Yesterday, thenewgreen, insomniasexx and I were bouncing around an idea that struck our fancy. I mentioned it in pubski, and the response seemed mostly positive. The half-baked version of the idea is this:
Except for the first day of each month, when registration is open to all, account creation on Hubski would be by invite only. Hubskiers could spend their hubwheel credits on either badges or invites.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Is it worth an experiment? Should we modify it in some way?
Giving Hubski a sort of exclusivity may make it appear more valuable to new users, like ello. But it's hard enough getting into Hubski and getting comfortable. There's no social hype for people to get on Hubski like there was for ello, and we're tight-knight and small enough as it is. I think we could juggle the idea of gating this community, but perhaps we could make it so that it's not really exclusive in reality-- call it Splenda exclusivity. Here's my idea: Everyone, always, can access the site whenever they want. When they Sign Up though, they verify with an e-mail and you say, "Thanks for registering to our community waiting list! We will contact you when(if?) new invites are sent out to be a member of Hubski." then you send 'em an email one week later. This does, in a way, also cover the very controversial ideas during the "Mute Wars" regarding a waiting period between registry and activity. Whaddaya's think? edit: I still dont think we should be doing anything at all, this was a compromise idea:)
I actually proposed this but would like to do it like once a day or so. I would like a barrier to entry but not one that is too long. As others mentioned, it's hard enough to get people on Hubski as it is. Designer news originally only allowed sign ups between noon and 1pm est. The biggest problem is that's discriminating against international users, as that's like 1am anywhere in the middle east, etc. It took me 4 days to sign up even though I was in the US and if I hadn't set an alarm, I probably would have said fuck you and never signed up due to pure annoyance. However, I did feel extra satisfied once I did sign up. I think having some sort of referrer code would be good to have as well. I would hate for someone to share and recommend hubski to someone, only to make them wait. I also think pointing out exactly what we really trying to accomplish and solve will help make this decision easier. For me, it's two fold. I would like to decrease "drive by hubskiing" from reddit, etc threads. I would also like to make sure people truly want to sign up for hubski and then use it. Having an extra level of commitment helps with the former, for sure. The latter, I'm not even sure is something we need but it would be accomplished with this.
We've talked about it but much of the discussion in this thread applies to applying limitations for new users as well, like Hubski being as imposing at it is for new users already. Most of the limitations we have apply to users who have yet to fill up their hubwheel once cut down on shenanigans happening (like community tags.)
Have you had a lot of disruptions in your experience here in the past month due to the influxes? This is a serious and honest question. Also, it's worth noting that you can turn off newbie posts in your feed via your settings.
No. Not unless there's a good reason for doing this. Whatever threshold you add to signing up, even if it's only temporary, it's gonna drive some users away who could've become great and valuable contributors. I think there has to be a very good reason to do this. Currently it's a solution looking for a problem. One reason I could think of that might be worth it is to prevent a massive flood of users. I quite like nowaypablo's idea of a time delay - it's much more egalitarian than invites. A measure that might work against floods of users is by making the delay dependant on site traffic. On a quiet Saturday, it might take just ten minutes, whereas on a busy Reddit flood day a user would have to wait a day or two to be allowed into the site. That way it won't have an impact 99% of the time, and will have an impact when it matters.Is it worth an experiment?
Great suggestions veen and nowaypablo. Currently it's a solution looking for a problem.
One of the things I think could come of us doing this, is that it could potentially create some demand from people actually interested in a "thoughtful community."
flagamuffin is correct: invite systems work where there is incentive to get behind the wall. With Facebook it was exclusivity. With Gmail it was functionality. With trackers it's content. With Hubski it's... what? This is a solution looking for a problem. You end up with Google Glass this way. It seems like the real question is "Who does Hubski want to attract?" and "invites" are suggested on the presumption that current users will be better able to affect that answer positively than Google will. However, there's nothing quite so silly as an invite-only club that offers zero benefits to its members. The real real question is What does Hubski want to be? and I get the real sense that Team Hubski is attempting to answer this question iteratively. Look at Hubski 3 years ago. Look at Hubski now. Project forward 3 years - do you like what you see? Great. Leave it alone. Do you notice some disturbing trends? 'K, brainstorm about how to address that. Do you sense an opportunity for improvement or expansion? Great. Maximize that. There are cool tools in the world. I don't own a lot of them because I don't need them. Going invite-only seems a lot like buying a tool and then trying to find something to fix with it. Great fun for the handyman but everyone else has to deal with their leaky pipes being repaired with an air nailer.
Almosty any barrier to entry on the internet is enough for me to go find my content elsewhere. I never would have applied to join Hubski at some future date if that was how it was set up. Someone who wants to join probably does so because they have somthing to say right now about somthing they have seen. In a month or even a few days will they still be as engaged and as interested in any given discussion. Better to let people in at the moment their passion runs brightest. I don't really see what problem invites would solve. Is it just bullshit marketing? Creating fake scarcity to make Hubski seem more valuble?
