Reddit in 2016(reddit.com)
reddit.com
Reddit in 2016
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/434h6c/reddit_in_2016/
10 comments
> Reddit is run by a bunch of leeches who rely on moderators to create content and never reward them.
I think sites like Reddit emerged at a point where infrastructure for sharing was very valuable for users in its own right. It seems amazing now that the submit/upvote/downvote flow was so novel and we all lapped up the spirit of freedom. But actually the powerful feature of sites like Reddit and HN is the moderation rather than the technology. I would pay for some of the better subs, and certainly HN.
Good moderation is invaluable and it's a shame that it is hard to make money out of. I have a hunch that Google Contributor is aimed at this market as a sort of Netflix for content.
I think sites like Reddit emerged at a point where infrastructure for sharing was very valuable for users in its own right. It seems amazing now that the submit/upvote/downvote flow was so novel and we all lapped up the spirit of freedom. But actually the powerful feature of sites like Reddit and HN is the moderation rather than the technology. I would pay for some of the better subs, and certainly HN.
Good moderation is invaluable and it's a shame that it is hard to make money out of. I have a hunch that Google Contributor is aimed at this market as a sort of Netflix for content.
> submit/upvote/downvote flow was so novel
What was the timeline again... Slashdot emerged in 1997, it developed voting on several different criteria, you could filter for "funny" or "insightful" posts, and it had a pretty sophisticated meta-moderation system.
Digg simplified that with up- and down-votes.
Reddit borrowed digg's model.
I'm not 100% sure what the innovation of reddit was at the time, but I feel like these three just had slightly different tones to their communities. Slashdot was the geek site, Digg had more jokes and politics, reddit was sort of... deliberative? The culture was a lot different back then, a bit more like this site.
What was the timeline again... Slashdot emerged in 1997, it developed voting on several different criteria, you could filter for "funny" or "insightful" posts, and it had a pretty sophisticated meta-moderation system.
Digg simplified that with up- and down-votes.
Reddit borrowed digg's model.
I'm not 100% sure what the innovation of reddit was at the time, but I feel like these three just had slightly different tones to their communities. Slashdot was the geek site, Digg had more jokes and politics, reddit was sort of... deliberative? The culture was a lot different back then, a bit more like this site.
Digg was great for bloggers around 2005. I created software to add hundreds of friends per day (I think the limit was 250..and the only way to do efficiently was with software).
I only had to post a link a few times a week and the friends on my list would up vote it automatically (I never had to ask them). This would hit critical mass at about 20 Diggs and I would get to the front page.
Front page at that time would get me about 50,000 unique visitors and a good percentage of other blogs picking up my articles and coming back regularly. The trick was to write good content, not just top 10 lists.
I was just a student at that time and didn't have much business experience, but I was able to sell some custom PHP scripts. I think I made about $1000/month for an entire year.
Eventually they cracked down on it, and I got a job and stopped updating my blog.
I wish I would have been able to capitalize on it a lot more. I probably could have turned it into a much longer-lasting business.
I only had to post a link a few times a week and the friends on my list would up vote it automatically (I never had to ask them). This would hit critical mass at about 20 Diggs and I would get to the front page.
Front page at that time would get me about 50,000 unique visitors and a good percentage of other blogs picking up my articles and coming back regularly. The trick was to write good content, not just top 10 lists.
I was just a student at that time and didn't have much business experience, but I was able to sell some custom PHP scripts. I think I made about $1000/month for an entire year.
Eventually they cracked down on it, and I got a job and stopped updating my blog.
I wish I would have been able to capitalize on it a lot more. I probably could have turned it into a much longer-lasting business.
I really liked Slashdot's moderation system. Not everybody got to moderate. You got selected at random. Being able to moderate felt much more like a privilege than a right and I took it much more seriously than I do on Reddit.
And I genuienly hated it.
Those one-off 5 mod points made you feel like scraps off someone's moderation feast table and made it absolutely obvious that you had no say in shaping the site. This sucked above all other issues with Slashdot and it was the reason why I jumped ship as soon as I discovered HN.
Those one-off 5 mod points made you feel like scraps off someone's moderation feast table and made it absolutely obvious that you had no say in shaping the site. This sucked above all other issues with Slashdot and it was the reason why I jumped ship as soon as I discovered HN.
The other thing about slashdot that's nice is you can't moderate a discussion in which you're taking part.
So the fate of a conversation is shaped by the people who are most likely to know absolutely nothing about the topic at hand (or they would have contributed to the thread).
