Great work Jamal. Super impressed with your commitment to the Forum. I'll help with subscriptions when the new platform goes live.

Thank you, Jamal and team, for keeping the place alive. I particularly appreciate the preservation of the archives because there is so much good stuff there.

During the transition, is keeping the email info current critical to rolling over to a new account? I have just have been relying on messages once signed in to communicate.

Out of curiosity, why did you opt out of your former idea of going with Communiteq hosting? — Leontiskos

Fair question.

I'm sure Communiteq is good but I think we're better off long-term with Discourse.org . My strategy is to go with the official premium product and see if we can afford it—we can always move to Communiteq or self-hosted later on if it proves to be too much. But I don't see why we couldn't cover $100/month. We've just been too relaxed about subscriptions—if we'd made a bigger deal about it I'm sure we could have got more members to subscribe.

This is a serious website and we want it to keep going for a long time. It deserves the real thing, not just a cheaper third party alternative. I realize this might seem shallow or impressionistic but I think it's significant nonetheless. Discourse.org seems like the professional option.

On Discourse.org we're dealing with the people who develop the software. They know what they are doing. Updates and plugin compatibility and what-have-you are handled by those who know the code most intimately. Support is fast and definitive, and the service is extrememely reliable.

It also has better performance due to differences in their server infrastructure, apparently.

Incidentally, I tried NodeBB for a couple of weeks and XenForo for a couple of days, and some other more Enterprisey things like circle.so . I was almost ready to go with NodeBB but then I tried Discourse again and the experience was substantially better than NodeBB.

Also, ↪regarding
"form and content in philosophy," I would suggest "zen mode reading" (and not just composing), where one can devote their entire screen to the topic at hand (example). Although I think Discourse allows this modification on a user level by default...? — Leontiskos

I can't see this functionality anywhere but I just tried the Firefox reader-view and it worked fine, so I presume other browsers can achieve the same thing. Anyway look:



When the sidebar is collapsed it's pretty distraction-free, no?

It's also worth noting that once web pages and forums became asynchronous the distinction between live vs. non-live chat was largely superseded. Older forum software which was not asynchronous (and required a page re-load after submitting a post or PM) is now gone. It was that page load that made it feel "non-live." Of course, that model was nice insofar as it felt more "long form" (like sending a letter), but the current Shoutbox is this weird amalgam between short-form and long-form media. An instant message style UI would simply be better for the TPF Shoutbox (although the non-paginated Discourse format is already more "live" than a paginated format). It would also help discourage short-form bleed into the main forum. — Leontiskos

Yes, good points. The difference is partly in how the functionality is presented: in the long-form discussion, the big serious composer window is obviously for long posts, whereas it's just a small bare-bones textbox in live chat. Also we can implement minimum post length in the discussions.

Relatedly, I would propose time limits on editing. The perpetual editing of TPF leads to careless composition, in my opinion. — Leontiskos

Yes, I'll be looking into that. I might make it subsciber-based. I'm pretty sure it can be implemented in Discourse anyway.

You can, but the search is wonky. It isn't thread-indexed, but rather functions via a search on common words in the thread title. So it will return results for any thread with similar titles. There are other problems too, such as the fact that threads containing special characters are unsearchable, and users with special name formats are not present in the mentions dropdown. — Leontiskos

Yeah, the search here is seriously defective.

:cool: :up:

During the transition, is keeping the email info current critical to rolling over to a new account? I have just have been relying on messages once signed in to communicate. — Paine

You can use a new email address at the new site, and you can change your email address here as well if you like.

Don't leave me — javi2541997

Fear not. I will pretty much be with you till death do us part. Or, until something else happens, like bankruptcy and homelessness, having both hands cut off by Islamic extremists, or being run over by a gang of electric tricycle-riding senior citizens, putting me in a coma.

It sounds like there is not anything our current software can do that the new software cannot do. If that's correct, then we can not only fully replicate what we had, but we can also add to it.

