Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: [Informer Article] The Great Social News Experiment
PostPosted: November 21st, 2014, 10:00 am 
Site Owner
Offline

Joined: September 9th, 2004, 9:26 am
Posts: 6878
Location: Wild Rose Country ca
RS Name: shane12088
RS Status: P2P
10 years ago in late November 2004 the seeds were planted for what would become the greatest social news experiment. Digg was shown off to the world a little bit later in December. It remained relatively niche throughout '04, '05, and '06 picking up steam in 2007 when talk of the 2008 US Elections began. For anyone who's been under a rock Digg served the purpose of curating the most popular news online in various categories. To make a long story short Digg was incredibly successful for what it sought out to do. The idea still holds merit but must be well formed to deal with the nature of the internet.

Digg's run took place before the entire world embraced social media on Twitter and Facebook. It's fairly obvious now that Twitter and Facebook are very important signals as to what is popular online. Through missing the boat on how important Twitter and Facebook were becoming Digg became less relevant. This effect was amplified when the vast majority of users failed to understand the purpose and meaning of Digg v4. Digg v4 allowed websites to have items automatically submitted and trumpeted what "your friends" were digging rather than what the website as a whole was interested in. As a result of Digg v4 many users up and left in a similar fashion to the original Thirteen Colonies rebellion against Great Britain.

Digg spurred many copy cats, successful and otherwise. The one that still remains to this date that took the majority of disgruntled Digg users is Reddit. Reddit is what the original Digg community loved, a place on the internet where interesting websites and discussions are shared around any number of areas. Reddit can be thought of as an internet forum where popular postings are featured prominently (by default) and users are encouraged to upvote posts based on merit rather than who or what the posting is about. But does this actually happen? Of course not! (Yes, this was an issue with Digg as well, see Digg Patriots).

Back in September The Verge wrote a nice piece entitled, "Reddit is a failed state". The piece highlights what happens when things go bad on Reddit, in particular nude photos being stolen and then circulated on the website. In a nutshell the perpetrators were allowed to run free while the individual whose photos were stolen had little to no recourse aside from a DMCA take down (requiring a lawyer which on its own is tremendously expensive). I invite everyone to read the full piece by The Verge as it clearly details what the former CEO (as of 5 days ago due to a board disagreement) viewed Reddit as a means to accomplish. "'Family-friendly' is out, 'edgy' is in."

As if the moral objections to a policy as shown previously weren't enough to dissuade people from using Reddit the collective wisdom of online crowds triumphs everywhere, that should be a reason to avoid a website like Reddit. Even if one avoids the cesspit known as r/politics (it doesn't even deserve a hyperlink) it's hard to get promoted in any popular sub-reddit unless your posting is in line with the collective consciousness. Oh but that used to happen on Digg too! I know! It's why Digg v4 was great, it relied on your friends rather than the collective consciousness. What about going to a more specialized sub-reddit? Sure, that works, but it's likely to be smaller receiving a smaller audience and it still suffers from the same collective group think. It's for this reason that I view Reddit as worse than the old fashioned online discussion forums.

Digg rebranded and launched a new product in summer 2012. It corrected what the original Digg got wrong, the lack of social input from Twitter and Facebook. The new Digg also struck a nice balance between social news as we had in the old Digg and what exists on Reddit. Digg does a great job of showing what is popular and relevant online without the collective consciousness of Reddit and the internet in general. This was accomplished with a group of editors that ultimately decide what stories get featured based on social impulses. This is great, it is what social news should be. Digg has even linked directly to Fox News and showcased stories that provide an alternate viewpoint to the accepted norm online. The only downside is that editors have biases and this can not be avoided but in general the new Digg is no worse than any major newspaper for bias. I will take a Digg with editors over a Digg with no editors any day.

