Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 94 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. ToryWarWriter Thatcher
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    Nested comments?!  Has Max finally found away to defeat the PiT?!  Tune in friends for more to come.  

    • #1
  2. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    Please, no nested comments.

    • #2
  3. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    I haven’t yet listened to the podcast, but I’m hoping that nested comments are not in our future. I think they decrease the coherence and quality of post threads, and tend to hide away discussion.

    On Facebook, I routinely pull nested comments back up to the main thread level and respond to them there. I do this only on my own posts, since it offends some people (or, perhaps, gives people who already don’t care for me a basis for being critical).

    On Ricochet, given that items disappear from the notification bell menu as soon as they’re visited (rather than being retained as on Facebook), nested comments would I think be particularly disruptive, since it creates that many more locations to which one might want to return. Things would get lost.

    But I’ll listen to the podcast before mouthing off any more.

    [Updated]

    I’ve listened to the podcast now, and I’ll just add that, while I’m unclear just what the vision is vis a vis the increased emphasis on writing, I like the sound of it. I’ve never quite understood the role of the text portion of the site versus the podcast side, but it’s the text that most interests me (much as I enjoy listening to the podcasts). I have a voice made for writing, as they say, and will likely never be able to express myself in the podcast world. So yes, if you can make the Main Feed a bigger draw to non-members and increase its reach, I like that idea.

    Also: Yes, the search feature isn’t very good. And yes, improved site performance would be nice. (I once said I didn’t care about this one, but it seems to be worse — or I’ve gotten less patient.)


    As regards the rest of the podcast….

    Bethany made a comment that didn’t land because she simply misspoke, but it was a thought worth stating. She wanted to say that it’s telling that the first “trans” person competing as the incorrect sex in the Olympics is, unsurprisingly, a man competing as a woman — and not the opposite. She’s right that we’re unlikely to see a woman competing as a man, because women simply can’t compete as men.

    That says a lot about what’s really going on.

    • #3
  4. She Reagan
    She
    @She
    1.  Is the site moving off WordPress?
    2. If not, is this more robust and lovely “editor” going to be anything resembling Gutenberg?  (The block editor).  Lord, I hope not.  There can be few more “writer-centric” interfaces than one which presents the writer with a blank slate and invites him to begin putting words on the page/screen.  All else just gets in the way.  Simplistic and buggy as the current editor is, and while I would like it to have a few more features, it doesn’t usually get in the way of putting words on the page/screen. (If I want to get really creative, I can always write the post in Word, or somewhere else, and just paste it into Ricochet.  I wouldn’t be surprised to find that many, many members–particularly those who aren’t particularly interested in jazzing up their written output with any sort of media production–simply do that already, and would like to be able to continue to do so.)
    3. I don’t care for nested comments.  If they’re going to be implemented, I hope it won’t be until after member concerns have been aired and responded to.  (Note: “everybody’s doing it,” isn’t much of a response.  Neither is “this is our most requested feature,” when, as I can plainly see, it’s not.  Better search engine.  Ignore button.  Hello?
    4. I’m curious what management’s efforts to “encourage longer, more thoughtful posts,” and more member content on the main feed will look like.
    5. Yes, I’d occasionally like to put more media (PDFs, audio files, video files, etc) myself.  When I do it now, I have it stored somewhere else.  Max has always said it’s a security/malware protection that we’re not allowed to upload such things to Ricochet at the moment.  What will change?
    6. Nice for the people who want to be able to create podcasts to be able to do so.  That’s not I.
    7. I support the idea of less clutter on the screen, as well as (I hope) less scripting and customization, resulting in fewer slowdowns and faster response time.
    • #4
  5. Mikescapes Inactive
    Mikescapes
    @Mikescapes

    I looked up nested comments and still don’t understand what it means. In any case, eliminating comments (nested or not) is a good idea – all except mine. This podcast is too techie for me, so I hope I got the main idea.

    Important to me is the length of podcasts. I find them way too long. An hour or more impacts my opportunity to listen to other podcasts. Why can’t the speakers be more concise instead of lengthy rhetoric and too much repetition. If the podcasters wrote for a news agency, and many do, they’d be confined to limited space. Let them write on a separate section on Ricochet. And members won’t struggle through those either.

