Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by thenewgreen
thenewgreen  ·  1655 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Hubski Update: This time it's personal

    I like the idea of greater customization potential
Cool, I'm glad.
    but I'm a little worried about echo chamber effect
If I never hear the phrase "echo chamber" again, I'll be okay with that :) -I don't see this as a way for me to be able to follow people that post things I agree with only and to filter out those that don't. This is not how I use the follow/filter for users, why would I use it that way for tags? I do see this as a way to protect the integrity of tags I enjoy. I see it as a way to follow aspects of people that I currently do not follow and get more granular with things. I don't follow mk, I don't follow bitcoin because I'm not that interested in most of the content there. But I have found that I enjoy the bitcoin posts that mk makes. Therefore, I'm now following #bitcoin.mk. There are any number of scenarios that could present this way.

I see it as a cool avenue for content discovery. I see it as a cool way to see which aspects of my Hubski contributions are the most appreciated. I thought it was pretty cool to go in my profile and see all the tags I've used. Think I need to rekindle a few of the old ones.

    If I'm being filtered out of my favorite tags, and it starts to feel like I'm just shooting submissions into the void, doesn't that create a disincentive to post anything at all?
Knowing the content that you've posted in the past I find it hard to believe this would occur to you. That said, there are some users that may have their askhubski.user posts filtered. I can think of a few people that I currently follow that I would do this to.



ghostoffuffle  ·  1655 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Okay, fair point re. The Phrase That Shall Not Be Named. Move to replace it with equally meaningless word combo that gets same point across. Respectfully submit "value-affirmative feedback loop" for consideration.

I hear what you're saying in terms of granularity. Personally I like using follow more holistically- can't filter out one aspect of my friends/acquaintances in real life, so it's nice to take the same approach here. On the other hand, I can appreciate that Hubski doesn't have to follow the same mechanics of real life, and just because I view my interactions here through that filter doesn't mean that Hubski has any obligation to conform to those standards. On top of that, implementation of the above doesn't really preclude me from continuing to use the site as I like, so cool beans.

And I don't really have a problem with the "content discovery" part of it, goddamn cause you know how to sell something.

Pretty much any time I push back in the update threads, it's more or less against further filtration. Part of Hubski's charm, I think, stems from how many positive interactions it encourages through the absence of negative filter. Following a user is a big "yes" to said user. Sharing is a big "yes" to a post. Following tags, "yes" to the subject. And there's a lot of service paid to the obvious lack of a thumbs-down function. If a post or a user or a tag doesn't click, instead of actively nullifying discourse with the sad old downvote, you can just choose not to say "yes." And this new feature builds upon that, which I'm pretty sure you're getting at. It's the obvious potential for active filtering-out that harshes my buzz. No, I don't want to interact with this user. No, I don't want her comments coming up in my chatter. No, I don't want to consider this content. Nullifying action has a clear purpose- esp when it comes to spam or the rare troll- but it's also a pretty over-powerful tool. We already have so many ways to now actively filter voices out, I just see potential for this to become that.

Maybe it won't. Probably it won't. But I don't mind being the shrill voice in these threads piping in about unintended consequences re tools that allow for nullification. Whatever though, mountains out of molehills? Site's still sex no matter what.

thenewgreen  ·  1655 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    can't filter out one aspect of my friends/acquaintances in real life, so it's nice to take the same approach here.
I definitely disagree. Tomorrow I am having friends over to watch the World Cup Final. There are certain friends I've not invited because they are just not interested in that sort of thing, though I think they'd come over if I invited them. I have essentially "filtered" them.

I go see music and there are certain friends in my life I would never invite to join me. They may think they're music fans but IMO, their taste sucks. So I don't invite them, I "filter" them. Honestly, and I'm not just trying to "sell this" but this helps my Hubski experience be more like my IRL friendships.

As for the buzz kill of filtering, for those two hypothetical real-life friends I just mentioned, each has at least a dozen aspects of them that I'd gladly "follow" and when I do, they get a notification (my meataphor is now a digiphor) and they're happy -yay, positive.

    Maybe it won't. Probably it won't. But I don't mind being the shrill voice in these threads piping in about unintended consequences re tools that allow for nullification
actually, seems the norm this far in this thread. I'd be really keen on hearing suggestions on improvements etc.

    Site's still sex no matter what.
thanks pal, you know I think you're the Shizzle.

Any new music to share? Geez. Been a while.

ghostoffuffle  ·  1655 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Hell, you're right. Eff. Alright.

    Any new music to share? Geez. Been a while.

You know what? Gimme a sec. Shooting something your way to work on... we'll see if your turnaround is any better than mine...

thenewgreen  ·  1655 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Was going to sleep, now I must stay awake and I'm excited. Nice.

thenewgreen  ·  1655 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Btw, fwiw

    "value-affirmative feedback loop"
made me laugh out loud. It's a solid replacement phrase. I endorse it.