3 ms·

This is precisely why I opted to exclude voting and "likes" from Sqwok (https://sqwok.im https://sqwok.im). From the outset I wanted to build a discussion site

by holler 5y ago

This is precisely why I opted to exclude voting and "likes" from Sqwok (https://sqwok.im https://sqwok.im). From the outset I wanted to build a discussion site that was entirely focused on live conversation, without the gimmicks that have become so ubiquitous across the social media landscape and beyond. In the real world we signal our approval of a conversation by either engaging or walking away. Other people sense our liking of it by seeing our engagement, not a cheap binary sticker we throw up.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
> In the real world we signal our approval of a conversation by either engaging or walking away. Other people sense our liking of it by seeing our engagement, not a cheap binary sticker we throw up. So, is that what your ranking is based on for Sqwok? Clicks and comments? Is it having the effect you'd hoped?
- holler 5y ago
  It's based on realtime activity and time decay so far, with ideas for enhancing it as the site grows. So far the reception has been positive and people appreciate that it's just focused on conversation. Def aware that scaling it past a small user base may be challenging, but I also see opportunities to experiment in that regard. Then again, I could find out that the majority of people prefer to simply "like" something.
  - tooltower 5y ago
    I fear this this dynamics will promote highly controversial topics. Even here in HN, a topic with many comments and few upvotes have a higher temperature, more reported comments. It sounds like you are selecting for exactly that. That said, it's always hard to know until you have a large user base.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Trolls are graded on the inverse of the ratio of characters they type vs. characters typed back at them. If you can get people to type novels back at your poorly spelled, no caps, no punctuation incomplete sentence, you win.
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        That is hilarious. I also suspect that highly trolled topics might have a higher number of replies per view overall.
      - strogonoff 5y ago
        Trolls will continue winning in ad-supported social media. A troll is fantastic at engaging large numbers of eyeballs. A low-quality trollish sentence is quick to write; drop a few of them here and there and you got a few lurkers graduate to what the platform can now claim as “active users”. It’s a symbiotic relationship. (In this regard, as far as I’m concerned, for a novel type of social networking platform it’s much more important to be paid, rather than play around with likes and algorithms. Long-term business model will prevail—if your paying users are the advertisers, you’ll align with them sooner or later.)
        holler 5y ago
        > A low-quality trollish sentence is quick to write; drop a few of them here and there and you got a few lurkers graduate to what the platform can now claim as “active users”. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Agree, trolls will always try to game the system. I like the idea of optimizing for quality users vs quality content. You can always add optional controls for conversations as well e.g. account age restriction.
        strogonoff 5y ago
        I'm not really blaming trolls for gaming the system. Rather, I'm saying that any ad-based platform will one way or another evolve to have such an UI that encourages trolls, because they help its bottom line.
ljm 5y ago
> In the real world we signal our approval of a conversation by either engaging or walking away What does 'engaging' mean, exactly? You also signal your disapproval by engaging. If I tell someone to go fuck themselves after they tried to get me alone in a dark alley... I engaged with them, I didn't walk away with a tacit approval of their attempted assault and say I remained disengaged. If someone creeps on me online and I tell them to fuck off, the creepy cunt they are... then I engaged with them too. If I didn't engage and instead walked away, I might have a stalker to deal with because I never said no. `engage` is doing too much work and, in my mind, it's an inhuman term. You're applying the logic of a toilet cubicle to a human.
- holler 5y ago
  s/engage/talked to? whether you tell them they're delightful or a creepy perp, you're _talking_ to them. You're expending energy which is the opposite of a up/down vote or a like which requires no energy and doesn't add (or subtract) anything from the conversation. Of course as you point out, not all conversations are positive ones, but I like the idea of optimizing for more conversation in general. Also I don't claim that it's going to work out or that all voting is bad (in general on HN it seems useful), but I like the idea of trying something different.

by holler 5y ago

actually_a_dog 5y ago

> In the real world we signal our approval of a conversation by either engaging or walking away. Other people sense our liking of it by seeing our engagement, not a cheap binary sticker we throw up. So, is that what your ranking is based on for Sqwok? Clicks and comments? Is it having the effect you'd hoped?

holler 5y ago
It's based on realtime activity and time decay so far, with ideas for enhancing it as the site grows. So far the reception has been positive and people appreciate that it's just focused on conversation. Def aware that scaling it past a small user base may be challenging, but I also see opportunities to experiment in that regard. Then again, I could find out that the majority of people prefer to simply "like" something.
- tooltower 5y ago
  I fear this this dynamics will promote highly controversial topics. Even here in HN, a topic with many comments and few upvotes have a higher temperature, more reported comments. It sounds like you are selecting for exactly that. That said, it's always hard to know until you have a large user base.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Trolls are graded on the inverse of the ratio of characters they type vs. characters typed back at them. If you can get people to type novels back at your poorly spelled, no caps, no punctuation incomplete sentence, you win.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      That is hilarious. I also suspect that highly trolled topics might have a higher number of replies per view overall.
    - strogonoff 5y ago
      Trolls will continue winning in ad-supported social media. A troll is fantastic at engaging large numbers of eyeballs. A low-quality trollish sentence is quick to write; drop a few of them here and there and you got a few lurkers graduate to what the platform can now claim as “active users”. It’s a symbiotic relationship. (In this regard, as far as I’m concerned, for a novel type of social networking platform it’s much more important to be paid, rather than play around with likes and algorithms. Long-term business model will prevail—if your paying users are the advertisers, you’ll align with them sooner or later.)
      - holler 5y ago
        > A low-quality trollish sentence is quick to write; drop a few of them here and there and you got a few lurkers graduate to what the platform can now claim as “active users”. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Agree, trolls will always try to game the system. I like the idea of optimizing for quality users vs quality content. You can always add optional controls for conversations as well e.g. account age restriction.
        strogonoff 5y ago
        I'm not really blaming trolls for gaming the system. Rather, I'm saying that any ad-based platform will one way or another evolve to have such an UI that encourages trolls, because they help its bottom line.

ljm 5y ago

> In the real world we signal our approval of a conversation by either engaging or walking away What does 'engaging' mean, exactly? You also signal your disapproval by engaging. If I tell someone to go fuck themselves after they tried to get me alone in a dark alley... I engaged with them, I didn't walk away with a tacit approval of their attempted assault and say I remained disengaged. If someone creeps on me online and I tell them to fuck off, the creepy cunt they are... then I engaged with them too. If I didn't engage and instead walked away, I might have a stalker to deal with because I never said no. `engage` is doing too much work and, in my mind, it's an inhuman term. You're applying the logic of a toilet cubicle to a human.

holler 5y ago
s/engage/talked to? whether you tell them they're delightful or a creepy perp, you're _talking_ to them. You're expending energy which is the opposite of a up/down vote or a like which requires no energy and doesn't add (or subtract) anything from the conversation. Of course as you point out, not all conversations are positive ones, but I like the idea of optimizing for more conversation in general. Also I don't claim that it's going to work out or that all voting is bad (in general on HN it seems useful), but I like the idea of trying something different.