Now where does this leave us? You could simply rely on nightly news to tell you what's going but that often leaves interesting or important things out. Digg shows daily news and interesting things that you won't find on a TV newscast. But, what about local? What about issues that are important to you? Recently I asked our community what social networking services they use. The respondents use Facebook and Twitter regularly but not primarily as a news source. This is where I come in. Over the last year my primary news source has been a Twitter feed. This provides the most granular news as I can tailor it specifically to my needs.

At the end of the day news generated by those around us, those that we trust, is going to be the best source of news. Right now this can be accomplished with Twitter and Facebook combined with a service called News.me. News.me sends you a daily digest to your inbox which shows what was popular in your Twitter and Facebook feeds. Digg also allows for Twitter integration with Digg Deeper, a service that shows popular links shared on your twitter timeline. This is the ultimate in terms of personal social news as it cuts out the collective consciousness of the internet and is based purely on your interests.

Whether or not Reddit realizes that their form of "popular news" is actually limiting freedom. Reddit needs to adopt some form of wider social impulses if it is to ever move beyond an online collective consciousness. Digg has already adopted News.me (with Digg Deeper) technology but only at a basic level. This leads to the conclusion that raw social news (original Digg and now Reddit) was at best an experiment that tried to reform news in the early 21st century. Reddit should be relegated to what it is, a glorified discussion forum where cunning posters can become popular in their own little areas. Nothing beats a Twitter feed of followers that you trust.

This was originally posted as an Informer Tech article.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Register and login to get these in-post ads to disappear
PostPosted: November 21st, 2014, 10:00 am 
Site Owner

Joined: September 9th, 2004, 1:47am
Posts: 9047
Location: In your web browserz


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Informer Article] The Great Social News Experiment
PostPosted: November 23rd, 2014, 5:03 pm 
Moderator
Offline

Joined: December 25th, 2006, 7:10 am
Posts: 1781 us
RS Name: Lord Earth
RS Status: P2P
Clan Name: Clan Quest
Shane wrote:
As a result of Digg v4 many users up and left in a similar fashion to the original Thirteen Colonies rebellion against Great Britain.

...what? How is that a reasonable comparison to this? Digg made a change, the users of Digg didn't like it, and the users of Digg left. Calling it a rebellion akin to the American Revolution is not only ludicrous, but also entirely irrelevant.

Shane wrote:
Reddit is what the original Digg community loved, a place on the internet where interesting websites and discussions are shared around any number of areas. Reddit can be thought of as an internet forum where popular postings are featured prominently (by default) and users are encouraged to upvote posts based on merit rather than who or what the posting is about.

So what were your thoughts on the "Original Digg"?

Shane wrote:
Back in September The Verge wrote a nice piece entitled, "Reddit is a failed state". The piece highlights what happens when things go bad on Reddit, in particular nude photos being stolen and then circulated on the website. In a nutshell the perpetrators were allowed to run free while the individual whose photos were stolen had little to no recourse aside from a DMCA take down (requiring a lawyer which on its own is tremendously expensive).

Oh yes, "The Fappening". So what you're saying is that, without the existence of Reddit, it would be impossible for this to happen?

Shane wrote:
'Family-friendly' is out, 'edgy' is in."

When did the internet ever claim to be family-friendly?

Shane wrote:
Even if one avoids the cesspit known as r/politics

/r/politics is a joke on Reddit too; it's full of trolls. Using /r/politics as a bellwether for Reddit as a whole would be akin to using The Sandbox as a gauge of RSBandB as a whole. It exists, sure. But it's not what it's about.

Shane wrote:
it's hard to get promoted in any popular sub-reddit unless your posting is in line with the collective consciousness. Oh but that used to happen on Digg too! I know! It's why Digg v4 was great, it relied on your friends rather than the collective consciousness.

What are you trying to promote, though?

Shane wrote:
What about going to a more specialized sub-reddit? Sure, that works, but it's likely to be smaller receiving a smaller audience and it still suffers from the same collective group think. It's for this reason that I view Reddit as worse than the old fashioned online discussion forums.

What, exactly, will be smaller?


