So, I love the interface on Hubski, but my one major concern is that it's really difficult to find users to follow right off the bat. You're given a small list of people to follow when you first jump on (presumably mods, right?), but there's no indication of whether they're representative of the larger Hubski community, or of your particular interests.
Now, don't get me wrong- thus far, I've been really happy with the people I've been following (thanks for putting out great material/thoughtful comments, all)- but it just makes me wonder about how many users fly way under my radar who a) have great stuff to say and b) follow my general line of interests.
So if your first choice of who to follow is more or less arbitrary, how can we insure that really great users don't fall under the radar? Is the "chainlink" approach- that is, follow an initial mod and then follow people who respond to that mod's post in ways you find thoughtful, and then follow posts off of those users etc.- efficient enough?
In light of this, I'd love to hear some thoughts on who people generally find well worth following, and why. Do they align with your interests, or do they just consistently bring neat stuff to the table?
Been having an awesome time here, but I want to make sure I'm not missing out on more great stuff.
When I joined hubski I followed some tags for a little bit and then from constant use of the site got a sense of who was a good contributor. Took about a week. I add people every once in a while when I notice them say something more insightful than usual, have a look through their post history, and like what I see. That's pretty much it.
Check out the global posts, which are the hub-wheels to the right of "community" in the top bar. There you might find some users that interest you. Also, you can search tags. For example, lets say you are interested in "space". Go to the search bar and type in #space and you'll get the most recent submissions. There you could find some like minded people to follow. Also, go to "badges" and check out the users that other hubskiers have "badged". This tends to be a pretty great group of content and users. You can also follow tags which will bring some people to your feed that might interest you. So, there are ways to use hubski to get introduced to people but they aren't the most obvious. We need to change that. Hope this helps. Thanks for the post fuffle.You're given a small list of people to follow when you first jump on (presumably mods, right?)
-Actually no, those are just random users based on being recently active on site. It's not terribly sophisticated. You are definitely right to mention that "finding" users to follow isn't as intuitive as it should be. This will be a major focus moving forward. Currently, b_b and I are going to be watching (in person) some people use the site for the first time and take notes on what is and isn't working. Any thoughts from you or anyone else is very helpful.
Hey so is there any plan in the future to create a "you might also like to follow..." list? Even without it it might be nice to see a list of people who have also shared stuff you have shared. Though I also fear that creating tools like this leads people to building a stronger bubble (not that this necessarily a bad thing I guess).
We've discussed the recommendations in the past and it's definitely something we've been keen on. I think it would be cool to answer some questions after you sign up about what interests you and then be given a list of users and tags to potentially follow. -I mean, if dating sites can connect two like minded people, why couldn't we? But this is just me shooting off the cuff, we've not discussed it that seriously. It's on the list. It's a big challenge, an exciting one.
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.
Good points. We are definitely mindful of not making hubski too simple. The learning curve has served us well but we know it could function better and are always working towards a fine balance. We recently had a large number of users come over for the first time around the end of December. For a few days we were getting thousands of more visitors than normal. While this was occurring the overall posts jumped and in some of the threads, the quality of conversations was very low. Funny though, as time passed the people making the low quality comments either left the site, presumably bored, or they began changing the quality of their interaction. There are users that I "ignored" from those days in December that I now follow. -It has been interesting to witness.
The other day thenewgreen and I were discussing adding the option to "suggest a user to follow" in your profile. Once you come across someone follow-worthy, it might be interesting to see who they recommend.
syncretic was one of the first people I really noticed around this community (other than, you know, MK and thenewgreen). He was an excellent microcosm of the community as a whole. I was hooked just after the top three posts on Hubski before I made my account all those months ago, two of which were submitted by him. He's great. Then there's b_b, flagamuffin, etc. who are just all around and everywhere with great content and comments.
I only follow like 10 people so far, and add them sparingly as I see people who consistently make great comments or submit content I like. The beauty of it is, when people I already follow share a link it shows up on my feed, even if they didn't submit it. Then I see them sharing content from other people that they probably follow, and since they are following those people, I more often than not end up following those people too after I see their name a few times and enjoy what they post. So I guess to answer your question, who you follow can build slowly over time, and always check out the global sections to find new people to follow! I probably ignore people equally to how many people I follow, because I am open minded to the good content I read, but don't want to see crap, so I tend to ignore people who argue a lot or submit content I have zero interest in on a regular basis.
Well, I'll tell you that you shouldn't follow me, because I rarely submit posts. I actually feel bad, given the number of people who do follow me. Apart from the good following practice that AlderaanDuran describes, there is the community page, which has links to a bunch of popular users.
I started following you because you were sharing a lot of interesting stuff. As for comments, I'd say that quality trumps quantity. If somebody tends to say less, but what they're saying is interesting or well put, it's generally better than if somebody commented a lot, but said little. The "community" page is interesting, although it begs the question: is somebody worth following simply because they're popular? Or is it possible to be unpopular or unknown, and worth following? And if so, how do we find these contributors? Or maybe Hubski isn't yet big enough for that to be a real problem.
You ought not feel bad, you share a lot of posts which is pretty important. That's how ideas, articles and conversations spread throughout our community. Also, you are a great commenter which is extremely important. I tend to follow people based on comments as much as, if not more than, posts.