Hubski will always be a work in progress. However, our goal always remains the same: We want to facilitate thoughtful interaction.
This weekend I had the opportunity to chat with steve in person about the site. I think about Hubski a lot, and it's always interesting to get a perspective on the site from another long-time user.
This is what is currently going on behind the scenes at Hubski: rob05c is continuing our data migration to SQL, and building the foundation of our API. forwardslash is improving our new search application. insomniasexx and myself are working up a new layout for laptop and desktop size/aspect ratios. thenewgreen is laying the foundation for something that is going to be good for Hubski's longevity.
In my conversation with steve, we talked about site functionality, and how it might be improved. We also talked a bit about what we think the site can do, and what it cannot.
I have a long-term vision for Hubski. That vision is centered upon the conviction that thoughtful interaction is something valuable for a significant amount of people, and that facilitating that interaction results in interesting things. I wouldn't say that my vision for Hubski is anti-commercial, but it does exclude some avenues of future development. For example, I believe that Hubski should not strive to serve as many people as possible.
Our migration to a relational database coupled with an API is going to significantly free our hands when it comes to future development. We have a number of ideas of what we might like to do with the new flexibility, but I think this would be a good time to have a general discussion about how the site is working, and how it is not. If you have any suggestions, no matter how insignificant or crazy, we'd love to hear them.
As an example, I've considered making a book exchange for Hubski users, baked into the site.
This is why I am here. I don't care about fame or points, I just want to talk to people whom I'd never meet in my "real life." Thanks for all the work you do!I have a long-term vision for Hubski. That vision is centered upon the conviction that thoughtful interaction is something valuable for a significant amount of people, and that facilitating that interaction results in interesting things. I wouldn't say that my vision for Hubski is anti-commercial, but it does exclude some avenues of future development. For example, I believe that Hubski should not strive to serve as many people as possible.
I'd like to increase transactions and have more discussion about the content that is posted. At the moment, loads of interesting articles and links get posted, but there are often no comments or little discussion arising as a result. I think the desire for 'thoughtful interaction' is preventing people from expressing less 'thoughtful' ideas (e.g. how a post makes them feel or maybe raising a small somewhat unrelated issue). However, I often find some of the best discussions that I have within good communities on reddit start from a really small idea or comment. As an observation, I think this may be in part driven by culture (the community seems to be a relatively narrow demographic) and in part due to design (the only way to interact with content is to share or write comments as opposed to interact in other ways). The share functionality doesn't seem that relevant to me, as there is still relatively little content being submitted, so I just use the global feed to find new interesting things. But beyond being able to share, there is no other forms of interaction I can have with posts/comments other than write something intelligent, which I often don't have time for or my limited knowledge may prevent (even though I might still have an opinion). It would be interesting to know the number of shares vs. the number of views for a post? Not always visible but just to see if people are interacting with the share button. I realise this has turned into a bit of a ramble without actually coming up with anything specific, but hopefully it's of some use.
It's an interesting observation. I agree that I'd love to spur more discussion on content, because often the comments are more interesting than the content itself. I have found that adding a bit of text with a link increases the chance that people will comment on the content. Typically we post things that we find interesting, so it doesn't seem much to ask that we comment on why we posted it. Maybe after adding a url, you should be prompted by the question: "Why did you post this?" I do believe that overuse of the moderation tools can have a stifling effect. But there may be other ways to encourage comments without changing moderation. I am open to any suggestions. We could add the 'shared by' number and link as seen in chatter to all comments. We've previously considered it.It would be interesting to know the number of shares vs. the number of views for a post?
Do that many people use the personal mod tools? I have never had a situation where I have had to mute anyone. Here's a very quick concept of some possible additions to the comments section. The 'discuss' counter could count up based on the number of child comments there are. A high number at the top of the chain would indicate that there's a good discussion below. For me, this is the most important indicator that it is worth reading on and more useful than seeing how many people have 'shared' at the comment level. I know the second has purposely not been included in the site, but being able to agree/disagree is a good micro-transaction that allows people to quickly engage in the conversation without having to spend time formulating responses or simply stating agreement. I personally don't think this will water down the quality of the comments and I think it could help strengthen the community and discussions. There may be room for more than one type of badge? Maybe one each for quality content / creative thought / hubski community. I'm not really sure where this idea came from or the purpose of it, but I didn't want to throw it in the trash. I only put links to the side because sometimes I feel they get in the way of discussion and interpretation, decreasing the quality of their application and original thought.
