. I could be helpful in making sure that newcomers got a friendly welcome since only those who want to read new users posts read them as well as making sure kb and others don't have to deal with new users which I'm sure is exhausting to do over and over again. I fear that it might become the norm ignore new users though. I'm sure not everyone or even a majority would do so but it is a potential downside. The action of making sure that you don't have to interact with new users is unwelcoming however you frame it though. It sends the message that new users are not welcome and their input not valued. That is not to say that it is automatically a bad idea, but that message is going to be there no matter how nicely you say it. There are downsides and upsides to the idea and I'm personally conflicted about it all.
Preface: I support this feature, though I doubt I'd use it personally. Whilst I'm admittedly not as active in or embedded in the intricacies of this community as much as yourself and others, I actually did not notice this newbie influx until I saw your previous post and went searching for it. That is probably most likely as I rarely follow global. But isn't that the point? If you want to see your curated content without the migrating redditors that you find annoying, then stick to your own feed. If you decide to check global then you run the risk of seeing content and/or posters you don't want to see. Much like going on reddit when you're not signed in and seeing all the drivel posted in the defaults, thought not to that extent. Also, there's a factor you're ignoring in all this: you. Newbs and their post aren't inherently annoying. Sure, they might not totally fit in, they might not get the culture, they might not be properly assimilated, or might misstep through ignorance. But at the end of the day, it is you who is choosing to be annoyed. A state of annoyance is not some sort of constant that you're fighting against, it is a state you can choose to relinquish if willing. If you decide to stop being annoyed the whole issue evaporates. Of course, there's people like 'teamramonycajal' who really just don't fit in and make no effort at all, but for the most parts it's just newbs being newbs. But yes, I am not against this feature if others think it'll help the whole community run smoother. As aforementioned, I know you're a much more prolific on this site than me, so there's every chance I'm just not being exposed to what you're defining as the problem. However, for me personally the whole thing is a bit of a non-issue.
Absolutely. And really, I could choose to never browse /r/all as well. However, if I could suggest a feature that would make /r/all more browsable without impacting anyone else's experience, aren't I duty-bound to suggest it?But at the end of the day, it is you who is choosing to be annoyed.
For sure. I don't think the feature would be detrimental to anyone's experience if implemented. It's essentially just a forced lurk, and lurking is essential. It's been said before that Hubski isn't about popularity or being noticed, rather it's about producing, sharing, and discussing worthwhile content with a community of people you know, value, and respect. In that regard, I think an assimilation period of sorts like your suggesting wouldn't be negative feature. And if it's something an individual user can toggle on and off then, in your own words, 'I don't reckon how that could EVER be a bad thing.'.
You have no idea what kind of a relationship I already may have with hubski and/or its users, which may permanently prevent me from ever viewing hubski as "a temporary message board." I'm not trying to say hubski is life changing but I do believe that looking at it the way you present it is a very shallow point of view, and limiting. Please don't condescend to me and tell me not to get too attached to a website where I've developed a strong group of twentyish friends over the last year+. Please also don't pretend you know what the goals are of the site owners - change is inevitable, but monetization and selling have been discussed and are in no way a goal for the founders. This is typical "i have no idea what I'm talking about but because I've been on the internet a few times I feel like I know how everything works" bullshit. You have no frame of reference for the statements you are attempting To make. And for the record, if you treat hubski like a disposable, temporary thing, you're going to make it crap.
Do me a solid: Take note of your impressions of the site and various users and write them down. Right now. Should you decide to stick around until next friday, repeat the exercise at that time. Compare notes with yourself and report back: what impressions changed over the space of a week? What changed the same? What initially excited you, but then disappointed you? What did you underestimate at first only to cherish as time went on? What did you discover? What still confounds you? What, in short, did you learn and what did you experience? There's a reason I ask. All will be revealed.
It really isn't. Hubski users often have very frank, public, and honest/critical discussions about community and features. Kleinb is probably the most outspoken and least likely to sugarcoat things, but he's been responsible for some very unvarnished commentary that has been put to good use in the past (along with a lot of other folks here). In short, don't take offense, and also no need to apologize afaik. Welcome. If Hubski scratches an itch for you and you end up hanging around here, come back to this post in a year, re-read this, and see what you think ;)Being new, I perceived this thread as a big "you're not welcome", and "please shut up for awhile and don't annoy us , your elders."
