So I was thinking the other day -- is there any good reason to allow voting from the main ~'s page? For clarity in this discussion, I'm talking about this view.

Some pro's and con's for removing the vote button from the main page:

Pro:

• Discourages "drive-by" voting. We all (mostly?) know that reddit in particular is notorious for having highly up-voted posts that most users read the headline / top-comment and not the article itself. This is particularly noxious for political posts, as often times a vote on a post is an extension of one's own biases / beliefs, rather than an engagement on the topic at hand. This hasn't reared it's head to the same extent on ~'s yet (this post with 15 votes / and only 1 comment would seem to be the closest I can find), but I think it would be a mistake to think that this sort of behavior wouldn't migrate over from reddit. Other reasons for voting on a post without at least getting into the comments are equally bad e.g.: "Oh, I like that band / song / movie / whatever" -- this is a key driver of recycled content on /r/music or movies or tv etc. This reason alone is enough for me to consider removing front-page voting a net-positive

• The user is forced to enter the comments to vote, wherein they may actually read something that sparks their desire to read the thing / interact with the post. The goal on ~'s is to promote substantive discussion, and I think this would be an interesting tool to try to direct users to said discussion.

Cons

• It's more inconvenient, but hey -- so is putting the comment box at the bottom of the page (and I think that's a good idea on net as well)

• UI inconsistency -- this is a bad thing, but we've got a lot of smart computer people on here. We can probably figure out some way to make this work.

• It doesn't actually force the user to read / listen / interact with the submission, just suggests that they do. But hey, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, eh?

Hanging Questions

• What about voting on ~group pages? My off-the-cuff idea would be that voting on ~music.world.calypso would be a good thing (to promote organic growth of quality posts from small ~groups), but not voting on overarching groups (~music) -- but then the UI issue rears' it's ugly head

• What about comment / submission voting from other places e.g.: user-pages, notifications, inbox replies, etc.

I've been working on a plan for a local treasure hunt, but I could use some feedback. It'll be hosted through my youtube channel, and will most likely consist of a variety of hikes (some short, some longer, but nothing too crazy), some basic crypto, some cheesy poetry, and some treasure that I've made/will make as the prize.

So that's the nutshell explanation. I'm having trouble making decisions about some of the details. But first, let me go over some of the specifics I have worked out. My plan as of right now consists of the following:

• 5 hunts total, 4 that are similarly structured with 1 final hunt
• The first 4 hunts consist of 3 locations where clues are hidden, and one final location where the treasure is hidden
• The clue locations are revealed equally to everyone participating
• The clues are non-removable, difficult to destroy, so more than one can find them
• The clues are required to determine the final location of the treasure for that hunt
• The final hunt's locations can be determined by supplemental clues hidden in the first 4 hunts

I'm thinking of doing an episode per location, per week. Each episode will consist of searchable features like road signs and trailheads, followed by clips showing highlights of the path to the clue. If the clue is hidden to the general public, I'll show more or less where people can expect it. The clue itself will be a semi-permanent installation. That is, it'll be a physical form that's locked up somewhere for the duration of the hunt. After the hunt is over, I plan on going out and removing them. This is mostly because I don't want rogue hunters to destroy the clues so that no one else can find them. I plan on making a rule that if someone goes out and the clue isn't where it's supposed to be, I'll publicly post it. I doubt anyone would, but I still think it's a good idea to have a deterrent.

I wanted to get some outside perspective on how you think this would play out, and what sort of issues I'm missing as far as game mechanics.

• Would this be the kind of thing people would enjoy bringing friends along for, even though there's only one treasure per hunt? Is there some way I could make it more worthwhile to people playing in groups, without diminishing the value of effort for a single hunter?
• Would it be better to cluster the 3 locations for each hunt together? I feel like it might be more fun as an activity, but there's a much greater danger of making it too easy and having the first person out discover it. I like the idea of spreading the clues out time-wise and space-wise so that more people have an opportunity to take part.
• I have no idea how many people will participate. I have very few followers and almost all of them are friends. I'd like to try and promote it, but I also know that I'm pretty horrible at that sort of thing. Still, I'd like to come up with a design that would work well regardless if it's 5 people or 500 people playing. What sort of issues might happen as the player base scales up?
• I'm kinda going from scratch on these ideas. I've hosted basic treasure hunts before but nothing this complex. Mostly just "crack this cryptogram, figure out what the poem means, find the spot". This is basically the same thing, just with multiple locations required to find the spot. Are there other formats I should consider?
• Should the treasure be hidden? Or would it be better to send it to a winner? If it's hidden, it's probably way more satisfying for the person who finds it. But there's also a risk of someone random finding it. The hiding spots will have to be really good, but there's also a lot of people in this city who get out and about. Having a final problem to solve could be fun if it's done right, or it could be really annoying. I also don't really want to have to ship the pieces. And I think it adds in a dubious factor where people might be more inclined to question the legitimacy of the winner (which happens occasionally with online giveaway contest sort of things). I'm leaning toward just hiding the treasure, but I'm also open to ideas.