Thanks guybrush. Agree/disagree is interesting, but many comments make multiple points, or don't assert a position. It might feel odd to apply it universally. Would it encourage debate? What is the difference between agree/disagree, and a rating system? Would a 1-5 star rating system be better or worse? The child number is an interesting idea as well, and would be easy to implement. We do show badge number. Alternate types of badges or appreciation is worth considering. Not a suggestion at all, but it's worth contemplating how the addition of a heart icon that did nothing but count 'likes' would affect the discourse. Are the links based on those domains linked in the comment? I think I am going to test out how it looks to have share counts and/or child counts in the comment info.
Yeah that's a good point. I was trying to think of a more generic and word for 'agree' - maybe 'endorse'. I see it as a tool to be able to quickly engage in a thread when someone has made a valuable post, but you don't either have anything further to add or don't have time to add it. Likewise, I think it's useful to be able to know when people don't endorse something you have posted so you can reflect. There's obviously nothing wrong with having an idea or opinion that people disagree with, and so long as it isn't tied to magic profile points I don't see it preventing people from posting minority/controversial opinions. As you say, it's effectively a simple rating system. I personally don't like five star rating systems because I don't think they reflect human behaviour. Here's a couple of examples. There may be a comment thread with a high child count, then with each comment below making valid counterpoints and receiving high endorsements, highlighting a great quality of conversation. Or maybe I post something creative and I get a low number of endorsements and receive various critiques below, of which one comment has very low endorsements but another has high endorsements. I can then focus my attention on the points made in the highly endorsed comment to challenge my thinking. It would definitely need testing to see how people interact. The space for links may encourage people not to only post links as a response. I've seen on a few occasions (not that I can see any now) where someone has just posted a link as a comment. That's fine, but I usually want to know what you think about the content in the link.
I've always thought it would be cool to have both a relevant/good comment button similar to reddits upvote along with a personal agree/disagree for the content similar to how the reddit upvote is actually used. Not sure how this fits into the shares model though.
Don't think I haven't noticed all the tweaks being made to formatting capabilities. I am extremely thankful. Posting poems is much easier when you don't have to double-line between every single break. (Just one example of the changes I've noticed.) I know I keep critiquing the search function. Really I'm psyched it's gotten better, I just want to share my user experience because, well..things aren't quite 100% yet, and if I can show my end experience as an example of "Hey, I think something's wonky here!" then that's what I'm going to try and do. I agree. Quality, not quantity. Haters gonna hate. It is really nice and refreshing to see a business which is not driven by numbers - getting the numbers, keeping the numbers, making sure no one else gets to have the numbers either. I am reminded of that post the other day about how it seems it is no longer enough to offer a good product, or a valuable service - everyone wants to offer the #1 BEST PRODUCT, the #1 MOST VALUABLE SERVICE, and anything short of that is somehow failure, and all of this is measured by numbers. Mindlessly shoving towards a perceived "top" or "best" as measured by "most use" is ugly. It is giving in to popularity contests in lieu of preserving personality, quirkiness, and difference. "You can be the most juicy, tangerine-colored circle surrounded by littler circles in the entire world, and there's still going to be somebody who hates anything that ain't a straight line." - George Thorogood, 1983 As for what I'd like, it'd be cool if we could just build Hubski out into a little complete Hubski-verse. Sure, build a book exchange into the site, heck let us have our own currency to trade for things. I don't know. I'm happy with better search and continued improvement to formatting. Just please never add autocapitalization, that shit is the bane of life's existence. Edit: I would like it if we could sell 3D printers that print 3D printers. That's a good one, I think.I believe that Hubski should not strive to serve as many people as possible.
Hey mk. Any idea how many sign-ups/active users are there? And I have never browsed on desktop or mobile but everything looks great on a laptop. Thank you boys and girl(s).
We are just over 20k users, but I don't have good metrics on active users. We haven't spent much effort tracking such things. My guess would be that about 2000 come by at least once a month, and that 1000 or so constitute most of our daily visits, and 50 most of our content. But I don't have numbers.
