What I hope is my last Meta post on Tildes
Aaargh! In a recent post, (Who has quit Reddit etc. to go all-in on Tildes?), the subject of content came up. Just six days ago there was this post
and several discussed tildes as leaning toward discussion versus content. If we want to be one or the other , different or similar to Reddit, ok. But personally I came over to Tildes hoping it could eventually replace Reddit minus all the ads and for profit aspects that are plaguing so many social networking sites.
I get it. We want Tildes to be different. But I'm very interested in content. And content based discussion. My favorite subreddit /books, is based very healthily on both. And I happen to think that Tildes is going to need content to broaden its base. That broadening is a strength of Reddit I'd like to see emulated.
I've been hesitant to post and yes cross-post content from Reddit, but now that some people are seeing that content is needed, I'm getting on that bandwagon. I'll do my best to post good quality news, books, science, offbeat, the occasional humor, and you can moderate it away if you want. I want people to want to come here.
So I'll see you in content posts, discussions and even contribute to meta-talk at times, it's necessary for internal communication. But it's time to get to work.
I've been thinking the same thing lately. I was just reluctant to make a post about it because I thought it'd be contributing to the problem, haha. You're absolutely right.
Tildes is a place meant for high quality discussion and content. Right now, it's really heavily skewed toward the side of discussion, especially the navel-gazing meta talk. If you ask me? Meta discussions are the current low-effort content on this site. It's incredibly easy to throw out an opinion on how things should run and then do absolutely nothing about it. And to make it worse, it's horribly boring to anyone visiting the site.
I'm not saying meta discussion is unnecessary, it very much is. We just need to remember that the primary thing that makes a site interesting and drives discussion is Content. If everyone here made just one single post a week of an interesting article they read, we'd have plenty of content to go around and then some. Don't be shy -- just post.
edit: added emphasis and words
As an related but separate idea, I think the best way to post an article is to include
This provides a good jumping off point for quality discussion, and also helps give context to anyone who clicked through to the comments but hasn't read the article yet.
edit: formatting
I'm not at all oppose to this idea, but I actually haven't been providing a summary for the reason that I'm afraid people will end up only reading and commenting on that instead of the actually article itself.
I think we would have even a bigger problem if you don't provide a summary. Reddit has this problem that people jump into conclusions having only read the title, providing a short summary may be an improvement over what reddit offers.
On reddit people are in a hurry to get the first/top comment in for the karma, so people say what they know will be well received.
I don't see that problem occuring here. There isn't any reward for posting a low effort clichéd comment.
I honestly don't see any reason too spoon-feed people with article summaries. It breeds laziness.
I agree, I think we shouldn't be trying to think solutions until a real problem starts happening. This is not reddit so solutions that work there may not apply here (this is an argument against my previous argument, I know :P).
Yes please. I'm one of the people saying that links are low efforts but that's just quite a generalization. Linking a website/article and saying nothing about it, to me, is low effort. If you even just write a comment explaining why I should even open it and read it (so, why it got you interested/hooked) it's already much much better.
If would help if we could post a link AND write the first comment already in the topic creation form @Deimos.
Yeah, I think I could pretty easily support that, and a lot of people seem to want it. Just if someone fills in both link and text, post it as a link post with 1 comment immediately.
Oh yeah, you could easily check if both the fields are filled in and if they'are just create the topic with the links and post immediately the comment into it. Didn't thought you could use the form as it is by just changing the logic behind (and some minor things in the form itself, like explanation of how it works).
The only real thing to decide is if you want that "text" part (that becomes a comment) to be optional or mandatory if you submit a link. I'm for the mandatory but I can understand that sometime you just want to share a link to a cool thing as it's self-explanatory.
For many subreddits the title and a link are more than enough. This is especially true in image sharing subreddits. For example, /r/art works like that, the title generally includes: name of the piece, artist, medium, size and date. And then there's the image link. There's little else to add unless people ask specific questions.
Maybe a quick explanation as to why you posted it could work?
“Saw this at 2 am and thought about xyz.”
“I like the authors writing style but disagreed with xyz.”
Just a brief summary of why you wanted to share. Since were interested in discussion here, what kind of discussion did you anticipate coming up because of your submission?
I think that would work.
PS: I don't like making short comments like this one, I wish we had something like "thanks" and "agree" buttons like some old style forums have. Sometimes a vote doesn't tell much about why we voted and the reason is too simple or short to deserve a comment.
I find myself in the same predicament at times. While I appreciate discussion, I don’t want to expand for the sake of having an arbitrary minimum number of words in my response. That’s one thing I liked about discord. You could add a reaction to a comment. While I doubt too many people on tildes would be happy with the ability to put an emoji on a comment, it provided so much more information beyond a simple upvote or downvote.
GitHub has them too and when used properly they are useful, they take little space and each one shows who used them when you hover your mouse over them.
There is another way to make a submission statement than posting a comment: wrap the link in a text post, like this.
Rather than making comments mandatory, you could simply remove the option to post a link, and force all posts to be text posts.