I say this in response to Outlander, who is concerned that the Shoutbox as we know it will necessarily disappear with the introduction of a live chatbox. I would think (or suggest) that if there were a desire to start a thread that was lounge-like and not chat-like, that could be done?

If the two turned out the same, there'd be no need for both, but if there were an important difference, maybe have both, but that to be determined as we go along. — Hanover

Well, I'm planning on having a Lounge at the new place too, although I want it to be different:



NOTE: This is not final. It's also a bit confusing because it says "chat," and there's already live chat for that.

Otherwise, I'd like to know precisely what "lounge-like and not chat-like" means. For example, some people might not like chat because the textbox is so small: they might want a large box to compose a wee story with multiple paragraphs. They might be unaware that you can do paragraphs in chat using shift+return. In Discourse the textbox gets bigger when you do that. It never gets as big as the composer in the long-form discussions, but big enough for most Shoutbox posts, I would think.

Anyway, the community will decide. If a long-form discussion in the Lounge turns into an effective Shoutbox I might consider letting that continue. But I'm heavily into turning the Shoutbox into a chatroom so I'll resist such developments.

Fear not. I will pretty much be with you till death do us part. Or, until something else happens, — BC

I didn't expect otherwise, dear friend. We are going to talk a lot about Spain's mussels in the next home/chapter of TPF. I promise!

Incidentally, I tried NodeBB for a couple of weeks and XenForo for a couple of days, and some other more Enterprisey things like circle.so . I was almost ready to go with NodeBB but then I tried Discourse again and the experience was substantially better than NodeBB. — Jamal

Opera browser has a forum and it is set up on NodeBB. I had a look at it because I wanted to solve some doubts. I'm glad you chose Discourse because NodeBB is a bit plain dull.

Yes, I had a look at that when I was researching NodeBB. To be fair—and because I'm reflexively argumentative—dull isn't necessarily bad for a forum, and NodeBB can be customized extensively. What matters more to me is how smoothly everything works. Discourse in my opinion just runs better, always looks nicer due to better all-round design and compatibility of themes and colour schemes, and setup is less of a struggle.

To be fair—and because I'm reflexively argumentative—dull isn't necessarily bad for a forum, What matters more to me is how smoothly everything works — Jamal

I now understand why phpBB is the main software used for the forums in my country. :razz:

Even if they're on old-fashioned software I think we should celebrate the continuing existence of independent discussion forums. Not everyone wants to discuss everything on Reddit.

Existing members will have to sign up to join the new site. — Jamal

Had some problem receiving emails from this site when changing passwords. If the move over to the new site requires an email invite for the current account, what happens if it fails?

Wouldn't there be an email list for all current members? So that taking that list into approved members for the new site will work and when signing up the email is already registered on an approved list there.

Meaning, using the email you registered on this site will let you into the door of the new site when registering.

And if there are any trouble, the new site should have a way to contact moderators if there are any trouble transferring over.

Also, what happens to stuff hidden on this site from people not logged in? Like the short stories? If there's stuff like that disappearing from view, maybe that should be moved over to the new site?

Had some problem receiving emails from this site when changing passwords. If the move over to the new site requires an email invite for the current account, what happens if it fails? — Christoffer

It won't be invitation-only and you'll be able to just go to the site and sign up yourself. I'll be making an announcement when it's open for new sign-ups. As I say, around March.

Wouldn't there be an email list for all current members? So that taking that list into approved members for the new site will work and when signing up the email is already registered on an approved list there.

Meaning, using the email you registered on this site will let you into the door of the new site when registering. — Christoffer

It's essential that all users of the new site have read and explicitly agreed to the new Acceptable Use Policy. New users confirm that when they sign up. So there won't be any pre-approved accounts.

Also, what happens to stuff hidden on this site from people not logged in? Like the short stories? If there's stuff like that disappearing from view, maybe that should be moved over to the new site? — Christoffer

Since I have to write some code that turns the existing site into a static site (based on the data export), I can make everything visible (obviously not private messages).