Shane wrote:
Digg rebranded and launched a new product in summer 2012. It corrected what the original Digg got wrong, the lack of social input from Twitter and Facebook. The new Digg also struck a nice balance between social news as we had in the old Digg and what exists on Reddit. Digg does a great job of showing what is popular and relevant online without the collective consciousness of Reddit and the internet in general. This was accomplished with a group of editors that ultimately decide what stories get featured based on social impulses.

And these editors put an article titled, and I quote, "Fleshlight made an iPad Case That You Can Put Your ***** Into".
To be fair, one of the Digg people tweeted back at me and told me he'd look into it

Shane wrote:
Digg shows daily news and interesting things that you won't find on a TV newscast.

So does Reddit...
But, what about local?
/r/Edmonton

What about issues that are important to you?
/r/runescape
/r/sto (Star Trek Online)
/r/tf2 (Team Fortress 2)


Shane wrote:
Whether or not Reddit realizes that their form of "popular news" is actually limiting freedom.

wat

Shane wrote:
Reddit should be relegated to what it is, a glorified discussion forum where cunning posters can become popular in their own little areas.

You linked an article to the Digg Patriots up above. What's the difference here? You haven't even shown any relevant evidence to support what you're saying; all you have done is say /r/politics = Reddit.

If I showed someone Reddit, I wouldn't send them to /r/politics first. When showing someone RSBandB, would you show them the Sandbox first?

_________________
Image

Image

Image

Image

Global Moderator since August 25, 2014 18:30:29


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Informer Article] The Great Social News Experiment
PostPosted: November 23rd, 2014, 6:07 pm 
Site Owner
Offline

Joined: September 9th, 2004, 9:26 am
Posts: 6878
Location: Wild Rose Country ca
RS Name: shane12088
RS Status: P2P
Going in order then:

Earth wrote:
...what? How is that a reasonable comparison to this? Digg made a change, the users of Digg didn't like it, and the users of Digg left. Calling it a rebellion akin to the American Revolution is not only ludicrous, but also entirely irrelevant.


The users didn't like it because they didn't understand. Digg didn't do an adequate job of marketing this change to them. It's similar to the American Revolution because both were knee jerk reactions that could've been dealt with in a more diplomatic way.

Earth wrote:
So what were your thoughts on the "Original Digg"?


Similar to Reddit currently. I liked the technology area since at the time it was relatively free of online activism and its interests paralleled mine. When it comes down to it though they had the same problems. They're both the same sort of online discussion forum. I only used Digg back then because it was new and interesting. If Reddit had come along first that probably would've been what I would have used. Reid, you didn't know me back then but I was ecstatic when Digg v4 came out. I was the only one I knew who actually liked the **** thing! So in a way I was happy to see that change over. I just think the transition could've been made better and some more concessions made after the fact to calm the community if anything. This is all very similar to the whole introduction of EoC and this years introduction of Legacy Mode on RS.

Earth wrote:
Oh yes, "The Fappening". So what you're saying is that, without the existence of Reddit, it would be impossible for this to happen?


No, not at all. It would still happen, it happens. I just think that website owners, especially those who are prominent have a duty to follow a moral code.

Earth wrote:
When did the internet ever claim to be family-friendly?


See last response. It was just a blanket thing laid down by the CEO to show that he really didn't care about what (if any) moral objections would come to his website. That's a website that I can not use in good conscience.

Earth wrote:
/r/politics is a joke on Reddit too; it's full of trolls. Using /r/politics as a bellwether for Reddit as a whole would be akin to using The Sandbox as a gauge of RSBandB as a whole. It exists, sure. But it's not what it's about.


It used to be front featured. It served as an example to illustrate the previous points that the higher ups at Reddit for a long time really didn't care about what was being posted on their website. I commend them for removing it from the front. Just like the Sandbox is only available to registered members.

Earth wrote:
What are you trying to promote, though?


Take for example in the 2012 election campaign. i'm fairly certain that if a story that had relevant questions on the Benghazi attacks appeared it would not become popular. Or a more recent example, if something playing devil's advocate for Edward Snowden appeared, would that get promoted? The point is that in a certain topic it just feels that fringe stories that make decent and viable arguments are too easily pushed aside.