Once upon a time I was a Knitter with a Capital K and I waited 3/6 months to get in to beta test a knitting website that did things I could not find anywhere else. It was super amazing. All the knitters I knew were talking about it. It was a miracle of a website, and I gladly waited. Ravelry
True, I agree. My point was rather that if you build the right thing, people will wait around the block for weeks or months to get it. however, as I was talking about Ravelry I realized it would have to be a Very Special Thing indeed: one that perfectly fit an impassioned, niche community, and (here's the key Hubski lacks) isn't readily available at least by proxy elsewhere. What Hubski provides is great, and of course there's no lil or 8bit or thenewgreen or mk or humanodon or (I could go on and on...) anywhere else (some of us are more promiscuous however) but to the quick observer, what Hubski provides is also provided by many other aggregators: conversation, links, entertainment. We see it as vitally different on a micro scale because that's how involved we are in it, but on a macro level, naaahhhh, nothin' worth waitin' fer here.
The more I think about this whole thing, the more I think it's really, really unnecessary. However, if the one thing we take from all of this is lil's suggestion that you can invite outside people directly in to a conversation on Hubski via an easy to use "invite" button at the top of each thread, then that's a win in my book. Some great points were made in this thread, on both sides but so far I'm not convinced that the benefits outweigh the negatives. I would wager that most of us wouldn't give a community a second thought if we couldn't sign up right away. That's not a good thing for us. New users are essential for a vibrant community. Good points cgod.Almosty any barrier to entry on the internet is enough for me to go find my content elsewhere.
Yeah, I have to agree with you here.
No. As I mentioned to flagamuffin in pubski, I want to enhance the expectation that goes beyond: "Sign up and drop a comment." Also, it will hurt spam. Maybe Waterford is right. Perhaps Hubski is more intimidating than it needs to be as is. That said, we do suffer from the impression that we are trying to be the next big thing, or a replacement for Reddit. I've always been interested in doing something specific, regardless of whether or not Reddit or anyone else was interested in doing it as well. In most places in life, we don't expect instant accessibility, especially when something has some depth to it. Yet we have grown accustomed to instant access online, and not usually due to an egalitarian intent.Is it just bullshit marketing? Creating fake scarcity to make Hubski seem more valuble?
This is as good a time as any to point out that the GREATEST advantage you've built into Hubski is the user-centric nature of the site. You have no moderation, you give utter and total control of the experience to the user, you do not impose anyone else's editorial over their experience, and you require a new user to successfully build out his own experience. I'm not saying it's perfect right now, but from a systemic perspective you have crafted an architecture that provides for far more customization and extensibility than Reddit or Hacker News. Going invite-only is contrary to this philosophy. You're giving one user control over who he or she wishes to participate with, which means a random bystander needs the approval of a current user in order to interact with them. Effectively, I can influence who gets to talk to you and I don't think that benefits the community at the current time. It's not a lot of influence, I grant you, but it's a philosophical shift of direction. Lost in the shuffle of the Great Mute Wars was my actual suggestion: Give me a preference that says "Ignore users newer than X days." I also asked for "Ignore users OLDER than Y days" because my explorations of Hubski benefit from atypical methods of exploration and I think an opportunity to see what week-old newbs chat about could be really interesting. Of course, when inundated by Reddit refugees, having a chance to say "ignore users newer than 2 days" allows the rest of us to see Hubski as we're expecting it without diminishing their experience one iota. I think that you've done really well by putting the individual user experience first. I'm not sure that putting up a velvet rope will continue that tradition.
As many others on Hubski I am also a reddit-refugee. And what I liked the most about my first experience on Hubski was that my comment was actually read and it was taken serious. Even though I was new to the community, I was respected, and this would probably go away if those filtering options are given (maybe)
The problem with that is that it's true. Hubski, as far as I know, was created because people were fed up with Reddit. There isn't a conversation about the website without a comparison to Reddit, and a very popular thing to do here is to shit on Reddit. Redditors are the reason this conversation has begun, for heaven's sake. The reason the fire burns is because gasoline is coming from all directions.trying to be a replacement for Reddit
Am I a redditor simply because I use reddit? If so, I am also a Wikipedia-er, a Google-r, a hacker-news-er, and even a never-never-gawker-ever-er. I would caution readers of this statement to remember that use of reddit does not automatically create an identity that supercedes the identity created by any use of any online space. I'm a Facebook-er and you could argue that Facebook does what reddit and Hubski do : curate content for me. A website-er who identifies as such should not do so simply because they use the website. I identify as a hubskier first, no matter how much I use reddit. My participation here is a result of Hubski only and how I feel and think about it. It has nothing to do with reddit and frankly, I view and use the two as very different animals. Reddit is my cheap and dirty entertainment. Hubski is my friends.
Added to the venerable list of hubski logans and slogos.
Can one of you explain the appeal of r/relationships to me? I just ventured there for the first time and it seems like it's trainwreck after trainwreck and filled with either awful people or stories of awful people.