But is that a problem? You don't usually need technical expertise to judge whether someone is speaking in a productive way or not. The purpose of moderating a conversation isn't to try to remove technically incorrect arguments, surely? It's to stop conversations from being derailed by snarky, aggressive comments, or outright trolling, etc.
> The purpose of moderating a conversation isn't to try to remove technically incorrect arguments, surely?
... and this is why we can't have nice things.
Sadly, mainstream discourse works in exactly the same way. You can utter the most outrageous lies, as long as you whisper while smartly dressed; but if you shout the truth with uncombed hair, you will be sanctioned.
... and this is why we can't have nice things.
Sadly, mainstream discourse works in exactly the same way. You can utter the most outrageous lies, as long as you whisper while smartly dressed; but if you shout the truth with uncombed hair, you will be sanctioned.
There are reasons why a calmly-spoken lie is more welcome than a shouted thing-the-shouter-is-really-sure-is-a-truth: the lie can be challenged in a productive conversation, the "thing" can't. We all _think_ we've got the truth on our side, you know: your opponents aren't going to be persuaded by you bluntly shouting your arguments at them, any more than you would be persuaded by them bluntly shouting their arguments at you. What can we do about this situation? We can either hive off into separate bubbles, where we rely on the "moderation" of like-minded friends to remove "incorrect" arguments of the opposition, or we come together and make an effort to talk to each other productively and understand each other. The second option is _really difficult_, particularly in anonymous internet forums. But I think it's worth striving for: one of the greatest advances civilisation has offered is the ability to consider which argument is best through rational discourse rather than a shouting match. This requires civility, though, because people shut down if they feel they are being treated dismissively.
tl;dr: Rational discourse is the "nice thing" that's worth striving for; treating those with different views with respect is the way to get it; none of us has a monopoly on truth.
tl;dr: Rational discourse is the "nice thing" that's worth striving for; treating those with different views with respect is the way to get it; none of us has a monopoly on truth.
Digg threads become too full and the model just didn't scale up. A thread with 10k up votes and 1000 comments is not inviting to new users. A stupid or insightful comment on such a thread will be completely ignored if it wasn't the first post.
In contrast Reddit has thousands of small communities that let new users be heard. Down voting and arguing over "bad" comments gives an impression of authority that make the user want to learn and impress the group. It is really all just a game.
In contrast Reddit has thousands of small communities that let new users be heard. Down voting and arguing over "bad" comments gives an impression of authority that make the user want to learn and impress the group. It is really all just a game.
> Reddit has thousands of small communities
Was that true at launch? I thought that was added later, but can't remember.
Was that true at launch? I thought that was added later, but can't remember.
It was added after about a year or so, and there was two real driving forces behind it. The first was that people started using 'tags' in their submission titles to do things like "Ask Reddit" and also that the main page started getting overrun with Ron Paul tributes because apparently he was the second coming of Christ and would be the panacea that the US needed.
And since most of us started visiting Reddit for the tech/programming/science content people saw that stuff as spam.
Still, the subreddit system is really the only reason I still frequent Reddit. The smaller you go, the higher quality the content becomes and the better the community is (in general).
And since most of us started visiting Reddit for the tech/programming/science content people saw that stuff as spam.
Still, the subreddit system is really the only reason I still frequent Reddit. The smaller you go, the higher quality the content becomes and the better the community is (in general).
IMO, 50 000 subscribers is about the tipping point for subreddit quality. Beyond that number things start to go down hill real fast. You also don't want too few subscribers, however, or there will be too little new content posted. At about 10 000 subscribers, the amount of posts should be high enough that there's always something to see.
The one exception to that, that I've found, is /r/homebrewing. It's >100,000 now, but is still a great community.
I think it's a much different demographic to the rest of reddit though, a lot of contributors don't really use any other subreddits and are older.
I think it's a much different demographic to the rest of reddit though, a lot of contributors don't really use any other subreddits and are older.
It was present during the diggsplosion, which is when it mattered.
They didn't change the UX and tank their site. That was their innovation, if we are being honest.
That was a weird moment, Reddit's September as everyone flooded in.
I'm maybe the one person who enjoys digg more today than before. I like the curation they do on videos, there's far less variation in quality than when it was all user submitted. Really no social interaction there anymore though.
I think they killed something broken that a lot of people loved, and replaced it with something kind of neat for a completely different use case. Like if McDonald's started making electric cars or something.
Widely hated, I'm still not sure it wasn't the right call though.
I'm maybe the one person who enjoys digg more today than before. I like the curation they do on videos, there's far less variation in quality than when it was all user submitted. Really no social interaction there anymore though.
