4 ms·

Hey there, I'm working on a new discussion site after I couldn't find one that fit my desire a few years back (sqwok.im). Although I'm not familiar with the Sla

by holler 6y ago

Hey there, I'm working on a new discussion site after I couldn't find one that fit my desire a few years back (sqwok.im). Although I'm not familiar with the Slate Star Codex, my goal is to build a place where people from all walks can have meaningful discussion about any sort of topic. But in particular I'm interested in news, current events, science, tech, politics, history, etc. One thing I'm doing from the start is removing voting entirely. The site is "conversation-first" meaning I plan to develop it entirely around the conversation, only adding new features if they enhance the conversation in some way. I'm wondering if a site could be highly curated but not heavily moderated? Maybe a site that's open for anyone to post wouldn't necessarily attract the same crowd as one that was a curated collection from a known source? Originally I started thinking about this when I worked in news media some years ago and witnessed the state of online commenting back then! Fun stuff. Cheers!

shmageggy 6y ago
Your site looks interesting, I'm checking it out now. I agree that reddit-style voting systems are problematic. In particular, I think there needs to be a way to separate votes that mean "I agree/disagree" from votes that mean "this is high/low quality". Old slashdot had something like this. I'm not sure what you mean by "highly curated but not heavily moderated". I see curation as an extreme form of moderation, essentially operating from a whitelist model as opposed to a blacklist model like most/all sites have now.
- holler 6y ago
  > I see curation as an extreme form of moderation Ok yeah that's how I see it as well... I was curious if you meant that you'd like a heavily curated site while accepting heavy moderation.. Full-disclosure I don't have the magic bullet for the best solution to the problem of moderation, but it's something I'm constantly thinking about as I build sqwok. I'm not really a fan of heavy-handed moderation on the current large sites, and the sort of echo-chambers that form around them, but I also realize that there will always be a subset of bad actors/trolls that try to ruin the experience for everyone else. That said I _do_ like the idea of curated content as a feature for showcasing content. Thanks for checking it out! (I'm in p/QVK5_vIww8lrGw now if you want to chat)
nkurz 6y ago
> One thing I'm doing from the start is removing voting entirely. What makes you think this is a good approach? I strongly suspect that voting (as it clumsily currently exists) was essential for HN to get to where it is. Are there examples of other communities that have accomplished what you want without voting?
- holler 6y ago
  hey, I'll say that I'm not sure if it's viable long-term or a "good" approach, but I wanted to try it. From years of reddit use, I see voting as a way to amplify echo chambers, and with sqwok I'm hoping to at least try to diminish that. Being based on realtime chat vs threaded comments may be a slightly different experience as well.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    I know that one change I'd make to HN would be to disallow voting without at least a single-word comment accompanying the vote. Can't be bothered to contribute? Then you can't be bothered to vote, either. Failing that, I wish comment votes were rendered with 'sparklines' instead of numbers alone. I find it surprisingly interesting to watch my comment scores go up and down over timeframes corresponding to daylight hours in various parts of the world. It would be very cool to see voting trends presented in graphical form. And it should be fairly obvious that posts that oscillate between high and low scores tend to be more thought-provoking than those that shoot to +4 or -4 and stay there.
    - holler 6y ago
      > disallow voting without at least a single-word comment accompanying the vote. Can't be bothered to contribute? Then you can't be bothered to vote, either. That's interesting, and I agree with the idea that there should be _some_ requirement to contribute more than just an opaque vote. In another comment I mentioned using "activity" as a metric for relevance, but another thing I've thought about is perhaps in the same vein as your thought here, where instead of voting, you could write certain phrases that would match a sentiment. That way the people in the conversation could engage with the message and it would further the discussion. Voting is hidden and doesn't match how conversations happen in real life.

by holler 6y ago

shmageggy 6y ago

Your site looks interesting, I'm checking it out now. I agree that reddit-style voting systems are problematic. In particular, I think there needs to be a way to separate votes that mean "I agree/disagree" from votes that mean "this is high/low quality". Old slashdot had something like this. I'm not sure what you mean by "highly curated but not heavily moderated". I see curation as an extreme form of moderation, essentially operating from a whitelist model as opposed to a blacklist model like most/all sites have now.

holler 6y ago
> I see curation as an extreme form of moderation Ok yeah that's how I see it as well... I was curious if you meant that you'd like a heavily curated site while accepting heavy moderation.. Full-disclosure I don't have the magic bullet for the best solution to the problem of moderation, but it's something I'm constantly thinking about as I build sqwok. I'm not really a fan of heavy-handed moderation on the current large sites, and the sort of echo-chambers that form around them, but I also realize that there will always be a subset of bad actors/trolls that try to ruin the experience for everyone else. That said I _do_ like the idea of curated content as a feature for showcasing content. Thanks for checking it out! (I'm in p/QVK5_vIww8lrGw now if you want to chat)

nkurz 6y ago

> One thing I'm doing from the start is removing voting entirely. What makes you think this is a good approach? I strongly suspect that voting (as it clumsily currently exists) was essential for HN to get to where it is. Are there examples of other communities that have accomplished what you want without voting?

holler 6y ago
hey, I'll say that I'm not sure if it's viable long-term or a "good" approach, but I wanted to try it. From years of reddit use, I see voting as a way to amplify echo chambers, and with sqwok I'm hoping to at least try to diminish that. Being based on realtime chat vs threaded comments may be a slightly different experience as well.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  I know that one change I'd make to HN would be to disallow voting without at least a single-word comment accompanying the vote. Can't be bothered to contribute? Then you can't be bothered to vote, either. Failing that, I wish comment votes were rendered with 'sparklines' instead of numbers alone. I find it surprisingly interesting to watch my comment scores go up and down over timeframes corresponding to daylight hours in various parts of the world. It would be very cool to see voting trends presented in graphical form. And it should be fairly obvious that posts that oscillate between high and low scores tend to be more thought-provoking than those that shoot to +4 or -4 and stay there.
  - holler 6y ago
    > disallow voting without at least a single-word comment accompanying the vote. Can't be bothered to contribute? Then you can't be bothered to vote, either. That's interesting, and I agree with the idea that there should be _some_ requirement to contribute more than just an opaque vote. In another comment I mentioned using "activity" as a metric for relevance, but another thing I've thought about is perhaps in the same vein as your thought here, where instead of voting, you could write certain phrases that would match a sentiment. That way the people in the conversation could engage with the message and it would further the discussion. Voting is hidden and doesn't match how conversations happen in real life.