I probably should have just taken the quote at face value. It's good to see you posting around here again, hope you've been doing well and that the root canal went well. Heard those aren't too pleasant.
Although humanodon is correct, I like to also view it in the following ways: 1) Stories. Don't bother trying to believe they're real, consider them stories, and all the stories just happen to focus on the nature of relationships, which leads me to.... 2) A pseudo-informative place where you can learn more about relationships: what's ok and what's not, what's bad communication and what's (supposedly) good advice, and so on. Info-tainment, with plenty of popcorn.
I used to sub to r/polyamory, back when I was trying/attempting polyamorous/open relationships (either, both). Unfortunately the lifestyle wasn't much for me. There are a couple of issues I personally have with multiple relationships that have more to do with practicality than jealousy or insecurity, necessarily (I don't have the time to have multiple successful relationships going at once, nor the interest to make that time by engaging less in my other leisure activities, for a big one) not to mention a rather strong natural competitive streak that makes it rather hard not to view others dating the same person I am dating as competition or people to compare myself against. I like to win a lot. It is not always an endearing quality. Honesty gets you the furthest in life if all parties involved can handle honesty like adults. I do agree that polyamorists can do magical things with relationships and communication - but I never found r/polyamory to be a haven for dramatic stories so much as advocating for a lifestyle whose appeal I didn't feel. But - I'll check it out and see if it's changed any.
I guess I am in the experimenting phase when it comes to polyamory. The point about people handling honesty like adults is very important. Until now, it has been going good, but my experience is limited to 1.5 years of multiple/open relationships. I noticed that it only tends to work out with girls that have a high self esteem. And ones that understand the difference between the time we spend together and the time she spends with somebody else...
I think so. I view Maury and Springer pretty purely as jaw-drop suck-in entertainment with no depth, and I feel like I don't approach r/relationships exactly in the same way. Though now you're just opened up a ton of potential for those shows with me.
True. I feel like there is less chance i'll get into an abusive relationship because after all the stories, i'll be good at spotting the red flags. And popcorn. I like to imagine some people I know might be posting. Not because I wish shitty things would happen to them but because it makes me realize everybody has their own shit going on they don't tell you about and I should make a better effort to be supportive and considerate to people around me.
Redditors meaning people from Reddit coming to Hubski in a flood. This discussion was sparked (I think) by controlling the number of new members, and the only time many new people come to Hubski is when a popular thread mentions Hubski. I agree with your points. This is off-topic, but the auto-word-controller highlights "Hubski" as incorrect, but doesn't highlight "Reddit." Strange, considering that we're on Hubski.
Thoughtful. I don't care much about being right about something. I do care a lot about learning new things, and getting insight into issues from other perspectives. People say shit to each other on many forums that wouldn't deserve a response IRL, and in many cases, they would probably feel like a fool for saying it. That kind of interaction has some value, but it kills the potential for other kinds of interactions. I've seen a number of folk in here drop little more than an opinion, or bait for a shallow argument, and it sucks the potential life out of what could be a good topic for conversation.
Prediction: This thread will blow up, there will be a few people very outspoken on both sides of the discussion, users who are against it will threaten to leave if it happens, some of those users actually will (and some of us will say, "Thank god!"), and is going to spawn like, three discussion threads about people who just totally do not agree with the given direction of the thread but, for some reason, have to make their own post about it - probably because their disagreement is just so large it must be acknowledged within its own post. Other posts will respond to these spawn-off posts. kleinbl00 will have some kind of earth-shattering opinion one way or another and people will get enchantingly oh-so-vocal about it. And, sorry mk, but it is highly unlikely that this will be implemented. Because of the Drams. That being said, I think we should run it like an experiment and see, as OftenBen suggested. That-being-said-that-being-said, soo many people are going to be endearingly against this idea because they will be convinced that if we give this a try, "We'll just never change it back!" and so on.
And, sorry mk, but it is highly unlikely that this will be implemented. Because of the Drams.
-See the history of tags and then rethink that sentence.
:) In all honesty, my willingness to rock the boat has more to do with the depths of my conviction and interest than it does with the volume of dram. Tags remain something that I want to get right (I think that two tags and a community tag was our best implementation so far). As far as muting, I almost never use it, and I almost never desire to do so. I had little choice but to listen to the community on that one. Unfortunately, people were much more invested in the outcome than I. As for this one, I am definitely willing to rock the boat. A home for thoughtful discussion is the goal, and I do think that a wide open door works against that in real ways.
Now that they've died down, check your settings. Currently set at 48 hours. forwardslash is going to love me for adding a setting at the 11th hour, so I can't guarantee that it will make the leap. It might have to be added once again.
It just says filter newbies. It gives no indication as to how long someone on the site is considered a newbie. What are the qualifications?
For clarity: I never suggested muting. I suggested being able to IGNORE users with fewer than x days on the site. However, the drama llamas hadn't yet figured out that muting was possible on Hubski so that is what they latched onto, and since they couldn't figure out the difference between muting and ignoring, they decided they'd rather feel indignant about something nobody asked for than that thing that totally wouldn't have changed their experience at all.
