Why intelligent communities will always fail
thegrinch.posterous.com
thegrinch.posterous.com
HN is an excellent example of progress compared to those that came before. It almost certainly won't last forever but whether it succeeds or fails it has already raised the bar for what is possible considerably.
A different way of looking at it: what makes it easier (or harder) for an intelligent community to continue to succeed and scale over time?
There's an nice article on lesswrong about this : http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/
What's interesting in this analysis is the second drawing. It looks like one of the best "well kept garden" out there, Perlmonks.org ; it never devolved thanks to its users and moderators dedication, but it's probably losing steam and users to stackoverflow and al., I think because of its 1999 look and feel.
What happens to online communities over time is the same that happens in any social organization. A few, more aggressive and hardcore members gain the power to snuff out dissenting viewpoints and opinions, thus overwriting any chance for diversity or originality.
To make matters worse, those that use downvoting systems wind up alienating new users that can't seem to figure out the "game." Those without voting systems use humor, belittlement, and castigation to do the same.
In the end, the scene is controlled by those holding a majority opinion, and any objectionable opinion is pushed out. This happens in any community, whether it's your local church, a football forum, or a place like HN. Where they fail in terms of diversity, they succeed for the group that holds the power.
So use the analysis to design a system that works in spite of these pressures. Perhaps you can start by being less restrictive of the membership and the topics, and then become more restrictive once you've gained users. Perhaps those who are contributing directly to the core subject can be rewarded in some way, and see an impact in the "real world," such as more exposure in relevant communities, more followers for their blog or on twitter, or similar.
Break the rules. At least, break the rules that need to be broken.
This piece finds rules that need to be broken. Find a way.
It sounds to me like you either haven't read or haven't understood PG's essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html
There he talks about rules that matter, and rules that don't, and I think that partially encompasses my attitude.
But only partially. In addition I'd add: when it makes things better.
When people break the rules here they usually make things worse. Duplicated items split discussion. Multiple items about the same story with no extra information dilute the "New" and "Front" pages. People who leave witty replies that teach us nothing reduce the information density.
I expect there are ways of "breakingthe rules" here on HN that make things better. Generally people frown on "meta" items and discussion. I break the "rules" on that, so do others, and sometimes we get down-voted, and sometimes not.
It depends.
Does it make things better? That's my usual guideline, and that's why I've taken the time to reply to you, even though your question could be taken as a content and information free jibe. Maybe it wasn't intended that way, so I'll assume you were intending to be helpful, and provide my thoughts for your consideration.
The challenge though is that what rules "matter" and "better/worse" are subjective -- and when groupthink sets in, attempts to change the rules are opposed even if many people think they would result in a better community.
And yes, I've read PG's essay. My thoughts are at http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2091 ... our earlier discussion is in the first comment
When's that supposed to fail again?
In addition to this, signing up (required for posting) costs $5 and this is a significant barrier of entry for creating spam accounts and for users that just don't care enough about quality.
I don't know if the $5 is as significant as the quality of their moderation team. Perhaps it helps regulate the flow of new users. What really wins it for them is that the moderators are willing to respond to each member individually and talk them through the site if need be. I've never seen a Hacker News or a Reddit moderator do anything similar. (The Reddit mods are cool people but moderation isn't their focus at all.)
So I think you need both: a high quality team, and a (rough) automated filter to restrain the amount of work put on the team.
One thing that HN & Reddit do right is put a time limit on discussions... They don't quite close, but they become less prominent. So if the system "fails" and a bad discussion starts, at least it goes away.
There was a discussion on LinkedIn about the poor quality of discussion on LinkedIn... The quality of LinkedIn users might be a factor, but we see the same problem on AMZN. General discussions on AMZN are dominated by idiots and cranks, whereas the product reviews on AMZN are intelligent and useful. The populations might be self-selected, but mostly you've got the same people being intelligent in one format and stupid in another.
Both LinkedIn and AMZN have the format that the most "active" discussion stays on top. So if you've got some hardheads who've got nothing better to do than argue about abortion or creationism, they crowd out good discussion.
So you don't just have communities burning out, but discussions also burn out, so it's good to retire them before they reach heat death.
And in fact, I'd argue that equilibrium has been reached, and is high, here at HNN, as well as at other fora here and there (Making Light being a great example, or PerlMonks.org). There are, in fact, smart communities that don't get overwhelmed.
I agree that the presumed link in the post between topicality and "intelligence" is a strained one.
It'll happen here, if it hasn't already. People are starting spinoffs every few weeks, and it's only a matter of time before one of them gets some traction. One of them might have already, for all we know, since they certainly won't tell us about it here.
Choosing a name like ____forums where ____ is some brand (or nickname to avoid trade mark issues) becomes stale once that brand/model is out of style. Having a narrow name yet broad enough to last through the years is always a better approach (unless of course you don't intend the site to last pass the shelf-life of the brand/model).
He also seems to assume a priori that effective moderation is impossible, and thus that off-topic and banal discussion is inevitable -- which seems to me like assuming the conclusion.
No online community can last because they will fail eventually... Does anybody else see anything horribly wrong with this kind of thinking?
Why?