spoonraker's recent activity
-
Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes
-
Comment on Solving gifs as a preference over videos. in ~tildes
spoonraker LinkI think there's a bit of a false dichotomy here. I don't believe gifs actually compete with videos, at least in general. I think the reason gifs get more views than videos is simply because gifs...I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy here. I don't believe gifs actually compete with videos, at least in general. I think the reason gifs get more views than videos is simply because gifs cater to a different audience, or at least cater to the audience in a different context.
The real phenomenon you're observing isn't just gifs versus videos, it's quick and easy-to-consume content that requires little interaction versus more engaging content that may be longer or more interactive.
I'm not sure this is necessarily a problem either, but it's contextual. Do people expect Tildes to be a sight where they go only for more engaging content demanding more of their time, or do people expect Tildes to offer an outlet for both types of content?
The obvious comparison is Reddit, and I think Reddit demonstrates nicely the fact that there really isn't a problem with having both. Certain subreddits heavily police content and only allow more engaging content, while other's don't. Some subreddits exist only for less-engaging content and vise-versa. Some subreddits exist for a specific topic and freely allow either type of content, which tends to result in lots of low-engagement content with fewer highly engaging posts, but not necessarily lower scoring highly engaging posts. I think there's just naturally less highly engaging content about virtually any given subject that has mass appeal.
With Reddit specifically, I don't think engagement alone specifically means that a post scores lower. I do think they have a tendency to do that, but not purely because of the engagement, just because of the content its self. I think the Rocket League subreddit I'm a part of is a good example of that. It's flooded with gifs of people scoring crazy goals and these always score highly, but there's still plenty of great highly scoring discussion threads, they're just less frequent. And I think that's OK, but if I'm being honest, there's just not that much discussion to be had about Rocket League at any given time. It's a video game. The discussions are just going to have natural peaks and valleys and will of course peak around times when a major tournament occurs, updates to the game happen, etc. People make occasional attempts to have discussions during "down time" and these are usually not quite as highly scored as other posts because this just doesn't have mass appeal. Those that like the content still tend to find it though, so I don't think anyone misses out.
I think we're basically conflating an observation with a problem to solve. Gifs aren't bad, they're just different, and serve a different purpose. I think the communities that split off to focus on a specific topic will naturally handle this issue themselves.
I don't really understand this either. This seems like a false dichotomy. You can have both, even with Reddit, it doesn't have to be either-or.
Certain subreddits cater heavily to "fluff" and others are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Many subreddits cater to a specific topic and don't concern themselves with the type of content, which naturally results in a majority of "fluff" and a minority of everything else which tends to have peaks and valleys while fluff stays consistent. I don't see this as a problem, but rather, just an observation. With certain topics, there's just not that much highly engaging discussion to be had most of the time.
If you desire more engaging content and less fluff, then you have the tools to do so. Subscribe to subreddits you like, and unsubscribe from those you don't. Don't browse only the home page, but drill into specific subreddits first, and then swap to the home page afterwards to quickly scan more widely appealing posts.