hnews tries to say one positive thing challenge impossible i always love any idea for curating high iq internet community
Yours was the first negative comment I saw...?
alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
61–70 of 190 posts
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#62advisors seem very biased to ML, Google, and Stanford
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you've put a fake email address on your papers? As in, one that you can't receive from? Why?
> So you've put a fake email address on your papers? I think you're failing to understand the basics of the problem, and even the whole problem domain. Email addresses are not created/maintained for life. You can have an email address, them have your org change name and email provider switch, and not to mention that researchers leave research institutions and thus lose access to their accounts. You have multiple scen…
I infer that you interpreted this question as an attack, or at least some sort of criticism. None was meant, I really just wanted to know if the email adress as written in the document was deliberately invalid or not.
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#64There is also https://pubpeer.com/
I worry that fragmentation of this space might not be beneficial, so it would be nice if these services could collaborate in some way, perhaps using activitypub or something
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#65Great idea. - The frontpage should directly show the list of papers, like with HN. You shouldn't have to click on "trending" first. (When you are logged in, you see a list of featured papers on the homepage, which isn't as engaging as the "trending" page. Again, compare HN: Same homepage whether you're logged in or not.) - Ranking shouldn't be based on comment activity, which ranks controversial papers, rather papers…
Counterpoint: please don't do any of the above and keep arxiv as it is. It is too valuable to mess it up, it is the few things on the internet that have not been ruined yet, and the "comment activity" can happen in the articles themselves at the scale of years, decades, and centuries.
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#66How are the creators going to prevent gaming?
I ask because every system I've ever come across for discussing and ranking content without human moderation is always, sooner or later, gamed.
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upload a new version of your paper on arxiv, this time with an email address that works.
I’ve never understood why we need emails in papers. Who sends emails to paper authors? How often do they respond? How fast do the email addresses go out of date? I lost access to my email address included in most my papers within 2 years of publication. I see little to no value to have it included in the paper.
I do email paper authors and I do respond to requests and inquiries about my own papers. Even if you don't work at the same institution any longer, most universities let you redirect your email for many years after you left.
Also, I don't think we are yet at the point when human2human communication is not possible.
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#68awesome honking idea !
please add "spaces" for biorxiv and medrxiv too !
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#69Great idea. - The frontpage should directly show the list of papers, like with HN. You shouldn't have to click on "trending" first. (When you are logged in, you see a list of featured papers on the homepage, which isn't as engaging as the "trending" page. Again, compare HN: Same homepage whether you're logged in or not.) - Ranking shouldn't be based on comment activity, which ranks controversial papers, rather papers…
Counterpoint: please don't do any of the above and keep arxiv as it is. It is too valuable to mess it up, it is the few things on the internet that have not been ruined yet, and the "comment activity" can happen in the articles themselves at the scale of years, decades, and centuries.
This seems to be a completely different team than arxiv, making a discussion forum on the side.
And I prefer this over discussions on 'X'.
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#70Great idea. - The frontpage should directly show the list of papers, like with HN. You shouldn't have to click on "trending" first. (When you are logged in, you see a list of featured papers on the homepage, which isn't as engaging as the "trending" page. Again, compare HN: Same homepage whether you're logged in or not.) - Ranking shouldn't be based on comment activity, which ranks controversial papers, rather papers…
> - Ranking shouldn't be based on comment activity, which ranks controversial papers, rather papers should be voted on like comments.
How about not ranking things at all? I don't feel like things like this should be a popularity/"like" contest and instead let the content of the paper/comments speak for themselves. Yes, there will be some chaff to sort through when reading, but humanity will manage.
Just sort things by updated/created/timestamp and all the content will be equal.