It's just a temporary message board.
I don't really have an opinion on this since I find these influxes interesting, both for our reaction and for the burnout/adjustment period. It's not a feature I would use when this happens, but it could be useful if spam D-Day were to hit, and might be worthwhile as a pre-emptive measure in that regard. I'm just curious how you feel about the lurker who spends two months perusing without making an account, and suddenly feels compelled to write a comment or make a thread that blows everyone away. Oh well?
1) The problem is not "new user" the problem is "new users." It's not a feature I'd use all the time, either - but it's a feature I'd like to have for, say, yesterday. 2) Hubski heavily emphasizes personalization - I think (but obviously cannot prove) that it's far more likely to have a user with an account that doesn't comment than a non-user who suddenly signs up. I can back that up with a little data; I see lotsa lotsa users that pop up and follow me, but when there's a Reddit wave, they usually start commenting pretty much immediately. 3) If they're doing anything other than sending a PM, their comments will be visible in threads... the person they're responding to (assuming they're ignored) simply won't get a notification. That's the thing about "ignore" - it's much less of a behavior shaper than people think.
Perhaps to assuage fears, there should be both an "ignore" feature AND a "snub" feature. Ignore will remain the same, but "snub" will result in a message like, You know, just to make "ignore" seem less threatening.humanodon evades your handshake and refuses to make eye contact. He also kisses your wife on the cheek . . . a little too enthusiastically.
It took a long time for me to become an active user on Hubski, I would revisit it every once in a while when I was "out of Internet" but frankly, it took me a while to get the whole community/commenting aspect of it. You all acted like you knew each other! What was up with that! It's not that it felt insular but it definitely felt like a community and I wasn't used to that online. I would spend time thinking of questions and deciding whether they were good enough to be #askhubskis or not. I think my first askhubski was when I began to feel more involved. I had some sort of thorny situation and I thought, "This would be perfect to ask hubski! I bet they would have some really great input." That was probably when I began realizing it was important to pay attention to usernames. I never paid attention to them on Reddit - a key difference in how to approach sites, i think.
We've been here the same amount of time and only now do I feel I'm starting to become an active user on this site, precisely for the reasons you stated. Because of that community aspect where everyone knows who each other is, I felt significantly more self-conscious about what and if I should post.
I have been thinking on this, but haven't settled on it in my own mind. I am not worried about the actual functionality being detrimental as I expect that most users wouldn't use it, and I know that a number of active users are interested in new users and onboarding them. Importantly, as kleinbl00 notes, the setting is for the individual, and it is private. One aspect that I do worry about is in anyway supporting an 'us' and 'them' mentality. I abhor tribalism, and I do not want to give it fertile ground. I can see the utility in avoiding new users as they get their bearings or decide that Hubski is not for them. Still, the most valuable user on Hubski to me today might have made an account 15 minutes ago. I think that if most of Hubski felt this way, we would be better off for it. For this reason, I think the timing of this 'new user ignore' would best be short, and not customizable. I would hate to see a "100 day club" emerge on Hubski. The passage of time does not filter for what we are most interested in here. I strongly support the notion that a user should have the tools to create their best Hubski experience, and everything that kleinbl00 said above makes perfect sense to me. However, I am left wondering if there isn't a better way to avoid this problem, which as far as I see it, is a disruption of the global feeds when we get a large influx of users, particularly those with a shared culture and shared expectations. For my part I am going to be reading and thinking. If anyone has thoughts to add, I'd appreciate them.