Nothing changed re muting, because it wasn't broken to begin with. imho. thenewgreen tip-toes away from the topic ever so slowly as to not divert the subject at hand...
If hubski becomes "exclusive" I'm gone in a heartbeat. ESPECIALLY if invites are done based on shares, so the most popular users can invite others who agree with them? There will be a serious lack of ideological diversity as the majority base grows and minority thoughts (which receive fewer shares) does not at a comparable pace. Hubski would become a giant circle jerk. Edit:
Nowaypablo's idea sounds good to me, though
Take off your tinfoil hat, son. A community where everyone agrees with me sounds like the least fun community possible. Do you know any people IRL whose friends are based on whether or not those friends agree with them? To add to that, do you know any 2 people IRL that will agree unilaterally across-the-board on every topic? Those people aren't real and don't exist. Edit: Also, just going to say - by removing yourself from the userpool if this happened, you'd be contributing to the problem. Why not welcome yourself as having a place on the inside where you could help offset these potential drawbacks by inviting whatever disagreeing mo-fo you can? the most popular users can invite others who agree with them?
I've got to say, I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you. This whole "circle jerk" thing doesn't exist in my world. I am throwing a birthday party tomorrow night for my wife, it's a surprise, and we will have about 15-20 people over. These people range from being extremely liberal to extremely libertarian, with maybe two right wing conservatives. The point is, there will be no shortage of varying ideas, thoughts and belief systems present and all of them are people I would provide Hubski invites to. They all have different careers too and different areas of specialty. I think the whole "circle jerk" thing exists in a younger demo, honestly. When I was 15-20, I was pretty die hard "X" and wore it on my sleeve, now a days I know better. As steve is fond of saying, only a sithe deals in absolutes.
I like passionate people. One of my favorite people to talk with is my uncle Bill. He's a DIE HARD libertarian and has been since John Stossil was a much younger man. Still, he's a really smart guy and I learn a ton when we talk. He's passionate about his beliefs and as such he's way more fun to talk to than someone I might be lock step in belief with that is less passionate. I like to surround myself with people that are doing things. My wife is the same way. I feel like Hubski has cultivated a similar group of people that I would actually hang out with in real life. I've disagreed with you, with cgod, with many people on this site a lot, but I know that if we were all in a room together, having a beer, it would be a blast. Dissenting opinion is the bedrock for growth, I'd welcome 10 people with differing views from my own to Hubski gladly, in a heart beat. I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't? You, no doubt, have friends that have varying views etc. too.
Because statistically they don't. People are most comfortable amongst those with similar beliefs. This is why political parties and religions exist. Mad props for pushing for diversity - and you aren't the only one. However, it is not the natural behavior of groups and if you aren't cognizant of the statistical mean you're going to be disappointed in the results.I'd welcome 10 people with differing views from my own to Hubski gladly, in a heart beat. I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't?
No, it's not a conspiracy thing, it's a human nature thing. People are going to invite people they know, and people know people through similar interests and ways of thought. While I'm not saying people are going to scrutinize invites to make sure they're not against their opinions, must of the people they invite will be people they know, who are biased to agree with them. The trend will not be absolute, of course, but it will be significant. As to why I would remove myself from the user pool, I have all of one hubwhell in the five months I've been here and feel no obligation to the community.
Please see my response to refugee. I like your suggestions here, so thank you, but I have to point out that as of right now, much of Hubski exists because people have invited their friends, acquaintances, co-workers etc to the site and I don't think it has suffered as a result. So, I don't quite buy in to the circle jerk theory. However, I am 100% with you in that I don't think we need to be actively turning interested people away. What I'm totally okay with is turning away people that would create an account, make a bunch of bullshit comments/posts for the ONE DAY they were here and never return.
Would the open day each month counteract this? Would making it more frequent counteract it more? Is it a bad thing for people to have to wait? What if there were no invites at all, but you could only sign up on the first of the month, or the first day of the week?
The thing is, people aren't going to wait. They come to the site, see that if they want to join they'll have to do it in three weeks, and promptly return to whatever forum they came from. Prospective members aren't invested in the site enough to wait. I suspect the result of such a restriction would be only people who found the site on a sign-in day would join, lowering the number of recruits but not having much of an impact on their quality.
I'm not sure I agree. At least personally, I would wait. I recall insomniasexx said that Designer News had a sign up window that was pretty narrow, and that people waited for it. In all honesty, if they aren't interested in waiting, maybe that's not a terrible thing. As for the circle jerk thing, it's a tough one. I'm not convinced that it comes from like-mindedness as much as it does from a lack of depth. For example, a discussion of climate change isn't a circle jerk if everyone agrees it is man-made. However, it is a circle jerk if people aren't willing to critically discuss aspects of climate change, or solutions, prevention, economics of it, etc. Usually a circle jerk can only occur if the treatment is very shallow. I get no joy out of mindless endorsement of my opinions. In fact, it bothers me and I seek critique. I expect that is the goal of thoughtful people.The thing is, people aren't going to wait.