    With so many podcasts available, I believe my complaint is meritorious. Thirty minutes is sufficient in my opinion.

    • #5
  6. texased Coolidge
    texased
    @texased

    I don’t care about anything Blue Yeti described. I just want easy manual downloading of audio. It is already pretty easy. My favorites: Commentary, Glop, Ricochet, London Calling, Mad Dogs.

    • #6
  7. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    Nested comments?! Has Max finally found away to defeat the PiT?! Tune in friends for more to come.

    I too thought of the PiT when nested comments came up. 

    • #7
  8. Lilly B Coolidge
    Lilly B
    @LillyB

    Commenting on

    @she comment #4 “I’m curious what management’s efforts to “encourage longer, more thoughtful posts,” and more member content on the main feed will look like.”

    I’m also curious. The editors say they don’t like writing for free, but they want members to write “longer, more thoughtful posts” for free. I don’t object to higher-quality posts, but I know that I don’t have time to research or write them. Sometimes I post in order to “start a conversation” so I know I don’t have to have everything worked out before I post. Are we less interested in conversation and more interested in essays that bring more traffic to the site?

    • #8
  9. ToryWarWriter Thatcher
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    Commenting on

    @ she comment #4 “I’m curious what management’s efforts to “encourage longer, more thoughtful posts,” and more member content on the main feed will look like.”

    I’m also curious. The editors say they don’t like writing for free, but they want members to write “longer, more thoughtful posts” for free. I don’t object to higher-quality posts, but I know that I don’t have time to research or write them. Sometimes I post in order to “start a conversation” so I know I don’t have to have everything worked out before I post. Are we less interested in conversation and more interested in essays that bring more traffic to the site?

    Thanks for reminding me about that.  Whats worse than writing for free?  Paying someone for the opportunity to write.  I know I am paying for the community, but that line fell a little flat given the context of the site.

    • #9
  10. Lilly B Coolidge
    Lilly B
    @LillyB

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    The editors say they don’t like writing for free, but they want members to write “longer, more thoughtful posts” for free. 

    Thanks for reminding me about that. Whats worse than writing for free? Paying someone for the opportunity to write. I know I am paying for the community, but that line fell a little flat given the context of the site.

    My line or the editors’ line? I started paying for Ricochet long before I started commenting or posting. I’ve always been a podcast listener and believe in supporting good content. It does seem to me that the site has been organized around allowing civil conversation, but maybe that’s not the primary focus for the future. That’s fine, but I’d appreciate knowing what’s expected of members when we post. Also, I’d like to know if the editors plan to promote posts more selectively, based on content rather than member up-voting.

    • #10
  11. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Clavius (View Comment):

    Please, no nested comments.

    Please no nested comments. 

    Please. 

    Please. 

    • #11
  12. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    How is not already “writer centric”?

    There are only two things I have seen any sort of groundswell support for:

    Ignore Feature

    Better Search feature

    How about we start with stuff we see people asking for? And if people are asking for this other stuff, please publish the statements. 

    • #12
  13. Jim Chase Member
    Jim Chase
    @JimChase

    I’ll speak up and say that I’m probably more concerned about the unintended consequences of proposed site infrastructure changes than I am some of the proposed changes themselves (although I, like many, find nested comments to inhibit good conversation rather than enabling it).

    For example, previous structural changes over the last decade have had significant impact to site content (posts) – lost posts, lost information (likes, etc.) on posts and comments, not to mention forced archival and horrendous post-change format rendering of post and comments.  Like the infamous, if not notorious after-effects of the transition to Ricochet 2.0, it took a while for the seas to settle.

    Is that the scale and impact we can expect with the next upgrade?  Is this a major overhaul of the site, or a series of incremental updates (again, keeping an open mind, if change makes the site easier to maintain, so long as the experience isn’t degraded)?

    As for the rest, this bit about “writer-centric” … I’m unclear what that means, given that everything that’s not “podcast” is “writer-centric”.  Unless you mean this as an aim to recruit more “Contributors” and swing the pendulum back toward making the Main Feed more of the drive-by publications (where the authors don’t mix with the commenters, a problem we had in the early days).

    Are there specific goals or objectives in mind here that can be shared?

    • #13
  14. Chris Member
    Chris
    @Chris

    Generally enjoy the show, but the segment on Catholic teaching illustrated the challenges of discussing religion.  Although entered with the best intentions and a window into what “the wider world” makes of the situation, it would have benefited from someone who actually knew the topic.