Said the guy who removed tags. See, this is where stuff doesn't make sense: You say you "abhor tribalism" yet you built a site that functions on personal (as opposed to subject-based) popularity. You even tried to remove every other kind of functionality. You - like everyone else negative - thinks I'm saying "fuck newbies" when in fact I'm saying "give me the option to not see their presence until it won't piss me off." It's a humanitarian gesture, really. Yet you, who doesn't use global and doesn't much support it, don't even realize that these citizens whose presence you don't want to alienate won't even show up for you unless they share one of maybe four tags. Hubski is every bit as tribal as Twitter. Your every instinct is to push it further in that direction. Meanwhile, I'm asking for a change that doesn't impact site functionality one bit - once more, I can go through by hand and ignore everyone in #reddit - and actually gives new users a chance to acclimate. I've already ignored four new users. I doubt I'll unignore them (I doubt they'll be here in a week). If they were ignored by default, our first interactions might well have been after they started enjoying Hubski for Hubski instead of that awkward period where they demand boons and circlejerk each other.
To be fair, I said that I abhor tribalism, not cults of personality. :) But, in all seriousness, I do see an important distinction, which your comment forced me to define in my own mind. I have little problem with people being admired for their personal contributions and accomplishments, but do take issue with admiration for association or some similar low-effort criteria of inclusion. When I say tribalism, I am referring to an inclusiveness based upon ideology, or place, or in this case, time. That said, at this point, that is my only reticence regarding implementation of the feature, and I think it can be easily mitigated. For my part, I am leaning towards doing it, and I think the rest of the team feels similarly. We are going to talk over it on Monday. To be perfectly honest, we probably hamstring ourselves by being so sensitive about these kinds of dynamics. People love to form groups, and Hubski doesn't make it easy to do so. It's something I am well aware of, and I've wondered if my stance on the point isn't still too extreme. It was in the case of tags, as you won't let me forget. There have been other features that we have entertained that have not been implemented based on this approach. For example, we have been tossing around the idea of group tags for some time. That is, you create a unique group tag, and choose who can use it. It wouldn't quite be like a subreddit, since the users that could post would be limited, but it would create something akin to a custom community that could be followed.
This has just become a much more useful conversation. WHY I FOLLOW VERY, VERY FEW PEOPLE One thing about upvotes - they don't matter. An individual upvote is a raindrop in an ocean. They can be tossed about willy nilly without much impacting others' user experience; they can be slathered on without altering the site dynamics. Hubski shares are different. If I click the button, that article suddenly becomes visible to nine hundred people. With comments it's a little better in that comments can't be shared separately from links, but it still radically shapes the appearance of the page. Which would be one thing if people thought of clicking on a button the same way they think of sharing a link on Facebook. But they don't. I can't claim ESP, but I can claim a more-than-passing familiarity with online behavior, and what I see regularly does not reflect "I want to show this to everyone following me" it reflects: - I read it - I made a good comment and I want people to see it so they will vote for my good comment - You asked a question or said something funny and I don't have time to respond so I'm showing you that I heard you, thereby using the "share" function like a read receipt This is incorrect. There's a network magnification effect at play: Let's say I'm following you and you're following insom. You will share things that insom posts, so I'll see it 2x. insom may follow b_b, as will you, so I will be exposed to his posts... and will likely eventually follow him. Pretty soon there's a rolling herd of us who have a substantial portion of our follows in common - we've become a club that reads the same stuff, comments about the same stuff, and shares the same stuff while out there in the world, other things are happening. That's why I got rid of all my follows... and added back in people who are following those I ignore. You can run the analytics; I can't. But in viewing other peoples' front pages, I'd say there's likely to be 70% overlap between you and the people you know unless you are actively working for diversity by exposing yourself to discordant material. So for you, the "global" page is an abstraction - it's that thing for people who haven't figured out your "follow" topology. For me, it's That Place Outside My Bubble. I may be hypersensitive to the bubbling issues around here - chumminess makes me itch - but I think you underestimate the utility of the site you've created outside of the individual follow. You've built an interesting network. The part you were aiming for is pretty well refined... the leftover frontier experiences a lot of tail effects. One of those tail effects is the assembled hordes of refugee waves. NOTE THAT I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DISMISSING THE REFUGEES. I am interested in their learning the ropes outside of my experience. You have filtering already - I can look at unshared global posts, I can look at global posts with two shares. I can look at unshared(?) global comments, I can look at global comments with eight or more shares(?). If I'm not in Global, I'm not likely to see anything by anybody I don't know anyway; I don't follow a lot of "general" tags (PRECISELY because they tend to be used by newbies that haven't found their way around yet). But if I am in Global, I may just find something that nobody in my "circle of friends" has seen... and I may want to participate without sharing, I may want to share without participating. I should not participate in Reddit threads. I know too much and have far too little patience. But I did... BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THERE WAS. Without the ability to filter through the immigrants my Hubski choices become "bubble" and "Reddit." Let me also share something with you: Every reasonably sized subreddit runs Automoderator. Everybody running Automoderator has it set to remove posts by anyone less than (X) days old. Some subreddits have it set to 1. Some have it set to 7. Some have it set to more. Many subreddits also have a karma cap - 5, or 10, or "more than 2." As a consequence, moderators tend to see comments from people who have been filtered. Not a lot - a very, very, very few. The one thing that distinguishes the people who are smart enough to post a worthwhile link and also smart enough to notice it doesn't show up? Their accounts are over 7 days old. Food for thought.To be fair, I said that I abhor tribalism, not cults of personality. :)
People love to form groups, and Hubski doesn't make it easy to do so.