For context, not for self-promotion: I'm not really trying to plug my channel or anything like that, I genuinely could use feedback on this and I've really been digging the threads on here. If you feel like you want some context though, I'll put some links. I don't think they're necessary because I hope I explained it well enough and the videos don't really add anything, mostly because I made them before I started planning this. They're more like a weird, long intro.

It started because I was annoyed with my neighbor who kept asking for a favor, and to get sweet, petty revenge, I sent him on a treasure hunt. I liked the idea and wanted to make something similar for everyone else. It tied into a project theme I've been working on lately, so I started making a series of glass sculpture elementals, and introduced the artifact hunt with the first making-of video.

Planning on doing a video for the making of each piece, plus the videos for the hunts. It's gonna be a lot of work so I'm trying to get as much sorted out beforehand as I can. I've been really scratching my head over this for the past few weeks, so thanks in advance for any thoughts!

Hi folks,

I've seen a few posts and comments discussing "what is tildes.net all about?" or even "what does Tildes want to be about?" and I thought I'd throw in a related topic I've been thinking about recently. I am interested in the medium of communication itself, in addition to the goals and general philosophy of Tildes.

To start, the question of "what makes Tildes different from Reddit?" is interesting. One concern about Reddit is the huge proportion of either low-quality posts or attention-chasing memes. And a lot of Tildes users seem to be asking why that is the case; and whether a site like Tildes can be different.

Some say that Reddit is a victim of the profit cycle. As a commercial entity, Reddit must aim to bring in as many users as possible, thereby increasing advertisement revenue. And lowering the bar to new user entry means that you get more and more people who aren't really concerned with making thoughtful, high-value contributions to the discussions.

And there's certainly some truth to that. So by this model, Tildes should be different. It is non-commercial, not profit-driven, and it has mechanisms in place (and in development) that are specifically designed to weed out low-value contributions/contributors.

But still, even at this early stage, when the userbase is small and has been more selectively accumulated, some users are expressing concern that Tildes is showing signs of becoming just another Reddit. True or not -- I don't know.

Beyond the profit goal, another dimension for analysis is the medium itself. "Medium", as in the tools of communication; as in radio vs. print vs. television vs. web forum, etc. In 1985, Neil Postman wrote an interesting book called "Amusing Ourselves to Death" that reiterated Marshall McLuhan's idea that messages are partly shaped (and constrained) by the medium over which they are transmitted. And by extension, some media are better at communicating some types of ideas than others.

Postman was writing in 1985 when television was the dominant medium. He argued that the image-oriented medium of television was best suited for entertainment rather than rational argument or intellectual discourse. And thus the use of television (particularly commercial television) as a medium drifts away from thoughtful, intellectual engagement of the consumer, and toward gripping, decontextualized video clips that imprint ideas on the viewer and keep them coming back for more.

Television is just not as good as print media for communicating deep, complicated ideas that the consumer can engage with. (This isn't to say tv can't do it, but it's just not as good at it.)

So what about web forums like Reddit and Tildes? This is what I've been thinking a lot about recently, and I wonder what other Tildes users think about it.

Web forums are different than television for sure, in that they are mostly text-based, and users can interact with them by both posting text and responding to what others have posted.

But web forums are different from ye olde fashioned books too, in the sense that web forums seem to eschew longer, more highly-structured arguments. (Speaking of that, I hope this post isn't too long!) There seems to be a "king of the mountain" syndrome in web forums, in which posters vie for attention, while watching as posts rise to the top and are quickly replaced by newer, catchier posts.

Is this the fundamental dynamics or metaphysics of web forums? --the rapid turnover of attention-seeking, short posts?

If so, will Tildes get pulled down into that same whirlpool?

I don't think it has to be that way, but I believe it is a strong warning that we have to think hard about how the structure of the medium itself channels the type of content we will see here.

--
Stepping back further in Postman's argument is his deep concern about the effect of the dominant medium on popular discourse in a society.

When mainstream media is reduced to commercial jingles and quick, entertaining memes, the very foundation of liberal democratic society is at risk. People become uninformed about the important issues of the day, and become disengaged from the democratic process. As that disengagement increases, special interest groups (read: corporate lobbyists) fill the void of providing direction to governing bodies. Citizens then become more disillusioned and even more disengaged. This is a well-documented phenomena called "the death spiral of democracy", and it scares the shit out of me.

When I first read Deimos' "Announcing Tildes" blog post, I saw a motivating philosophy that I feel is one of the most important issues of our time. We don't live in a perfect world right now, but we're in a world that appears to be on the edge of tragic yet avoidable decline; a world in which the values I assume many Tildes users would like to promote are being paved over by entities that only value profit.

I think that Tildes can be really, really important, and it needs the user base to deeply engage in the analysis of what will make it work. What is it about the web forum as "medium" that shapes the content we are exposed to here? And how can we devise the mechanisms that prevent it from degrading into another Reddit? Is a shared motivating philosophy enough, or do we need to re-engineer the medium itself?

So into the discussion of "what should Tildes be about?", this post is a long-winded way of saying that I think part of it should be about discussing how we can we construct a sustainable new form of media that improves society and supports our highest values. What does this next generation medium look like?

--
Note: just to be clear, Deimos has already put a lot of great thought into this (cf. https://docs.tildes.net/). I'm just arguing that the topic of the medium and the mechanics of the medium should be a topic that all Tildistas engage with.

I like the idea of the site being entirely dependent on text with not a single graphic downloaded. I do like the little logo in the top left, but I think it would be even cooler if it was literally just the plain-text symbol ~.

This would also apply to the small little icons next a link post, as the site to which the post takes you can simply be read below the post itself.

I know the website already loads super fast which I am very grateful for, but I think a purely text-based site would promote the overall discussion focused goal of tildes as there would be no graphics in the way. I may be biased towards this style of website, but I think it's worth seeing if other users would like the site to become text-only. This is one main reasons I disliked the new Reddit design, the old site was nice because the graphics were kept to a minimum and therefore more of the screen could be used to show the content.

I'm sure occasional self promoted content is actually fine (asking for feedback on music, games, etc), but I've been a part of several subreddits that had to implement rules where you had to split 50/50 linking to your own content and participating in the community (non link comments). This was to curb people from ONLY posting links to their own youtube videos and nothing else. Content itself was fine, usually, but as you can probably tell, smaller subreddits didn't like being treated as ad spaces for youtubers that didn't contribute anything else. It's not a big deal for larger communities, but a real one for niche ones.

How does tildes expect to deal with this? Is it even an issue? Was this discussed (couldn't find any threads by skimming)?

Based on what I saw, and that user's follow up post, it doesn't seem like jokes are an unwelcome idea per se, but rather the goal is to promote discussion over low effort meme posts and one liners (I wholly support this), so shall tildes, tell me some of your favorite jokes! Dad jokes, mom jokes, dark (not racist) jokes, long and short form, what are your favorites? I prefer darker humor myself, but I'm not sure what's appropriate quite yet as far as this community is concerned...

Tildes is 100% donation-supported. It sounds great but I'm doubtful it's a sustainable model. Countless sites have started this way but ended up seeking other ways to monetize, including...

1. Showing ads on the site
2. Intermingling "sponsored posts" or "promoted posts" with regular posts, basically giving preferential treatment to content from users who paid for extra visibility (native advertising)
3. Selling user data
4. Cryptocurrency mining (either with user permission or on the sly)
5. Opening a store for selling branded merch
6. Periodic "pledge drive" fundraising campaigns
7. Enacting paywalls

I've been thinking a lot about site monetization in the abstract lately. Some of these options are better than others. Personally, I'd draw a hard line against 1-4 on Tildes. I think all of those are in direct opposition to what this site is all about.

I think 5 is a "good in theory, but not in practice" idea. A merch store might generate enough revenue for the first few months but would see rapidly diminishing returns. It would have to resort to increasingly gimmicky promotions just to reach eyeballs and meet its goals.

I think 6 could be a popular option but I personally recoil from the annual hard-sell guilt trip. The recurring drama of "THIS COULD BE OUR LAST YEAR IF YOU DO NOTHING" is exhausting and paints the site's future as constantly in turmoil.

Finally we come to 7, the paywall. Traditionally I hate these too, especially when they block content like news that is available for free elsewhere. Sometimes they are "soft" paywalls that give you free access to an article (or the first few paragraphs of one) before they ask you to pony up. I feel that these are the worst form of paywall because they tease and frustrate users, and are often easily circumventable anyway.

That said, I think a "hard" paywall might actually be a good choice for Tildes. For starters, this is already a walled garden. We're actively trying to cultivate a community by not exposing the site to the wider world. That would at least make the transition to a paywall easier to swallow than if the site had been open the whole time.

It's 2018. By now it's evident to me that TANSTAAFL online. If you're not paying for something, you are the product. I'm a dyed in the wool cheapskate and I don't like opening my wallet to use a website, but at this point I'm even more tired of being treated like a commodity. If I'm going to invest in an online community, I'd much rather pay a small subscription for access than be jerked around in shady ways. I feel it's the most honest and straightforward solution for a site like this.

Caveats are that it would need to be cheap. Really cheap, like $1 a month. I don't know what the site's operating expenses are, but I would hope something in that ballpark would cover them, at scale. Also @Deimos would face the temptation to implement multiple options from the list as time goes on. Like, after we're used to the paywall, he might want to add "unobtrusive" ads too, or start selling "non-identifiable" user information. I think it's vital that the site never compromise like that. Raise the price if it comes to that, but don't get greedy. A page in the docs formalizing some promises about respecting users would be a nice thing to put on the record.

What are your thoughts? I should say that I'm talking about the future here, I think it's way too early to put up a paywall now. The community would have to be large and mature enough to justify a paid subscription to it, and we're not there yet.

Today, IHOP announced, "Our new burgers are so good, we changed our name. That’s right. We’re the International House of Burgers now."

Is this just a publicity stunt to promote their burgers and boost lunch/dinner sales? Or is this a permanent re-branding of the 60 year old company?

I think this idea strongly aligns with Tildes philosophy of promoting "quality content", what is more quality than knowing a poster is qualified to make their claims. It separates the pseudo-science from the science.

I understand it is perhaps a cumbersome process to verify qualifications but the reward in return for having verified experts validated is hard to overstate.

I propose the flair be global and not restricted to within a group(as opposed to reddit) because if we're certain the individual has credentials that still remains in effect when they comment across disciplines. It also removes redundancy and allows the individual more freedom to branch to other communities.

The idea being if someone has a PhD in math they can flair their name with something like "PhD: Math" per post if they wish. As this is a voluntary addition (not collection) of user-data I don't think it goes against Tildes philosophy.

I've read the docs and I personally have not seen this topic come up yet.

I've been weary/afraid to post any more of my own content since my very first post here on ~Tildes. Are there currently any unofficial rules for self-promotion? We all know Reddit once had that stupid 10:1 (or was it 5:1?) ratio rule before they chucked it. I don't want to feel like a selfish person or a spammy person if I submit content that I created and/or links to accounts that promote myself as a brand.

I have been writing for quite some time, but always look for new ideas, new perspectives, new genres, new ways of promoting or improving or sharing my work. I'm not a professional and still have lots to learn. I am open to all kinds of writing and levels of expertise, and want to open a space where there is genuine and helpful sharing, rather than snarky and dismissive barbs.

I don't think this should be a place where someone writes a quick and sloppy sub-first draft and then eagerly begs for only positive comments. Writing is hard work. It is a craft and takes serious study and time. It can also be lonely and discouraging.

I envision a virtual coffee shop where we have all gathered with our latest work, wondering what our next step is, how a good editor can be found, how to write a query letter, is self-publishing a good choice, how did you get an agent...those sorts of discussions.

How is a new group formed?

The podcast threads have been chock-full of high-profile, well-known podcasts. I definitely enjoy some of those but I also like listening to smaller, more "homemade" podcasts if they're interesting.

Do you make a podcast that you want to share with the group?

(While technically self-promotion I'm genuinely curious at the answer. I'll pull the topic if it is out of bounds.)

The default "activity" sorting means that topics which lead to a lot of conversation tend to get bumped to the top. It seems like, in the long run, controversial topics will end up drowning out topics where the link itself is interesting but doesn't provoke people to react with a comment. I find that a lot of the most interesting links for me on other sites are the ones with the fewest comments.

I think it could be worthwhile to experiment with different default sorting, or even different mechanics. For example, Everything2 has a feature where, at a certain rank, users are able to add pages to a "Cool User Picks!" sidebar.

The current solution, custom sort ordering, doesn't seem like it will scale very well. People will tend to vote on the posts they see; if most people sort by activity, most of the votes will go to the most active posts anyway.

Anyway, just food for thought. I don't think this is super urgent, but it seems like something that would be good to think hard about and get right in the long term.

Tildes seems to promote older threads much more than Reddit (which I like). With that said, will there be a feature similar to Reddit where after X length of time, the post is archived and can no longer be commented/voted on?

Video: https://youtu.be/fUIF9m737kI

It's nothing official and not even something anyone is working on but I found myself smiling at the thought of a post-finale season that could shows what the various character are doing.

During an interview, Amy Poehler and Nick Offerman were promoting their new show "making it" and were asked about going back to Pawnee. Apparently they would be glad to do it.

Anyway even if this is just "por parley" I found nice to see Nick and Amy will be on screen again soon.

What's your opinion on a sequel of P&R or the new show?

Edit: damn autocorrect "telling" was "talking"

Posted about this earlier (I think in the thread about default sort order) and it came up in the ~science thread on what killed Reddit AMAs: https://tildes.net/~science/py/how_reddit_killed_science_amas#comment-3e1

Basically having a "featured" or "promoted" set of links above the usual links that are:

1. limited to a small number of posts
2. use a different sort order than whatever the user has selected
3. filtered by tag

This would make it possible for ~science (as an example) to always have the latest 3 AMAs (posts tagged with AMA) show up above the other set of links and would solve the problem that r/science AMAs had on reddit where they had to compete in the regular list of links.

In my opinion, part of what makes places like /r/music so mind-numbingly boring is that outside of news, there's just individual tracks and question threads that beg for individual tracks.

There's some value in this and if that's the way you consume music, then cool. But as someone who primarily listens to albums, I rarely want to discover music like this. Like maybe if I'm looking into a new genre, it's cool to get an introductory song to get what it's all about, but beyond that it's kinda a haze.

So others who value any kind of music listening outside of singles + loose tracks, what do you think we can do to shape this community into something that includes us a little more? Discussions on DJ sets? Album reviews? Games like the survivors done on artist-specific subreddits? I don't think this is something that just naturally gets fixed through the hierarchy system or something, like many of the other problems with /r/music. What can we do?

I did some reading about the trust system listed in future goals today. I think that's pretty good for moderation, but one thing that I wanted to open a discussion about is submission gamification within ~, but not specifically with regards to trust/responsibilities, but one that encourages good quality submissions, or at least will isolate bad quality submissions.

With sites like reddit and others, where you have a singular generic Who's Line Is It Anyway style points system or "Karma" the acquisition of "Karma" is a driving factor for submitting content to the site. However, with this system it tends to encourage content that goes viral, hence we see the /u/GallowBoob's of the world producing low-effort content or free-booting other people's content for "karma profit".

I don't particularly think this is a very healthy system for content as a whole, but it does seem to achieve viral attention & interest and a somewhat constant stream of stuff (not necessarily good).

Someone in the Promotion thread had suggest gamifying getting the invites out there which got me thinking (although, not on board with that particular idea).

With comments tags we can categorize the type of comment we're seeing, and hopefully in the future filter the content we're seeing. If the submission incentives were based around tags instead of androgynous points of no meaning, perhaps we could get members actively seeking positive tags, similar to how someone aiming to become part of the moderation apparatus would seek this "trust" goal.

People seeking to be on top of the [Unbiased] or [Thought provoking] tags would (at least on the surface) be generally trying to produce unbiased and thought provoking content (bot voting & bullshit aside).

And people like /r/GallowBoob may become king of [Viral] or [shitpost] but we'd have the ability to filter those tags away and let people that want to meme it up meme it up on their own and not drown quality content.

Obviously this is all idealistic on paper, but with how much effort quality posting takes compared to shit-posting it'd be nice to try and give a little recognition (similar to this trust system) to those who strive for it, and not drawing the ire of unfounded censorship trolls/complaints for other areas.