2 ms·

It's just a checkbox, not that hard. I think you're greatly overestimating the appetite for (if not the ease of) filling out forms. The appeal of 'fill out a f

by pvg 2y ago

It's just a checkbox, not that hard. I think you're greatly overestimating the appetite for (if not the ease of) filling out forms. The appeal of 'fill out a form so lapcat will talk to you' is very limited, even for an actual lap cat. you should read the article before commenting. This is aspirationaly right but it's not a realistic requirement for any kind of real messageboard. People can title-check, glance at, skim, read, carefully study, learn-by-heart, etc any article and respond to it in ways that, to you (or me, or whoever), appear dramatically at odds with any of the above. The checkbox, like the proverbial goggles, does nothing. You'll have a forum that works like open internet link-discussing forums already work except with an extra irritating, space-wasting checkbox.

lapcat 2y ago
> I think you're greatly overestimating the appetite for (if not the ease of) filling out forms. I'm not. I'm perfectly fine with a minority of users checking it. > This is aspirationaly right but it's not a realistic requirement for any kind of real messageboard. It's not a requirement. You can comment without checking the checkbox. It's just an indicator to anyone who sees the comment. > space-wasting checkbox How does it waste space? There's currently empty space.
- pvg 2y ago
  I'm perfectly fine with a minority of users checking it. That's generous of you but most people are not fine with a 'click here for laptcat to not-ignore you' checkbox. How does it waste space? There's currently empty space. That seems to assume empty and wasted space are the same thing and the fact we have different words for them alone suggests otherwise. It's not a requirement. As I mentioned but you didn't seem to consider/reply to - it's already not a requirement for people to absorb the material on the site to your or anyone else's personal standard and that appears to work reasonably well without any additional ui or features.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > most people are not fine with a 'click here for laptcat to not-ignore you' checkbox. It's not just for me. That would be silly. It's for anyone to see, and do with that information what they will. > As I mentioned but you didn't seem to consider/reply to - it's already not a requirement for people to absorb the material on the site to your or anyone else's personal standard I did already reply to that point, though in another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42095040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42095040 In other words, it's not about absorbing the material. It's just about doing the bare minimum.
    - pvg 2y ago
      It's not really a response because there is simply no telling what 'the bare minimum' is so encouraging it doesn't do any of what you suggest it does. For instance, you don't have any idea whether the people you think haven't read the article actually haven't. The whole thing is based on effectively unknowable assumptions about comments you find annoying. We can't nerdsolve our way out of annoying comments. We do know of a great and highly effective way to improve the quality of threads, though - write a good comment yourself.
      - lapcat 2y ago
        > We can't nerdsolve our way out of annoying comments. That wasn't the purpose. I fully realize that annoying comments will arise in any case. > there is simply no telling what 'the bare minimum' is You may be equivocating on this phrase. I'm not proposing some definitive specification of the one true bare minimum, but I'd say that reading the article is a bare minimum, so to speak, for commenting on an article. Don't you agree? Or do you think that commenting on an article without reading it is in fact great and useful? If the latter, then we fundamentally disagree, this entire conversation has been a waste of time, and I wish you would have just said that at the beginning. > you don't have any idea whether the people you think haven't read the article actually haven't. Again, I'm ok with false negatives.

by pvg 2y ago

lapcat 2y ago

> I think you're greatly overestimating the appetite for (if not the ease of) filling out forms. I'm not. I'm perfectly fine with a minority of users checking it. > This is aspirationaly right but it's not a realistic requirement for any kind of real messageboard. It's not a requirement. You can comment without checking the checkbox. It's just an indicator to anyone who sees the comment. > space-wasting checkbox How does it waste space? There's currently empty space.

pvg 2y ago
I'm perfectly fine with a minority of users checking it. That's generous of you but most people are not fine with a 'click here for laptcat to not-ignore you' checkbox. How does it waste space? There's currently empty space. That seems to assume empty and wasted space are the same thing and the fact we have different words for them alone suggests otherwise. It's not a requirement. As I mentioned but you didn't seem to consider/reply to - it's already not a requirement for people to absorb the material on the site to your or anyone else's personal standard and that appears to work reasonably well without any additional ui or features.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > most people are not fine with a 'click here for laptcat to not-ignore you' checkbox. It's not just for me. That would be silly. It's for anyone to see, and do with that information what they will. > As I mentioned but you didn't seem to consider/reply to - it's already not a requirement for people to absorb the material on the site to your or anyone else's personal standard I did already reply to that point, though in another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42095040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42095040 In other words, it's not about absorbing the material. It's just about doing the bare minimum.
  - pvg 2y ago
    It's not really a response because there is simply no telling what 'the bare minimum' is so encouraging it doesn't do any of what you suggest it does. For instance, you don't have any idea whether the people you think haven't read the article actually haven't. The whole thing is based on effectively unknowable assumptions about comments you find annoying. We can't nerdsolve our way out of annoying comments. We do know of a great and highly effective way to improve the quality of threads, though - write a good comment yourself.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > We can't nerdsolve our way out of annoying comments. That wasn't the purpose. I fully realize that annoying comments will arise in any case. > there is simply no telling what 'the bare minimum' is You may be equivocating on this phrase. I'm not proposing some definitive specification of the one true bare minimum, but I'd say that reading the article is a bare minimum, so to speak, for commenting on an article. Don't you agree? Or do you think that commenting on an article without reading it is in fact great and useful? If the latter, then we fundamentally disagree, this entire conversation has been a waste of time, and I wish you would have just said that at the beginning. > you don't have any idea whether the people you think haven't read the article actually haven't. Again, I'm ok with false negatives.