I can buy that the global experience can be improved. It is a conversation worth having. I've tended to view global as a pool from which things were drawn out, not the place where you would want to soak. However, I do understand the bubbling issue. My default search engine has switched between Google and DDG about 5 times now. It's not a perfect analogy, but global is where I go if my feed is feeling stale. IMO global should be able to be viewed in its entirety, thus 'show-global-ignored'. However, even if in spirit global remains a fishing hole, we can change what's in the tackle box. Just for the sake of argument, is there a better metric here? For example, "ignore users until the community shows X appreciation?" I am NOT suggesting implementing this AT ALL, but I wonder if that is the best way to determine if someone has learned the ropes, or if it's enough (or superior) to just rely on a few days time for the best filtering. Is newness what is best addressed? Part of me wants to make the time 9 days just so we can call the setting Pease-Porridge.
I don't think so. "Ignore users until the community circlejerks you to the top" is not a useful metric as yesterday's adventures were largely driven by Redditors celebrating other Redditors in a "fuck the man over here until we feel like going back over there" frame of mind. It also drowns out unpopular opinions, which are things I like to see, believe it or not. I also really don't want a fixed setting, as I suspect we'll be done with this current crew of tire kickers by Sunday, whereas the SRS invasion took a good week or two to burn out. I mentioned this to TNG, I'll mention it to you: Give me two sliders, one that says "older than" and another that says "younger than." let me specify a range. It's then no longer about "censorship" it's about finding another avenue into the data. Another thing we use automoderator for - sampling. Over in /r/movies we had Automoderator report anyone with over 100k comment karma because we were interested in seeing whether or not /r/centuryclub was having an effect on our content the way they were in /r/askreddit. Note that we didn't do anything - we just wanted a highlighter. What we discovered is that the centuryclub posse largely swooped in on fast rising threads, largely said circlejerky things to each other, and then left, without interacting with our community one iota: in other words, they existed in their own splendiferous bubble of irrelevance and harmed no one. You can learn a lot about Hubski by poking around Hubski. I'm asking for another instrument. Do this: Code it up for yourself and see what you see. Take notes. Then do it again in a week. Lemme know what you learn.Just for the sake of argument, is there a better metric here?
As someone with 900 plus followers, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of ignoring "users with more than X followers." For balance, users with less than X followers seems appropriate... but I doubt I'd ever use it. It would, however, be a useful tool for those poor downtrodden masses that see themselves as the butt of the joke here: If I had an account that was a day old, and I felt like seeing what Hubski really looked like, I could ignore users with less than two followers less than a week old and then you wouldn't need that pesky recommendation engine that gave me 900+ followers in the first place.
When a new user joins it simply says, "you are not following anyone yet...."then you wouldn't need that pesky recommendation engine that gave me 900+ followers in the first place.
-fwiw, that pesky recommendation engine has been defunct for a good while now. You are "naturally" receiving these people now.