All good points. What if on a day when you cannot create an account you can sign up for a reminder, this way on an enrollment day you get a notification from Hubski?
Hubski has a certain type of feel going for it. It's community centric, individual driven, and generally works as an open platform. It certainly wouldn't work as an invite system, seeing as it's already designed to be the opposite (instead of inviting users to join the club, users 'invite' other people's curations to be part of their feed). Requiring an invite would essentially make it a 2-way street, rather than a 1-way information feed that it currently is. I could see it turning into something closer to Facebook, than hubski. When I first joined up, I loved that I could hop right in, not cause any disturbance, and curate and tweak my experience as I liked. I eventually realized the problem is that I don't really have much in common with anyone here, which makes curation of content difficult. An invite system would've turned me off entirely. Invite systems are used to create exclusivity and closer communities. But Hubski is designed to be open/public, and have a self-curated community. Which means the potential pool of people needs to be huge, not miniscule. Which means an invite system would be counter-productive. All that being said, I must admit that hubski doesn't quite seem like the place for me (despite me coming back every now and again). But I feel like the main problem is the types of people already here, and the type of people hubski attracts (as great as you guys are, I'm just not like you guys at all). An invite system would only contribute to the selected type of people, and make hubski even more difficult to jump into. Which I personally think would wreck the point.
Even though there are groups of people who share common interests like music, poetry or hiphop, and I also first thought that I won't find people to connect with. But its becoming a nice mix of everything and that is what I like about Hubski. Here and there, you connect but its also refreshing to look into a world you have no idea about :)
This was originally going to be a response to thenewgreen in that other thread about this, but the discussion has advanced beyond me, apparently. All of the following are my personal thoughts on this idea, and Hubski in general. I wrote this while I was very tired, so the flow of some of the ideas might not make sense. Don't kill me, please. Hubski is a scary, difficult place for a new user. I was a lurker on Hubski for about a year, maybe before joining? And I wasn't getting an inviting image out of it. It was an interesting place to browse, but my biggest turn-off was the user-base. I felt then, as I feel now, that Hubski was the first old boys' club I'd ever seen that wasn't a country club for the rich. There is a pervasive feeling of general smugness and snootiness (Isn't that just the funniest looking word) among the people here. At first, I didn't know why I felt that way. Everybody here was at first glance nice enough. The conversations were polite, ish. I kept reading and rereading comments and posts that I got that vibe off of. They had several things in common. 1: A veneer of kindness kept up until a disagreement. 2: A condescending and sarcastic tone. 3: A sense of superiority. So many discussions are filtered by these problems that any large thread has multiple instances of them. It makes the conversation difficult to join, and uninviting because of it. Next comes the hard part. The people here are, on the whole, not so bad. I've had arguments with practically everybody here and the majority of the time I was the source of any deucery. But there is no patience here for differing opinions. Lip service is indeed paid to the idea of tolerance, but any dissent is punished with condescending sarcasm. This becomes almost omnipresent when dealing with any speech deemed unfit by the "quality" standards of Hubski. These standards are enforced with rigor by people hiding snark under the guise of keeping to an arbitrary level of quality. Hubski, as a whole, is one of the few places on the internet where it is possible and common to develop friendships with other users. This is made possible because of its size and popularity. Hubski has a small userbase coupled with a small amount of new users. This prevents "Eternal September" because new users can be ingrained with the site's social norms faster than other users can join. However, it also leads to viewing prospective users as inherently troublesome or useless, as time must be spent to rein them in. So where the fuck am I going with this? Good question, strawman listener. An invite-only system only works when many, many people want to join a website without being familiar with its culture. This isn't happening. Not only is it not happening, the culture and nature of Hubski actively turns away new users from joining. The "secret club, us-against-the-world" mentality, funnily enough, makes Hubski a thoroughly difficult place to enter. The only time a flood of new users appear is when Reddit decides to blindly send a few hundred people all in one day. The keyword there was "blindly." An invite-only system would be appropriate if that was a constant situation, but each Reddit Rampage only lasts a couple weeks, with months between each one. My point in all of this is that there isn't a point to controlling the number of new users. Hubski does a very good job of controlling growth all by itself. Sure, if the popular opinion is to do it, do it. But it will only hurt in the long run. When the issue is having too few people at the party, don't put a lock on the door.
I've found, in general, that tone online is 60% interpretive to the reader. There are many times that someone types something in a positive way, and the responder reads it in a negative way. Indeed, I would posit that such interactions are how most conversations here start. We're got some passionate, opinionated people on hubski, myself included. However, when interactions seem heated, it's best to assume that the other person isn't yelling at you over the computer, and just because someone is telling you "you're wrong and here's why", it doesn't mean they are judging you actively as a person and finding you lacking. The above sentiment, I think, is part of the "weird tone" of hubski. Compared to somewhere like reddit, where everyone's an expert and all views pass muster, Hubski has lots of passionate people who can and will peer review your shit. I found it a nice change, but I can see why it can be off-putting. Before I post an opinion here, i usually go "Where do I know that from?" and check my sources. I treat hubski like a peer-reviewed journal, because I want people to be able to trust what I say.
