7
votes
How far will group identities be allowed to develop?
The post about group CSS got me thinking, if the identity of groups are allowed to develop enough it could become like reddit were you can't expect a consistent experience across the site, you'll have to know the etiquette of each group you visit, do they allow jokes here, only links or only text, not going off topic etc.
How far should/will it go?
I feel like I'm doing this to every post, but I don't really agree with the premise in the first place. Reddit is incredibly flat and homogeneous and you can expect to see the same kinds of jokes and approaches to conversations anywhere you go except for the few places where it's explicitly banned.
As for how much different groups will differentiate themselves, I hope the answer is "as far as possible." Different communities and topics benefit from different ways of conducting themselves, and having more freedom to actually make that the case is a strength of a website open to catering to these communities. You'll notice the Reddit mods here who try to differentiate their communities and do what they can within what Reddit allows constantly express frustration with the lack of cooperation and tools Reddit gives them. Here, actual site modifications can be made.
Though I would also throw in that part of what makes that weirdness of adjusting to the communities who do try to do something on Reddit is the fault of Reddit, and not necessarily something which naturally comes with having spaces which expect different behavior and contributions. That site trains you to expect to act the same way everywhere you go, and the things that break that have to do so with bad workarounds, so it all feels very off. If it's more naturally integrated and this site trains you to expect to have to learn how to behave in a given space, it becomes less of a problem.
I really hope that's not the direction Tildes plans on going, I'd really like to be able to visit any group and feel at home rather than having to avoid them.
You feel like you should be able to visit ~science.physics.computational and feel just as at home there as you do on ~talk.casual.AMA and not be required to learn the etiquette/rules first before making a comment/post, even though you may have zero experience with computational physics? That seems like a rather unrealistic expectation.
AMA is obviously a special case, but if I can understand or have experience with computational physics and am genuinely interested in discussion, why shouldn't I be able to just visit and ask a question or comment just like on ~books.somethingor.other?
I'm obviously not suggesting someone be allowed to randomly enter ~science.physics.computational and spout nonsense, just like I wouldn't suggest it for any other group. Again, less fragmentation.
I never said you shouldn’t be able to, but you suggested you should be able to before taking the time to learn the basic rules and etiquette there. That’s a big difference and I would say the rules are often in place for very good reasons. Just look at /r/askhistorians, without the rules there it would be full of so many repeat questions, questions no legitimate historian would ever attempt to answer, veiled soapbox “questions”, and comment sections full of laymen wildly speculating about things, etc...etc...etc... that it would be rendered a useless source for quality information.
Same goes for any group centered around a specialized subject. If it’s a total free for all where new users who can’t even bother to take 10 minutes to read the rules are allowed to post whatever questions, articles or comments they want, then that group loses all value as a resource for the people who actually know the subject well and regularly visit it, as well as for any outsider going there to find quality information.
Places can still be welcoming to newcomers but have standards, rules and etiquette. But IMO newcomers shouldn't expect to be able to participate on equal footing as those who actually know the subject, especially without at least getting familiar with the rules first.
Heh. You've got to let go of reddit's limiting mindset.
Custom submission forms. Custom tags. Custom headers. Custom navigation elements. Custom flairs and styles. Why not custom content handling systems? Custom hierarchy workflows. The group should be able to set up everything however they like it to be - the group is the one building their corner, so they decide. If they want to have rules, they get to have rules - the mod team is the group. They have 'neighbors' they need to get along with above and below them, but other than that it's pretty much their choice.
Reddit does nothing to facilitate this process. They don't allow custom submission forms with the rules right there on the submission page and all of it set up as the group wants it. They don't allow the groups to define how the place looks, what browsing elements are present, and how they all work. Reddit doesn't care about the groups, they care about the ad revenue and nothing else.
As far as making it consistent, again that's a failing of reddit. Since reddit doesn't provide customized systems and elements (though there are the beginnings of these in the shitty redesign, even if they kinda suck) groups have no choice but to use really shoddy stylesheet hacks - and that's what causes the experiences to differ so much. Most people turn off the styles, and mobile users can't even see them. If the custom elements are part of the site itself they don't depend on styles and will work anywhere. Yes, designing all of that is going to be a challenge - but we have the source and anyone can help out, again unlike reddit.
You’re essentially asking, “should Tildes value providing a consistent and inclusive experience across the board more or less than it values promoting group specialization that facilitates informed and in-depth discussion?”
Or, more simply, “Should Tildes cater to the layman/lowest common denominator, or should it cater to the expert/exception?”
In principle it seems like Tildes wants to strike a balance between the two. The use of meta-tags in comments for filtering between views within groups seems like a step in that direction, unless I’m misunderstanding what they’re for. It would be cool if those meta-tags could be expanded to denote novice vs intermediate vs expert opinions within a given group or topic, or if they could be used to filter views for other dimensions of discussion.
Different communities have different tones, requirements and problems and with those come different rules. I think it's unreasonable to expect a "consistent experience" in the way you put it.
A gaming community will probably more accepting of jokes and funny content than a scientific community and that's okay. There's no set of rules/standards that can cover all groups and subjects.