You are one of the most insufferable people on the internet. I am severely disappointed, coming here from reddit, to find you here whining. "You - like everyone else negative - thinks I'm saying "fuck newbies" when in fact I'm saying..."
... " awkward period where they demand boons and circlejerk each other" No, I think you're pretty much saying "fuck newbies". Please go back to reddit. You have 20+ subs to mod and I'm sure you can keep your superiority complex fed without poisoning hubski. This is my first hubski comment :)
Go back to Reddit? Dude's been here for 3+ years. He and mk have a long history of sparring over site features. It's not personal, and they get along pretty well. Context is lost when you just read this one comment. Context matters, and it's lost on new members; I think that's a large part of the gripe to begin with.
Yes. That's exactly right. So many users land here and expect to just drop in. It's like approaching a group of people at a party who are already chatting. Observe the social graces: introduce yourself, shake hands, listen and THEN try to participate.Context matters, and it's lost on new members; I think that's a large part of the gripe to begin with.
Call me old fashioned, but I'm okay with an upfront waiting period. Back in the day, when the sun was brighter, dogs behaved, children didn't sass, and milk was delivered to your doorstep before the kettle boiled, it was normal to wait x days or x comments in public subforums (whichever came second) before you could post or access a full forum. It used to be okay to expect people to wait before letting them in. I assumed the trend towards instant gratification and full participation rights was driven by desparation to bolster the size of a subject population. Um. I reread that and I'm appalled with myself. I don't have time to rewrite it (family beckons, dinner time), so I'm claiming it as deliberate art. Whatever. Having an 'ignore noobs' option might preserve the illusion of welcome for newcomers while protecting alumni from "HHHAH D1XBUTTER CHECK IT" or 7 reposts of an excerpt from a 2 month old New Scientist. But an internet-savvy and genuine new user who contributes from Day 1 might be discouraged if no one sensible acknowledges their contribution.
I'm for this feature if only because it introduces the idea of ignoring as a potentially temporary action rather than a permanent one in all cases. There are a lot of cases where a tag, or a domain, or a person really needs more of a timeout than a permanent shunning. The potential for that to be automated seems a positive enough benefit to risk any potential scaring off of newbies, which, lets be honest, if someone goes away because not enough people are sharing their content in the first few days, they almost certainly have the kind of ego problems that you wouldn't want to attract anyway.
I guess one problem that could arise is that since the community is small experienced users choosing not to communicate with the new ones might impact their experience a lot and make them not immersed in the discussion culture. It could lead to newts not getting the hang of the culture in the same way. But I understand that conversing with the new users is not something you wish to do and that it would be better to have a filter mute the new and un-mute them when they're no longer new.
A hypothetical problem contradicted by actual reports from the field. Any number of old-timers have bent over backwards to be accommodating towards new users. I myself am not immune.
I know, I'm just saying one issue that might, hypothetically, develop. But everyone has been very nice and the point of wishing to block users is in no way mean spirited so you are right in that it has been contradicted. Still, seeing posts such as wanting to blanket ignore all new users for seven days is something that does make new users feel unwelcome and while the thread in no way is unwelcoming or bad I can see where the people who are lashing out against it are coming from. It is probably not a rational place but rather an emotional one however.
I find it interesting that OP has almost 1k followers but is following only 5 people and is upset with the potential that new users may pollute their feed. ....Maybe follow more users to overshadow the influx of newbies? I also can't help but feel this post is kind of... Well, whiny.Still, seeing posts such as wanting to blanket ignore all new users for seven days is something that does make new users feel unwelcome
Perfect demonstration of the problem: You don't know me, I don't know you. You don't know the culture around here, I do. For starters, there are many reasons why I follow five people. This has been discussed amongst the community for more than a year. This is not the sort of thing one would know after five hours. For another thing, nobody here is "OP." Ever. There are nineteen comments here, and you bothered to look up and see that I have a thousand followers... but you don't think I deserve the courtesy of being referred to in the first person. Finally, you're discussing an idea for a site you've been a member of for nineteen hours... whereas I've been here for nearly three years. Yet that doesn't stop you from opining that maybe I don't know my way around the site, and that maybe I'm - wait for it - ...whiny.
