3 ms·
I think there is a tendency to focus on finding an algorithm that determines weither and how many discussions are "the top x". But really this is not the point
by kluck 11y ago
I think there is a tendency to focus on finding an algorithm that determines weither and how many discussions are "the top x". But really this is not the point of discussions. The point is to maximize usefulness for the participants (weither they actively participate or passively just read along). Also to maximize usefulness in the long run, meaning discussions need to be archived in a way that they can be re-started easily. One discussion basicly concentrates the opinions and arguments around a certain topic, so the starting point is a plain topic (like "discussion about application containers") and not nessessarily a question (like "what do you think of docker?").
The whole question is really interesting.
- no-twist 11y agoI fully agree that there is a tendency to oversimplify the way online discussions are sorted. This often leads to a system where the rich get richer and it is difficult for new comments to get their audience; is it even obvious what an up or down vote means? I am not sure, but it might help to have a multi-dimensional voting system so there is a possibility to agree/disagree with a comment without signaling bad quality. For the second part, I think that in such a case it should be possible to connect the question ("what do you think about docker?") to the overall topic even after it was created. The structure should be flexible in a sense that a topic can grow in all directions and can be referenced in multiple discussions.