3 ms·

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 chronological

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).
- indubitable 9y ago
  Personalization is what happens in threaded systems. In threaded systems the number of viewers and participants in any given thread extremely rapidly approaches 2, then 1, then 0. Your analog of how problems are solved has nothing to do with the reality of how threaded systems work. In reality it would be: 1. -> 1.1 -> 1.2 -> 1.1 -> Airplanes 1. 1. -> 1.1 -> 1 -> 1.1 -> 1 1. -> 1.1 7. Hotdog -> Apples -> Hotdogs -> Apples -> Hotdogs -> Apples -> Hotdogs 1. 1. -> 1.1 Descartes -> Nietsche -> Russell 1. -> 1.1 It's the key problem. When people isolate themselves from everybody else, there's no real progression in the discussion. On HN I can't even find new posts if I wanted to! When I last posted, 15 hours ago, I mentioned there were 86 posts made. That did not include mine. There are now a total of 89. So including yours that means one solitary other individual has since posted in this thread. I wished to locate his post to see where he fit in our little discussion, but alas that's not really practical in this model of discussion. The reason posts die rapidly is because there is no notion of chronology. When you look at a post from 3 days ago you're mostly just going to find comments from 3 days ago. Now go to literally any reasonable size chronologically ordered forum and you'll find interesting topics that in many cases have been actively going for years, and it's phenomenally interesting to be able to clearly see and follow the changing views, discoveries, and so on over time. Like you're inadvertently alluding to, I think this format is more popular in large part because it's a minimal effort, rapid response game. It's certainly fun and addicting, but I think it has a very negative effect on the overall level of content.

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).

indubitable 9y ago
Personalization is what happens in threaded systems. In threaded systems the number of viewers and participants in any given thread extremely rapidly approaches 2, then 1, then 0. Your analog of how problems are solved has nothing to do with the reality of how threaded systems work. In reality it would be: 1. -> 1.1 -> 1.2 -> 1.1 -> Airplanes 1. 1. -> 1.1 -> 1 -> 1.1 -> 1 1. -> 1.1 7. Hotdog -> Apples -> Hotdogs -> Apples -> Hotdogs -> Apples -> Hotdogs 1. 1. -> 1.1 Descartes -> Nietsche -> Russell 1. -> 1.1 It's the key problem. When people isolate themselves from everybody else, there's no real progression in the discussion. On HN I can't even find new posts if I wanted to! When I last posted, 15 hours ago, I mentioned there were 86 posts made. That did not include mine. There are now a total of 89. So including yours that means one solitary other individual has since posted in this thread. I wished to locate his post to see where he fit in our little discussion, but alas that's not really practical in this model of discussion. The reason posts die rapidly is because there is no notion of chronology. When you look at a post from 3 days ago you're mostly just going to find comments from 3 days ago. Now go to literally any reasonable size chronologically ordered forum and you'll find interesting topics that in many cases have been actively going for years, and it's phenomenally interesting to be able to clearly see and follow the changing views, discoveries, and so on over time. Like you're inadvertently alluding to, I think this format is more popular in large part because it's a minimal effort, rapid response game. It's certainly fun and addicting, but I think it has a very negative effect on the overall level of content.