Big Picture Summary & Why
I think having ⬆️ and ⬇️ always being tied to a domain (rather than the standard up and down votes are to a whole post), is a potentially extremely important nudge changing the incentive landscape toward rewarding reputation based on domain-specific quality of contribution, and changing how people think about truthiness and trustability.
I’ve proposed versions of this before, and i finally did a mock-up to try to explain it more, because I’m making a case to prioritize this. I believe this is more than a UX thing; I think it relates to how we think about trust in general (and frame, therefore help users think about it), how we surface content and what a vote means, and everything we build off of that which I think will impact the data model—it’s more like a good context in a flow session than a good piece of art on the wall of a flow session. I would love to be able to test amongst ourselves and at MMS, and begin the iteration process.
I also believe, as Isaac mentioned, that this will unlock the capacity to vote on a sub-slice of content inside of a post, which will be another positive systemic nudge.
In other words, what we figure out about this will apply inside a single comment as well, where one can think of each single sentence inside a multiple-sentence post as a comment
that can be individually evaluated on it’s trustability relative to the user and their network. (We may want to have the subunit be a word, rather than a sentence, or x # of words, or whatever).
Mockups
Here are some mockups with some descriptions and more detail.
Front page: https://3.basecamp.com/5649648/buckets/33471081/uploads/6922970209
Front page of a particular collective:
• What topics
are chosen, and how are they chosen?
• First draft default view: The front page shows content in order of domain-specific-trustability; on a post it shows the top three domains most trustable topics of a post. These are chosen by the trustyscores, and the topics are the words-to-vec, vec-to-word cycle. There should be an option for user generated alternatives—or perhaps a drop down or something (this seems less important or more like UI smartness)
•Eg: in the above example Move from slack to uptrust
is first because there’s a 9.1 for relatefulness (Extrapolated from 91%), Are we misusing voting
is second because there’s an 8.2 in linear alebra, followed by what is the topic of a comment
because its top score is next at 4.4 for systemsthinking, followed by Stuff we like
because its top score is 3.1 for goodvibes.
Then you can see for any of these posts, the top three scores are are displayed in order of trusty-score
•sort by relevance to
right now only shows topics, but I can imagine it showing a bunch of relevance filters. Right now these are roughly the order of what’s most trustworthy.
•The idea is that once you chose one of these it re-orders the posts based on that; showing all relevant posts before the posts not in that topic. eg:
https://3.basecamp.com/5649648/buckets/33471081/uploads/6948507747
•This remains to be tested; I can imagine versions where for example there’s 1 topic, 1 conversational style, and 1 DJ score (like a retweet).
•I also share @lightandlight’s concern about crowding, so I’ve removed what I deemed as less necessary information (the whole vote up and down on the left, real estate that can be used for something) and the 8 comments 4 points by b_b on 12/09/23 00:29 UTC
; I personally think the timestamp and comment number are not important for the front page but the user probably is; whereas they all fit inside the post (after you click). But I’m not super fanatical about this like I am about using/testing the domain-specific scores.
Inside of post
Example 2, inside of post
: https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/hPqWhjWA1YbjueNeHvjMKpHT
It’s basically the same inside of a post, except to clean things up i dropped all the bot and delete and stuff options into a […]; again i dont think this is that critical and imagine Jen or whoever can help us make this elegant AF.