Is "Every Episode of "The Flash" Ever" too fluffy?
Aside from the existing conversations already going on about handling fluff and generally unwanted content, I would like to start (yes, I know, another) discussion on what we want to see on Tildes. Whenever one of these postings come up, there's generally a lot of "what we don't want to see" and not "what we want to see". So keeping that in mind, let's start...
Specifically I want to discuss Every Episode of "The Flash" Ever. The first, and currently top, comment suggests this is not content that belongs here.
I disagree. We're not anti-fun, and the comments in that thread kinda felt that way.
OP (@RamsesThePigeon) created a critic of a comic book based show in a comic book style depicting tropes and other character flaws in a easy-to-consume and humorous fashion. They correctly had it in ~tv.
This is exactly the sort of content Tildes needs.
It is not low-effort, and will still not be even if not directly created by OP (though bonus points there for sure). It had full potential to generate good discussion on the show itself, other similar shows, writing tropes and characters, and so on.
Thoughts?
I'd argue that including some fluff is going to be vital to the success of ~tildes. In my observation (and perhaps maybe projecting my own motivations on everyone else) people are attracted to ~tildes not just for serious, robust discussion, but civil discussion. We're already seeing a lot of difficult topics being addressed with people from both sides of whatever issue engaging in the discussion. It takes a lot of emotional labour to be civil and extend empathy to the person you're debating with. I think it'll be a lot easier to do that if we have "off topic" or fluffy conversations where people learn more about each other beyond what side of the political spectrum they stand.
It's treason then.
But seriously, I agree. People need to loosen the collar a little bit. It helps people feel more comfortable to open up and express themselves.
And just because something isn't Super Serious All the Time, doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. Casual conversation where people get to know each other can be very valuable. We also need to distinguish between low effort memes, like only commenting "It's treason then", and high quality frivolity like r/Polandball or r/HighQuailtyGifs. The Flash post is the latter. It's original, has something to say, and sparked discussion. It may have gotten more on topic discussion had it not been derailed by the challenge to its worthiness.
Exactly. There's a difference between light hearted content and shit posting. The former builds community while the latter disrupts it. I'd be in support of encouraging people posting lighter content to accompany their posts with a comment, kinda like in r/TrueReddit. That way people would know that the poster isn't just shit posting and feel the need to derail a potentially interesting discussion with off-topic sanctioning.
Another part of it is that some people just won't ever be interested in fluff. My stepfather is like that. His idea of a guilty pleasure is the Beatles. I think it will be important to find ways that people who are interested in serious discussion only can avoid seeing fluff in their feeds. I think consistent use of the tagging system will go a long way in helping these users.
I can see how this is true, but there's a difference between memes & shitposting, and, uh, quality fluff.
Taking HN as an example*, you can see a post like the Airmash intro post which is introducing a fairly useless browser game, but has the person who built it reacting, talking with people, other people giving feedback & talking about the mechanics, but at the same time it's rather fluff-like. It's not something that is super "worthy" or whatever. If I posted a link to it here it wouldn't add any discussion, it'd be a distraction, and wouldn't be all that good. But it's everyone having fun, while not sacrificing some core community aspects of useful discussion, I guess? It's been a long day but I think there's some more useful thoughts we can draw from an example like that.
*most people here are familiar with it, but worth mentioning: it has a lot of flaws, notably an insular community with very predictable reactions, with little diversity in politics, points of view, etc etc
I agree 100% and even said that in my reply to @Eylrid. That's why I think adding a comment to something where the informativeness is questionable to get a discussion started will be useful. There's a huge difference between dropping a meme and taking off and posting the same meme with a critical commentary. One's a shit post, the other is productive fluff. It's the latter that I think is a key aspect of community building and ultimately something that will help us when we engage in meatier discussions.
In a space like this I think it's imperative to encourage activities that support empathy building. Allowing off-topic and light-hearted spaces is one way that can be done.
