3 ms·

It's also keeping people from rebelling against the companies (elites) gaining all the profits (I say this as a business owner). It's like not collaborating wi

It's also keeping people from rebelling against the companies (elites) gaining all the profits (I say this as a business owner). It's like not collaborating with another skateboarder or ecologist because they don't share the same political team as me. "Internet teams" is a complete mental construct, taking advantage of xenophobic, tribal tendencies we have innately to protect us in the physical world. I tend to lean towards low-tech anarchist and I have a lot in common with socialists, fascists, and jeffersonian-democrats (anti-federal govt, pro-working man), and even muslims where I'm against central banking or charging interest. But nobody could ever talk about it because "teams".

holler 6y ago
I agree, the ranking algorithms should be based off genuine engagement in a discussion, not opaque votes or likes. I'm working on a new discussion site https://sqwok.im https://sqwok.im, with the intent to foster open, frictionless, and accessible conversations with anyone, where the relevance is determined by other signals including activity. There are different issues to work around with that model but it more closely resembles how we interact irl (real world "vote" is usually just walking away).
- Avicebron 6y ago
  I'm interested. When you mention activity do you mean something like "total active engagement on a post" or "how active is one particular user relative to others". Also is it your intention to maintain fully anonymous participation with or without moderation? Also one thing I think could be a cool feature would be a reddit style "subreddits" but created by users who then collectively decide what it's going to be about by their participation. Good work.
  - holler 6y ago
    Hey, thank you! By activity I mean chat activity in a given post. Right now the ranking algo for "hot" is based on how many people are chatting + decay time function. It's somewhat simplistic for now (still mvp), but I have ideas for other signals that could be used to determine how relevant a particular conversation is. It's certainly vulnerable to being gamed, but I think there are ways we could try to limit that, and filter out noise etc. One of my goals is to focus as much as possible on the conversation and build features around that. For instance instead of a "like" button, it could require a user to _write_ something relevant (just idea). I think the key is that we try new things, hopefully learn from ideas that have been tried elsewhere, and build a place for high-quality realtime conversations. The site does follow the twitter/IG/twitch model where it's a flat user(nest) hierarchy, but I have considered later enhancing it to allow multiple users to manage a single nest which would allow both community-led or single-entity led. Right now the goal is just to get mvp features and start getting feedback! So thank you :)
    - thealienthing 6y ago
      Interesting. I wonder if you could factor in “views” for measuring activity, like how many people have visited a thread and for how long. It’s my understanding that most big websites are extremely interested in minutia like where someone spends most of their time on the page, where their cursor is etc. that may be a useful metric for determining engagement.
      - holler 6y ago
        yes! I think there are a few potentially interesting data points along this thread, such as time spent viewing, conversion from viewer -> active participant, and more. I like measuring the view bounce rate because I envision someone listening to others speak, and then either walk away or step closer to engage further. Cursor position could be interesting, maybe to see if they scrolled and read the content description?

holler 6y ago

I agree, the ranking algorithms should be based off genuine engagement in a discussion, not opaque votes or likes. I'm working on a new discussion site https://sqwok.im https://sqwok.im, with the intent to foster open, frictionless, and accessible conversations with anyone, where the relevance is determined by other signals including activity. There are different issues to work around with that model but it more closely resembles how we interact irl (real world "vote" is usually just walking away).

Avicebron 6y ago
I'm interested. When you mention activity do you mean something like "total active engagement on a post" or "how active is one particular user relative to others". Also is it your intention to maintain fully anonymous participation with or without moderation? Also one thing I think could be a cool feature would be a reddit style "subreddits" but created by users who then collectively decide what it's going to be about by their participation. Good work.
- holler 6y ago
  Hey, thank you! By activity I mean chat activity in a given post. Right now the ranking algo for "hot" is based on how many people are chatting + decay time function. It's somewhat simplistic for now (still mvp), but I have ideas for other signals that could be used to determine how relevant a particular conversation is. It's certainly vulnerable to being gamed, but I think there are ways we could try to limit that, and filter out noise etc. One of my goals is to focus as much as possible on the conversation and build features around that. For instance instead of a "like" button, it could require a user to _write_ something relevant (just idea). I think the key is that we try new things, hopefully learn from ideas that have been tried elsewhere, and build a place for high-quality realtime conversations. The site does follow the twitter/IG/twitch model where it's a flat user(nest) hierarchy, but I have considered later enhancing it to allow multiple users to manage a single nest which would allow both community-led or single-entity led. Right now the goal is just to get mvp features and start getting feedback! So thank you :)
  - thealienthing 6y ago
    Interesting. I wonder if you could factor in “views” for measuring activity, like how many people have visited a thread and for how long. It’s my understanding that most big websites are extremely interested in minutia like where someone spends most of their time on the page, where their cursor is etc. that may be a useful metric for determining engagement.
    - holler 6y ago
      yes! I think there are a few potentially interesting data points along this thread, such as time spent viewing, conversion from viewer -> active participant, and more. I like measuring the view bounce rate because I envision someone listening to others speak, and then either walk away or step closer to engage further. Cursor position could be interesting, maybe to see if they scrolled and read the content description?