I think they killed something broken that a lot of people loved, and replaced it with something kind of neat for a completely different use case. Like if McDonald's started making electric cars or something.
Widely hated, I'm still not sure it wasn't the right call though.
Digg could have survived if it iterated I think.
HN simplified that with up-votes only.
Next: implicit up-vote by following link.
Next: implicit up-vote by following link.
HN has downvotes once you have a certain amount of karma
On stories too?
Oops, no I don't think so
yes, that was my point. but i see some people weren't aware of it, which could explain the (demonstration of) downvoting.
I really like the idea of measuring content quality by objective metrics, like time on page, or even eye tracking.
I'm a little frightened by what we might learn about our implicit attitudes, but I think it'd be a fun experiment.
I'm a little frightened by what we might learn about our implicit attitudes, but I think it'd be a fun experiment.
>Reddit is the worst.
Reddit is the best.
In fact, now when I'm searching for random terms or information, I'll often include "reddit" in the query, because I'm confident that on pretty much any subject there are bona fide experts or people who have already done the research willingly sharing their knowledge on Reddit, for free. Wonderful.
Reddit is the best.
In fact, now when I'm searching for random terms or information, I'll often include "reddit" in the query, because I'm confident that on pretty much any subject there are bona fide experts or people who have already done the research willingly sharing their knowledge on Reddit, for free. Wonderful.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but you should be weary of the information you read on Reddit. A lot of people simply rehash untrue statements they've heard on Reddit before. I'd say this is true anywhere but Reddit seems to be exceeding prevalent.
Anyone who believes something at face-value is asking to be deceived. I think reddit is truly great at playing to the common denominator. Whether that is good or bad, I do not know.
I think you're oversimplifying an extremely large and complex thing. How does a post like this "play to the common denominator"? https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/3y3fj...
I said "I think" which I hope was interpreted to mean it was my subjective opinion. There are some great things to be found in reddit, but immaturity is rampant along with one of the strongest examples of groupthink. this is just my opinion though. No statements of fact here.
I do the same. For pretty much any topic there's a decent subreddit with a community of people involved in it, who did lots of research and collected relevant information in various FAQ / Wiki posts. Whenever I want to seriously learn something outside of programming, I usually search for a subreddit on it.
You tried to use their site to promote your site and they banned you? And then you threatened legal action to get them to take down an image that you yourself posted?
> And then you threatened legal action to get them to take down an image that you yourself posted?
Why not? If he owned the rights to the image, it's use was contingent on his approval, absent any other agreement. The only reason it required a a legal notice is because they locked him out of the account he used that had rights to change it.
This is no different than offering to let the office use your ping pong table, then getting fired and having your building access revoked. If the business refused to return the ping pong table, which was in use contingent upon your and the businesses approval, they have essentially stolen your property. Feel free to substitute any other item item (such as fridge, chair, computer hardware or servers...) for the ping pong table in that example.
Why not? If he owned the rights to the image, it's use was contingent on his approval, absent any other agreement. The only reason it required a a legal notice is because they locked him out of the account he used that had rights to change it.
This is no different than offering to let the office use your ping pong table, then getting fired and having your building access revoked. If the business refused to return the ping pong table, which was in use contingent upon your and the businesses approval, they have essentially stolen your property. Feel free to substitute any other item item (such as fridge, chair, computer hardware or servers...) for the ping pong table in that example.
> absent any other agreement
The user agreement includes perpetual, irrevocable license to reproduce content you submit to Reddit.
The user agreement includes perpetual, irrevocable license to reproduce content you submit to Reddit.
Depending on how that's worded, and how "submit" is defined, that may or may not apply. We're talking about theming a subreddit, not submitting content as part of a regular reddit submission.
Does that mean if you link to a website, they own that code?
The link itself (and the title) is the submission, not the site that the link goes to.
> You tried to use their site to promote your site and they banned you?
What is wrong with that? As long as your aren't spamming or trying to ruin the experience for others, why the fuck should it matter that you post your site to a subreddit that would be interested?
Also, people do this literally all the time in subreddits. Like, ALL the time. Wonder what was different in this case.
What is wrong with that? As long as your aren't spamming or trying to ruin the experience for others, why the fuck should it matter that you post your site to a subreddit that would be interested?
Also, people do this literally all the time in subreddits. Like, ALL the time. Wonder what was different in this case.
As far as I know they try to deny self-promotion because it leads to a flood of people posting crappy content because it will make them money, rather than good content because it is good.
It's definitely sometimes difficult to enforce & sometimes poorly enforced.
It's definitely sometimes difficult to enforce & sometimes poorly enforced.
There was a case of theoatmeal.com a long time ago.
