Go advertise your "just like /r/floobinart but with more zimbledings" sub everywhere to get people to come to it.
Reddit, with good moderation, is a world apart from what you see if you visit the main page.
On a side note, it's also a great place to go and see discussions around things you highly disagree with. It might help to understand the motivations of "the other side".
I read a recent answer there whose first sentence was the opposite of reality. Thinking of how I could demonstrate this easily and effectively, where any person could follow up easily and see what's right, I posted a comment saying it contradicted the second sentence of the Wikipedia article on the topic.
My comment was automatically banned by the auto-moderator because it had a link to Wikipedia and no other links. I tried reading the subreddit rules before posting, but it's pretty hard to find this rule -- indeed, it is not explicitly stated as far as I can tell.
It is at least currently in the subreddit rules page, as linked to on the main site.
"Wikipedia, or any other single tertiary resource, used by itself not a suitable basis for a comment in this subreddit."
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules
In general on reddit, if you've had a comment removed and think it's not right then message the moderators.
I don't think that a subreddit that bans links to Wikipedia can be considered a good source of information.
To post an answer on /r/AskHistorians you have to have a degree in the field in question or proven experience in the field.
I don't think that people who consider Wikipedia the end-all-be-all knowledgebase should be considered for anything.
I was not posting an answer. I was correcting an error in an answer, and I thought that showing that it contradicted Wikipedia was productive. (The automated implementation of the subreddit rules disagreed.) I thought it would be great if my comment resulted in either the answer or the Wikipedia article being edited so that they were in line; this objective was vaguely achieved.
I don't believe it does as I recently posted a comment with a wikipedia link. It does, however require more authoritative sources than wikipedia, mine did at least have several other corroborating sources. Perhaps the auto-mod is set to remove comments without at least one non-wiki link.
They encourage people who would otherwise have linked just to wikipedia to hunt out the sources that claim comes from and use those instead.
I hope they put in a note in their comment or said thanks at least, I'd hope for more there.
They were nice about things; the PM read "AskHistorians doesn't allow Wikipedia, but .... I clarified in my OP .... Thanks for prompting the clarification!"
One of the difficulties is that artists and academics tend to be very protective of interesting sources as I think intellectual individuality is much more of a currency than in the tech world.
That said, you are right that academics are protective. Much of what they are actually interested in is pay-walled as well.
- Has Tags
- Reputation
- Votes used as favorites
- Permission based roles ( not everyone can see all tags), according to tags --> custom roles or permissions on the topics.
- Personal tag header ( you can pick which tag you want to show in your menu)
- Custom tag based posts ( eg. when you add the tag newsletter, it adds 1 text input named subject, 1 textarea with Html and 1 textarea with text).
- You can hide tags showing, so it's only used as data
- ...
I could add paywall to it, if a post contains a tag named " paywall"
The demo is currently in Dutch though ( titles).
For anyone who wants to try: Demo1:123456 ( user : pass) -- http://tagly.azurewebsites.net/Account/Login?returnUrl=
It's not completely finished though
In terms of setting one up, lobste.rs is open source (https://github.com/jcs/lobsters) and could be a good candidate for a starting point...
The general stuff like /b/, /r9k/ and /pol/ is pretty crappy.
But stuff like /fit/ helped me a lot.
No voting karma crap, just anons posting stuff, read what you like, hide what you hate. the end.
A hacker news team would be fantastic!
All the subreddits seem overly focused on EDM, and entirely without the scientific vibe that HN has.
Also these subreddits have interesting content : r/science , r/interestingasfuck , r/space , r/food , r/travel , r/earthporn , r/coolgithubprojects , r/iama etc
The name meta filter implies to me this site wanted to be somewhat neutral and open-ended, but my impression so far is it's become dominated by SJW types, which is going to make it unreadable by me.
And the first comment, "Anyhow — men who don’t understand their entire emotional range are prone to anger because they can’t meet their own needs."
And the 2nd comment, "I also wonder if that guy wonders if his girlfriends ever had to hire sex workers to manage their emotional needs before they met him."
I don't understand how you can't see it's a one-sided echo chamber.
[0]: (The luxury to be oblivious is itself a manifestation of privilege.)
Also the idea that women are emotionally regulating 2 people in most relationships is such nonsense that it doesn't even deserve discussion.
You made a substantive point and then ruined it with a personal attack. Please don't do that—it breaks the HN guidelines and makes the thread even worse. Your comment would be fine with just the first sentence.
Can you explain what makes this a personal attack? I support the policy wholeheartedly, but this doesn't seem (to me) to be a violation of it.
I mean, it is mildly rude, but seems a lot closer to "X is left as an excersise for the reader" or "please Read The Friendly Manual", than it is to something like "go fsck yourself" (which would be extremely rude, but still not a personal attack per-se).
Metafilter has a lot of female users that feel safe expressing their opinion and telling their experiences. Not to rag on HN, because generally the discussions here are pretty respectful, but gender diversity at metafilter is one thing I really value about the site.
It seemed to me more of a rationalization for the behavior of abusive men; that the reason they're abusive is because they haven't been "regulated" enough, not because they're selfish, or stupid, or enjoy hurting people. It seems the kind of excuse that women make to excuse men, and to excuse themselves staying with abusive men.
Maybe a better phrasing is the highest volume of anti-male comments I've seen in a while.
I always felt like vommiting when I saw people recommend /r/woodworking, but I couldn't figure out why. I was reading an unrelated critique of /r/fitness one day and somebody summed up my feelings about /r/woodworking perfectly
"/r/_______ is a bunch of beginners masquerading as experts."
Q: Does this keyboard support Linux?
A: The keyboard is advanced but you can not run Linux on the keyboard.
This is probably not what most people think of when they are looking for serious and in-depth Linux discussions.
The smaller subs have an entirely different culture and community. Any interest you have has a related sub-Reddit. you can search for them by clicking the 'more' link in the top bar that lists the subreddits.
https://www.reddit.com/subreddits/
Subcribe to the ones you like, and unsubscribe from all the defaults.
Also, r/DepthHub collects insightful and researched comments from all across Reddit.
For those interested in Marketing, SEO, Sales etc.
Ask HN: What are other minimal, all content, no frills discussion sites like HN?