
Dinner-and-a-Movie Theory: Why Reddit Gets it Backwards - Alex3917
http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2007/04/dinnerandamovie.html
======
AF
I think there's a major problem with this, and it is that discussions come in
all shapes and sizes across the web.

Think about it. Some blogs don't have comments. Some sites require you to
register to comment. Some sites use flat threading so they are horrible for
long discussions. Some of the best discussions are from mailing lists. Is the
usual reader going to sign up for that?

No...the current aggregators have it right because they make it easy to
discuss content. The problem isn't the medium of discussion, it is the people
involved.

~~~
whacked_new
I agree and disagree.

You are right in that the people shape the discussion, but saying that the
current aggregators have it right because of thus is more like complacency:
they can definitely be better. Looking back at how discussion systems evolved
over the years, it's easy to see that small steps have been taken to improve
the user experience be enforcing an overall higher quality of content.

Since users shape the community, you have two choices in dealing with an
evolving site: keep your initial vision by implementing rules and potentially
alienating certain user groups; or letting your site adapt to the users. Both
are valid approaches. Slashdot takes the former, because it has moderators,
and digg takes the latter, so it's userbase keeps growing while the quality
keeps dropping. I imagine reddit would take the latter path too. news.yc is
also facing the same kind of change. Recalling the bunch of "delete me" posts
last week, it seems like quality control is done mostly by self-policing of
some sort.

It's an issue of how much control and what tastes the users have, and what
mechanisms have been implemented to strengthen or weaken the expression these
tastes in the system. Most discussion sites fall into two extremes. Total
moderator control, or total user control. A very powerful alternative doesn't
simply lie in the middle; it shifts back and forth. This is the logical next
step.

------
timg
" How can we solve this? "

The real question is who would back the development of this. In startups, no
one cares about solving a problem if this solution does not bring in tons of
money.

I was thinking about this the other day. What you are describing, problems
faced by a social site _late_ in it's life, are not of particular interest to
most startups. Why? Because by the point this solution has made any
difference, the exit has already come and gone.

(Not trying to be negative, but figure out how this system will make a
substantial difference from the beginning and then you'll be set.)

------
mattculbreth
Good post. If I understand your point correctly, you're saying that perhaps we
should link directly to the /comments page of certain posts on Reddit, instead
of telling people to go there and wade through the garbage. Correct?

I still find programming.reddit.com to be a good place to frequent. We had a
post about that last day over there actually.

~~~
jkush
I think linking to a discussion about a topic is better than just linking to
the topic but is still flawed. If you think about the scope of what's
happening, the scope is usually very tight. At most, the conversation goes on
for a few days, then essentially fades away as the topic (really, the post the
comments are connected with) slides down the list and gets buried.

Once the post has been fully buried, the conversation has effectively stopped.
The thing that would be really great would be to link prior conversations to
new, but related topics. Let's say that next week it turns out that Imus made
those comments under duress. Some lunatic pointed a gun at him and forced him
to say those things. Instead of rehashing all that stuff again, it'd be great
to dredge that conversation up as a starting point.

I know I'm not making this very clear. But I tried.