There's a reason I chose to put it in #bugski: the likelihood of new users following that tag is negligible. Which means new users are either: A) finding it by seeing it in their feeds because it was shared by an oldster that follows me B) Cruising "global" and seeing intense amounts of discussion about the subject. Eight of the top twelve posts in "global", as of this writing, are newbie-related. Two of the top ten posts are mine, opining that maybe there ought to be a way to give people a choice. One of those posts, in a mere seven hours, has generated more comments than the other eleven posts combined. It's also worth noting that of those twelve posts, two of them are fresh content, by site admins, welcoming new users and aiding them in navigating the site. So while I can understand why someone new to the site might be offended that their comments are not universally welcome, I think it's fair to say the site response overall is a lot closer to "welcome, please stay out of my hair" than "FUCK OFF N00BZ".
"Welcome, please stay out of my hair" Still feels pretty, well unwelcoming. I get that it is a really, really valid opinion and that having several waves of new users with the same kinds of posts must be annoying. And i think that most newts are on global to find tags to follow and check out posts. Anyway, the thing I wanted to say is that this isn't a bad thing. I do feel a tiny bit insulted, but I know that that is irrational. Having this option would be good. It would make it so that the new people gets a friendly welcome since only those that wants to see them sees them and it would make the old users get some peace.
It's completely rational. I'm stating the desire to make y'all get out of my face. If the preference existed, I could simply make y'all get out of my face without you knowing it and nobody's feelings would be hurt. Instead, we're having this lovely conversation about social obligations and the makeup of online networks. I'd be offended... but I'd also be lurking.
You have been very nice about your desire to make us all get out of your face, and I think it's very nice that you aspire to not hurt anyone's feelings. Thank you for that.
What do you think about some other kind of filter? I do see your point that an influx of users can pollute the site sometimes, and I know that earlier users like you have had to deal with this issue much more than newer users like me. I think I just have a strong reaction against something that would hide new users' activity for anyone simply because they are new. What about a filter that only shows users who have received a circle'ing, or users who have at least one follower? There's got to be a way to encourage active, contributing new users while discouraging spammers and useless posts.
You keep missing this: I'm all about letting new users do whatever they want on the site. I'm not suggesting their activity should be hidden from anyone but me. I'm not even suggesting they'd stay hidden permanently - I'm saying that global becomes useless for anyone but Reddit refugees when the Reddit refugees show up, and that I would like to continue to be able to use global until they settle down without impacting their experience one iota. What you're suggesting is that a popularity contest is the way to handle it. It would work like this: USER 1: DAE Reddit? USER 2: LOLZ Suddenly, User 1 and User 2 are both "circled" because their circlejerk was successful. They both pop into my feed. Meanwhile, if I have someone ignored, I still see their comments. They're just struck out. If they have anything useful to say I'll see it. If instead they're responding with memes (been there, done that), I can rest assured that they'll either be (a) gone (b) mature before I really have to interact with them.
The thing is, you assume everyone who is new here has nothing worthwhile to say. New users don't only come from reddit when reddit behaves in a way its users don't like. They might stumble upon hubski another way.
And global has been far from useless. I have found many thing that are not new user or reddit related there. It's not an inherently bad idea, but it has its problems.. And having a feature that make new users invisible to old ones will have an effect on the new users experience. They won't get to interact with those who have ignored all new users - even if they have something worthwhile to say.
No, I assume that I don't want to hear them until they've settled in. You (and everyone else new) keeps assuming that you'll be globally silenced, rather than selectively ignored. You do understand the difference, correct? This is a largely false statement, user-for-nineteen-hours. New users come almost entirely from Reddit. They always have. And they always come when Redditors are mad. Thus, the influx of mad Redditors. That happened exactly once. We gained about 50 people. Usually, however, that's all there is. Besides, what do you care what I ignore? I'm not forcing my tastes on you in any way, shape or form. You have enumerated none. How? Try this: 1) Ignore me. 2) Click on a few posts. 3) Find me. 4) Interact with me. 5) Report back for science as to how difficult it actually is to interact with someone ignored.The thing is, you assume everyone who is new here has nothing worthwhile to say.
