I've come and went, and came back. I'd like to stay, and use hubski more. One problem I found was that links and comments I submit tend to feel like hidden to the rest of the users on the site. A few core users submit lots of things (and nice ones!) but I feel outside the core cabal. There is no mass of users that I can meld into. I tend to go directly for the "global" page. Otherwise I just see the same core users who I followed, and it's hard to learn about others. Just rambling....
The site founders are firmly of the opinion that content is best found by following users who post and share content that is interesting to you. Thus, the functionality of "following" experiences greater development. I largely use "global" because unless you follow lots of disparate users, your feed ends up being a cul-de-sac of information... and if you follow lots of disparate users, your "feed" doesn't really reflect your interests.
waxbolt, if you knew the amount of times I have sat strangers in front of a computer and had them use hubski for the first time in front of me while quietly taking notes, you would be pleased :) I also create new accounts and go through the process to get a feel for it. kleinbl00 will recall that we once had no tutorial and he was extremely helpful in testing/suggesting what we have now. -To this point, we are in the works on a "welcome video" that steve is making which will help steer new users towards finding content etc. And it certainly mentions the global feeds. Its a work in progress, but b_b is also correct that barriers exist for a reason too. There is a good amount of chatter on reddit right now about Hubski and I just saw one comment there mention that Hubski looked too "dense" and that because of that they are sticking to 4chan and reddit. -Victory from a UI perspective imo.The site founders are firmly of the opinion that content is best found by following users who post and share content that is interesting to you.
True, but it's all in how you get there. For me, the ideal way to use the site would be to follow tags that interest you to begin with. Then, when you find users, via those tags, that you find interesting -follow them. I would think that a healthy mix of users/tags followed is the way to go.
This is exactly the problem I've had in finding content on the site. I think it's healthy to have multiple views into the set of links and comments, but the default view is still a social dead-end, which might be confusing or difficult for someone who comes to the site without any background. The founders should try to re-join as new users and see how long it takes them to build up a meaningful feed. It's taken me months of (weakly) trying and still I am very dissatisfied with what I have. global is much better.
So. This account is like 70 days old or something and exists solely so for testing something we created solely for the purposes of aiding new users. However, if you check my feed you will see that it has content and articles and stuff in it, all of which it gained in the past three minutes. The first thing I did was click on "badges" in the upper right. I then saw a post by insomniasexx that appealed to me, so I clicked her name. I then had the option to follow her. I looked at some of the other stuff she posted, and clicked on one of the tags she used. This led me to an interesting article by @butterflyeffect@, so I also clicked on his name and followed him. I then looked over the stuff he posts and clicked on one of his tags, which I am now following. As a result, in the space of five minutes I'm following two users and three tags: #space, #goodlongread and #relationships. Note that these are self-evident tags; they present no surprises, unlike #writebetterdammit. Note that I needed to only click on "badges" once in order to get a heapin' helpin' of high-quality content, and from there it was like pearl-diving Wikipedia. Good luck and god speed.
Hm. I recently moved the chatter link next to feed since they both contain individualized content. However this might have deprecated global a bit more. I'm open to ideas. Do you recall when global used to mix in your feed and you could choose the mix? I thought that was positive in some ways.
Somewhere I discussed a slider that allowed affinity for your stuff and global stuff. But it wasn't with you, 'cuz I just rolled back our discussions to the point where it wouldn't give me any more. Dead horse time - massive influx of redditors are fire drills for Hubski two years from now, when a new user shows up and makes no effort to conform to the community but instead attempts to force the community to conform to him. The fact that all this stuff shows up for most of us in "global" and is completely divorced if we're ignoring #reddit is perfect, really... but if you want a petri dish of the future, watch the way these folx interact in here.
Apparently. Your quote: You'll note that my list is the Venn overlap for the subsets "things that are demonized" and "things that are completely normal." The point being: just because something is normal does not mean that it is good, that it is just, that it is something to be championed. On the other hand, you have bid "Childbirth and Education" as if they were things subject to demonization. This will be a difficult argument to make, should you attempt to do so. It seems that you wish to argue that "changing social dynamics" are "good normal" like "Childbirth and Education." However, you merely argued that "changing social dynamics" were "normal" and, as "normal" things, not subject to demonization. I hope you now see the fallacy in your argument. But hey. Let's start the kickoff with some snark, that always sets the tenor in a great spot, just like sarcasm and hyperbole.Is this 'lets be intellectually lazy' day?