Earth wrote:
What, exactly, will be smaller?


The pool of people who will be exposed to what you post.

Earth wrote:
And these editors put an article titled, and I quote, "Fleshlight made an iPad Case That You Can Put Your ***** Into".

I am grateful that you tweeted that to Mr. Young. This is kinda touched on later in terms of biases. There's no perfect solution and I was really quite disgusted with Digg after seeing that story. I actually gave them a two week break after that. The only thing that brought me back was their introduction of Digg Deeper which scrapes Twitter feeds for links.

Earth wrote:
So does Reddit...
But, what about local? [snip]


Never said they didn't.

At the end of the day I feel Reddit is limiting freedom through their form of news simply because it's too easily to silence a group that is not agreed with. These groups are then forced to found their own communities where things can be discussed which is fine. But where's the fun in that? If you're discussing something with a group of people that all agree that's boring, that's consensus. All I want is for fringe stories to be seen and have the chance to be receive a large quantity of upvotes maybe 15-20% of the time.

And no, r/politics is not the sum of Reddit. That is not what I am trying to say. In hindsight perhaps it was a bad idea to include that comparison. The idea I had is simple and goes like this:

1. Reddit has large and vast sub-reddits that are tailored to general interests. This means that fringe viewpoints are unlikely to receive a large amount of upvotes and get promoted to the front page of a 24 hour view.
2. Reddit has smaller sub-reddits which are good for those specific communities. I have no doubt that there are novel discussions that do take place in these areas.
3. With smaller sub-reddits you are discussing posted items with people who are more likely than not to agree with you, this begs the question, what's the point?

All in all I would like a solution to this problem whether it be social impulses or something else. What's to say there can't be a view on Reddit that aggregates popular discussions from these lesser known areas and brings them to the surface? That is what I want people to take away from this.

PS: Still, even today I have problems with old Digg.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Informer Article] The Great Social News Experiment
PostPosted: November 24th, 2014, 2:11 pm 
Moderator
Offline

Joined: December 25th, 2006, 7:10 am
Posts: 1781 us
RS Name: Lord Earth
RS Status: P2P
Clan Name: Clan Quest
Shane wrote:
Earth wrote:
...what? How is that a reasonable comparison to this? Digg made a change, the users of Digg didn't like it, and the users of Digg left. Calling it a rebellion akin to the American Revolution is not only ludicrous, but also entirely irrelevant.

The users didn't like it because they didn't understand. Digg didn't do an adequate job of marketing this change to them. It's similar to the American Revolution because both were knee jerk reactions that could've been dealt with in a more diplomatic way.

Wouldn't Jagex's marketing of Evolution of Combat be a more appropriate comparison?

Shane wrote:
Earth wrote:
So what were your thoughts on the "Original Digg"?


Similar to Reddit currently. I liked the technology area since at the time it was relatively free of online activism and its interests paralleled mine. When it comes down to it though they had the same problems. They're both the same sort of online discussion forum. I only used Digg back then because it was new and interesting. If Reddit had come along first that probably would've been what I would have used. Reid, you didn't know me back then but I was ecstatic when Digg v4 came out. I was the only one I knew who actually liked the **** thing! So in a way I was happy to see that change over. I just think the transition could've been made better and some more concessions made after the fact to calm the community if anything. This is all very similar to the whole introduction of EoC and this years introduction of Legacy Mode on RS.

Ah, you did make a comparison to EoC :wink:


Shane wrote:
Earth wrote:
Oh yes, "The Fappening". So what you're saying is that, without the existence of Reddit, it would be impossible for this to happen?


No, not at all. It would still happen, it happens. I just think that website owners, especially those who are prominent have a duty to follow a moral code.

Shane wrote:
Earth wrote:
When did the internet ever claim to be family-friendly?

