This all presumes that the "goal" of aggregators is organizing the library of articles that each person submits. Topic based organization is helpful to users, and conversations certainly develop around topics, but I would argue that simply organizing content is not the goal of an aggregator. If we think about a library, sure I find all of the information that I want, but I don't have conversations in the stacks about what I am looking for. Rather, the goal of an aggregator is to filter good content from shit content, and to foster/moderate discussion. All that hubski is is a different approach to that problem. If we just follow hashtags, then it is nothing more than a decentralized reddit model (if hashtags are thought of as individual reddits). Your still going to see the same degradation of content around each hashtag. The biggest problem is discovery (the reason that you noted further down) that new users can't make heads or tails of the follow a person model, and hashtags are the only way to keep your feed populated. That doesn't mean that the follow model is wrong, it just means that it hasn't been developed enough. I don't come here to talk about one thing, Reddit works just fine for that, I come here because I've found a few people to follow who submit consistently high quality content, and I can look through it without having to worry about being inundated with cat pictures. Is it perfect, no, but it works pretty well for what it is.
You are incorrect. Unavoidably, wholly and fundamentally incorrect. This all presumes that the "goal" of aggregators is discovery and submission of desirable subject matter. Remember - the content already exists out there somewhere. A google search would likely find it. Where Digg, Hubski, StumbleUpon, Tumblr, Upriser and anything else fit in is in actively pushing interesting content at the intended user, rather than forcing them to search it out themselves. You also do me a grave disservice by implying that anywhere in the above I said the first thing about "if we just follow hashtags." I said nothing of the sort, have never suggested this to be a desirable modality, and am offended that you would strawman me up like that to try and make a point. What I said was that the method of organization used by Hubski doesn't scale. I further pointed out that Hubski has favored following users rather than tags, often to the great detriment of functionality, and that if this trend continues, Hubski will collapse under its own weight. I used this argument as a justification for improving the searchability and tag extensibility of Hubski, not as a justification to stop following users. An example: To say "conversations certainly develop around topics" is a gross understatement. I'm not the slightest bit interested in the Detroit Redwings. Therefore, it does not interest me to have a discussion about the Detroit Redwings. I do not follow #redwings, #detroit or #hockey and as a result, I see no discussions about them. However, suppose comments in #redwings erupted about professional sports, the price of entertainment, and the economics of taking a family to a sporting event. Under the current system I would see it in my feed if I were following anybody in the conversation who chose to share it - presuming I don't have any tags set to ignore. Under the proposed system it would start creeping into my feed as it grew "heavier", depending on my settings. If it involved thenewgreen and @refugee@ I'd see it sooner, presumably, because I'm following them - or maybe the system would make me see it sooner simply because it knows how many times I've interacted with one or the other. Nowhere in there is there anything about "organizing the library" or "ignoring users." That's all about a scalable method for content discovery. Your reasons for coming here do not have to be my reasons for coming here. A good system accommodates our needs equally. It does NOT work pretty well for what it is - an influx of new users renders the site useless for a few days. A good system would not only accommodate the new users, it would integrate them seamlessly without allowing them to kludge the place up for everyone else or forcing them to spend a day wrapping their heads around the place. And thus we get to the real problem - I say "make it better" and everyone hears "make it different." I didn't say that. I wouldn't say that. I've never said that. I understand that thinking I said that makes it easier to ignore what I have to say, but it doesn't give your arguments any more grounding in reality.
There is plenty of room for subjectivity when we are talking about the role aggregators play online. If Reddit deleted all of the content that was more than 24 hours old, the front page would look the same. Why, because people upvote the same shit without regards for the organization of past content. You can say that the fundamental problem that aggregators face is organization of content, the act of clicking on links doesn't require any organization. You can say that aggregators are all about organizing interesting content, but that doesn't make me "Unavoidably, wholly and fundamentally incorrect." If I misrepresented your views on hashtags fine, but I don't think that I misrepresented things so poorly that you should be so offended. If I was wrong, then by all means I recant my statement, but your profile clearly shows that you prefer following tags over following people. Unless my eyes betrayed me, then I was not wrong about your preference, even if you didn't say it above. As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong, or simple offend you) but your arguments have nothing to do with following people. A tag based organization can be implemented in parallel with the current organizational paradigm without interfering with a tag-based system. From the backend perspective it matters, but to the user it doesn't make one difference. One can exist without killing other. People can use hubski in two different ways. The fundamental reason that everybody hears "make if different" when you say "make it better" is because you use hubski in a different way than most people do. By saying that the current organization is wrong, you are saying that it should be different. Doesn't mean that your method won't be better, but it will be different.