Edits: Grammar and clarity
Missed that comment, I'd opened a reply box before that was posted. I'm personally of opinion that /r/Polandball and /HQG are both too "fluff"like, so I might be more on the "beatles is fluff" side of the scale, but maybe we just need a better definition of these scales, dimensions they're on (light-hearted, off-topic, shitposting, etc etc all being different possible quantifiers for "fluff"), and what to do with them.
I mentioned some here but there's a difference between this picture being posted and the entire article being posted. The hard thing is that
doesn't guarantee there'll be quality discussion, but that seems like putting the cart in front of the horse (if that's the right saying?) because you're predicting some outcome that can't be predicted. i hope that makes sense.
The point I'm making is that "quality" discussion doesn't always have to be highbrow. I consider a discussion to be of quality if it serves a purpose and sometimes that purpose is relationship or empathy building rather than knowledge building. I'm not claiming that highbrow discussions and relationship building are mutually exclusive, but rather that a discussion can help build relationships without being deep and informative and that relationships are important on a site where we're going to be having lots of hard talks.
Not everyone is going to get something out of sad boi or flash-like discussions, but some people are. If we want to avoid putting the cart before the horse I think we should allow these discussions to happen, and encourage seeding discussions on posts that could be mistaken for shitposts, to see if good things result from them rather than clogging them up with comments sanctioning them, which risks crushing any positive outcome.
In my personal opinion, it was a perfectly fine post, even a good one. Yes, it was humorous, but in a satire/parody way—in the end, really not that different from posting an article from The Onion or similar sites (which has certainly been done). Everything that isn't serious isn't automatically "fluff", and I think it could have had the potential to start a discussion about the show (if we had enough fans here).
It's a bit of a weird situation. I think the fact that the post is in a "visual" format makes people automatically treat it as low-effort, even though there was obviously a lot of work that went into it. If it had been a text post like:
I think everyone would have been perfectly fine with it. But because it was in the form of a comic, that makes people immediately jump to the conclusion that it's fluff, even though I think it's clearly "better" content than a text post like that.
I don't really know how to solve this, I think people are focused on the medium a bit too much, instead of the content. A similar example is people being upset about Twitter links and considering all tweets fluff, even though sometimes they're legitimately the source of news or information.
I believe this is the issue too. There's a bit of a close-mindedness here that's made worst by the intolerance.
But isn't the context the content?
I honestly disagree with the idea that every post needs an explanation, and personally think adding a comment steers the discussion, which may not be applicable in all cases. However, I do recognize at least some tilderinos (this one's my favourite) prefer it.
Edit to add: There is definitely a difference between not being the first to comment (or commenting right away), and completely leaving a post though. And I do believe we should interact with our own posts.
I definitely think an OC tag is good, give credit where it's due right? However, if it wassn't created by OP, and it was something he came across, does it make sharing the content less worthy?
For example, a political cartoon can be extremely relevant and discussion worthy, does it really need more than a link to it?
Or, if in this case, it wasn't a link to imgur (which I do understand usually signals memes), but to an article with everything in the image in text form; does that make it better?
I guess what I'm suggesting is, OP's content wasn't judged for its content, but for its format.
I believe this what most users on here are trying to get across. I do believe some tilderinos could try to be more friendly in their criticism.
I completely agree and in addition to your point, I just don't believe it's realistic to expect to understand every post even with a title, link, and OP comment. Part of discussion is to have a conversation, including asking for more information.
But, should you have? Is it fair to judge a post based on it's format alone?
My bad, I was kinda using a "you" for everyone, not you specifically. Didn't mean for it to sound like I was pointing fingers at you specifically.
I don't think there's anything wrong with not commenting, not voting and just moving on. And your comments definitely belong and are welcomed here.
idk, I think that post was a good start, there's a lot of potential to be discussed, but it could just as easily be a "chuckle lightly and move on" post. It depends on how it's presented, imo. Some things don't need that ("I honestly disagree with the idea that every post needs an explanation, and personally think adding a comment steers the discussion, which may not be applicable in all cases.") because it might steer the discussion, like you said, and influence it in a certain way. Another reason you wouldn't need a presentation is because the content is 'deep' or thorough enough that you get to discussing naturally.
