13
votes
Will Tildes ever implement a rule that posts require the OP to start the discussion in the text section?
I find posts that are just links or simple questions without any additional input from the poster to be low-effort and don't tend to garner meaningful discussion. I've noticed that there are a fair amount of those posts on this site although they're definitely the minority. There are some subreddits I follow that have implemented mandatory discussion by the OP as a rule and it really did a lot of good for discussion and thread contribution. Even something as simple as writing why you think the link you're sharing is interesting / important / etc would be enough to kick things off and invite discussion, I think.
What are you guys' thoughts on this?
I am guilty of doing this. I do it because often with longer articles, sometimes technical ones, some opinion pieces it takes some time to get to the point of the matter that (admittedly I think) are of interest. I suppose I should just stop doing that as I didn't realize that was insulting and certainly not my intent.
You make an excellent point with a perfect example. The community hopefully will be able to route this sort of problem out through the trust/reputation system. Currently, Tildes has a bunch of good beans, at least I haven't seen this problem myself. I sincerely hope I don't have blinders on my own submissions. I wouldn't have a problem calling something like that out and I would expect others to do the same.
I think posting naked links works when the title of that link is adequately descriptive of the contents, something which have done and do. Sometimes they aren't however or topics are quite involved with more than a couple of issues in longer articles.
I realize what I think is important or interesting may not be to other readers. That is the whole point of discussions in bringing in opposing, more informed or other viewpoints. I'll be more reserved as I note you aren't alone in your opinion and others expressed they don't like intros at all or any offerings from the OP in what the OP finds of interest in a posted article.
Thank you for bringing it up and your thoughts which I found illuminating.
I actually just made my first post, and did similar because I've seen it done in other posts around Tildes already. I did add a bit of a comment of my own, but there wasn't a lot more I had to say than the article.
I'm happy to add more of my personal comments to future posts to hopefully increase the quality of content I am adding to the site.
I agree that requiring OP comments is not ideal. Sometimes I do, but mostly I don’t because I don’t want to frame the discussion with my POV.
As an "official" answer (which I should probably get into a FAQ or somewhere easier to reference): no. I understand the motivation behind it, but I think it's a little misguided—it's fixating on the discussion as the only important part, and treating the link as almost a side detail. But the only reason for submitting a link isn't to start a discussion, sometimes it's just to inform people of something.
As a specific example, I just submitted the update announcement for the new Stardew Valley update. I have some general knowledge of Stardew Valley, but I've never played it. I have no ability to start a meaningful discussion about the game or the changes in this update, but I know that tons of people have been looking forward to it, so I submitted it. If it was required that I start a discussion, what should I do?
I could take a quote out of the post that seems important and copy-paste it, or I could make a generic comment like, "Looks like this update's finally out, anyone planning on trying it out?", or I could just not submit it and wait for someone that actually understands the game to do it instead (which may never happen). None of those are very good options, and just submitting the link is perfectly fine. It informs the people that are interested, and they can start a discussion if they want to. I don't think there's any reason that needs to be the responsibility of the person submitting the link.
You could simply state the reason you're sharing the link which is what you just did here in your comment. Something like "Hey guys, I'm not a Stardew player myself but I know a lot of you have been awaiting this so I thought I'd share since I found this article talking about it. What do you guys think?" That sort of thing garners meaningful discussion, IN MY OPINION (I'm not claiming I know best), better than saying nothing. I'm not claiming people need to copy / paste part of the article or even give their opinions on it as others have. But I do fundamentally believe that if you're sharing something with everybody, you should explain why you took time out of your day to do so and that it is also more beneficial to do so for this site and others like it. I can tell by most other replies that I'm in the minority and that it isn't necessary to implement such a rule at this time or perhaps ever. I'm just really enjoying the site and am trying to contribute however I can by asking the question.
I am one of the posters that almost never start the discussion. My main reason is because I don't want to taint the discussion or affect it's direction.
If there's something specific I want to discuss, that's when I do.
I also generally don't do summaries or quotes from the article because I want to discuss the article, not my summaries or my selections. The times I do are usually when I find the title lacking.
I personally don't think links alone make a post low effort.
Edit: may I ask why you think links alone are low effort?