    While it is not in line with the show, should you ever delve into it again I would suggest putting a post on Ricochet Catholics to seek a volunteer – or maybe just ask @peterrobinson or Bethany’s friend to join.  Or, if you want a more authoritative take, look for a theologian. 

    • #14
  15. Samuel Block Support
    Samuel Block
    @SamuelBlock

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    Nested comments?! Has Max finally found away to defeat the PiT?! Tune in friends for more to come.

    I second the motion to save the PIT. Is there at least a way to keep that intact? Frankly, I think it’s the best part of the site. It’d be a shame if we lost it. 

    • #15
  16. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    Nested comments?! Has Max finally found away to defeat the PiT?! Tune in friends for more to come.

    That’s not the point of switching and the PIT will survive nested comments (and nuclear war). 

    • #16
  17. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    She (View Comment):

    1. Is the site moving off WordPress?

    Nope. 

    1. If not, is this more robust and lovely “editor” going to be anything resembling Gutenberg? (The block editor). Lord, I hope not. There can be few more “writer-centric” interfaces than one which presents the writer with a blank slate and invites him to begin putting words on the page/screen. All else just gets in the way. Simplistic and buggy as the current editor is, and while I would like it to have a few more features, it doesn’t usually get in the way of putting words on the page/screen. (If I want to get really creative, I can always write the post in Word, or somewhere else, and just paste it into Ricochet. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that many, many members–particularly those who aren’t particularly interested in jazzing up their written output with any sort of media production–simply do that already, and would like to be able to continue to do so.)

    The editor will not be Gutenberg, it will be a more customized version of the editor we use now that will behave more reliably and more consistently across mobile and desktop platforms. 

    1. I don’t care for nested comments. If they’re going to be implemented, I hope it won’t be until after member concerns have been aired and responded to. (Note: “everybody’s doing it,” isn’t much of a response. Neither is “this is our most requested feature,” when, as I can plainly see, it’s not. Better search engine. Ignore button. Hello?

    It not the most requested feature, but we do get a ton of complaints about comments full of previous comments because they are hard to read, difficult to edit,  and too often crash browsers when a user replies to a busy thread. 

    1. I’m curious what management’s efforts to “encourage longer, more thoughtful posts,” and more member content on the main feed will look like.

    We’re not going to do anything personally. We’re going to give you better writing tools, redesign the front page to give more posts visibility there, and improve our post surfacing algorithm and SEO to get a bigger audience for your work. 

    1. Yes, I’d occasionally like to put more media (PDFs, audio files, video files, etc) myself. When I do it now, I have it stored somewhere else. Max has always said it’s a security/malware protection that we’re not allowed to upload such things to Ricochet at the moment. What will change?

    PDFs are problematic because of copyright issues. But we want to improve and make it easier to add media to your posts. We also want to make it easier for members to create their own media (hint, hint).

    1. Nice for the people who want to be able to create podcasts to be able to do so. That’s not I.

    It’s not a requirement. 

    1. I support the idea of less clutter on the screen, as well as (I hope) less scripting and customization, resulting in fewer slowdowns and faster response time.

    That’s the plan!

     

    • #17
  18. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Mikescapes (View Comment):

    I looked up nested comments and still don’t understand what it means. In any case, eliminating comments (nested or not) is a good idea – all except mine. This podcast is too techie for me, so I hope I got the main idea.

    Important to me is the length of podcasts. I find them way too long. An hour or more impacts my opportunity to listen to other podcasts. Why can’t the speakers be more concise instead of lengthy rhetoric and too much repetition. If the podcasters wrote for a news agency, and many do, they’d be confined to limited space. Let them write on a separate section on Ricochet. And members won’t struggle through those either.

    With so many podcasts available, I believe my complaint is meritorious. Thirty minutes is sufficient in my opinion.

    We do not impose rules about show length to the podcasts we distribute as we believe in letting the market decide when a show goes on too long. As for the shows we produce, before this comment, I don’t think I’ve seen a complaint that our shows are too long. Usually the opposite, in fact. 

    • #18
  19. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    Commenting on

    @ she comment #4 “I’m curious what management’s efforts to “encourage longer, more thoughtful posts,” and more member content on the main feed will look like.”