I haven't watched the flash (after season 1, anyways), but some quick looking up gave me this article on someone's thoughts on season 4 of the flash. That's a bunch of writing but if that had been posted, would there have been discussion? I don't think so. it's some recap of past seasons, with a touch of personal thoughts added with each character, but no real potential for talk. In that sense, the image posted earlier is a much better jumping point: it's a critique, it's not gonna lead to empty conversations à la "wow i wonder what'll happen next season", but might (might!) lead to people talking about tired tropes, examples of other places doing it better, etc. So the solution obviously isn't just "add more words", but it's more nuanced than that. how that exactly works is something we'll have to figure out, i think. but in cases like this where it could (and apparently was) taken by most as a "joke" instead of a meaningful platform for discussion, it might be a good idea to present it as such. That doesn't mean the artform distracts or makes it memey, it just means it's a start. I think the OP image is an OK start, but is pretty cookie-cutter. ("cheap tv show adheres to expected tropes" is hardly a radical thought). so in a case like that, i feel like the image is more of a foundation of discussion, or could be a good addition, but might need something extra. (consider similar use of art in blog posts like Hyperbole and a Half, Wait But Why, or xkcd's "What If?" series; all use art in a way to help get the message across, often a lot better than text would by itself, but the surrounding text is really needed to distinguish it from low-effort fluff, like a lot of xkcd's normal comics)
(side note: i disagree with any arguments about OC, it being OC doesn't give it any extra weight; effort as measured in time doesn't equate making something that'll lead to worthwhile discussion—otherwise my terrible drawings that take two hours would be considered as "fostering discussion" and I can guarantee they won't)
This is a great point, and it leads me to my next gripe, which is - comments matter too. Someone can start a conversation, but it takes both sides to have a discussion. I've definitely read really good posts on Tildes that I went "interesting" and moved on. If I wanted a real discussion, I have to contribute to it in a meaningful fashion.
I honestly don't think "karmawhoring" is going to be an issue. There's no reward, seeing as "scores" aren't tracked and there's never going to be karmalb, or equivalent, scoreboard for Tildes. You can't play for the highscore if there's no way of knowing what it is or who you have to beat.
It can definitely still be an issue. The key thing to recognize is that very, very few users care about the karma itself, they care about the attention—the karma is basically just a side effect of getting a lot of attention.
Think about it this way: self-post-only subreddits like /r/AskReddit didn't give any karma for most of reddit's life. Did that prevent people from posting dumb, "karmawhore"-style posts in all of those subreddits? Not at all, they were still full of them, so it can't be the karma alone that motivates people.
True. I guess I was thinking more of the sustained "gotta get more karma than that person" competitive shitposting, not so much the "look at me" one off posts, which are abundant and never ending.
I've never watched The Flash, and probably never will.
I am aware that it's popular though, and I'm also aware that fans of any film/TV/book series never tire of discussing, dissecting, deconstructing and (over) analysing their particular favourites.
This creates discussion, very often insightful or entertaining, from filming techniques to scriptwriting tips. Even for people just casually browsing with no interest in the actual programme, a thread can be worthwhile.
I don't think that just creating discussion is enough. It should start out with actual discussion.
What about all of the links to news articles where OP doesn't also make a discussion starting comment? I don't see anyone suggesting those posts are fluff.
Why is it only on OP to comment to get discussion going? Isn't it on all of us to comment on content we want to discuss?
The typical linked news article provides context, background... information.
I've never watched a single episode of "The Flash". I have no idea who's in it, what it's about. I know "The Flash" is a comic hero, but I honestly have no clue if he's DC or Marvel or something else entirely. Is "Barry" The Flash? I have no idea. I know even less about whatever "Agent of Shield" is. And the meme doesn't explain any of this. Who's the guy with the coffee? Is his comment about being a sidekick supposed to be funny? Ironic? Is he Coffee Man? Is "...coffee" his catch-phrase? Why does he even appear in this meme?