I think they're low-effort because there was no effort put into making the post other than copying a link. I'm just concerned with the site becoming a sea of posts that are just links without discussion because there isn't any initial discussion to incentivize reading / discussing the article. Now that obviously isn't the case right now and, as others have said, that's largely due to the fact the site encourages discussion without requiring it to begin with the OP but I was curious what others thought.
I can understand that posting a link might seem low effort. My two-cents, I post a mix of video and article links, as well as write ups. For me, they actually all required about the same amount of effort. I read a lot of news each day before selecting something I want to post. When I pick something, I will usually reread or rewatch it a couple times before actually posting it. I also usually do a quick Google of it, just to check sources, look for a better title, find an article with better context, and so on.
On the other hand, my lowest effort post of late was a few days ago, just before I went on vacation. This included a write up.
Personally, I don't like how we've been tossing around "low effort". I think it assumes a lot and is generally rude. Good discussion comes from both posts and people participating in comments. If you can't be the one to start a conversation after reading an article, maybe you have nothing to say, which is fine too.
I dislike the way a lot people equate a link to low effort posting.
Reading a story on several different outlets to find the one you think is best is definitely not low effort. And posting something that isn't in the cable news cycle is not low effort either.
Personally, I think a lot of the squealing about "low effort content" comes when they see stuff that isn't of interest to them, or they don't want to know about, and assume others must definitely feel the same way.
Or maybe I'm not giving enough credit, but I seldom see any credible justification for the label. It mostly comes across as sour grapes.
I get this feeling too.
I understand that people can be protective of Tildes, but I think we need to let users contribute and participate the way they choose too.
That's true. I don't mean to be rude and haven't been meaning to imply that something being low-effort is inherently bad or isn't enough to start a discussion, just that it potentially doesn't do as much to start a discussion as it could. Admittedly, I'm in the minority for feeling this way.
I didn't think you were trying to be rude, but I just feel that trying to police content, such as forcing people to add an initial comment, is still making a statement. Admittedly, as someone who have been told that my posts were low-effort, title sensationalized, and low quality, and have seen this happen to other users, I maybe a bit touchy on this subject.
I understand everyone wants high quality, good discussion. I want that too. But I also see how this desire is preventing people from sharing.
This is still a good question to post.
I think it's a bit overkill - especially when it comes to linking articles. A good article should speak for itself and in my opinion the lack of an initial comment by OP doesn't make it "low effort".
I suppose I would encourage folks who post threads that garner casual conversation ("What's your favorite TV show?" etc.) participate in some form, but making it a "rule" seems unnecessary.
My two cents, if you want your discussion go anywhere, you need to start the discussion yourself, unless the topic itself is virulent enough to self-sustain. OP needs to be the one to start and direct the conversation. They need to keep topic fresh and engage in the debate to keep it moving forward.
Posting a link and hoping it gains traction wont work well.
Remember, Tildes conversations only work by engaging in the topic. If you want a topic that you don't like to go away, then don't engage. (Remember any post in the topic refreshes it to the top.)
That is the assumption I've been working under only to find some don't appreciate that at all. A few expressed here they do not want the OP directing the initial discussion with comments at all or providing snips of articles. Others citing sections of interest should be only be accompanied with comments from the OP. So I am confused.
I just think that as a bare minimum the OP should be saying WHY they chose to share what they're sharing because from there it invites further discussion. For example if they say they posted it because they found it interesting the question can then be asked why they thought it was interesting / what was interesting about it and then others can discuss those points with the OP.
Of course you will not find 100% consensus on this. And with those virulent topics OP might get in the way.
But Tildes is too small to have the user-base pickup the threads of discourse that a link lays down. Also remember if OP does a bad job with the initial discussion they themselves can kill the tread with a clumsy start.
But the overarching thing to remember is most people will read the headline and go to thread to see what people are discussion about, then maybe go to the link.
Tildes Title -> Discussion Thread (Comments)-> Link(Article)
I don't see Tildes breaking this progression.
(I also think Tildes is not suited for long form content, it should take 15mins to digest the content or it has a high probability of dying, but that is for another discussion).
This is exactly what I do. This is also why I'll produce snips I think might produce discussion or provide an abbreviated overview for those who reading the full article might be difficult for various reasons.
I am surprised some find this disagreeable and presumptuous. The last thing I want to do is offend others in what I bring forward and how I do it.
I'd like that discussion, personally some longer form content I find welcome.
I agree, but it is too hard to actually have a discussion about content that takes a long time to digest. Even if it takes an hour to read the content it will take more time to digest it and form an opinion on it.
So those with strong opinions going in to the long form content will rule the conversation while you try to digest it. Meaning by the time you have something to contribute the conversation could have moved on.
@Deimos posted some long form content in the beginning that I found really interesting, it was about online community building, and I really liked it, but by the time I had read and digested the information the conversation had moved on.
In areas I find interesting I don't mind a bit of heavy reading even if my participation in discussion is either late or my level of understanding too weak to participate (except in the case of asking questions). It still has value, imo. Too much long form reading won't be received well I would agree; but, in particular a few in technical areas and scientific areas, sometimes it can't be avoided.
Here is a great post, that is in-depth and long form with great production value. Lets watch what happens to this discussion and how Tildes reacts to it. It was even posted my Deimos so that should give it some extra juice. It will be interesting to watch how it plays out
https://tildes.net/~enviro/47g/losing_earth_the_decade_we_almost_stopped_climate_change
It might be interesting to dissect this flow
The reason I follow this flow is because if the conversation is not interesting then I am going to skip the article, *unless the topic is something I care about, or to continue the metaphor, is virulent enough to me that I want to read the article on its own. Which in that case I will probably comment on the the Thread so I can start/continue the discussion.
While some people might not like the idea of this flow, I suspect a lot of people follow it. I also don't see a good way to break that user flow, as it goes against how they like to interact with the content. So I say go the other route, if you bake it into your post, then you will get a better discussion.
Why?
I am not saying this in an accusatory way. I am unable to game out why another flow is inherently better.
Not OP, but I try to go to the article first so that I'm not biased by the comments when reading it.
Don't think it's anything beyond preference though.
Tildes hasn't change the system that much from Reddit. It has not broken the inherit system that rewards gamification of the comments.
Again I was not trying to be accusatory, in my orginal comment I was looking for why you prefer a different flow.
I think we use these services for different purposes. Tildes is not an RSS feed. I am not trying to read every article posted, I don't have the time or the proclivity to do so.
I come to places like this so I can get differing view point then my own. I like to try and see the world from as many angles as possible. So that I don't have an myopic world view.
In the time before Reddit, this was how I browsed forums I participated in. Reddit has a whole lot of big time problems that can be correlated to seeking Karma and this may well be one of them.
What would be an alternative to this flow?
I do not see any inherit value in following that flow. Also please note I am not saying my flow is inherently better then yours either, just that the 2 flows are net neutrals.
I will say that I come to forums like this for the discussion, so if the topic is not of particular interest to me, and the discussion isn't either then I will skip the thread. But if the Linked Topic isn't interesting but Discussion is then I will probably comment. Also if the Discussion is lack luster but the Linked Topic is interesting I might read the article and post my own thoughts to try and kick start the conversation.
Of course but how do you change the habit of not reading the article first. Its hardwired into everyone now so there would need to be a push to ensure that is what actually happens. That's what I'm asking.
I agree. However, it appears other don't. I've been thinking about this style of posting which I've used for a very long time on other forums without issues being raised, even those with quite stringent rules on style and content. I need to think about this some more.
I think you are right about the flow, its innate and it is ultimately a time saver allowing one to prioritize where one pays attention. Breaking that would be very difficult.
I am not sure.
I do enjoy more posts where the OP starts the discussion, but if the implementation of such a rule discourages posting of only links (instead of "converting" the only-linkers to discussion-creators) I'm not sure it will be helpful. I think if the community itself encourages discussion, it won't be necessary to enforce this kind of rules.
I hope not. All that happens is someone copypastes a passage that they think is important, thus leading any discussion in the direction they want it to go.
I don't think a requirement would be advisable myself. Some links require no further comment as it is worthy on its own accord to generate discussion. Often I will quote a section of the article that might generate interest in the topic/article without personal comment. Others may require some enhancement or opinion to generate discussion, it ultimately is an individual style choice.
I agree that a requirement might well discourage rather than encourage participation as others here have noted.