I'm not sure why you would demonize someone for a phenomenon that is completely normal.
You were complaining about how certain new users are going to affect the community, and I pointed out that it's perfectly normal. We can get all convoluted about the definitions for whatever word you deem to be important to your correctness, but it won't change my initial point. Your complaints are akin to a parent lamenting that their cute little baby will someday turn into a full grown adult who is not nearly as cute. That's just how it works. Rather than complaining about a perfectly normal process, you should instead be wondering how the user and the community can both benefit from the growth. Furthermore, it seems to me that simply throwing out a list the way you did is a bit antithetical to the supposed deeper discussions this site is supposed to have.
Do you see the entitlement in your statement? You're stating that since you're new, and since new things change old things, new things are more important than old things. You're essentially arguing that since Eternal September happens, it is therefore good. You even compare yourself to a new baby and me to a cranky, ill-informed parent. The site that you're on? That you're interested in? That has qualities that attracted you in the first place? Those qualities were created by me. And if you don't think I'm entitled to protect those qualities there's very little reason for us to discuss this further.
It seems the level of discourse on this site is no better than reddit. http://memegenerator.net/instance/22144832 Or put another way, if you feel the need to tell me what my stance is, you're probably involved in a strawman.
What was that about a strawman?Is this 'lets be intellectually lazy' day?
I think the biggest disappointment in hubski for me is that it doesn't actually result in the sort of intellectually stimulating conversations I was looking for. When I came here it wasn't with the intent of being in an environment where people are nice or polite, it was to be in an environment where finding good, valuable discourse would be easier to do. Unfortunately, that requires a certain level of intellectual honesty, and I'm finding it lacking. The idea that a memegenerator link detracts from the point, for example. It doesn't, it just offends your sensibilities. But really, it's about the popularity contest that results from the way this site works. This entire conversation resulted because I pointed out to one of the most popular posters on this site that they're complaining about something that is a natural consequence of humans being social creatures. How dare I.
Nah, many a person will call Kleinbro out on shit if that's what he's giving out, me included. Problem is, in this "discussion", it wasn't the case. I've read through your responses multiple times, and if you think that's what being "intellectual" is, than I'm going to assume you're pretty young. And not on the site, either, just in terms of age. The tone you've been giving off is pretty obnoxious. You weren't just "pointing out" something, your whole tone was and continues to be needlessly "smartier than thou." Not gonna lie, if you're finding the intellectual honesty in this site lacking, than you're either not looking hard enough, or pretending it's not there. You're even using the intellectually stimulating buzzwords, but as soon as someone has a critical discussion with you, you don't like the discourse you're getting. You gotta choose! One or the other.This entire conversation resulted because I pointed out to one of the most popular posters on this site that they're complaining about something that is a natural consequence of humans being social creatures.
Intellectual honesty means being able to admit that klein's initial response to me was just lazy. Instead you've chosen to dismiss my points because you don't like the link google gave me, you think I'm young, you don't like my tone, or my choice of words. But the one thing you haven't done is responded to my point. If I tell you I think it's a circlejerk, will that get dismissed for using a term you don't like, or do you think you could be bothered to talk about what aspects this site make it appear so for someone coming from reddit? One of those is lazy, the other could actually result in something interesting. that is the problem with this site, and with the responses by both you and klein. And don't even get me started on your cherry picking my quote. The addition of the full quote vastly changes the meaning. That's honesty for you.
BUT WHAT IS YOUR POINT. WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING. All you've said is that you don't like Hubski, but the only reason you've given me are bullshit, or, I dunno, nonexistent. and you're still here. That being said, I can only argue with non-existence for so long, and Psycho Pass isn't going to watch itself, so...
wait wait I just remembered the ignore button... i almost feel awful.