Why not do this yourself. Lead by example etc etc.
If this is something so important to you, why not post some content, and give justification for posting it.
That way we can see if people like having summaries spoon fed to them instead of reading an article for themselves to determine whether they find a topic interesting, or enjoyed the writing style etc.
Criticising and theorising and making suggestions is easy, but if you want to be taken seriously you need to put your money where your mouth is and practice what you preach.
For two main reasons to be honest:
I think it depends heavily on the subject of the article. I prefer a synopsis of the summary, important findings, snippets from the materials/methods and discussion when someone posts a science article.
Those are good ideas, and I'm trying to add a comment about why I found the article interesting.
This is actually what I was planning to talk about in the daily discussion today (and I probably still will).
I think a change in everyone's perspective is in order. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Tildes today can't and doesn't have to be the Tildes we envision for the future. Opinion based posts are great, they get people talking and engaged. I could name a few people off the top of my head I've already connected with in discussion posts. Content is great. I love seeing interesting articles and people's thoughts on them. We don't need one thing or the other, and both can live here well without harming the other if that is the attitude we all strive for.
Also I don't necessarily agree that posting content here that was originally from reddit is a good thing, if you're only posting content to post content. It's better to let the people who find interesting topics that they care about post and people who read it to discuss than post things you see on reddit so there are more posts here. It's a small community right now but eventually we will have loads of posts.
Collectively we need to let the people who created and currently lead Tildes to do their thing. They have done a great job so far and they've got good heads on their shoulders. Trust their leadership and enjoy the ride and get to know some of us in the meantime for who we are and what we post, not for being the "best and most interesting link finders."
What if I want to discuss content, originally posted on reddit, here with the tildes community because I think we'll be able to generate a better discussion.
I think that's what OP was going for with crossposting from reddit to here.
Yes that's completely understandable. His original tone seemed to suggest that he was going to start posting more content basically for the sake of having more content. Which I don't think is inherently helpful. Perhaps it could develop good discussion anyway, I was only thinking of promoting a mindset that will overall help the site, instead of generating filler content.
Well, that's one of the reasons there is so little content here. The meta implicitly suggests you should only contribute what you would mention in personal discussion, not just throw in content for others to consume. Consequently that means people care more about approval than sharing what they are or have been reading.
That is a difficult barrier to overcome as the people who have been invited so far probably heavily rely on aggregators like Reddit to scoop interesting reading material. Worse if they spent most of their time reading the comment sections, whether due to quality or entertainment. Open platforms usually resolve such passive consumption with growth.
Since that is a path tildes aims to avoid, it is even more important to construct a strategy on how to build up activity and communicate what--well, what is allowed and expected on here, rather than all one shall not do.
The most difficult part is not just attracting enough fitting content generators, but to propel activity to power itself.
Yes I agree. That's why I think reposting reddit links is a bad path to head down. We want to establish Tildes as it's own platform with its own identity, and if that takes a while, patience is a virtue we can all afford. Rushing to get content here doesn't matter if it's content nobody wants to see or nobody is interacting with. The articles from reddit aren't inherently bad or wrong. It's my belief that people coming from reddit already absorbed that info from reddit and aren't going to comment or care about it twice, or it's new content to people here, and it generates healthy discussion, which is what a good goal would be. If it is doing the latter, I'm all for it, I simply suggest caution on posting a lot of content for the sake of having content, so that we don't oversaturate with articles in favor of discussion topics, and leave those articles barren and covering the groups. OPs last phrase of "but it's time to get to work," makes me feel that they would rather do something that feels like work in order to have this sense of progression for Tildes rather than post something they care about for the discussion.
You should not confuse submissions with the discussions, though. Those are two pair of shoes. And only available content attracts interest to visit and talk. As I said a lot of people use aggregators like tildes as their primary source, so you can't expect them to get their content elsewhere.
Of course, you need to differentiate between your target groups. Comp, news, music, tv are high traffic areas, so unless there is a lot to consume it would be difficult for tildes to proof itself as an alternative even for high quality discussions.
Books, food, creative or hobbies would probably prefer more selected content and establish their approach more slowly.
I can see that you're loving the opportunity this start-up gives you. ;)
If you say so. I've only noticed you suggesting your own website here on Tildes.
I'm not accusing you of anything. Just tweaking your nose. Teasing you a little.
That's like 95% of my job on reddit. Running /r/crypto (cryptography), I either direct people to /r/codes for trivial ciphers or /r/cryptocurrency for much of the rest.
Noted.
Honestly, I think reforming the system has already won half the battle. Using votes to indicate consensus, but not including karmic scores or even scores of posting history is going to greatly increase the value of comments and discussion, because people will be increasingly directed towards one or two people in their discussions.
The real trick is going to be the methodology used to discourage trolls from trying to dislodge discussions through comment filibustering (what often takes place in commenting streams such as Livefyre; ie: the person who finishes the discussion wins).
Anonymity at least at the administrative level may have to be done away with. Look, it didn't hurt Facebook. What I'm talking about is admins being able to kick trolls out permanently. But what do I know?