See last response. It was just a blanket thing laid down by the CEO to show that he really didn't care about what (if any) moral objections would come to his website. That's a website that I can not use in good conscience.


Whose moral code, though? Perhaps the moral code of Reddit is online freedom. Their actions certain say so.
Despite this, you said in the OP "Whether or not Reddit realizes that their form of "popular news" is actually limiting freedom."

Shane wrote:
Earth wrote:
/r/politics is a joke on Reddit too; it's full of trolls. Using /r/politics as a bellwether for Reddit as a whole would be akin to using The Sandbox as a gauge of RSBandB as a whole. It exists, sure. But it's not what it's about.


It used to be front featured. It served as an example to illustrate the previous points that the higher ups at Reddit for a long time really didn't care about what was being posted on their website. I commend them for removing it from the front. Just like the Sandbox is only available to registered members.

Quoted for emphasis:
Quote:
It used to be front featured

Quote:
used to be

They've banned a number of subreddits, including /r/TheFappening, the incident you keep referencing.
The Fappening happened on August 31st, and it was banned seven days later. Additionally, after [url]=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_photo_leaks#Procurement_and_distribution]McKayla Maroney claimed to be under 18 at the time the photos of her were taken, Reddit staff took photos of her down and warned that anyone re-posting them, or underage photos of Liz Lee which had been circulating prior to this incident, would be permanently banned from the site and could be prosecuted for distributing child pornography.[/url]

Shane wrote:
Earth wrote:
What are you trying to promote, though?


Take for example in the 2012 election campaign. i'm fairly certain that if a story that had relevant questions on the Benghazi attacks appeared it would not become popular. Or a more recent example, if something playing devil's advocate for Edward Snowden appeared, would that get promoted? The point is that in a certain topic it just feels that fringe stories that make decent and viable arguments are too easily pushed aside.

What do you mean by relevant questions?

Shane wrote:
Earth wrote:
What, exactly, will be smaller?


The pool of people who will be exposed to what you post.

So...?

Shane wrote:
Earth wrote:
And these editors put an article titled, and I quote, "Fleshlight made an iPad Case That You Can Put Your ***** Into".

I am grateful that you tweeted that to Mr. Young. This is kinda touched on later in terms of biases. There's no perfect solution and I was really quite disgusted with Digg after seeing that story. I actually gave them a two week break after that. The only thing that brought me back was their introduction of Digg Deeper which scrapes Twitter feeds for links.

That's still far from "family-friendly"

Shane wrote:
At the end of the day I feel Reddit is limiting freedom through their form of news simply because it's too easily to silence a group that is not agreed with. These groups are then forced to found their own communities where things can be discussed which is fine. But where's the fun in that? If you're discussing something with a group of people that all agree that's boring, that's consensus. All I want is for fringe stories to be seen and have the chance to be receive a large quantity of upvotes maybe 15-20% of the time.

Can you give an example?

Shane wrote:
And no, r/politics is not the sum of Reddit. That is not what I am trying to say. In hindsight perhaps it was a bad idea to include that comparison.

Good

Shane wrote:
1. Reddit has large and vast sub-reddits that are tailored to general interests. This means that fringe viewpoints are unlikely to receive a large amount of upvotes and get promoted to the front page of a 24 hour view.
2. Reddit has smaller sub-reddits which are good for those specific communities. I have no doubt that there are novel discussions that do take place in these areas.
3. With smaller sub-reddits you are discussing posted items with people who are more likely than not to agree with you, this begs the question, what's the point?

  1. Getting to the front page on the larger subreddits is more luck than anything
  2. Correct. How could I forget /r/daystrominstitute ?
  3. Why are the people in smaller communities more likely to disagree with you? And even if that is the case, why can't you just go to another one that's more in line with what you want? That's what #2 is saying, isn't it?


Shane wrote:
All in all I would like a solution to this problem whether it be social impulses or something else. What's to say there can't be a view on Reddit that aggregates popular discussions from these lesser known areas and brings them to the surface? That is what I want people to take away from this.

