Reading
afknapping opened this issue · comments
is "subforums" optional to 1.0?
is categories optional to 1.0?
"top" → activity/time, 2nd by last post. emphasises quantity. more posts (which are shorter on average) seems better.
howabout an index by "average number of words per post". the metric itself does not hold quality. but emphasis on longer form is at least a second point of view.
what if categories are just "promoted tags"?
related: see the way tags work as channels in scuttlebutt
this is so much to parse, none of it helps the actual conversations. post titles would need more highlighting to stand out. make fat. less contrast on rest of stuff.
generally "highlighting by dimming all else" is underrated.
what is left on an older e-ink device? it should work very well on that constraint. does it work on the kindle "experimental browser"?
relative/absolute time shift
- rich embed of link (what is the clickthrough counter for?)
- liking this is nice – why count it tho? the love contest must die
the timeline on the right is really nice, copy 1:1
what are all those numbers for?
there's more
why deviate attention right after getting started? away with all of that
so much calmer
internal embed of whole post
"correct" quote including reference:
"dumb" quote without reference:
how to prevent that? if pilot copypastes, the reference is lost.
probably too much for 1.0: comparison analysis with posts, auto-reference. to adjust for minor edits, 80% is match. only check with posts of thread to stay fast.
automatic references should be editable and removable
- hover effects give it a bit of live, but images do not really need affordance for people to try to tap them.
- ui should distinguish between landscape and portrait in comparison to format of device. orientation - CSS: Cascading Style Sheets | MDN
- hanging punctuation please
- the state of hundreds of years of typography on the 2021 web
sadly, all the examples on Taming Lists are borken
click on date or link icon
away with the sharing. add copy button
- suggested on what basis?
sometimes i want to read other things by a person. "show threads with contributions of ~sampel-palnet"
"ask ~sampel-palnet for posts on other diskurses". ~sampel-palnet gets a dm with interaction on what to share
dis-curse. an authentic conversation cleanses you from the curse of assumptions and other undelivered communication.
- forums/topics/threads could be visible publicly before joining. in-urbit public or even clear-web public.
howabout splitting "like" into "i agree" and "good writing"?
after signup and confirmation:
- uh oh, onboarding guide
- discourse starts a constant nudging conversation here
- "earned
read guidelines" is nice
you cannot force. see every "i'vre read and agreed to the tos" button ever. promote correct behaviour, in visible way. only mechanic that works anyways plus couple to reputation.
summary mail/dm:
short inline-readme:
this could be a template for the admin to fill out. a pre-worded welcome message, plus three single-line input fields for bullet points. more can be added. up to 7.
the admin should get badges too for setting up guidelines and short readmes. the forum should get a badge for having guidelines and short readme.
what fosters good conversation for people who never used a forum, and who are new to urbit?
how to award good conversation, emphasise its value?
like splitting liking into "agree", "great writing" and "good points", a forum can get general comments and reactions. "this is a nice place". "discussions stay on point". "discussions are open and loose".
"describe it in 12 words or less", others can +1. testimonials. recommendations. ask for pilot's posts on other forums, ask for other recommended forums.
guidelines and readme should be 1.0, badging/recommending the forum probably not.
Understanding Discourse Trust Levels
- phew, 1300 words.
- probably none of that necessary until much more scale.
- "flagging" a post should just notice moderator roles, nothing more. does it even need to be a state?
- maybe flagging should be called "snitching" because that is what it is. you need to write a line of what your issue is (maybe also answer why you do not want to take on giving feedback yourself – just thinking about it might bring people back into conversation). moderator gets simple dm with snitching message and link to post.
too many badges:
- "great share" is something i want to use directly, as a reaction, to a post
- all this love metric competition
- "good point"
- "great share"
- "great writing"
- "i agree"
build in some communication smartassing:
- think "and" instead of "but"
- think "and" instead of "or"
- assume makes an ass of u and me
- opinion and judgment say more about you than about the subject
- "good point"
- "great share"
- "great writing"
- "i agree"
these could be filters and used for highlighting.
interaction: tap on heart, list of reactions shows up. even 5 seem like too much. 3 would be perfect. "i agree" can be cut, "great writing" also. "good point" and "great share" put emphasis on intent instead on form or opinon.
the pure number of having posts with "good point" reactions itself is useless. index it with posts or time.
the thing with all of this is that any metric depends on people's willingness to interact at all.
i think diverging here from discourse and replacing "like" with "good point" and "great share" has value (wordings tbd).
two don't even need a substep
promoted comments on ars technica:
Knowing how others in a group react is relevant for shared values. The counting degrades it to a commodity.
zoom ui is important, because there is no quick scaling for mobile browsers
everything must behave nicely when base font size is zoomed
Cupcake ipsum dolor. Sit amet I love bonbon* bear claw tootsie roll jelly.* I love chocolate ice cream* chupa chups I love. Gummi bears I love wafer marzipan. Cheesecake macaroon sweet sweet roll bear claw.