EDIT: Actually you'll need to verify your email when you sign up. If emails from infoatthephilosophyforumdotcom are not reaching you, that will be an issue.

Even if they're on old-fashioned software I think we should celebrate the continuing existence of independent discussion forums. Not everyone wants to discuss everything on Reddit. — Jamal

Absolutely--I dislike Reddit, by the way.

Otherwise, I'd like to know precisely what "lounge-like and not chat-like" means. — Jamal

I really don't know yet, so I think we probably just have to let things develop and see. I guess what I think of when I think of a chatbox is an ongoing text group conversation, where the comments are brief and move back and forth quickly. That does describe the Shoutbox as it currently exists, although the comments can become longer and more involved, sometimes being used as a place to test out discussions as opposed to starting a thread. It's the longer conversations I wonder if will get lost under a chatbox feature. But, as you're describing the chatbox, it sounds like it might not have the limitations I've brought up.

The role of the Shoutbox has been discussed in the past (as in putting it on the main page versus relegating it to the Lounge where it had to be searched out), with some seeing it as an important feature to build and maintain community and others maybe seeing it as too much a diversion from real philosophy. I fall obviously into the former group, and so as long as the new site maintains that, it's really not that important how it looks and feels.

I also know that nothing is ever set in stone and that if something isn't working we can always discuss it later and figure it out. The Shoutbox as it currently exists was actually a work around after we lost the chatbox feature available under the old software. Click on the Shoutbox and go to the first page and you'll see a discussion of how we were trying to create what we lost.

I also thought the layout from the old site was better in certain ways (although it had countless bugs and unreliability problems) because it showed the categories and the posts by recency by each category and not just everything at once. What happens under our current system is that if 10 people come up with new religion posts (for example), the main board is overwhelmed with that and it looks like that's the ony thing being discussed. If posts are divided by category, that doesn't happen because you can just not pay attention to those categories you're not interested in. I don't know if the new software addresses that or not though.

I also thought the layout from the old site was better in certain ways (although it had countless bugs and unreliability problems) because it showed the categories and the posts by recency by each category and not just everything at once. What happens under our current system is that if 10 people come up with new religion posts (for example), the main board is overwhelmed with that and it looks like that's the ony thing being discussed. If posts are divided by category, that doesn't happen because you can just not pay attention to those categories you're not interested in. I don't know if the new software addresses that or not though. — Hanover

I've made the home page of the new site show topics from all categories ordered by most recent, just like here. But unlike here, if you go to the "All categories" page the categories are ordered by most recent—so that page would fit what you'd like to see as the home page (Philosophy of Religion would show at the top but wouldn't overwhelm the page). Personally I wouldn't want that as the home page. Maybe I'll do a poll.

On the old site I always went to /latest or whatever it was, which was the same as our home page here.

Anyway in Discourse it's all configurable.

I like how it's implemented here. There are topics that don't interest me and are an eyesore, but I go into them and learn something new or interesting. That's great for me.

On the other hand, could you tell me if there will be a way to fine-tune the settings to hide topics I don't want to see (in case I want to create an echo chamber and not know what people think about certain things?)

I also wanted to suggest, if appropriate, adding more sections—for example, metaepistemology or axiology—so that I could narrow my choices a bit more.

On the other hand, could you tell me if there will be a way to fine-tune the settings to hide topics I don't want to see (in case I want to create an echo chamber and not know what people think about certain things?) — Astorre

Yes, on the new platform you'll be able to mute topics and whole categories, so that they don't appear on the /latest page.