    I’m also curious. The editors say they don’t like writing for free, but they want members to write “longer, more thoughtful posts” for free. I don’t object to higher-quality posts, but I know that I don’t have time to research or write them. Sometimes I post in order to “start a conversation” so I know I don’t have to have everything worked out before I post. Are we less interested in conversation and more interested in essays that bring more traffic to the site?

    My comment was in the context of writing for free on other social media platforms, specifically Twitter. I would of course prefer that they not burn their best ideas or too much energy on someone else’s platform. But I also know I have no control over that. 

    And writing posts to start a conversation is a completely legit reason to post and we whole-heartily encourage it. 

    • #19
  20. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):
    Thanks for reminding me about that.  Whats worse than writing for free?  Paying someone for the opportunity to write.  I know I am paying for the community, but that line fell a little flat given the context of the site.

    You’re paying for the community, but also for access to an audience, for some editing services (if your post is promoted), and for having the comments on your post moderated.  Not a bad deal for $5 a month.

    • #20
  21. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    How is not already “writer centric”?

    There are only two things I have seen any sort of groundswell support for:

    Ignore Feature

    Better Search feature

    How about we start with stuff we see people asking for? And if people are asking for this other stuff, please publish the statements.

    Better search — for sure (although it’s a very complex technical problem).  And I think we have made our opinion on an ignore button very clear. I also dispute your characterization of a “ground swell” for it. There appears to be a few people who bring it up repeatedly.  We remain unconvinced. 

    If anyone would like me to delve into our philosophy about it, happy to do it. 

    • #21
  22. Bob Armstrong Thatcher
    Bob Armstrong
    @BobArmstrong

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):
    Thanks for reminding me about that. Whats worse than writing for free? Paying someone for the opportunity to write. I know I am paying for the community, but that line fell a little flat given the context of the site.

    You’re paying … for some editing services (if you’re [sic] post is promoted) …

    • #22
  23. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    I also dispute your characterization of a “ground swell” for it.

    How about you test that out with a poll? 

    • #23
  24. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Jim Chase (View Comment):

    I’ll speak up and say that I’m probably more concerned about the unintended consequences of proposed site infrastructure changes than I am some of the proposed changes themselves (although I, like many, find nested comments to inhibit good conversation rather than enabling it).

    For example, previous structural changes over the last decade have had significant impact to site content (posts) – lost posts, lost information (likes, etc.) on posts and comments, not to mention forced archival and horrendous post-change format rendering of post and comments. Like the infamous, if not notorious after-effects of the transition to Ricochet 2.0, it took a while for the seas to settle.

    Is that the scale and impact we can expect with the next upgrade? Is this a major overhaul of the site, or a series of incremental updates (again, keeping an open mind, if change makes the site easier to maintain, so long as the experience isn’t degraded)?

    As for the rest, this bit about “writer-centric” … I’m unclear what that means, given that everything that’s not “podcast” is “writer-centric”. Unless you mean this as an aim to recruit more “Contributors” and swing the pendulum back toward making the Main Feed more of the drive-by publications (where the authors don’t mix with the commenters, a problem we had in the early days).

    Are there specific goals or objectives in mind here that can be shared?

    Fair points about prior site upgrades. That said, the worst upgrade was a migration from our previous platform (I will not speak its name) to WordPress and it was very difficult because the prior platform was intentionally designed to discourage sites from leaving it. This upgrade we are in the process of now will be on the same publishing platform and mostly cosmetic. I do not expect any data loss or downtime. I hope I didn’t just jinx it…

    • #24
  25. Lilly B Coolidge
    Lilly B
    @LillyB

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Better search — for sure (although it’s a very complex technical problem). And I think we have made our opinion on an ignore button very clear. I also dispute your characterization of a “ground swell” for it. There appears to be a few people who bring it up repeatedly. We remain unconvinced.

    As to the search function, I find that it works well when I am using my computer. I have saved myself from posting wrong information or duplicating topics by doing a quick search first.

    • #25
  26. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    You’re paying for the community, but also for access to an audience, for some editing services (if you’re post is promoted),

    If they edit typos into the post it’s not a benefit. Nor is it a benefit (or ethical) when they edit their own words into a post or change the title, and thus change the writer’s intent or meaning. All of these have happened to me recently which is why I now mark most of my posts as Members only. If editors want to suggest changes then fine, it’s up to the member to reject or accept the proposed changes though. Anything less is unprofessional.

