8 ms·

I think one of the most fundamental problems is the highlighting of things based on likes/dislikes/voting. It inherently drives people to polarization and is a

I think one of the most fundamental problems is the highlighting of things based on likes/dislikes/voting. It inherently drives people to polarization and is a very soft target for gaming. If you look at boards that use old chronologically ordered systems that are not threaded, there tends to be much more diversity of thought. A comment is just a comment - just like real life. People say smart things, people say stupid things. And the same people often do plenty of both. When you read a thread some comments you might love, some you might hate - but instead of focusing on one or the other you get a flow of ideas and views of all sorts. Instead in ordered/threaded systems we obsess over singular comments and the comments themselves become centers of discussion. One of the first effects is that the only thing that gets visibility when there are 'opposed' groups (in other words groups that do not upvote one another -- this effect is even more exagerrated when we introduce downvotes) is the largest plurality. One view has 51% of the support, the other has 49%. The 49%, even though it represents practically half of all views, would be buried anytime it's mentioned. You'd expect there to be about a 49% chance of any comment you read of being a 49% view. Instead you'll read each and every single 51% comment until you get down to the bottom sorted 49% views. Consequently we see groups begin to splinter off into their own little spaces where they can discuss things separate from the 51%. And just like that you have fermenting radicalism. An analogy I quite like is to imagine we're trying to solve a math problem. The correct answer to this problem is 0. However, one side believes the answer is absolutely at least 50. And the other side believes the answer must be no more than -50. When these two groups remain within contact, they counter balance each other. But now let's isolate these groups. In the past when the -50 side chose to go -60 there would be some push back against that and it would help create a more of a central equilibrium. But in isolation without opposition, -60 sounds awesome. Why not -70, or even lower? And on the other side an equal but opposite push for 60, 70 and more is simultaneously happening. The more segregated we are, the more out of touch with reality we become.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> If you look at boards that use old chronologically ordered systems that are not threaded, there tends to be much more diversity of thought. A comment is just a comment - just like real life. People say smart things, people say stupid things. And the same people often do plenty of both. When you read a thread some comments you might love, some you might hate - but instead of focusing on one or the other you get a flow of ideas and views of all sorts. Instead in ordered/threaded systems we obsess over singular comments and the comments themselves become centers of discussion. My experience is like this: flat, chronological comment systems have more "diversity of thought", because they make it harder for people to actually engage with each other - so you get more shallow comments. Tree commenting encourages depth of discussion. Interfaces are a problem, too. You can't have a meaningful discussion under a popular post on Facebook, because UX discourages it. You can't easily browse through hundreds of comments - you need to click a lot to show more comments, and each such click degrades performance of the site itself. On top of that, misclick somewhere, and your state is gone. Upvotes are a solvable problem. In fact, both HN and Reddit solved it, by not doing strict score sorting. Also, with proper UX, you can skim all comments quickly. Ultimately, the problem with on-line discussion is the same as with lots of real-world issues - there is just too many people, and each one has an opinion.
- indubitable 9y ago
  View a discussion as solving a math problem. No, that's not entirely accurate but I do think the parallels are solid. Would you prefer threaded or chronologically linear? Why? The answer is almost unarguably the chronologically linear. Flat chronological systems don't really make it difficult for people to engage. People certainly can and do quote one another. And I think they also tend to progress the discussion much more rapidly than threaded systems for at least a couple of big reasons: Threaded systems result in people repeating themselves constantly. For instance this topic currently has 16 top level threads and a total of 86 comments. However, I'd estimate 80% of the comments are saying the exact same thing in a variety of different ways: - 'Trump won because media manipulation.' - 'Hillary more actively manipulated the media and did not win, therefore the above is false.' The 'personalization' of threaded systems leaves most participants oblivious to most of everything else that's being said -- even when said at roughly the same time. So instead of the direction moving forward it takes a sort of logarithmic divide with numerous divides repeating other divides. This is a very common theme in every topic. Another major issue here is that as time elapses the number of people seeing any given comment rapidly approaches 0. Chronologically ordered systems enable lengthier discussion. Threaded systems all but ensure any discussion is dead after < 24 hours and often much sooner. So you have a sort of double whammy of not only a divide of progression, but less time spent 'progressing' as well. And lastly, I think chronological systems also deter pointless nitpicks. For instance I really want to get snarky about thinking Reddit's voting system has solved anything, but what's the point? The only reason I'd discuss this is because of this personalization, but it's unlikely to end with either of us feeling any more well informed and it certainly has extremely little to do with the topic at hand.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > View a discussion as solving a math problem. No, that's not entirely accurate but I do think the parallels are solid. Would you prefer threaded or chronologically linear? Why? The answer is almost unarguably the chronologically linear. No, I would prefer threaded, of course. That's because it is natural way I, and I would imagine most people, think - by breaking down problems into parts, recursively, and solving them in isolation. Note that, whenever you write stuff like: 1. 1.1. 1.2. 2. 2.1. 2.1.a. 2.1.b. 2.2. 3. 3.1. you're creating a threaded model, albeit with limitations of a static medium. > However, I'd estimate 80% of the comments are saying the exact same thing in a variety of different ways You'd be wrong :). > Another major issue here is that as time elapses the number of people seeing any given comment rapidly approaches 0. Chronologically ordered systems enable lengthier discussion. Threaded systems all but ensure any discussion is dead after < 24 hours and often much sooner. I disagree. My experience with boards using chronological ordering is even better at ensuring "the number of people seeing any given comment rapidly approaches 0". When you have 200 comments in a chronological system, most people aren't going to bother reading anything but the last few. In threaded systems like HN, it's much easier to handle, because you can skim the structure and zoom in on the subdiscussion that interests you. As for discussion being dead after < 24 hours, that's most likely caused by HN stories being short-lived on the frontpage, and people being reluctant to engage once the story falls off it. > And lastly, I think chronological systems also deter pointless nitpicks. What you call pointless nitpicks I call interesting tangents, which are often much more valuable that the original, primary topic, and they can grow on the side pretty much thanks to threading. > The only reason I'd discuss this is because of this personalization I don't understand what you mean by "personalization" and why you keep bringing it up. There is nothing personalized on HN itself, sans the top bard color (and showing dead posts).
observation 9y ago
> An analogy I quite like is to imagine we're trying to solve a math problem. The correct answer to this problem is 0. Suppose that the center opinion on Y was correct. Then there would be no need for 'search'. Leftist and Rightist would not exist. Liberals in the center would always be the winners. It's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> If you look at boards that use old chronologically ordered systems that are not threaded, there tends to be much more diversity of thought. A comment is just a comment - just like real life. People say smart things, people say stupid things. And the same people often do plenty of both. When you read a thread some comments you might love, some you might hate - but instead of focusing on one or the other you get a flow of ideas and views of all sorts. Instead in ordered/threaded systems we obsess over singular comments and the comments themselves become centers of discussion. My experience is like this: flat, chronological comment systems have more "diversity of thought", because they make it harder for people to actually engage with each other - so you get more shallow comments. Tree commenting encourages depth of discussion. Interfaces are a problem, too. You can't have a meaningful discussion under a popular post on Facebook, because UX discourages it. You can't easily browse through hundreds of comments - you need to click a lot to show more comments, and each such click degrades performance of the site itself. On top of that, misclick somewhere, and your state is gone. Upvotes are a solvable problem. In fact, both HN and Reddit solved it, by not doing strict score sorting. Also, with proper UX, you can skim all comments quickly. Ultimately, the problem with on-line discussion is the same as with lots of real-world issues - there is just too many people, and each one has an opinion.

