4 ms·
though pg also set [HN] up in terms of direction and focus. [...] Both execution and constitution matter, IMO. 100%. that there are other money fauce
by JohnBooty 3y ago
though pg also set [HN] up in terms of direction and focus.
[...] Both execution and constitution matter, IMO.
100%.
that there are other money faucets which don't create the same effects: natural resource extraction economies, [...] Tourist attractions [...]
Yeah, there are other distinct factors with college towns relative to other money faucets.
- The (putative, anyway) core mission of colleges is one of education and research. There's a hell of a lot of other stuff going on at colleges, to the point where that core mission often feels like an afterthought, but it is a unique factor relative to the other examples we can name.
- While colleges sure love to suck up money, it is not their core focus in the way that it is for a corporation.
- Colleges have a markedly younger demographic than just about any other money faucet we could name
There are more of course.
And at the other end of the scale, you can have
college towns which are too successful. [...]
These are so wealthy that the cultural
amplification of the educational institution is
dampened by the lack of affordability of the region
100%.
On Reddit, a comment reply generates a notification only
to the author of the comment replied to. There's no
sense of a thread-notification (or even some smaller
region, say, the three or five preceding comments'
authors). This means that conversation tends to die
rapidly on Reddit.
This is very true for me, especially on large threads with more than ~100 replies.
Ultimately I don't find this to be a dealbreaker but it is for sure a shortcoming.
One feature Reddit has that's underutilised (and
underpowered, in terms of features, notably search)
Yeah. On the subreddit I moderate(d) we saw the same questions over and over and we wanted the wiki to be the solution to that. But realistically nobody looks on those wikis unless a mod or somebody explicitly links them to the wiki.
I don't know what the solution is there. A wiki is such a different paradigm w.r.t. a threaded discussion forum. And their functionality overlaps. I don't know how you weld them together.
To really make it work in a synergistic way there'd need to be some thoughtful integration. First we'd need to define the purpose of each.
This is an admittedly arbitrary distinction but IMO it would be useful to have the wiki be a place for higher-quality information that has been accepted as canonical or at least reliable by the mods and the community.
This would need to be coupled with a way to "bless" or "promote" information from discussion threads to the wiki. And a helpful and magical way to automatically surface relevant wiki information in threads, for example if you are asking a question whose answer already lives in the wiki.
The wiki search should, as you say, be better. But the underlying problem there is split-brain syndrome: the bit of information you want could lie in the threads and/or the wiki. At a bare minimum there needs to be a unified search.
- dredmorbius 3y agoOn Wikis: even with search, most people simply won't look at them. Search is most useful for a very small set of power users ... and for mods who are looking for the appropriate cluestick to whack an offender with. Even with a relatively small wiki, I'm often struggling to find content I know (or am pretty sure) exists. The whole thing reads like an intern's summer project, and I strongly suspect it was. The notion of having both an ongoing transactional dialogue and an accumulating finished work, somewhat analogous to a financial journal (transactions) and statements (finished works) is something that I've long wanted to bring to online discussion. Again, Wikipedia (and similar projects) most closely resembles this, though even back in Usenet days there were newsgroups and the periodically disseminated FAQs of accumulated knowledge and behavioural norms. Determining what each should do is key. There's a long history of discussions being bundled up as books (lectures, meeting notes, bull sessions, etc.), of serialised publication, of collected letters or other epistolary exchanges. There's the case of Stack Exchange which as I see it somewhat has the opposite problem: it tries to treat the transactional discussion as the finished work, with a great deal of feather-ruffling. I'd think that SE would benefit from a different approach in which the live / current Q&A discussions are allowed to happen, but examples of especially good answers being canonicalised and surfaced in search, perhaps refactored into articles. Another problem with knowledge corpora is that they both get out of date and/or are subject to malicious (or simply uninformed or misguided) edits with time. These are problems which long predate online versions and variants (one joy of mine was discovering a 19th-century encyclopaedic edit war: <https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4xe2k1/chambers_encyclopaedia_editorial_statement/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4xe2k1/chamber...>). Ultimately, this requires real work, with procedures and time devoted to review, screening, and updating articles. It's not what every group will want to take on, but some most definitely would see benefits. General agreement otherwise.