Isn't demanding proof or sources for an opinion insulting? You can't peer-review an opinion and you shouldn't need to do so. You're saying that all views need to be accepted by the community before being discussed? I disagree with that completely. At any rate, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the effect the tone of conversation on Hubski has on the image of the website as a whole.
Demanding isn't polite; but if you can't provide a solid basis for your opinion, there's not much reason for other people to find it of value. Often I am wondering if my own opinions are well founded. Understanding the basis for those that differ from mine helps me to challenge my own, and often to modify them.Isn't demanding proof or sources for an opinion insulting?
I know. What i'm saying is that the tone of the text is mostly in the mental voice of the reader. If one comes in here expecting aggressive speech, that's what they'll get (and considering how discourse often is on the internet, it's not surprising to expect that). However, you could read this comment in a condescending way, or you can read it the way I'm writing it, which is "I disagree with you like an adult, meaning we can use our inside voices and hash our disagreements out". No. You, and everyone in the world, are allowed to hold whatever opinion you choose. However, When you advance that opinion in public - which is what the internet is, regardless of its presumed anonymity - you are opening that opinion to criticism. If it doesn't pass scrutiny, why do you have that opinion? Is that opinion worth having? There are lots of discussions where both sides of an argument will have lots of evidence - Economics, for example, or "How does one run a country?" Disagreement and discussion is great, I'd argue it's most of why we're here. People disagree about shit all the time here. take this comment tree for example, where I say something dumb, get called on my shit, and I said "whoah, my Bad" then learned a bunch, while retaining that much of my fundamental point was unchanged by what I learned. The world didn't explode - indeed, i enjoyed the whole exchange. but to an outside viewer, i can see how that comment could look like it includes: 2: A condescending and sarcastic tone. 3: A sense of superiority. To me, it held none of those things. You're right that tone has an affect on the image of this website, but I say that the tone of this site is not as poor as you perceive it to be, or indeed, as many people who come from other places probably perceive it to be.I'm talking about the effect the tone of conversation on Hubski has on the image of the website as a whole.
Isn't demanding proof or sources for an opinion insulting?
You're saying that all views need to be accepted by the community before being discussed?
1: A veneer of kindness kept up until a disagreement.
This whole comment could have started at the paragraph that begins, "Where am I going with this..." Instead, you took time to criticize a community as a whole based on some interactions you've had with a few. You write, I find it hard to read something like this that paints an entire community as the types of people that only pay lip service to civility, only days after the founder of this site invited you to join him and others for dinner. You've been welcomed by many, many people here. I dare say, you'd not receive a more open armed welcome to a community. What you do after that welcome is in your hands. However, it's not lost on me that Hubski can be intimidating. In fact, some of the smartest people I know have said as much to me. That's something we could work on from a new user on-boarding standpoint, but once people engage the community, it's been my experience that hubskiers are VERY embracing. It's pretty awesome really.Next comes the hard part. The people here are, on the whole, not so bad. I've had arguments with practically everybody here and the majority of the time I was the source of any deucery. But there is no patience here for differing opinions. Lip service is indeed paid to the idea of tolerance, but any dissent is punished with condescending sarcasm. This becomes almost omnipresent when dealing with any speech deemed unfit by the "quality" standards of Hubski. These standards are enforced with rigor by people hiding snark under the guise of keeping to an arbitrary level of quality.
-cite examples please. I'd like to see where I've been snarky towards you, where anyone outside of maybe two or three people have been? I saw a discourse on here between you and elizabeth where she ever so gently suggested you take a look at yourself and it literally couldn't have been put in a kinder way. I think you might want to take her advice. any dissent is punished with condescending sarcasm.
I for one welcome dissenting opinions, I don't welcome stupid ones. Any interaction where I leave it knowing MORE than I did prior to entering it is a win. The times when I get to say, "you know what, you're right about that and I'm wrong," are the moments where I as a person grow. So, dissent is the foundation of a thoughtful community. Again, I'd challenge you to cite examples.
There is a specific set of people who I feel that that applies to. You aren't a member of that set. I'm not naming names because this is already douchy enough. Plenty of people here aren't like that, but the problem with a small community is that a couple people can dominate the conversation. That paragraph was directed at those people in particular. I'm sorry I've painted you with the same brush. You and many other people here have been nothing but good to me. Hubski is an intimidating place, and that, in my mind, is one of the reasons.
THE INVITE I've weathered a few Eternal-September moments. It's pretty awful for a little while, then it's over and they end up leaving in their wake the likes of flagamuffin or _refugee_. Aside from that occasional occurrence, is there another problem we are trying to fix?
