It is also like documenting code: there is too much left to the discretion of the poster. Finally, tag centric viewing is a channel for 'spam'. For tags to be effective in addressing the problem at hand, Hubski community must very carefully vet and approve the tagset. And the tag selected from the list (perhaps via autocomplete to make it not tedious). It's a tough problem. I don't believe Hubski has solved the community communication and info overload problem. It is a difficult problem. This is is NO WAY to distract from the incredible work that has gone into this great little community and platform. ([edit] mk: note that the stackoverflow has partially solved this problem by crowd sourcing the editorial system.)
IMHO, trying to solve some social problems can lead you to chase your tail. Actually, I didn't create tags to allow proper categorization of a post, but to give an additional dimension to posting, perhaps a outlet for some creativity. -I don't really have much faith in tagging. At any rate, I am not going to rush into anything. :) Over the last couple of days, there has been a large influx of users. The 'trending' and 'new' pages for 'all posts' have changed quite a bit. There are more posts that interest me, and there are more posts that don't. I'm not sure about these pages. My feed has not been altered much however, and I am pretty happy about that. However, I want to see where things go from here. Personally, I want the ability to create (and tune) a source of information that I find valuable, and to have meaningful conversations with good people about that information. Anything else is secondary. Of course, what I consider to be good conversation and information is not going to be universally appreciated. However, it's my goal that the platform will be flexible enough that we can each get a version of information and discussion that we find valuable. In fact, I don't expect Hubski to be one community. More likely, I see it evolving into a number of overlapping communities. There will always be some things about Hubski that will bother some of the users. -That is inevitable. I do have a vision for Hubski, however. That isn't to say that I won't respond to suggestions. Alpha0 knows I do:) But I generally only do if they fall in line with my feelings about the site. So, when I say 'duly noted' I do genuinely mean that it will affect my thinking on the topic. However, it's not the same as 'will do'. :)
I like that feature, too. > So, when I say 'duly noted' I do genuinely mean that it will affect my thinking on the topic. However, it's not the same as 'will do'. :) alpha0 bears witness that mk indeed responds to suggestions ;))
I'm adjusting to the difference between 'my feed' and 'all posts', and I think that I feel better when I spend more time in 'my feed'. :) It might be a crazy notion, but I am wondering if discovery can be made good enough, perhaps 'all posts' could be dropped all together. It is a bit of a shift in thinking, but it makes the focus of the site singular. All thoughts are appreciated. As for tags, I've been thinking/talking on it. I think we will stick with one for a while, but if we add more, it will be just one more. The focus upon following tags and following people has a significant effect upon the site, and I want to address a few more issues before I mess with that dimension. But atm, to get the best experience, my suggestion is to follow no more than 20 people, and spend some time getting to know the people that you do follow.
And a contingent issue is the (possibly catch-22) interaction of promoting Hubski (here is looking at you mr. x.. ;)) and not having a large enough community that would manifest the issues that we are addressing. In general, I belong to the philosophical camp that takes the long-standing (and material "real life") human society as the 'mother nature' of mediated societies. There is n thousand years of social thought that informs the norms of long standing civilizations. We have, thus, various sources to tap for guidance on (a) thoughtful spaces of discourse, and (b) stratified social spaces. (Remember that "filter" I mentioned in my few initial posts?) I also hold a perhaps atypical view (for a geek who studied architecture and considers it a fundamental & civilizational creative action) that social and system architecture can not universally address the shortcomings of the humans. (Note 'universal', please.)
Most definitely. That "reddit alternative" was some spin, however. Kevin (who wrote the article) did a nice job, but I think the "alternative" part was more him speaking to his audience than I was. Personally, I don't need a reddit alternative. I still drop in reddit and hn from time to time. I'm not trying to fix the "Problem with Reddit", if there is one. No. I hope we are doing something here that is about here. Part of anything is evolution for sure, but part of anything good is unique. :) That said, the article (and those actions of mr. x) do bring people to Hubski with impressions that will set initial conditions for behavior and expectations. No doubt, that is real. Perhaps success (in this respect) could be measured by a resilience of the individual user's experience to the variability of those coming to it. >In general, I belong to the philosophical camp that takes the long-standing (and material "real life") human society as the 'mother nature' of mediated societies. There is n thousand years of social thought that informs the norms of long standing civilizations. We have, thus, various sources to tap for guidance on (a) thoughtful spaces of discourse, and (b) stratified social spaces. (Remember that "filter" I mentioned in my few initial posts?) I absolutely agree that MN knows us better than we can ever. It's really learning from her that can be difficult. With that in mind, what is done, and what is not done can be equally important. Wouldn't it be nice if you and I could apply some of our own filters/philosophies (or not) to our own content and, by doing so, build the relationships/community that we desire? I'm watching, and listening, and reflecting. >I also hold a perhaps atypical view (for a geek who studied architecture and considers it a fundamental & civilizational creative action) that social and system architecture can not universally address the shortcomings of the humans. (Note 'universal', please.) I agree. I don't want to assume too much. As an ideal, I'd like the site to say: Here is a platform, and here are some ways it can be used: Do what you like! The trick is that what I like shouldn't prevent what you like. But isn't that always the trick? :) Thank you alpha0. Please always be frank. It's very valuable to have your perspective. Mine alone is not enough, and you can take a longer view than most.
Three distinct concerns interact here; (1) information processing bandwidth (2) Human psyche (3) Human society. 1, 2, and 3 are utilized by HN and SO to (somewhat) successfully address the problem. Both approaches are, of course, meta-ghettoization protocols in service of affecting social norms, e.g. HN mercilessly applies the no-false-positive strategy but does dip its toes liberally in the group-think pool. SO milks the human vanity to employ a free army of thoughtful editors (but still, lots of noise in SO lately)