Reddit in 2016 • Hacker News Board

Re: Reddit in 2016

#51

Post by 7952 » Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 11:40 PM UTC

brownbat wrote: post #46

7952 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 th…

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.

Re: Reddit in 2016

#52

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 11:45 PM UTC

lumberjack wrote: post #9

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.

[deleted]

Re: Reddit in 2016

#53

Post by Huhty » Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 11:50 PM UTC

fourstar wrote: post #18

Reddit is the worst. I created a sub that ended up becoming a default (/r/lifeprotips) and ended up getting banned when I tried to promote a site that I built (which was my original intention with the idea). They banned me because I had adsense on the site (funny because Imgur was/has been the golden child for reddit and they've had advertising for quite a while). I sent them a DMCA to remove the logo that I had comm…

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/

Re: Reddit in 2016

#54

Post by kbenson » Sat, Jan 30, 2016, 12:02 AM UTC

JimDabell wrote: post #48

kbenson wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> absent any other agreement 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.

Re: Reddit in 2016

#55

Post by npizzolato » Sat, Jan 30, 2016, 12:37 AM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #45

Zikes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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".

/r/bestof would disagree with you.

Re: Reddit in 2016

#56

Post by brownbat » Sat, Jan 30, 2016, 12:48 AM UTC

7952 wrote: post #51

brownbat wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

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 us…

> Reddit has thousands of small communities

Was that true at launch? I thought that was added later, but can't remember.

Re: Reddit in 2016

#57

Post by brownbat » Sat, Jan 30, 2016, 12:55 AM UTC

fweespeech wrote: post #47

brownbat wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

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.

Re: Reddit in 2016

#58

Post by diyorgasms » Sat, Jan 30, 2016, 1:22 AM UTC

forgetsusername wrote: post #43

zaif wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

Re: Reddit in 2016

#59

Post by Houshalter » Sat, Jan 30, 2016, 2:39 AM UTC

fourstar wrote: post #18

Reddit is the worst. I created a sub that ended up becoming a default (/r/lifeprotips) and ended up getting banned when I tried to promote a site that I built (which was my original intention with the idea). They banned me because I had adsense on the site (funny because Imgur was/has been the golden child for reddit and they've had advertising for quite a while). I sent them a DMCA to remove the logo that I had comm…

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.

Re: Reddit in 2016

#60

Post by Houshalter » Sat, Jan 30, 2016, 2:46 AM UTC

Zikes wrote: post #37

Karunamon wrote: post #24

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 modera…

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.