indubitable 9y ago
View a discussion as solving a math problem. No, that's not entirely accurate but I do think the parallels are solid. Would you prefer threaded or chronologically linear? Why? The answer is almost unarguably the chronologically linear. Flat chronological systems don't really make it difficult for people to engage. People certainly can and do quote one another. And I think they also tend to progress the discussion much more rapidly than threaded systems for at least a couple of big reasons: Threaded systems result in people repeating themselves constantly. For instance this topic currently has 16 top level threads and a total of 86 comments. However, I'd estimate 80% of the comments are saying the exact same thing in a variety of different ways: - 'Trump won because media manipulation.' - 'Hillary more actively manipulated the media and did not win, therefore the above is false.' The 'personalization' of threaded systems leaves most participants oblivious to most of everything else that's being said -- even when said at roughly the same time. So instead of the direction moving forward it takes a sort of logarithmic divide with numerous divides repeating other divides. This is a very common theme in every topic. Another major issue here is that as time elapses the number of people seeing any given comment rapidly approaches 0. Chronologically ordered systems enable lengthier discussion. Threaded systems all but ensure any discussion is dead after < 24 hours and often much sooner. So you have a sort of double whammy of not only a divide of progression, but less time spent 'progressing' as well. And lastly, I think chronological systems also deter pointless nitpicks. For instance I really want to get snarky about thinking Reddit's voting system has solved anything, but what's the point? The only reason I'd discuss this is because of this personalization, but it's unlikely to end with either of us feeling any more well informed and it certainly has extremely little to do with the topic at hand.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > View a discussion as solving a math problem. No, that's not entirely accurate but I do think the parallels are solid. Would you prefer threaded or chronologically linear? Why? The answer is almost unarguably the chronologically linear. No, I would prefer threaded, of course. That's because it is natural way I, and I would imagine most people, think - by breaking down problems into parts, recursively, and solving them in isolation. Note that, whenever you write stuff like: 1. 1.1. 1.2. 2. 2.1. 2.1.a. 2.1.b. 2.2. 3. 3.1. you're creating a threaded model, albeit with limitations of a static medium. > However, I'd estimate 80% of the comments are saying the exact same thing in a variety of different ways You'd be wrong :). > Another major issue here is that as time elapses the number of people seeing any given comment rapidly approaches 0. Chronologically ordered systems enable lengthier discussion. Threaded systems all but ensure any discussion is dead after < 24 hours and often much sooner. I disagree. My experience with boards using chronological ordering is even better at ensuring "the number of people seeing any given comment rapidly approaches 0". When you have 200 comments in a chronological system, most people aren't going to bother reading anything but the last few. In threaded systems like HN, it's much easier to handle, because you can skim the structure and zoom in on the subdiscussion that interests you. As for discussion being dead after < 24 hours, that's most likely caused by HN stories being short-lived on the frontpage, and people being reluctant to engage once the story falls off it. > And lastly, I think chronological systems also deter pointless nitpicks. What you call pointless nitpicks I call interesting tangents, which are often much more valuable that the original, primary topic, and they can grow on the side pretty much thanks to threading. > The only reason I'd discuss this is because of this personalization I don't understand what you mean by "personalization" and why you keep bringing it up. There is nothing personalized on HN itself, sans the top bard color (and showing dead posts).

observation 9y ago

> An analogy I quite like is to imagine we're trying to solve a math problem. The correct answer to this problem is 0. Suppose that the center opinion on Y was correct. Then there would be no need for 'search'. Leftist and Rightist would not exist. Liberals in the center would always be the winners. It's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation