by BohdanPetryshyn on 7/2/23, 12:26 PM with 8 comments
The concept is the following:
1. When browsing, you can hover over any link and see what people think about the page. 2. After you visit a page, you can express your opinion about it - upvote if it's high-quality content, or downvote if it is clickbait or just a poor-quality piece of content.
I would appreciate any feedback on the idea and/or answers to the following questions: 1. Have you ever found yourself in a situation when the page you visited is a clear waste of time (SEO scam, article-like ad) but there's nowhere to hit that dislike/downvote button? 2. Would you use such an extension to filter the pages you're visiting? 3. Would you spend a couple of seconds upvoting/downvoting a page after visiting it? Would you consider leaving a comment?
by LinuxBender on 7/2/23, 1:01 PM
Less of a problem today is DDoS. You could probably get Cloudflare to absorb some of the vitriol from your enemies. It's also easier today to build a legal team for internet companies now vs early 00's.
If you are doing this I would be curious to see the stats on comments total, comments on average per domain and how much time either you or automation have to spend removing comments and adjusting votes that were submitted by bots. Are you planning on building a public stats page?
by kenosabiWasHere on 7/3/23, 8:51 AM
by zhte415 on 7/2/23, 1:25 PM
A few observations of hypothes.is include
* Despite it being around a while, not a lot of people seem to generally, outside of let's all comment on this article/set of articles, use it. Notably, some seminal papers of social annotation are uncommented, by anybody! I remember more people using ICQ's long forgotten chat with others also browsing this page feature despite that being synchronous vs asynchronous comments.
* It has a 'group' function. You can filter by a group you're in. This is useful given the social constructivism that comments can give - it's constructed by a group after all, and different groups may lead to different results.
Kinda leading on from that, assigning a point is simply a numerical indicator. What does it mean? Aside from different voting types (only up? up/down? % up? what about neutral/not voted vs views? etc.), a vote's kinda positivist. So.. a badge of trust? From whom and why (the qualitative aspect)? Do you want social groupings for votes? Are all votes equal? Why not measure backlinks, or citations and do you trust these?
That's all ignoring stuff like bots, gaming, and there possibly being agreement from the entire internet whether something's good.
I visit HN because I trust the filter that's the community, a social filter self selected by choosing to be part of the HN community. As well as the front page, I also often browse new where a headline may take my interest almost as much as the front page; new is, after all, already community filtered by people that care enough about a link to submit (minus the spam). I'd actually quite like a Slashdot 'friend'/'friend of friend' follow option here - do any of the HN apps that that?
1. Often. It's often from search results.
2. No, I probably wouldn't use such an extension.
3. Despite looking into them, I don't regularly use any such tools that already exist.
Edit: Something I feel may be important that I've not really looked into: Where's the agency of the author? People directly commenting, as it would appear to a viewer, on their work. Would some authors oppose that and argue it's a derivative work [in the case of annotation]?
by KomoD on 7/2/23, 5:52 PM
No.
> Would you spend a couple of seconds upvoting/downvoting a page after visiting it?
No.
> Would you consider leaving a comment?
No.
It'd easily get abused, and the comments would just be insults, racial slurs and other things because this is the internet.
by ouraf on 7/4/23, 3:45 PM
Some years ago there was a browser extension called "dissenter" that was exactly what you suggested and a bit more. It was shot down. Hard.
by revskill on 7/2/23, 11:22 PM
by dotcoma on 7/2/23, 12:38 PM