Here's what might be interesting anyway: I'd like to see up top on the menu, the word "invite": If I click it from a particular page, it would open up an invitation that I could put the recipient's email on. The invitation would have a link to the page I just left and might say: Look at this discussion I just contributed to on hubski. or Look at this link I just found on hubski... or Look at this friend I just made on hubski... Then a few words describing hubski and an invitation to look around or watch the tutorial and then it could say: Check it out and help push back the dark. While I've been unable to get friends to participate, I frequently send people links to discussions, poems, pages. An invite page would make that easier, plus encourage people to join. Thoughts anyone?
Very positive on this suggestion regardless of the conclusion on the rest of the thread. (I am hoping these get taken as separate issues and tackled separately.) I have tried inviting many, many friends (but only those who I thought would truly contribute) to Hubski and I have also accidentally told people about Hubski because a thread was relevant to their interests, even though I didn't think they should join or that they would make good members. The second part of that I'll just have to suck it up on, for so long as I keep blabbing about Hubski in facespace, but I feel like this suggestion would help recruit more of the first by showing examples of what Hubski is all about. Then again, people might just delete it as spam, but, can't hurt right? Edit: Also, how many other users besides lil and me have had trouble actually getting friends to join? Just curious.
It's not for everybody. People seem to just see a wall of text and have a hard time seeing all the fantastic people, discussions, art etc that is behind it. It takes time and not everyone is patient enough or frankly, has the time to invest in something new.Edit: Also, how many other users besides lil and me have had trouble actually getting friends to join? Just curious.
I do.
I love these suggestions lil, thank you! mk, insomniasexx, forwardslash, -It would be nice to discuss this on our next call.
I'd like someone's first view of hubski to be from a discussion page. It took me a while to discover that there was a discussion on a page separate from the article and separate from the link to the article... so I'd prefer to invite someone to see an ongoing discussion first and mention that if they clicked the hubwheel in the top left, they could see what other discussions are going on.
I think it's worth talking about at least. One concern I have is that it may drive away some people who might sign up otherwise. Let's say someone discovers Hubski on the second of the month, and is intrigued by the site. However, he doesn't know anybody already signed up, and subsuquently forgets about Hubski before the first of the month comes around again. Essentially my point is that restricted sign up times may drive away some folks who might otherwise become contributors. An idea I have is that, perhaps, there could be someway for folks to apply for membership at any time. This could be in addition to the invites and restricted open signups, or an application only policy. For example, an applicant could select a few articles and discussions that were recently posted, and write up a few brief thoughts on each one. I feel only someone who was serious about joining would go to such effort, and, potentially, community members could vote on submitted applications.
For example, an applicant could select a few articles and discussions that were recently posted, and write up a few brief thoughts on each one. I feel only someone who was serious about joining would go to such effort, and, potentially, community members could vote on submitted applications.
This is a really interesting idea. If we were to spike in popularity though, it would prove to be extremely labor intensive unless we could somehow automate it. It's also extremely subjective what does and what does not pass muster. I don't want the burden of that decision.
Hopefully only the quality of submissions would be considered, and not the opinions expressed therein. I personally envision anybody who submits an application with good grammar and a minimum amount of effort to be admitted, but you are right, it is subjective and I'm certain issues would arise. As for who would judge, I would be hesitant to appoint the site runners or certain users to judge applications. I just don't like the idea of a few people controlling the flow of new people in. I'd rather anybody be able to judge new applicants.
Good point. What I had in mind was not a group discussion on each member. Instead, and maybe this runs counter to Hubski's ideals, is each applicant would require a certain amount of approval votes to gain entrance, lets say 10 votes. There would be no disapprovals, just those 10 votes would be needed. And maybe these votes should be hidden from the public at large?
I love the thinking behind the idea, but the actual execution of it would prove very difficult imo. Also, it creates a sort of "moderator" vibe that I'm not too keen on. However, the thought that someone should be able to string a subject, verb and an object together prior to admittance is appealing.
Honestly, if this were implemented, I don't think I'd invite many people. Like, my roommate goes to a particular bar where he's gone for years. It's his thing and catching me up on everything and meeting all the people he's formed relationships with would take too much time. I see this place the same way, when I come by, that is.
I can understand that. I see it more as the place that I can't believe everyone I like isn't on. But we all need our own places.
This post has been good food for thought, and the more that I reflect on it, the less I feel that invites address the problem. However, this idea is an attempt to address a problem, and that problem is a lack of expectation and an abundance of assumption on the part of new users. What I want to impress upon new users up front, is that Hubski, and their interactions on it, might be worth consideration that they aren't accustom to. As I have mentioned, I don't see a problem with enabling the filtering new users as kleinbl00 has previously requested. But, the notion upsets people, and that aspect does give me pause. For my part, I am now thinking that a good solution to the problem as I see it, is that Hubski is read-only for a short time after you sign up. My inclination is that Hubski is read-only for 48-96 hours, after which time you can comment. Also you get an email notifying you when commenting is enabled. I'd probably even make the time variable within that range, so that influxes over the course of one day don't translate to all the commenting being enabled within one day later.
Worthy of note: I created mass outrage by suggesting the ability to personally ignore new users for a few days without impacting their ability to post one iota. I further stated that Hubski should emphasize personal content curation and eschew top-down moderation and editorial control. Your response is to automatically enforce a site-wide mute for all new users, the thing I turned blue in the face telling Tidders I wasn't asking for. What you're effectively advocating is that very "notion" that "upsets people" and "gives you pause." What I asked for was a whole lot less than you suggest, but people got all torch'n'pitchforky because they thought I was asking for what you suggest. But you're hesitant to go with my solution because people got mad mistaking it for what you suggest. Food for thought.
More than enough time for the passion that might have pushed an excited outsider to register and get involved to fade away.I am now thinking that a good solution to the problem as I see it, is that Hubski is read-only for a short time after you sign up. My inclination is that Hubski is read-only for 48-96 hours, after which time you can comment.
Seems odd to me personally, but I guess I can see it. Whenever I join a site, it's usually after some time lurking and checking it out. If a site struck my fancy, there's little chance that I wouldn't come back after I got an email saying that I could now post.
I think that cgod made a good point, at least I think it was cgod, that people come because they have something to say right now. It's not always necessary that this person have time to figure out what Hubski is in order to provide valuable content, discussion and conversation. Imagine this, a thought leader in a particular industry stops by Hubski to comment in a discussion regarding an article they wrote but cannot. There are any number of scenarios like this that would occur. I think your proposal throws the baby out with the bathwater. Edit: if you're really concerned with people knowing that Hubski is a different place, and let them know upon signing up.
this would require moderation, which is something we're not exactly big on here, but what if all new users have a 48 hour period where their comments are moderated, and need approval? I mean, i'm not sold on the idea, but it could be a possible way to implement the above solution and still cater to authors of content.
Blows scalability to shit. There's currently zero moderation, but your solution creates a chaperone situation where somebody gets blessed with the task of reading (and approving) every. Single. Newb comment. Which, during the last tidder invasion, would have been a thousand comments a day whining about vote counts. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, and above a certain traffic level it just becomes mk's 24-hour mute through inertia.
Not a bad idea. Maybe make it a 3 month long experiment?
I don't have time to read the rest of this thread unfortunately, but I reiterate that it is much too early in hubski's growth cycle to implement an invite system. Invite systems work for websites like Broadcast The Net, which people desperately want to be a part of. No one wants to be a part of hubski, because they haven't heard of it. Our average new user these days finds hubski at random on google or via reddit. If we make it so only 1/30th of the time can those random users join ... no one will join. Again, I haven't read the pros that you all list. I'm sure they are thoughtful. But I'm still baffled that this is even on the table right now.
Yesterday I heard about "This.cm". A social network with 6k member, Invite only.
I wanted in because the idea behind seems great : You can only post 1 link per day. Of course it's invite only: You don't want fake multi, on a site build around avoiding web noise and herd behavior, and stuff. Let's Imagine Hubski do the same: 1 Link / day only.
What happen? Is Invite only a good idea then? Cause now, invite only on Hubski has no clear purpose . You want to try it, but we don't know what you try to achieve (beside "hype")
Thoughts: If Hubski was invite only when I joined I probably wouldn't have stayed and waited for the invite. See: ello. By the time I got an invite my initial interest had completely waned and now it's sitting in my inbox, likely to not be opened. Like others, I don't see what problem this solves. If you want to deter spammers and craziness of large influxes you could always put a 24-hour barrier between account creation and posting, and let the users take care of this (note: not advocating this one way or the other). If a site is invite only I need to know why I want to go through the hassle of securing an invite, and following through with it. With Hubski, it is a much less tangible benefit than say a tracking forum, where I know that there's a plethora of music/movies/whatever for me to indulge in. Here, I have to hope that I still end up fitting in or carving a niche for myself and other interested people who also created their own reasons for sticking around. The community and users are great, and I love this place, but it's not as easily apparent to those that would be on the other side of the invite barrier. On the other hand, an invite only system could generate curiosity and end up with some great people joining. If, for whatever reason, invites end up being implemented I like nowaypablo's suggestion the best (as of this comment). But I'm not sure I would invite people any more than I do now, which is infrequently. Though I have invited a few people who lurk around here. I don't know, hope that all made sense as I'm typing this while thinking about making an omelet.
Maybe I am missing something... but I haven't actually seen what the goal of this is? What is the problem that it is addressing? hubski is already dominated by a small group of contributors. Is it that you don't want anyone new to join and want to continue hanging out with the same people? My understanding of how the website is already set up is that the more people like something or someone the more influence that person has, which already reduces the chances of new users having a large impact on the site?
Do we even get a meaningful amount of new users on the regular? It seems like a solution for a nonexistent problem.
I'm not sure I follow. I doubt monetizing and heavy moderation and policing would lead to a good place for thoughtful discussion. IMO most aspects of the site's design functionality could be considered hoops and game play. No doubt, we design with specific goals in mind.