They supported the user submitting content even though it was his own.
They supported the user submitting content even though it was his own.
The guy who runs the youtube channel Smarter Everyday has his own subreddit and promotes it regularly.
to be fair, both oatmeal and smarter everyday didn't start a community on reddit, wait for it to grow, and then try to divert that community into their own sites (as planned all along)
I think one key difference, as far as Reddit is concerned, is that for things like Smarter Everyday the "relationship," if you could call it that, probably drives more of Smarter Everyday's traffic to Reddit than it pulls from Reddit over to Youtube. People go to Reddit to talk about SED videos and suggest content and ideas because it's a better communication platform than Youtube provides. This is, of course, totally in line with what you're saying.
I took a survey of what was lacking on the subreddit at the time and there were plenty of things that were suggested that I thought I could build/provide.
I have mixed feelings about reddit but mainly positives. One, it is the main driver of traffic to my blogs because there are specific subreddits with very focused audiences about these topics.
The negative was only related to the netsec subreddit which I think is really great but banned me several times in the last few months because some moderators said my post were offtopic while the same kind of posts were really successful there before. For example, benchmarking different ways of betwork traffic capture in Windows including drivers developed by ourselves.
The negative was only related to the netsec subreddit which I think is really great but banned me several times in the last few months because some moderators said my post were offtopic while the same kind of posts were really successful there before. For example, benchmarking different ways of betwork traffic capture in Windows including drivers developed by ourselves.
I'm working on a site: https://skimur.com
I plan on making like Twitter, but "followers" "vote" for "tweets" so that the collective community sees the best content. Reddit isn't really meant for personal usage. Subs are typically topic related there.
I plan on making like Twitter, but "followers" "vote" for "tweets" so that the collective community sees the best content. Reddit isn't really meant for personal usage. Subs are typically topic related there.
The "next big thing" won't have voting. It's too easily gamed and leads to groupthink in the worst way.
Inb4 "HN has voting but no groupthink". It has both in large quantities.
Inb4 "HN has voting but no groupthink". It has both in large quantities.
I've always had the idea for a comment system where you can only down vote with a comment on why, and that comments down vote power depends on its votes.
Interesting idea, but right now this is just a self-hosted instance of Reddit, is it not? How do you plan to develop the idea further and (most importantly) attract actual visitors/users?
Reddit has so many users that it always has to behave as the most common lowest denominator dictates, to survive this that CLD has to stay away from your subreddit, consciously ("I understand I'm not smart enough to talk here " or subconsciously "I don't care about this"). Otherwise it just goes to shit.
Banning sites for having AdSense is extremely hypocritical, Reddit lives thanks to ads or cohercing users to remove them ("gold")
Banning sites for having AdSense is extremely hypocritical, Reddit lives thanks to ads or cohercing users to remove them ("gold")
I know it sucks, and I'm not saying their policy is best. But they do get a huge number of spammers and people self promoting their own websites.
The problem isn't that your site has ads, it's that you aren't supposed to submit links to your own website at all. Or at least not more than 10% of all your posts should be self promotion is the rule now.
I don't agree with this rule at all, but I understand why it exists.
The problem isn't that your site has ads, it's that you aren't supposed to submit links to your own website at all. Or at least not more than 10% of all your posts should be self promotion is the rule now.
I don't agree with this rule at all, but I understand why it exists.
Reddit is run by a bunch of leeches who rely on moderators to create content and never reward them.
Snapzu (http://snapzu.com) is a reddit alternative that has a referral program that splits revenues with moderators, as a reward and incentive to grow it. Their system is similar where instead of subreddits, there are 'tribes', but it's essentially the same way of organizing communities.
Here is a link to their referral program page: http://snapzu.com/referralprogram/
Snapzu (http://snapzu.com) is a reddit alternative that has a referral program that splits revenues with moderators, as a reward and incentive to grow it. Their system is similar where instead of subreddits, there are 'tribes', but it's essentially the same way of organizing communities.
Here is a link to their referral program page: http://snapzu.com/referralprogram/
This is very interesting and I think there might be something here with this idea.
It looks like you might run/work there. Is your "Frank" on the affiliate program just an example or a real person?
Another question I have is about the legality of it. Are these technically employees or contractors?
It looks like you might run/work there. Is your "Frank" on the affiliate program just an example or a real person?
Another question I have is about the legality of it. Are these technically employees or contractors?
I'd imagine it's similar to how YouTube works. You're self employed/independent contractors and need to sort your own taxes and everything as you would in any other similar position
Is lifeprotips.com the site you were trying to promote? I see that the banners are really similar.