Yes, but what is this issue you keep talking about? You never explicitly state the issue

Shane wrote:
PS: Still, even today I have problems with old Reddit.

wat

_________________
Image

Image

Image

Image

Global Moderator since August 25, 2014 18:30:29


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Informer Article] The Great Social News Experiment
PostPosted: November 24th, 2014, 3:19 pm 
Site Owner
Offline

Joined: September 9th, 2004, 9:26 am
Posts: 6878
Location: Wild Rose Country ca
RS Name: shane12088
RS Status: P2P
Earth wrote:
Whose moral code, though? Perhaps the moral code of Reddit is online freedom. Their actions certain say so.
Despite this, you said in the OP "Whether or not Reddit realizes that their form of "popular news" is actually limiting freedom."

[snip]

They've banned a number of subreddits, including /r/TheFappening, the incident you keep referencing.
The Fappening happened on August 31st, and it was banned seven days later. Additionally, after [url]=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_photo_leaks#Procurement_and_distribution]McKayla Maroney claimed to be under 18 at the time the photos of her were taken, Reddit staff took photos of her down and warned that anyone re-posting them, or underage photos of Liz Lee which had been circulating prior to this incident, would be permanently banned from the site and could be prosecuted for distributing child pornography.[/url]


People should inherently know the difference between right and wrong. Right and wrong is what makes us better than the complete savages that the human race has been at one point or another. Without this sense of right and wrong, what purpose are we to serve? I'm of the general opinion that as a whole people are nice to one another and this is in part due to our perception of right and wrong. Companies like Reddit are lead by these human beings and therefore should know the difference between right and wrong. A corporation of any stripe is compelled to make a profit or generate revenue in any way they can. This is what corporations do and some of them do a pretty good job at it. Melding the idea of right and wrong with that of profits is never easy. There are things that can be done to improve this perception such as transparent work practices and donating some corporate revenue to charity. At the end of the day the moral beliefs of any corporation will be largely influenced by that of the CEO or board.

This comes back to the whole moral code of Reddit. Reddit should know better than to allow outright immoral acts to go on on the website. People have the duty to act with morals and be a good moral role model for those around themselves. I am extraordinarily happy that people who were spreading the photos around were banned from the website. Also, the sub being removed from the front page where this happened is good but the fact that a NSFW tag exists is rather disgusting. A website shouldn't need a NSFW tag for people to get joy out of it.

Earth wrote:
What do you mean by relevant questions?


If it asked the questions that weren't being asked by the mainstream media at the time of the attack because the US was a couple weeks away from an election.

Earth wrote:
Shane wrote:
Earth wrote:
What, exactly, will be smaller?


The pool of people who will be exposed to what you post.

So...?

Can you give an example?


As I said last night, what's the point? What's the point of having a discussion with people who all agree on the same thing? As for an example - no. I don't use the website, remember? It's based purely on what I've seen online in other forums where ideas are incredibly tailored.

Earth wrote:
1. Getting to the front page on the larger subreddits is more luck than anything
2. Correct. How could I forget /r/daystrominstitute ?
3. Why are the people in smaller communities more likely to disagree with you? And even if that is the case, why can't you just go to another one that's more in line with what you want? That's what #2 is saying, isn't it?


"more likely than not to agree with you" -- I'm saying that people in smaller communities are more likely to agree with you than not agree with you. That's fine I guess if you want that but I feel the idea of social news gets lost if everyone either agrees with you or everyone disagrees with you. There needs to be a good happy medium.

Earth wrote:
Yes, but what is this issue you keep talking about? You never explicitly state the issue


The issue is this (morals aside): I don't like consensus media whether it be for real world news, tech news, or technical discussions. Without specifically searching through the controversial or new tabs on Reddit it's hard to find interesting things that don't exactly agree with the thinking pattern of the sub reddit. Now you can go smaller which is fine and this is good for many things as you illustrated (TF2, STO, Daystrom, etc.) But if you want to go more granular than these then you're at the point where it's increasingly likely that more people will agree with you. As I said, you might like this, but for me if everyone has the same thinking pattern it defeats the purpose of Reddit as a news aggregation source. So as you can see with very large and very small sub-reddits it just feels as though there's no point to the website. That's my issue. That's why I wish there was some other form of impulse to gauge what's popular outside of Reddit.

