3 ms·
I'd drop the real names - people do want anonymity (for example, posting about problems with their job or spouse) and the membership fee. Instead why not have
by zeemonkee 16y ago
I'd drop the real names - people do want anonymity (for example, posting about problems with their job or spouse) and the membership fee.
Instead why not have exclusivity ? People can create groups - like subreddits - but you can only post to a group if you are a member. Membership might be invite only, or you have to apply. That will keep out the spammers and trolls - bad behaviour gets your membership revoked. Let the people running the groups decide on their own membership (some might make it open to all, others might only allow friends etc).
- e1ven 16y agoHrmm.. Under that scenario, I'd transition from a Reddit-like model, to more of a Meta-filter like model. That could be interesting, but would probably fit a forum-like discussion site, better than a news-aggregation site, no? I suppose I could redesign it to be forum-skinned, and drop the news importing, and the real names, but at that point, what's left?
- zeemonkee 16y agoImagine something like Reddit, with groups(subreddits) for programming, US politics, Twilight, whatever. Each group can do auto news aggregation - maybe by customizing what RSS feeds get fed into the group. Each group gets to set a theme. Most important though is that each group gets to set the rules. For example: - who can post to the group ? - who can comment ? - how do you get to join the group ? So for a programming group I want it to be invite only (you apply for membership, the group owner gets an email, and clicks a link to let you in). I also want to allow only members to be able to post links and comments. As group moderator, I can also ban people who break the rules. Another group might let any site member post, and so on. Another may or may not allow profanity, or NSFW posts.