Correct.
Reddit is a great platform to disguise sponsored content as organic. If you are really good the users won't even notice. I wonder whether they have started monetizing that yet. There is clearly a lot of it on Reddit. It's just not clear whether it is with the help of Reddit or despite of them.
You don't even have to be particularly good. I made a remark that Carrie Fisher probably wasn't organically following @Starwars on Twitter on a Sunday afternoon and got lots of downvotes and several people ranting about how cynical it was to question the thing that got posted to reddit. They want to enjoy the manufactured whimsy, not question it.
I think a lot of it is the pseudo-intellectual nature of the site to make people feel like they are more knowledgeable. If it's already a pop culture topic, like Tesla or Netflix, the topics will drive interest and thereby upvotes. John Oliver did a similar episode about Native Advertising.
>If it's already a pop culture topic, like Tesla or Netflix, the topics will drive interest and thereby upvotes.
And HN is different...how exactly? There's a definite air of superiority here, but I don't find the commentary any more insightful. Besides, "reddit" isn't a single entity.
And HN is different...how exactly? There's a definite air of superiority here, but I don't find the commentary any more insightful. Besides, "reddit" isn't a single entity.
>Besides, "reddit" isn't a single entity.
It's almost as if reddit is made up of millions of users and you can deduce the "average" or aggregate opinion of reddit by examining voting patterns.
It's almost as if reddit is made up of millions of users and you can deduce the "average" or aggregate opinion of reddit by examining voting patterns.
Except those millions of users are divided among thousands of subreddits and don't all read or vote on the same stories. So no, you can't.
> There's a definite air of superiority here, but I don't find the commentary any more insightful.
Really? I do. Some subreddits approach what I see as a clear quality advantage in HN comments, but even then there's the occasional joke or non-sequitur. Which is fine. Reddit is not HN, and if they were the same, there would be less overall usefulness.
I enjoy HN and its semi-official policy of down voting comments that are are jokes and don't contribute to the conversation (it's easy to joke on HN, just include something substantive to the conversation as well). On Reddit, even in the more serious subreddits and discussions, one-liner joke comments still pop up, because while they may not get many up votes on serious discussions, I rarely see them get down votes.
Not that I don't enjoy jokes, but if I want that, I'll find the same (or a similar) discussion on Reddit. I just like that HN tries to keep people to a higher standard of conduct, because then that place exists.
Really? I do. Some subreddits approach what I see as a clear quality advantage in HN comments, but even then there's the occasional joke or non-sequitur. Which is fine. Reddit is not HN, and if they were the same, there would be less overall usefulness.
I enjoy HN and its semi-official policy of down voting comments that are are jokes and don't contribute to the conversation (it's easy to joke on HN, just include something substantive to the conversation as well). On Reddit, even in the more serious subreddits and discussions, one-liner joke comments still pop up, because while they may not get many up votes on serious discussions, I rarely see them get down votes.
Not that I don't enjoy jokes, but if I want that, I'll find the same (or a similar) discussion on Reddit. I just like that HN tries to keep people to a higher standard of conduct, because then that place exists.
Can you describe this sponsored/organic content dichotomy?
To get noticed, you have to have upvotes. If you have upvotes, that means that users appreciated the content. If, say, a company or person is promoting themselves and the community upvotes it, I don't see any problem with it. That's how it's supposed to work.
But I don't think that's what you mean by 'disguise'. I would guess rather that you mean that some entity is paying the reddit the company to create artificial upvotes (i.e. not originating from users) and maybe even paid commenters. I personally would be surprised if there were a lot of this clearly happening (there's a number of people on reddit that make a 'career' out of debunking stories, identifying brigades, etc).
Can you point to some popular posts presently on reddit that are examples of it?
To get noticed, you have to have upvotes. If you have upvotes, that means that users appreciated the content. If, say, a company or person is promoting themselves and the community upvotes it, I don't see any problem with it. That's how it's supposed to work.
But I don't think that's what you mean by 'disguise'. I would guess rather that you mean that some entity is paying the reddit the company to create artificial upvotes (i.e. not originating from users) and maybe even paid commenters. I personally would be surprised if there were a lot of this clearly happening (there's a number of people on reddit that make a 'career' out of debunking stories, identifying brigades, etc).
Can you point to some popular posts presently on reddit that are examples of it?
> Can you point to some popular posts presently on reddit that are examples of it?
http://www.redditsecrets.com/buy-reddit-accounts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=725562.0
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/32rr56/do_peo...
You can build a small voting ring for a few hundred dollars to boost posts. The problem is all of Reddit's countermeasures to reduce spam made it hard to tell how successful these things are.
However, the fact people are still buying in 2016, implies at least some people succeed at it.
> Can you describe this sponsored/organic content dichotomy?
Really, only Reddit can say how bad this problem is but my guess its non-negligible and cutting into their monetization via native ads as its basically an end run around paying Reddit.
http://www.redditsecrets.com/buy-reddit-accounts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=725562.0
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/32rr56/do_peo...
You can build a small voting ring for a few hundred dollars to boost posts. The problem is all of Reddit's countermeasures to reduce spam made it hard to tell how successful these things are.
However, the fact people are still buying in 2016, implies at least some people succeed at it.
> Can you describe this sponsored/organic content dichotomy?
Really, only Reddit can say how bad this problem is but my guess its non-negligible and cutting into their monetization via native ads as its basically an end run around paying Reddit.
"However, the fact people are still buying in 2016, implies at least some people succeed at it."
"However, the fact people are still sending money to random emails they get, implies at least some people get the money they were promised in return."
"However, the fact people are still sending money to random emails they get, implies at least some people get the money they were promised in return."
If I then have a ring of people manipulating voting and nothing is done about it. Is it still organic? I can easily see the monetary incentive to such practices due to the traffic volumes. Heck I could even see it on HN. If I wanted my techy blog to be on the front page of HN I know I would land that dream job...
http://www.slideshare.net/reddit/reddit-brands-of-the-year-2...
I assume that's the official Reddit SlideShare account.
I assume that's the official Reddit SlideShare account.
Sounds like /r/hailcorporate is leaking!
(but yes, totally agreed)
(but yes, totally agreed)
Check out r/hailcorporate
[deleted]
Isn't this basically what "native ads" are?
No, that's product placement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement
Native ads are usually signposted as such.
While I can understand the sentiment that spam and abuse threaten our communities I can't help but think - based on outside observations - that some of the biggest threat to the Reddit communities are people within Reddit communities. Though admirable and well-meaning, it's a flawed model at the core, at least this is what I've come to believe. In the most recent flare-ups, the "call is coming from inside the house!" seemed to really apply. Granted I'm not proposing some kind of methodology or overhaul to fix this conundrum, though it's certainly an interesting topic.
Precisely. This is what killed digg many years ago. It become of vehicle for spam and after I was basically forced out by a mob, I migrated myself to reddit.
I left reddit a couple years ago and pretty much only waste time on this news aggregator. There were too many agendas getting pushed and it leaked into every sub.
I left reddit a couple years ago and pretty much only waste time on this news aggregator. There were too many agendas getting pushed and it leaked into every sub.
What specifically leads you to conclude it's a "flawed model"? Is it the problem of private ownership of a semipublic community, through individual accounts "owning" a subreddit?
As a model, user generated / sourced content blended with user sourced moderation under a private enterprise with "standards and expectations" will always have issues regarding the (occasional) desires of users to share and embrace things which are not welcome by the private enterprise. That's kind of the flaw in the model. The 'image' of community and ownership breaks down when there's a dispute, most frequently seen with respect to rules.
Everyone can upvote. Contrast this to HN where you need a comment karma score before you can start upvoting.. it's effectively a grandfathering network vs a democracy where new accounts cost 5 seconds with no email verification.
Ya know, I'm on reddit daily, and I NEVER see any of these flare-ups. I just kind of hang out on the nerdy subs I guess.
I've always heard the reddit experience is far superior in the low-key, non-default, not-too-popular subs.
That's true. Most of the larger subs have voting blocs that memory-hole your comments if you don't agree with the mob no matter how reasonably you word disagreement.
Besides, what's the point of commenting on something that already has 700 comments? Nobody is going to read it.
Besides, what's the point of commenting on something that already has 700 comments? Nobody is going to read it.
Ugh! Glad I stick to the smaller subs then.
/r/homelab, r/selfhosted, subs like that.
/r/homelab, r/selfhosted, subs like that.
Reddit's a neat idea, but I had to abandon it. Had just hit five years of daily participation on the site, too.
If we look past all the controversy and all the other reasons most people point at the site as a negative, it boils down to one thing in my mind:
Base cynicism.
There's cynicism when someone else reposts something.
There's cynicism over imaginary internet points.
There's cynicism by, from, and to the moderators and site owners.
There's cynicism every time something with a brand name gets mentioned (zOMG it's an ad!)
There's cynicism among communities.
It just goes on and on and on. Never-ending negativity. Everyone always assuming the worst of the other person (rather than trying to have an understanding discussion) and taking snarky potshots at them (and then hiding their comments by -1's in a fit of pique, rather than any kind of thoughtful analysis of quality).