Earth wrote:
Shane wrote:
PS: Still, even today I have problems with old Reddit.

wat


Meant the old Digg.

PS: Wow, writing this makes me want to delete my existing Reddit account.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Informer Article] The Great Social News Experiment
PostPosted: November 24th, 2014, 9:48 pm 
Community Ambassador
Offline

Joined: June 28th, 2011, 1:01 am
Posts: 319 us
RS Name: Lord Rickles
RS Status: P2P
If I may throw in my thoughts:

I like Reddit for not necessarily what it is as a whole, but for what it can be in the smaller subreddits. Smaller interest-based subreddits are an absolute joy and can be a wealth of information - a far contrast to some of the mainstream subs can be. When you dig (notice the missing additional 'g') beyond the subs that are overly populated, under moderated, and significantly more ****** you find yourself among fellow fans and users of similar creed and thought. You can basically engeneer your own sphere of influence by removing all of the default subs and adding your own. Remove yourself from /r/gaming and hop into a sub like /r/gamecollecting and you leave a social abyss for a informative and exciting paradise. But then, there's still information and fun to be had in the main subs, too. I guess it really stacks up to how you want to receive your information (I prefer mine with bad puns and dad jokes, thank you). I have never used Digg but Reddit works for what I need, so I've never really had a need to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Register and login to get these in-post ads to disappear
PostPosted: November 24th, 2014, 9:48 pm 
Community Ambassador

Joined: September 9th, 2004, 1:47am
Posts: 9047
Location: In your web browserz


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Informer Article] The Great Social News Experiment
PostPosted: November 24th, 2014, 10:36 pm 
Site Owner
Offline

Joined: September 9th, 2004, 9:26 am
Posts: 6878
Location: Wild Rose Country ca
RS Name: shane12088
RS Status: P2P
Rickles wrote:
You can basically engeneer your own sphere of influence by removing all of the default subs and adding your own. Remove yourself from /r/gaming and hop into a sub like /r/gamecollecting and you leave a social abyss for a informative and exciting paradise.


That's good and I can see where that's useful. Do you think that it's possible when someone isolates themselves into these various sub-reddits that they could miss something pertaining to that wider category because the focus is too narrow? That an alternate viewpoint may not make its way to the surface even though it raises valid points?

That's my only issue with downsizing the size of the community.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Informer Article] The Great Social News Experiment
PostPosted: November 25th, 2014, 9:27 am 
Moderator
Offline

Joined: December 25th, 2006, 7:10 am
Posts: 1781 us
RS Name: Lord Earth
RS Status: P2P
Clan Name: Clan Quest
Shane wrote:
Rickles wrote:
You can basically engeneer your own sphere of influence by removing all of the default subs and adding your own. Remove yourself from /r/gaming and hop into a sub like /r/gamecollecting and you leave a social abyss for a informative and exciting paradise.


That's good and I can see where that's useful. Do you think that it's possible when someone isolates themselves into these various sub-reddits that they could miss something pertaining to that wider category because the focus is too narrow? That an alternate viewpoint may not make its way to the surface even though it raises valid points?

That's my only issue with downsizing the size of the community.

You seem to think that there's only one community for everything.
For example, video games.
/r/gaming is, much like /r/politics, a *******
/r/xboxone is great for that console
/r/ps4 is great for that console
Sure, a post in /r/ps4 about how much better the Xbox One is than a PS4 isn't going to make it to the top, but it has a chance in /r/xboxone and maybe in /r/gaming.

There's a subreddit for everything™

_________________
Image

Image

Image

Image

Global Moderator since August 25, 2014 18:30:29


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to: