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.