I'm quite happier (and not a little bit more productive) not participating anymore. Reddit is, IMO, the world's greatest concentration of negative, irreverent, straight-up dickhead behavior in one convenient place.
(feh, word filter plugin went a little crazy there, sorry for the unreadable comment earlier)
If we look past all the controversy and all the other reasons most people point at the site as a negative, it boils down to one thing in my mind:
Base cynicism.
There's cynicism when someone else reposts something.
There's cynicism over imaginary internet points.
There's cynicism by, from, and to the moderators and site owners.
There's cynicism every time something with a brand name gets mentioned (zOMG it's an ad!)
There's cynicism among communities.
It just goes on and on and on. Never-ending negativity. Everyone always assuming the worst of the other person (rather than trying to have an understanding discussion) and taking snarky potshots at them (and then hiding their comments by -1's in a fit of pique, rather than any kind of thoughtful analysis of quality).
I'm quite happier (and not a little bit more productive) not participating anymore. Reddit is, IMO, the world's greatest concentration of negative, irreverent, straight-up dickhead behavior in one convenient place.
(feh, word filter plugin went a little crazy there, sorry for the unreadable comment earlier)
It's still better than Facebook, which groups you together with the people you know in real life, whether you share common interests or not. At least on Reddit you can sequester yourself to topic-related subs and stay away from the defaults. I've learned many useful things from the smaller, more specific subs, which are somewhat shielded from the cynicism of the larger subs (although there are still asshats, it is the internet after all).
One thing that I just can't wrap my head around is the "no participation" brigading rules. The site literally exists to share content for others to discover and discuss, but if you share anything remotely meta you get accused of brigading and are banned/shadowbanned.
That wasn't against the rules for the longest time, and people abused the hell out of it. There were (and still are, sadly) subreddits devoted to digging up comments they disagreed with and downvoting them, shaming them, and sending them hate mail. But even on regular subreddits, there were problems with meta content causing drama and downvote brigades.
The site would be better off with an outright ban on meta content.
Aside from one or two outliers like DepthHub, most instances of someone on reddit linking to something on reddit are a variation on "Hey, look at this stupid thing this person did, let's all point and laugh at how stupid they are".
Aside from one or two outliers like DepthHub, most instances of someone on reddit linking to something on reddit are a variation on "Hey, look at this stupid thing this person did, let's all point and laugh at how stupid they are".
/r/bestof would disagree with you.
I think hn needs a concept like r/bestof. It's the only way I get to find the really good user content in Reddit. There's no way I'd see most of that stuff otherwise.
In fact the main reason I read hn comments is the hope of finding comment gems posted by an expert in the field, someone with a unique perspective on an issue, or someone with a heretical but plausible idea.
In fact the main reason I read hn comments is the hope of finding comment gems posted by an expert in the field, someone with a unique perspective on an issue, or someone with a heretical but plausible idea.
Only in name, rather than action. Bestof basically functions as a massive sanctioned voting brigade.
(and I did mention outliers)
(and I did mention outliers)
That rule absolutely needs to exist. Harmony through balkanization.
You don't get it if you haven't experienced how tiresome it is to see long-running subcultural feuds shitting up whatever conversation you'd like to be having.
You don't get it if you haven't experienced how tiresome it is to see long-running subcultural feuds shitting up whatever conversation you'd like to be having.
I imagine if hn grows any bigger it will become like reddit. It's the smalltown vs big city mentality.
I was heavily downvoted for snarky and spiteful comments and ultimately hellbanned as I tryed to pack up my cynicism in elaborate arguments. The downvote privileged are pretty vigorous about protecting their privilege.
I don't think it's a trait of just large communities. Cynicism, negativity runs deep on just about any forum, comment sections and social media site connected to the Internet. The anonymity that the Web provides seems to reflect a widespread layer of angst (at least in western society) that's otherwise hidden/masked in the real world.
> Our new Android app is going into beta today, and our new iOS app should follow it out soon.
It's amazing how long Reddit existed before rolling out a mobile app. Now I'll finally have something other than Facebook to check compulsively on my phone.
It's amazing how long Reddit existed before rolling out a mobile app. Now I'll finally have something other than Facebook to check compulsively on my phone.
AlienBlue was the de facto reddit app for years on iOS, to the point that reddit actually bought it / accqi-hired the dev for it a year or so ago. Unfortunately it's been pretty stagnant since it was acquired, very few bug fixes and afaik no feature enhancements.
