10
votes
Link topics don't directly engage users.
It seems to me that link topics don't directly engage the user, we're just putting something out there and hoping for a response. And who is the user responding to when they comment on the topic?
Shouldn't the poster have the option (at least) to express something - aside from in the title of course - about the link they are posting be it a statement or a question, to elicit a discussion in response?
I know that when I see a link topic my first thought is usually 'What are you trying to tell me?', so I just pass it by. Whereas if there was a question attached to it that I could respond to, or a statement attached to it that I can engage with, I don't think I would be so quick to dismiss it.
This is something that's been brought up a few times, I'm just going to copy-paste my response from one of the old threads about it about why I don't effectively want to combine link and text topics into a single type:
This is something that I've thought a decent amount about, because I was originally planning on just combining the two types as well. I've talked with others about it multiple times too, and I eventually ended up being convinced that it was better to keep them separated.
I think, for me, the main argument against it is that it basically gives the submitter an unfair advantage in adding their own commentary to a linkâthey get a "soapbox" that they can use to comment on the link, and everyone looking at the post is basically forced to read what they think, even though they probably don't have any more authority to talk about that link than anyone else would if they submitted it. If the submitter wants to comment on the link, it should probably be... in the form of a comment, just like it is for everyone else.
Also, if you combine them, it muddles the voting (and some other mechanics) a bit. As a voter, now I have to try to decide how to account for the submitter's commentary as well, instead of just the link on its own. What if I think it's a good link that should be posted in the group, but their commentary on it is wrong? Do I have to upvote it anyway, and give that wrong commentary more exposure? You also end up with a lot of the top-level comments being responses to the submitter's commentary, instead of to the link itself.
So because of reasons like that, I think keeping them separated makes more sense than combining.
Isn't the answer to that simple, votes should be going on the commentary/discussion? Wouldn't votes going solely to content encourage spamming cat pictures etc. for points/popularity, and discourage discussion?
Just a thought, but, as a compromise between the two viewpoints on this issue, could a feature be added whereby one can post a link and fill in the usual text submission box and, instead of the text being part of the topic, the text would be posted as the first comment on the thread?
That way, you avoid giving the OP a soapbox and allow the link and the opinion to be considered separately while still allowing the OP to get their opinion out there at roughly the same time as the link is posted.
I think you want the link to stand by itself and if the user who sees the link is interested they go read the article/whatever is linked and then return to comment about what they read if they are interested.
Having the OP put something in the link post like their opinion would dissuade people from clicking the link, reading it, and formulating their own opinion instead they would just be responding to the OP's opinion.
Usually if the OP does have an opinion they leave their own comment not in the OP.
Agreed giving the poster of a link the ability to put their opinion in some enshrined location regardless of quality isn't really desirable to me.
Isn't that the same issue for text topics? We speak through votes...
Yea that is a sticky problem, I wouldn't be opposed to experimenting with limiting the size of the text box on submissions or having it post as the first comment, though I can foresee it having issues or not being effective. Either way I don't think making them the same is the solution.
I think text topics are fine though. I think the votes (and tags etc) will express which posts are quality posts vs otherwise, and I think the same can be said for posts with links in them, I don't think we should be voting on the link, rather on what is said.
I hear that, but I don't come here to find links to read, there are plenty other places I could go for that. I come here for the discussions.
I look at it similar to the way there are no official image topics, they don't directly engage users in discussion.
Kind of like how reddit let's you put in both a title and a body? I like the idea but I'm also afraid of becoming to 'reddit like'
I say this specifically because I don't want it to become too reddit like.
Currently it's exactly as reddit has where you can post a title and either body or link, this causes that a large portion of posts are content rather than engagement, as is evidenced by reddit OP's not often sticking around for the discussion after the initial post.