Clearly, I'm not the target audience for "Every Episode of The Flash Ever". I didn't laugh, I didn't nod knowingly, I didn't chuckle. I just closed the page, shrugged, and resigned myself to the fact that American television evidently hasn't gotten any less awful in the decade I haven't had a TV.
Now, contrast that with the two articles that have been posted about the cave rescue in Thailand, also without explanation from the OPs. Or the article that got posted overnight about Archbishop Wilson, someone I'm even less familiar with than The Flash. Within sixty seconds of reading, I know who he is, why he's in the news, what he did, why people are calling for his resignation, etc. I go to the link, and information has been conveyed. I am suitably prepared to ask reasonably meaningful questions, to offer semi-articulated opinions. I am, in short, left ready to have a discussion.
tl;dr: if you want to spark a conversation, a picture is not worth a thousand words.
I think I get what you're saying, but couldn't that be said about every specific TV show discussion in ~tv, and for that matter, for specific games in ~games and such?
I really appreciate your example article posts, and I can definitely see a difference. However, I think they're posted with an intention for different discussions - one for the specific show, and one to inform other users about a current event.
Going through the list of topics in ~tv, there's:
an anime discussion post;
a Vulture article about Netflix tagged "long read";
a historial BBC program on Youtube with comment from OP;
a link to a Netflix show with background comment frop OP;
an article about Harlan Ellison and his Star Trek script;
a discussion thread about a show's season finale (with introductory comments from OP);
a trailer/teaser on Youtube;
a Westworld discussion thread, with starting comments from OP;
another, different, focused anime discussion thread, with starting comments from OP;
a Sam Kinnison videon on Youtube, with comment from OP;
another Westworld discussion thread, with introductory comments from OP;
an article about ABC's Roseanne spinoff;
a NYT article about Rick and Morty;
...and I could go on, but I think that's enough to make clear that random meme-bombing ~tv without comment is absolutely the exception. They can do better than "Every Episode of The Flash Ever", because they already do.
(Edit to add: that's not me cherry-picking threads, BTW; those are, as I typed this, the thirteen most-recently-bumped threads.)
Agree to disagree, as I don't really want to criticize specific posts.
I will for the trailer/teaser though (since it's Deimos, and I know he can take it). This is literally a teaser, for a show I'm definitely interested in, but beyond "yay, can't wait" what discussion was it honestly meant to generate?
Not everything is or should be for everyone. Targeted content can still be valuable to the target audience even if it doesn't mean anything to others. I have watched The Flash and I enjoyed the post. I'm glad @RamsesThePigeon posted it.
Subgroups will help with that, but we need people posting their interests before we can spin off subgroups for them. In the meantime tagging and filtering can cut down on things you don't want to see.
The Flash post did spark a conversation, and not just the meta one about whether it belongs here or not. The on topic conversation got pushed down by the meta.
Which disappoints me. The meta convo just took over, since it was the first, and the discussion it did spark was kinda lost. A benefit of a doubt would have help here I think.
Can you elaborate on this? Isn't the post itself the first point of the discussion? In this case specifically, isn't a follow up comment basically like explaining a joke?
I think we're looking past the elephant in the room, when defining what constitutes "fluff" a 12 year old is going to vary differently from a 18 year old, and again differently from a 50 year old etc.. Because there's no separation of demographics or real grouping of people aside from 'categories', then you're going to have constant disagreements till one group dominates and the other group gets marginalised.
And I'm not confident that the marginalised group is necessarily going to align with whatever Tildes abstract principles are, I admire the sentiment but I'm becoming more pessimistic about how I feel this is going to play out.
I can see your point and for sure, different people will view different things as fluff. However, I believe the issue isn't that people see fluff, it's that they distract potential discussions with meta discussions, often in an unkind, if not outright rude manner.
We don't have a downvote button, so that's being transferred to the comments.
We may need better guidelines and general common courtesy. If I don't like or am not interested in something, I just move on.