3 ms·

Does this remind anyone of facebook when they introduced feeds? When it was released, everyone hated it and people were whining like crazy, Facebook heard the f

Does this remind anyone of facebook when they introduced feeds? When it was released, everyone hated it and people were whining like crazy, Facebook heard the feedback, tweaked it and now, the feed is an indispensable part of facebook and others have built whole startups based on just that ( friendfeed, socialthing..etc ). So, I would say that, give these new features a chance and give PG time to tweak these features and lets see how it goes =)

jacquesm 18y ago
That's a bad comparision. - feeds is a feature, orange names are a gimmick - not everybody hated feeds, tweaking made them a lot better, I've yet to come across someone that says the 'orange' names are a great idea but there are plenty of good arguments against. - I wonder if there will be a startup formed around the colour of your name in a community but it's always possible I guess. My personal view on this (and again, as I've said before, I'm a total rookie here by any standard) is that if there are going to be more such 'visual distinctions' based on the karma count that it will change the dynamic of the site towards people trying to game the system (which according to at least one post today is already happening) instead of people trying to have intelligent conversation about subjects that are of interest to hackers.
- ktharavaad 18y ago
  All your arguments are based on the grounds that the new feature is just "orange names". However, if you read pg's original post, the "orange names" are to accomplish the 2 purposes of: - Reward users who has an history of making good comments - Make reading threads easier by highlighting comments which are likely to be better. As a result, I think the change does qualify as a "feature". I think PG's intentions are noble and I agree that there could be better ways to accomplish these 2 purposes.
  - jacquesm 18y ago
    if you need to go back to the post in which a feature was announced to be able to interpret it as a feature then imho you've already missed the boat. It needs to be obvious, self explanatory or there should be some kind of easy to understand explanation of what it means on the pages where it is used (which is pretty much all of them). Simply change the sort order, let go of any coloration, 'good' users have their reward and no need to scan for the 'better' people. That will cause enough postive feedback in and of itself to be a problem that will need fixing in the long run but at least it does not openly invite people to game the system. Otherwise you might as well brace for an influx of sock-puppets, how-to-game-the-system guides (we already saw the first example of that) and 'let's moderate each other up and the rest down' gangs. What's next ? Gold members ? little stars ? To me the whole mechanism of segregating a userbase by the introduction of artificial means of distinguishing one user in a visual way from another has all too many bad resonances to feel comfortable with it. If I were an 'orange' right now I'd definitely opt out, and I applaud all those that have done so.

jacquesm 18y ago

That's a bad comparision. - feeds is a feature, orange names are a gimmick - not everybody hated feeds, tweaking made them a lot better, I've yet to come across someone that says the 'orange' names are a great idea but there are plenty of good arguments against. - I wonder if there will be a startup formed around the colour of your name in a community but it's always possible I guess. My personal view on this (and again, as I've said before, I'm a total rookie here by any standard) is that if there are going to be more such 'visual distinctions' based on the karma count that it will change the dynamic of the site towards people trying to game the system (which according to at least one post today is already happening) instead of people trying to have intelligent conversation about subjects that are of interest to hackers.

ktharavaad 18y ago
All your arguments are based on the grounds that the new feature is just "orange names". However, if you read pg's original post, the "orange names" are to accomplish the 2 purposes of: - Reward users who has an history of making good comments - Make reading threads easier by highlighting comments which are likely to be better. As a result, I think the change does qualify as a "feature". I think PG's intentions are noble and I agree that there could be better ways to accomplish these 2 purposes.
- jacquesm 18y ago
  if you need to go back to the post in which a feature was announced to be able to interpret it as a feature then imho you've already missed the boat. It needs to be obvious, self explanatory or there should be some kind of easy to understand explanation of what it means on the pages where it is used (which is pretty much all of them). Simply change the sort order, let go of any coloration, 'good' users have their reward and no need to scan for the 'better' people. That will cause enough postive feedback in and of itself to be a problem that will need fixing in the long run but at least it does not openly invite people to game the system. Otherwise you might as well brace for an influx of sock-puppets, how-to-game-the-system guides (we already saw the first example of that) and 'let's moderate each other up and the rest down' gangs. What's next ? Gold members ? little stars ? To me the whole mechanism of segregating a userbase by the introduction of artificial means of distinguishing one user in a visual way from another has all too many bad resonances to feel comfortable with it. If I were an 'orange' right now I'd definitely opt out, and I applaud all those that have done so.