New users don't only come from reddit when reddit behaves in a way its users don't like.
They might stumble upon hubski another way.
And global has been far from useless. I have found many thing that are not new user or reddit related there.
It's not an inherently bad idea, but it has its problems.
And having a feature that make new users invisible to old ones will have an effect on the new users experience.
They won't get to interact with those who have ignored all new users - even if they have something worthwhile to say.
I understand the difference and I'm trying to make some points about how it could affect new users and that while this might be good it might also have some bad side effects.The reason that I care what you ignore is that you want a new site feature for you ignoring and a new way of ignoring. I am completely fine with you ignoring me as a user, I'm completely fine with you ignoring all new users, That's your choice. And I think it is unusual that you think it very insulting to refer someone as OP but seem it fine to delegate someone to their hours as a member. And note that my statement was that people don't only come from reddit. The fact that most do does not invalidate that. And no matter how hard you argue that it won't impact new users experience it will. The simple fact that such an option to ignore all new users for a week exist sends a message. It tells the new users that people don't want to deal with them and it might lead to people not staying. And I've said what I think the faults are. It sends a non-welcoming message, it limits the hubski community that new users are exposed to which makes integration for new users harder an it fosters a culture in which time on the site is the prime measure of value to the community. And the fault with your experiment is that I would be searching to interact with you while you would be actively avoiding new users. that is not the same thing.
I asked you to do a very specific thing for a very specific reason. I did this in order to broaden your base of experience about the subject you are committed to arguing because we all benefit if you actually know what you're talking about. The fact that you have chosen not to do this pretty much makes my point: you don't know what you're talking about and you don't want to. That's likely to change in a week or so. Once you've put down the flag of combat and walked around getting to know the place, you may gain an understanding of what "ignore" actually accomplishes. You might understand why, exactly, referring to someone as "OP" is so offensive - this is a place of names, of relationships, of personalities, and of connections. By calling someone "OP" you are saying "that person up there whose name I can read but won't repeat because my time is too important and they don't deserve the respect." Likewise, I asked you to do a very specific thing. You have not. You seem to be of the opinion that if you repeat your discredited arguments they will somehow gain weight. They won't. So. Evidence indicates that you are a new user I wish to mute. You may have something to say in a week, but in the meantime you're annoying me and we're coming to blows. So I'm going to ignore you. The downside of doing it manually is I have to remember to undo it in a week's time... ...because you won't be able to remind me.
If the motivation for this is content-related, why not something like "ignore users with less than X posts" instead? Some forums already employ filters that prevent you from viewing/posting certain things until your post count reaches some number. It seems to help with spam, as well as maintaining content quality. Ignoring works on the receiver's end (opposite to that) but it accomplishes roughly the same thing without annoyance, so I'm all for it.
1) It disincentivizes lurking. If the premise is "don't let me trip over you until you've learned the ropes" then simply observing for a certain amount of time will satisfy that criterion. On the other hand, fifteen Redditors descending and saying "DAE REDDIT!??!!???111" results in fifteen users with fourteen shared posts each. 2) The contribution of someone who sees much but says little will almost always outweigh the contribution of someone who says a lot. Your proposal punishes these individuals. 3) In a subreddit-like system, your proposal is indeed one way we control for spam. However, that's a moderation-based system whereas Hubski functions on a user-based system. I, personally, as the current moderator of one and past moderator of five default subreddits, hold much more faith in the healing power of time than I do in the multiplicative power of votes in conforming a user to the prevalent culture of a community.why not something like "ignore users with less than X posts" instead?
Your second point makes sense, but unless I'm misunderstanding, wouldn't a time-based ignore also do the exact same, though less strictly? Considering that the lack of moderated 'categories' already discourages much of the current issues on reddit, I doubt an ignore feature would do much good here; I merely mentioned it as an alternative solution, if one is ever needed.
I think you need to take some responsibility for this "issue" you've brought up, OP. Simply put, you've been here for a long time which makes you directly responsible for the wonderful culture that is established here on Hubski. tl:dr -- you brought this on yourself.