25 sats \ 5 replies \ @elvismercury 17 Aug 2023 \ on: Posting links, but not responding to comments? meta
I agree in general -- the comments are what make SN interesting, way more than the links. But some of the issue is, I think, that SN is sort of a hybrid: Twitter-like (e.g., transient links and comments) and blog-like (e.g., evergreen pieces and discussions). It will be interesting to see how it evolves when there's 10x, 100x the number of users, and how different sorts of incentives will tilt it in one direction or the other.
I tend to agree that SN has multiple use cases. I have found that SN is my first goto for breaking Bitcoin news. Reason being that someone is bound to post any important news here and very quickly it will get zapped to the top.
I am likely one of the "offending" SN users that the OP (@premitive1) is referencing.
Sometimes I have nothing useful to say but "hey here is a link that might be interesting."
reply
Do you post the link without reading the article first? (Not accusing you just checking) I am wondering if due to not wanting to duplicate posts (always check related before pressing post) we have users posting a link they haven't read because it's breaking news in order to be the first poster so they can have the zaps for that content. A sort of post first read second mentality?
reply
Do you ignore comments to your link? That's really what I decry. As long as you respond to comments then I think it's okay to post links.
reply
I like how SN currently has it labeled when posting:
Link or Discussions
Sometimes a user whats to spur on a discussion and other times it is just "hey here is a link that might be interesting."
reply
Interesting things cause discussions.
If it's not interesting enough for the probably poster to actually engage the discussion, maybe the link wasn't interesting and it didn't need to be shared.
This is a social website.
reply