←back to thread

Ribbonfarm Is Retiring

(www.ribbonfarm.com)
177 points Arubis | 2 comments | 19 Oct 24 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.407s | source
Show context
blfr ◴[19 Oct 24 21:23 UTC] No.41890886[source]▶
It seems to me that the blogosphere was not a ZIRP but rather a young Internet phenomenon. Which could exists, like usenet before it, when mere access to it was a filtering mechanism.

Once you have seven billion people with virtually no access control, you can't have a public blogosphere, and groups retreat to the cozyweb.

Either way, I enjoyed it while it lasted. Thanks for the Office series!

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

replies(7): >>41890931 #>>41891296 #>>41891835 #>>41892328 #>>41892644 #>>41893121 #>>41895944 #
bartread ◴[19 Oct 24 21:31 UTC] No.41890931[source]▶
> Once you have seven billion people with virtually no access control, you can't have a public blogosphere, and groups retreat to the cozyweb.

Why can’t you? There’s a logical leap in this statement I don’t follow.

replies(3): >>41891017 #>>41891452 #>>41891576 #
rogers12 ◴[19 Oct 24 21:50 UTC] No.41891017[source]▶
Those seven billion people aren't very good for the most part, and include a critical mass of spectacularly awful people. It turns out that public access forums calibrated for the small and self-selected community of mostly high quality internet pioneers aren't prepared to deal with 1000000x expansion of reachable audience. The Eternal September effect has been getting stronger ever since it's first been observed.
replies(7): >>41891075 #>>41891097 #>>41891535 #>>41891731 #>>41893164 #>>41893223 #>>41901929 #
whatshisface ◴[19 Oct 24 22:00 UTC] No.41891097[source]▶
>It turns out that public access forums calibrated for the small and self-selected community of mostly high quality internet pioneers aren't prepared to deal with 1000000x expansion of reachable audience.

"Checklist for new theories purporting to prove that the social web is presently unworkable:"

...

26. The predicted conflicts still wouldn't be as bad as Usenet flamewars.

27. Your theory proves that Hackernews does not exist. <---

28. Audiences afraid of engaging with an unfamiliar interfaces weren't making websites in 1998 either.

...

replies(4): >>41891117 #>>41891229 #>>41891570 #>>41893257 #
rogers12 ◴[19 Oct 24 22:19 UTC] No.41891229[source]▶
This forum has been decreasing in quality since its inception, currently hovering at not-quite-reddit and that's with an organic audience of tech-adjacent posters. It would turn into a smoking hole in the ground if it somehow caught worldwide attention.

You're a fish swimming in fragile water you fail to appreciate.

replies(6): >>41891389 #>>41892407 #>>41892468 #>>41892962 #>>41892971 #>>41894509 #
1. kelnos ◴[20 Oct 24 04:57 UTC] No.41892962[source]▶
I disagree. Quality has certainly varied over the years, but HN is still miles above Reddit. I'm not a heavy Reddit user, but every time someone or something links me to Reddit for something I might find interesting, the comments are mostly garbage. The same tired memes and jokes, over and over and over, tons of low-effort comments, not much substantial, curiosity-piquing discussion.

Sure, maybe there are some subs that are better, but I doubt I'd be convinced to spend more time on Reddit and less on HN. Certainly there are useful places on Reddit; I've gotten a lot of mileage out of searching for product reviews or general customer support questions on Reddit, but that's kinda a "single purpose" visit, not something for general curiosity.

I feel like there are some long-time HNers (your account was only created two years ago, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've changed accounts or have just been a super long time lurker) feel like quality has gone down; that's almost a meme of its own. Hell, the HN guidelines even has a blurb about how tired it is to suggest HN is turning into Reddit.

But I think it's a lot more accurate to say that quality ebbs and flows, and varies between articles and topics. And yes, sometimes the focus of the site (based on what submissions get voted to the front page, and what kind of discussion happens) shifts in ways that make my interest wane a bit, though always only temporarily. But that's not the same thing as quality.

replies(1): >>41895014 #
2. typewithrhythm ◴[20 Oct 24 12:47 UTC] No.41895014[source]▶
I'm speculating, but I think the big difference is the barrier to downvoting something here is greater.

If you say something controversial over at Reddit there is a substantial chance you get piled on and labelled a troll, unpopular positions cannot be expressed without the risk of no longer being able to participate.

Anything you suspect will generate something other than a bland, mildly positive response is too risky to express.