4 ms·

I remain unconvinced. Yes, the arguments presented here are persuasive, but we're talking social phenomena here - nothing is black and white, there are no unbr

I remain unconvinced. Yes, the arguments presented here are persuasive, but we're talking social phenomena here - nothing is black and white, there are no unbreakable rules. So use the analysis to design a system that works in spite of these pressures. Perhaps you can start by being less restrictive of the membership and the topics, and then become more restrictive once you've gained users. Perhaps those who are contributing directly to the core subject can be rewarded in some way, and see an impact in the "real world," such as more exposure in relevant communities, more followers for their blog or on twitter, or similar. Break the rules. At least, break the rules that need to be broken. This piece finds rules that need to be broken. Find a way.

dantle 16y ago
Agreed. The purpose of most communities is to grow. Certainly Digg and Reddit wanted growth; it's their business. Communities don't have to operate that way. Surely they can be designed for optimal quality; or as you said, modified so that any nonconstructive growth is curbed after a threshold.
jdp23 16y ago
I agree. But what's your attitude to people who break the rules here?
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  I'm trying to work out whether you have a hidden agenda under that question, but instead of doing that, I'll take your comment at face value. It sounds to me like you either haven't read or haven't understood PG's essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html There he talks about rules that matter, and rules that don't, and I think that partially encompasses my attitude. But only partially. In addition I'd add: when it makes things better. When people break the rules here they usually make things worse. Duplicated items split discussion. Multiple items about the same story with no extra information dilute the "New" and "Front" pages. People who leave witty replies that teach us nothing reduce the information density. I expect there are ways of "breakingthe rules" here on HN that make things better. Generally people frown on "meta" items and discussion. I break the "rules" on that, so do others, and sometimes we get down-voted, and sometimes not. It depends. Does it make things better? That's my usual guideline, and that's why I've taken the time to reply to you, even though your question could be taken as a content and information free jibe. Maybe it wasn't intended that way, so I'll assume you were intending to be helpful, and provide my thoughts for your consideration.
  - jdp23 16y ago
    The reason I asked was because a while ago you had posted about flagging people who you saw as breaking the rules, and I was wondering how you reconciled that with your very valid point here that the only way to keep a community vibrant is to break the rules. Your answer here makes sense and is pretty much how I think of it; for example, I knowingly break the rule of "don't bring it up if you're downvoted" knowing that my popularity will take a small hit. The challenge though is that what rules "matter" and "better/worse" are subjective -- and when groupthink sets in, attempts to change the rules are opposed even if many people think they would result in a better community. And yes, I've read PG's essay. My thoughts are at http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2091 http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2091 ... our earlier discussion is in the first comment

dantle 16y ago

Agreed. The purpose of most communities is to grow. Certainly Digg and Reddit wanted growth; it's their business. Communities don't have to operate that way. Surely they can be designed for optimal quality; or as you said, modified so that any nonconstructive growth is curbed after a threshold.

jdp23 16y ago

I agree. But what's your attitude to people who break the rules here?

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
I'm trying to work out whether you have a hidden agenda under that question, but instead of doing that, I'll take your comment at face value. It sounds to me like you either haven't read or haven't understood PG's essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html There he talks about rules that matter, and rules that don't, and I think that partially encompasses my attitude. But only partially. In addition I'd add: when it makes things better. When people break the rules here they usually make things worse. Duplicated items split discussion. Multiple items about the same story with no extra information dilute the "New" and "Front" pages. People who leave witty replies that teach us nothing reduce the information density. I expect there are ways of "breakingthe rules" here on HN that make things better. Generally people frown on "meta" items and discussion. I break the "rules" on that, so do others, and sometimes we get down-voted, and sometimes not. It depends. Does it make things better? That's my usual guideline, and that's why I've taken the time to reply to you, even though your question could be taken as a content and information free jibe. Maybe it wasn't intended that way, so I'll assume you were intending to be helpful, and provide my thoughts for your consideration.
- jdp23 16y ago
  The reason I asked was because a while ago you had posted about flagging people who you saw as breaking the rules, and I was wondering how you reconciled that with your very valid point here that the only way to keep a community vibrant is to break the rules. Your answer here makes sense and is pretty much how I think of it; for example, I knowingly break the rule of "don't bring it up if you're downvoted" knowing that my popularity will take a small hit. The challenge though is that what rules "matter" and "better/worse" are subjective -- and when groupthink sets in, attempts to change the rules are opposed even if many people think they would result in a better community. And yes, I've read PG's essay. My thoughts are at http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2091 http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2091 ... our earlier discussion is in the first comment