Thanks for the clarification.

I can't yet tell whether the less intuitive aspects of Hubski (such as the process used to find and follow users and tags) are a hindrance or a boon to the overall experience. On one hand, the sharper learning curve takes a little more investment, and may turn off some potential users. This is clearly an issue if you guys are looking to increase user base. To somebody who's completely into community engagement/discussion but less versed in new media, Hubski might look a little daunting/inscrutable. If I haven't demonstrated it already, I'm toeing that line- grew up, more or less, with the internet and online social media, but my grasp of online systems/infrastructure is basic. And so something like Hubski is a little harder to navigate for me, although still worth it.

On the other hand, that learning curve might still mean good things for the community. For better or worse, barriers to entry can help reinforce quality. Experiences on other sites have by and large led me to the conclusion that larger sample sizes bring with them an appeal to lowest common denominator. To a certain extent, Hubski's UI anticipates this, and allows users to ignore unwanted contributors/shape their own communities regardless of larger traffic patterns. But still, I could foresee a time when the influx of new users makes the flow of lower effort/shoddier content posts unmanageable, and the pathway to high quality posts less navigable. Unless Hubski's interface holds on to those very elements that only become useable after some exploration/jiggering. Maybe to some extent the whole point of the current UI is to limit low-effort participation. It's a tricky balance for those who run Hubski, who probably want to encourage high-quality interaction but, for obvious reasons, still might want to direct/maintain as much traffic as possible onto the site.