I'm kind of a needy little bitch. I think I only demanded like 8 new, highly complex features. And they better be done by next Tuesday.In my conversation with steve, we talked about site functionality, and how it might be improved. We also talked a bit about what we think the site can do, and what it cannot.
Sorry for the untagged sarcasm. I wasn't demanding anything. I actually never demand, and I think rarely even suggest functionality. Our chat was really just kind of musing. We discussed the variations about how people interact with the site and I just asked silly "what if" and "is it even possible" questions. I didn't go into the conversation with mk with any kind of agenda or anything. I actually love the site the way it is and am pretty mellow about functionality. Often when hubski discussions get wrapped around he axle about some kind of functionality, I end up not reading them after a while. discussions about the way we facilitate discussions are less interesting to me.
Thoughtful interaction means book exchange? Honestly, the system of the site, as it is right now, doesn't encourage much "thought" at all. People naturally lean towards ideas of their own, and the way the following system works, the fact that it is incredibly easy, not only to not see what someone else says, but to ensure they cannot comment on your post, censoring them from the larger audience, encourages everyone to rabidly ensure that they say nothing at all which could result in being muted. The submissions are nearly all shitty link posts, and the only real comments that get discussion are ones where the topics are "pubski' or similar, clearly showing that this site is more a "hangout" for a select group of people who like each other than a site on which ideas can appear, and be truly discussed in full. Maybe if "thoughtful" means "friendly" I can see your goal, but as it is, this site is little improved over something like facebook in it's early days. A gathering place for well-educated, tech-oriented people. Nothing baked into hubski encourages thoughtful discussion. Thoughtful discussion requires a much more complex system that allows users to have open and honest discussion, it requires a system where mob-groups or users with a ton of followers do not have disproportional control over what is seen by the site. This site is not that.I have a long-term vision for Hubski. That vision is centered upon the conviction that thoughtful interaction is something valuable for a significant amount of people, and that facilitating that interaction results in interesting things.
You aren't the first to have this criticism. I don't suspect that I can persuade you that you are wrong, but my reasoning behind the functionality here is largely inspired by interactions IRL. That is, the people that I engage with in are those I tend to get along with, and those that I continue to seek to associate with. The people that I engage IRL don't share all of my views, but we almost always have an overlap of one or more sort of interest, aesthetic, or opinion. Although I think it's a noble ideal, I haven't found people that remain associates IRL that have nothing in common beyond the desire to discuss things. Also, when I don't enjoy someone's company, or if they are rude or dismissive, I don't interact with them. I'm not saying that what happens here is the only kind of valuable interaction on the internet. But in order to have the types of discussions that we do have, options akin to those you have IRL are necessary. It might be an unfortunate fact, but it is a fact. It is a trade off, and it does come with limitations. Trust me, I'd love to have our cake and eat it too; we have tried. I do wish that people would use these mute less than they do. You and I have disagreed in the past, and I have never felt the need to mute you. Doing so wouldn't enhance my experience. It would make it worse.
Not to say those things are bad, they are awesome, community-building ideas. They just aren't exactly in line with that goal of "thoughtful" discussion. However, most of my interactions with people IRL tend to lean towards the inability to really say anything without fear of losing friends or being disliked. Then again, I'm not the most socially functional of people. It is unlikely that a person will remain friends with someone who persistently and consistently challenges their ideas. Any site that encourages the muting of people will encourage the formation of a community based on muting those you don't like, and "liking" someone is almost certainly correlated to "agrees with me in some way". Perhaps you can get variations on the same theme, but true, wold-subversive, disagreement creates strife, can cause anger, and will be silenced. Perhaps, in that way, a person can make hubski what they want from it.I don't suspect that I can persuade you that you are wrong, but my reasoning behind the functionality here is largely inspired by interactions IRL.
Although I think it's a noble ideal, I haven't found people that remain associates IRL that have nothing in common beyond the desire to discuss things.
You and I have disagreed in the past, and I have never felt the need to mute you. Doing so wouldn't enhance my experience. It would make it worse.
Certainly. "Thoughtful", no matter how defined, is a function of the users. To me it means something very different from the majority of contributors here, but I suppose it's neither my nor anyone's place to say what is or is not, since we're quibbling over definitions. I think most active contributors here use "thoughtful" in the sense my wife or mother would use it vis-a-vis, say, a thoughtful act. That's fine, IMO, but not something I'm keen to jump into most often. You're correct in that no matter what features and functions exist, the timbre of the site is dictated by the culture that has evolved (and continues to). I'm not sure one could design a mechanism (or if it would be desirable) that encourages a specific cultural bent.They just aren't exactly in line with that goal of "thoughtful" discussion.
It is my hope, but unless a significant portion of the people here consciously restrain themselves from muting as a result of disagreeable exchanges, then it might be overshadowed by the lesser angels of our nature. I actually considered the idea that a user could set a time out for their muting, filtering, etc., something like: However, after a point, these efforts border on absurd, and IMHO give the impression that the site can solve problems that people cannot.Perhaps, in that way, a person can make hubski what they want from it.
1 week, 1 month, 1 year, forever
I don't often mute or block users on this site unless they're spammers, so most of my experience with curating content comes from unfollowing people on my Facebook feed. One thing I thought was a rare good idea on Facebook's part was a suggestion to reconnect with unfollowed users. It was non-intrusive, but served as a reminder that I'd drastically altered the content of the website. I thought this might be worth reconsidering, so I re-followed all of those users. And while I ended up unfollowing almost all of them again within a week, I've left a couple of them in my feed--mostly people I'd disagreed with to the point I became annoyed with their posts. I've realized that it's good to have their opinions in my feed because it gives me a real sense of who the people around me are, even if some of their opinions are absurd. It's difficult to notice where the line is between removing offensive or worthless content, and constructing a personal echo-chamber of non-objectionable content in order to make yourself feel comfortable and validated. But while I don't think the latter is something that's inherently bad, a subtle reminder of how much you're altering the flow of information might be a good thing. Maybe a subtle (2) in the bottom corner of a given post or comment to show that two child comments have been filtered out. For users who never really considered the extent of their filter, it could provide an opportunity to reflect on that, and possibly reintroduce some objectionable content into their feed. For everyone else, it could be a reminder to thank the mods for providing them them tools to prevent ignorant commenters from raising their blood pressure.
It's an interesting idea. However, it could only be applied for posts as filter only removes posts from a certain tag, person, or domain from your feed. Mute prevents someone from commenting on your own posts, but doesn't filter the person's comments anywhere else.Maybe a subtle (2) in the bottom corner of a given post or comment to show that two child comments have been filtered out.
the internet is the only place in the world where people think shitting in the soup is a right that should be protected
neutral. see what you mean, but what the hell does anymore? it encourages conversations. agree 30%. but in my experience the people who get muted in practice are just jerks/tone deaf, not, like, eccentrics with ideas too bold for the common forum. disagree - submissions fall in a few categories 1. easy to find link posts atlantic, wapo et al 2. personal tellhubski stuff 3. spam/crap 4. the very rare incredible finds from websites i would never see otherwise disagree agree 50% agree... some amount. but who is to blame? not the medium, the people/culture, surely. or at least not the medium completely. at that point it's tautological. neutral. this is not hubski, never will be, but also you clearly enjoy it somewhat or you wouldn't be here. i'm not sure what you describe is really possible. anyway, refugee's response is kind of embarrassing, or more so the fact that it'll end up with eight dots in a while.Honestly, the system of the site, as it is right now, doesn't encourage much "thought" at all.
People naturally lean towards ideas of their own, and the way the following system works, the fact that it is incredibly easy, not only to not see what someone else says, but to ensure they cannot comment on your post, censoring them from the larger audience, encourages everyone to rabidly ensure that they say nothing at all which could result in being muted.
The submissions are nearly all shitty link posts
and the only real comments that get discussion are ones where the topics are "pubski' or similar
clearly showing that this site is more a "hangout" for a select group of people who like each other than a site on which ideas can appear, and be truly discussed in full.
Maybe if "thoughtful" means "friendly" I can see your goal, but as it is, this site is little improved over something like facebook in it's early days. A gathering place for well-educated, tech-oriented people. Nothing baked into hubski encourages thoughtful discussion.
Thoughtful discussion requires a much more complex system that allows users to have open and honest discussion, it requires a system where mob-groups or users with a ton of followers do not have disproportional control over what is seen by the site. This site is not that.
shrug when the original post basically states "yes there are some people who Hubski isn't going to be right for" and then someone is like "blah blah I think you're wrong about hubski" frankly engaging any further seems kind of pointless. Some people aren't going to like everything. The post said that. And then some person came along and said they didn't like everything. Like, what a huge shocker and valuable insight that something already predicted happened!
isn't the post about what hubski could do better? in general, he is somewhat correct (i gave percentages!). in specifics, he is lacking. for the record although i agree with some of his criticisms i do not think there is much hubski could do better. except formatting. its failings are failings of the internet in general. but as mk's implied goal is to be better than the rest of the internet, never hurts to put the thinking cap on.
The biggest shit shows I've seen on the Internet are the ones that lack strong moderation by either admins or users. No contest. If you want thoughtful discussion you aren't getting it sans opinionated moderation. And if your goal truly is thoughtful conversation, you should be able to challenge even your greatest "opponent" tactfully without getting muted. If not, that probably wasn't your primary goal tbh.
I'm not sure that I agree that Hubski doesn't provide thoughtful insight. I don't often discuss thing with other people on here, but it isn't to say I haven't absorbed opinions. I think in this case "thoughtful" works in two ways. 1. absorbed in or involving thought. 2. showing consideration for the needs of other people. Its about thinking for sure, but it is also about caring and respecting those who you are having the discussion with. I don't know many of these people personally, but I think I have definitely gained some respect for them as people. I think that has some importance, and I think that's why mk uses "thoughtful"Maybe if "thoughtful" means "friendly" I can see your goal, but as it is, this site is little improved over something like facebook in it's early days. A gathering place for well-educated, tech-oriented people. Nothing baked into hubski encourages thoughtful discussion.
That just sounds like sour grapes. Hubski is a community and communities evolve around cores of belief and interest. I think mk's statement about not serving the widest possible audience is tied to a goal of keeping the community aspect of the website. If you want to go rouse rabble stay on reddit and see how thoughtful that conversation goes while we quietly discuss whatever we discuss here.
It depends more on the various features of the system to attract interesting people. The individual humans have to come up with the thoughts in accordance with 1) their motivation and desire to discourse with others 2) how strongly they feel about an issue 3) the time available to compose and communicate thoughts along with necessary proofs 4) the rewards they get from their participation. Interesting informed people are probably also busy people who don't have a lot of time to compose thoughtful discussions. There are many many conversations that provide satisfaction, information, connection, and/or thoughtfulness to the participants.Honestly, the system of the site, as it is right now, doesn't encourage much "thought" at all.
A "system" is only a system. What can systems do to encourage or discourage thoughtfulness?
Random 4am musing: Allow for users to temp-ban themselves? (Please, I need to get this paper done! (>_<) ) This could be looked at in a few ways: 1. allows users to step back and not post. Might give super active posters to stand back and watch discourse without their interference. 2. way to allow users to give themselves a block from the site for a short amount of time. Allows for them to accomplish "x" pressing task. 3. gives users a chance to distance themselves from the community for one reason or another. (Perhaps they need to kick a bad web browsing habit, or want to see how hubski might change over a period of time. Might be interesting, might not. Probably better that I end this idea here and get back to my paper.
I'm worried about the future of Hubski if it continues to gain new users. I don't think the site is set up well to stop the lowest common denominator from dominating and crowding everything else out. Not that long ago I avoid participating as much as I could have because I was worried about reducing the quality of the discussion that goes on here. Not any more though. Posts like the following ones which are dismissive of minority group opinions getting shared so much could discourage these groups from using the site. If it wasn't for user-inactivated providing some much needed discourse then the comments would fit in 100% on Reddit or Youtube or 4chan. I'm not sure whether I should add a supportive comment there and add yet another white person's thoughts on the matter, or let members of minority groups speak for themselves.
That would be fantastic for me, because I'd be able to receive books in languages of interest - English and German - and even send out books in Russian to those interested. Beyond that, I'm afraid I don't have anything insightful to share. Everything works pretty fine for my taste: we're having an open-minded community ready to have a conversation on plenty of topics, some of which I might even understand. What bothers me is how much racism is discussed on this forum - and I'm not sure "discussed" is the right word - but I don't believe it's something admins can and/or have to deal with, given that it seems to be the community's wish.As an example, I've considered making a book exchange for Hubski users, baked into the site.