I also wanted to suggest, if appropriate, adding more sections—for example, metaepistemology or axiology—so that I could narrow my choices a bit more — Astorre

We can always make subcategories but I don't think those ones would be used enough to merit that.

what I think of when I think of a chatbox is an ongoing text group conversation, where the comments are brief and move back and forth quickly. That does describe the Shoutbox as it currently exists, although the comments can become longer and more involved, sometimes being used as a place to test out discussions as opposed to starting a thread. It's the longer conversations I wonder if will get lost under a chatbox feature. — Hanover

:100: :up:

I also thought the layout from the old site was better in certain ways (although it had countless bugs and unreliability problems) because it showed the categories and the posts by recency by each category and not just everything at once. — Hanover

It definitely varies per individual, but generally speaking I'm fairly certain the majority of people prefer a (at least default) "dump" of ALL topics sorted by most recent activity. It just makes the place look more active and exciting (ie. not "dead"). Further customization on what topics are displayed or not displayed once a user signs up handles every possible concern IMO.

I'm sure Communiteq is good but I think we're better off long-term with Discourse.org . My strategy is to go with the official premium product and see if we can afford it—we can always move to Communiteq or self-hosted later on if it proves to be too much. — Jamal

That's fair, and I think Discourse databases are extremely portable, so switching around should be easy if it comes down to that.

I have heard that Discourse is harder to self-host than some of the other options such as NodeBB, so a managed option seems preferable. But I will say that I was impressed with the Communiteq managed option, and was not aware of it before you suggested it. Although they do not have the same bona fides as the official Discourse host, they do specialize in Discourse and host that software exclusively. So as you say, it would be a good fallback.

But I don't see why we couldn't cover $100/month. We've just been too relaxed about subscriptions—if we'd made a bigger deal about it I'm sure we could have got more members to subscribe. — Jamal

And I'm sure Discourse offers more flexible subscription tiers than Plush.

Incidentally, I tried NodeBB for a couple of weeks and XenForo for a couple of days, and some other more Enterprisey things like circle.so . I was almost ready to go with NodeBB but then I tried Discourse again and the experience was substantially better than NodeBB. — Jamal

Yeah, I think that's right. NodeBB is more niche and requires more setup and attention.

When the sidebar is collapsed it's pretty distraction-free, no? — Jamal

Yes, I think so. That ability to collapse the sidebar is what I was thinking of. :up:

Yes, good points. The difference is partly in how the functionality is presented: in the long-form discussion, the big serious composer window is obviously for long posts, whereas it's just a small bare-bones textbox in live chat. Also we can implement minimum post length in the discussions. — Jamal

:up:

Obviously I like incentivizing more serious long form discussions, but my opinions on that topic are already well-known. :grin:

Maybe we could trial downvotes? They have a harsh side where immature people downvote to signal disagreement, but they can also be an effective means of community self moderation.

Maybe we could trial downvotes? They have a harsh side where immature people downvote to signal disagreement, but they can also be an effective means of community self moderation. — frank

Seems rather needless, perhaps even detrimental to exploration of free thought and differing view points. If you have a valid and logical disagreement, you simply make it known like an adult instead of attempting to obscure one's—essentially baseless—personal sentiments as if they were anything but exactly that.

I wouldn't mind. So long as they don't actually do or mean anything. Otherwise all this will result in is not community self moderation but censorship against views that are perfectly valid yet not aligned to one's own—not even views—but ingrained dogma masquerading as views.

Provided someone isn't literally just making things up that cannot be substantiated, one should have the respect to give any posit or position one doesn't either agree with or understand a proper response to reveal one's own understanding (or as it is many a time, misunderstanding) of the author's sentiment so that their own sentiment can be revealed and scrutinized in return. We wouldn't allow a perfectly valid albeit controversial claim to be replied to with "Yeah, well, I don't like that idea", as if it contributes anything to logic or reason and human understanding—which it doesn't. So why allow it in the form of trivial, faceless "down votes" devoid of any reason or explanation? :chin:

So why allow it in the form of trivial, faceless "down votes" devoid of any reason or explanation? — Outlander

It works. I have a couple of subreddits which I've never had to moderate. Downvotes do all the work.

It works. I have a couple of subreddits which I've never had to moderate. Downvotes do all the work. — frank

And this is a further point! Perception bias toward popularity. "If it's popular, it's right and should be paid attention to, if not, it's a waste of time." Also known as "judging a book by its cover"-ism. The greatest crime against human thought. I'm not immune. If I see a post from a staff member (at first I thought I was just a victim to authority bias, until I thought about it and realized, no, I genuinely recognize the elevated intellect of those who just so happen to be authority figures here, and that's perfectly okay) I pay it extra attention, and I've noticed generally tend to agree with it, or at least consider what specific viewpoints I hold that would differ as perhaps less refined than I would have otherwise. This is only natural for social beings. Yet it can be dangerous if it leads to a feedback loop of confirmation bias (ie. this is a forum of smart people, therefore, what is disliked is stupid, and what is liked is smart). That's fine for Reddit, for the majority, but with all due respect, this is not now nor hopefully will ever be anything like Reddit. Simply put, if the "norm" and "what's popular" in life and society was sufficient for those here, they wouldn't be here. They wouldn't seek greater. But we do. That's why we're here. We're not satisfied with the cookie-cutter norms and standards of everyday life that the layperson eats up as if it were ambrosia. Am I wrong?

Maybe we could trial downvotes? They have a harsh side where immature people downvote to signal disagreement, but they can also be an effective means of community self moderation. — frank

Agreed.

When I was thinking of making a forum I wanted to have it so that each user gets X points per day, and points can only be spent on upvotes and downvotes - votes which have no further, instrumental use. An upvote would cost one point and a downvote would cost three points. So if you get four points per day you decide how to use them, but downvotes would cost much more. The scarcity of points was meant to make the votes more meaningful. Long-time users would have more points per day than newbies, etc.

I think downvotes would be useful, especially if they could be disincentivized in a way like this. I actually think many of the interpersonal problems that come up on TPF occur because there is no communal outlet to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a post.

(With that said, Reddit is a bit different in that it engages in automatic soft-censoring against strongly downvoted posts. If that is allowed, I think it should be left to the user, and should not be automatic.)

We wouldn't allow a perfectly valid albeit controversial claim to be replied to with "Yeah, well, I don't like that idea", as if it contributes anything to logic or reason and human understanding—which it doesn't. So why allow it in the form of trivial, faceless "down votes" devoid of any reason or explanation? :chin: — Outlander

Ideally a downvote signifies poor quality, not dislike. Non-verbal interactions and communal consensus have existed for all of human history. Upvotes and downvotes are just a way to introduce such things online.

I agree that there's a good side and bad side to downvotes. It's helpful for identifying trolls.

It's helpful for identifying trolls. — frank

Which isn't relevant in enlightened communities such as TPF. They don't exist here. It's either too "boring", niche, and "slow", among other things, the main thing being the "customer base" (ie. intelligent people don't contribute to the feedback loop that people looking to provoke negative reactions online look for. There's nothing for people like that here. This would be akin to setting up a bear trap in the suburbs. There's just no legitimate use or reason to.)

This is where your "normal operating standards" (that are very useful in, again, normal places) don't have a place in intellectual spaces that explore free thought. All it would do is determine unpopular viewpoints, and give false credence that something unpopular is inherently bad. Judging a book by it's cover. I doubt anybody here who's a significant contributor would choose to read or ignore a post based on "likes" or "dislikes". And I would hope the vain pettiness that many people feel in "disliking" a view instead of logically refuting it (often due to lack of ability to) is non-existent for the majority of posters here.

Though I'm disinclined to (biased against) "likes" and dislikes" (it just seems like it's everywhere and taking over everything online), I can understand upvotes. Some people like to reply to a post they agree with with things like " :up: " or " :fire: ", which doesn't bother me. It's a message board at the end of the day, after all. But if staff wanted to cut down on simple posts that work out to "I agree" or "I disagree (but can't or won't explain why)" and view likes/dislikes as a better option than that's all there is to it I guess.