>it's been pretty stagnant since it was acquired, very few bug fixes and afaik no feature enhancements
It's become noticeably buggier since the acquisition, in my opinion.
It's become noticeably buggier since the acquisition, in my opinion.
[deleted]
Just now? There's a bunch of excellent 3rd party Reddit apps on many mobile platforms. Even BB10 and WP have solid Reddit clients. I don't think you were trying very hard :P
A mobile app that isn't third party. If something happens with your data or your account through a third party app, Reddit isn't responsible. This hasn't been an issue with Reddit, but it's a risk the end-user accepts when the app isn't "official".
> It's amazing how long Reddit existed before rolling out a mobile app.
This isn't their first mobile application, it's their new one. The original one is six years old:
https://github.com/reddit/iReddit
This isn't their first mobile application, it's their new one. The original one is six years old:
https://github.com/reddit/iReddit
Their site works fine on mobile, either the desktop version or .compact (you can add .compact to the end of a reddit url to see it). I never really liked the normal mobile version though.
Why you need an app?
Some designers I know always bash Reddit for having an "ugly" design, but out of all the link aggregators out there, the links on Reddit "pop" out at me. I can comprehend the whole page by just glancing.
Other link aggregators like inbound.org or growth hackers are definitely prettier, but I have to focus and slow down to understand all the submissions.
Other link aggregators like inbound.org or growth hackers are definitely prettier, but I have to focus and slow down to understand all the submissions.
I've more or less given up on Reddit due to the overzealous moderators. Many huge events are censored from /r/worldnews because the mods seemingly found them not interesting or too hot topic.
Many perfectly valid posts are removed by mods, there was recently linked a version of the homepage based on votes alone and something like a third of the posts were deleted. I would much much prefer something more organic where what the people declared good was shown, and that power largely stripped from the mods/admins.
Many perfectly valid posts are removed by mods, there was recently linked a version of the homepage based on votes alone and something like a third of the posts were deleted. I would much much prefer something more organic where what the people declared good was shown, and that power largely stripped from the mods/admins.
They need to work on their mobile web design. This [1] is not a pleasant experience in 2016.
[1] http://m.imgur.com/StVB2Uu
[1] http://m.imgur.com/StVB2Uu
They actually did this last year, check out https://m.reddit.com/
Yeah, but they used "React.js, because we're cool, please think we're cool". Which is different from just "react.js".
Just look at how incompetently the site was redesigned: https://github.com/reddit/reddit-mobile/issues/247
45 seconds load time...
There's also the tiny buttons(obviously not mobile-first, even if it is a mobile-only redesign).
And of course, the poster child of "we are doing complex JS stuff, but still think that JS is for kids, so we didn't bother learning how to actually do it". I'm talking about the infamous "We built a single-page-app, but it doesn't always work right, and the back button is kind of broken, and it sometimes treats scrolling over a thing as clicking on that thing".
Just look at how incompetently the site was redesigned: https://github.com/reddit/reddit-mobile/issues/247
45 seconds load time...
There's also the tiny buttons(obviously not mobile-first, even if it is a mobile-only redesign).
And of course, the poster child of "we are doing complex JS stuff, but still think that JS is for kids, so we didn't bother learning how to actually do it". I'm talking about the infamous "We built a single-page-app, but it doesn't always work right, and the back button is kind of broken, and it sometimes treats scrolling over a thing as clicking on that thing".
I much prefer https://i.reddit.com/ though
Url changed from http://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-ceo-announces-big-chan..., which points to this.
I found this rather disturbing:
> "Recently we built an A/B testing system, which allows us to test changes to individual features scientifically, and we are excited to put it through its paces. "
Does this mean that Reddit made it all the way to 2016 without an A/B testing tool?!
> "Recently we built an A/B testing system, which allows us to test changes to individual features scientifically, and we are excited to put it through its paces. "
Does this mean that Reddit made it all the way to 2016 without an A/B testing tool?!
Automated A/B testing isn't super important. Especially for sites like reddit which have been basically the same since launch.
You can still get feedback from users, and I would argue this is more important than automatically detecting which button has a 2% higher CTR.
You can still get feedback from users, and I would argue this is more important than automatically detecting which button has a 2% higher CTR.
I was really upset when they massively increased the font size from normal. It looks terrible and everything takes up so much more space. I think it was probably done from manual A/B tests showing the larger font had some impact on how long people stay on the site or something, which doesn't necessarily mean anything.
I sent them a DMCA to remove the logo that I had commissioned from someone from Dribbble (for my site, but ended up using it as the header there). No response.
Reddit is run by a bunch of leeches who rely on moderators to create content and never reward them.