Stating it does not make it so. That is because the current state of Reddit is end-stage failure. Here's what it looked like 5 years ago. Not at all the same, is it? This is what happens when systems break down. The act of finding something to click on does, though. Otherwise, why aren't we all still using Yahoo? It's the original curated content aggregator. No, everything else makes you unavoidably, wholly and fundamentally incorrect. That sounds very little like an apology. And what on earth makes you think I would choose to impose my modalities on others? As a reminder, we're debating a thread you linked in which 1) OP suggested the way towards quality was super-users responsible for curating everything 2) which I lashed out against because it disenfranchises the individual user 3) and then proceeded to write up 2500 words about how the system should empower the individual user to self-discovery 4) and for which you've already issued one non-apology for putting words in my mouth. And I have already said, in as many words - "*Your reasons for coming here do not have to be my reasons for coming here. A good system accommodates our needs equally.*" My argument is that following people is not enough, and that without some serious groundwork now, when we're all on a first-name basis, we're fucked then, when a thousand users a day join up. Never once have I said that following people is a bad idea. Never once have I said that I think it shouldn't be the focus of Hubski. You weren't here when mk killed tags and the whole thing crashed and burned. See, it's statements like these that give me the grounding to call you wholly and fundamentally incorrect. Why would they? Never once have I said "use it like me" or "if you're like me" or "in my case" or "I find that." Every example I've used is a fabrication that doesn't follow my behavior. YOU are the one that keeps dragging me into this. I haven't mentioned my preferences once. However, since you've dragged me into it: I follow essentially no one because three influxes ago, everyone I followed (and there were maybe 40 people) ended up following the exact same circle-jerk topics. Everyone kept having the exact same circle-jerk discussions. In order to get new content in my stream, I had to unfollow literally everyone because the circle-jerk got so strong that the exact same links were in the exact same place in slightly different order. The "follow users" paradigm bonked hard for me. So I tried something else. Further, I've got nigh onto 800 followers. If I enter into a vaguely reciprocal relationship with any of them, I start that feedback loop right back up again. So who do I follow? Well, funny you mention it, because the stuff I post and the stuff I follow and the conversations I have are usually with the same people. A lot of them don't follow me. yet we end up in the exact same place because we have the same affinity for things. So the "tags" thing scales. It scales just fine. At my level, "follow" is already kaput. And that's why I haven't brought "me" into things up until now - it's impossible to say "following ceases to work at 500 followers" without sounding like an uberdouche, even when it's true. I didn't say the "current organization" was wrong, I argued that the thinking behind it was wrong. It still is. You've made not a single counter-argument against my statements. You're just dancing around semantics and attempting to find my shadow in my statements. it isn't there. It's an accurate statement regardless of context. And I think you owe me the courtesy to take what I say at face value without assigning ulterior motives to my statements.There is plenty of room for subjectivity when we are talking about the role aggregators play online.
If Reddit deleted all of the content that was more than 24 hours old, the front page would look the same.
You can say that the fundamental problem that aggregators face is organization of content, the act of clicking on links doesn't require any organization.
You can say that aggregators are all about organizing interesting content, but that doesn't make me "Unavoidably, wholly and fundamentally incorrect."
If I misrepresented your views on hashtags fine, but I don't think that I misrepresented things so poorly that you should be so offended.
your profile clearly shows that you prefer following tags over following people.
Unless my eyes betrayed me, then I was not wrong about your preference, even if you didn't say it above.
As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong, or simple offend you) but your arguments have nothing to do with following people.
One can exist without killing other. People can use hubski in two different ways.
The fundamental reason that everybody hears "make if different" when you say "make it better" is because you use hubski in a different way than most people do.
By saying that the current organization is wrong, you are saying that it should be different.