    • #26
  27. She Reagan
    She
    @She

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    It not the most requested feature, but we do get a ton of complaints about comments full of previous comments because they are hard to read, difficult to edit,  and too often crash browsers when a user replies to a busy thread. 

    So it sounds as if this is an incremental upgrade which exists largely to impose nested comments on a membership which doesn’t actually want them.

    Perhaps another approach would be to see if those complaints can be addressed within the existing system, rather than by throwing it out and giving us a solution that very few people seem to actually want.  That is unless you actually have, contra what you say in the podcast, decided to impose nested comments, regardless, or irregardless as the case may be, of what anyone says to you here.

    I think this comment by @marcin is deserving of consideration.  (It’s on my recap post):

    I agree wholeheartedly with the editors that the “reply” button on the comment pane is picking up far too many previous replies. Beyond two, it’s impossible to see who is speaking. I’ve been wondering if a limit could be built into that feature so that it is possible to pick up only two previous comments. In other words, the reply feature could never capture more than two previous comments. I know that the software automatically deletes extra word and line spaces. I wonder if it could be set up to simply delete any more than two replies per comment.

    Again, I wouldn’t mind a conversation in which someone who understands the member concerns about nested comments explains their benefit. (“Easier to read” isn’t much of a benefit, if it devalues the conversation in the way that many people commenting seem to think it will; the proper solution there would be to tweak the existing system so that IT is easier to read,) 

    If someone can show us how nesting comments will actually lead to improved conversation and more interactivity here, then you might make a few sales.  Shoving nested comments down our throats, and changing the way we interact with each other in ways most of us don’t seem to want, just because the current iteration of comments is sometimes ugly on the screen seems like a pretty poor solution, and certainly not one that has grown out of member requests, no matter how many times you try to force the issue, and no matter how many focus groups you entertain.

    It appears that you, Jon, Bethany, and perhaps Max see nested comments to a solution to “ugliness” on the screen.  We see them as fundamentally changing the way we have conversations, in ways that we don’t like.  And it seems to me that we ought to be able to have a conversation about that.  Perhaps you can convince us that nested comments might be best in the long run.  Or perhaps we could convince you that our concerns are valid.

    That is how conversations are supposed to work, after all.

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    That’s not the point of switching and the PIT will survive nested comments (and nuclear war). 

    Not like that.

     

    • #27
  28. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    She (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    It not the most requested feature, but we do get a ton of complaints about comments full of previous comments because they are hard to read, difficult to edit, and too often crash browsers when a user replies to a busy thread.

    So it sounds as if this is an incremental upgrade which exists largely to impose nested comments on a membership which doesn’t actually want them.

    If this was just about nested comments, we could roll that out today. It’s not. There are many more features and concepts that we are not ready to discuss publicly yet. Stay tuned, as we like to say.

    Perhaps another approach would be to see if those complaints can be addressed within the existing system, rather than by throwing it out and giving us a solution that very few people seem to actually want. That is unless you actually have, contra what you say in the podcast, decided to impose nested comments, regardless, or irregardless as the case may be, of what anyone says to you here.

    And perhaps another approach would to give it a try for a period of time and actually road test it rather than a blanket rejection based on how a lot of people think they feel about nested comments on this site. 

    I think this comment by @ marcin is deserving of consideration. (It’s on my recap post):

    I agree wholeheartedly with the editors that the “reply” button on the comment pane is picking up far too many previous replies. Beyond two, it’s impossible to see who is speaking. I’ve been wondering if a limit could be built into that feature so that it is possible to pick up only two previous comments. In other words, the reply feature could never capture more than two previous comments. I know that the software automatically deletes extra word and line spaces. I wonder if it could be set up to simply delete any more than two replies per comment.

    The problem with this idea (which we have experimented with) is that after 3 or 4 pages into a thread, it gets even harder to follow a conversation. And that’s the reason we are considering this or something similar: far more than we receive complaints about nested comments, we get a ton more about comment threads that become impossible to follow after a few pages. That’s what we’re trying to address. Nested comments are not perfect but they do make it easier to follow conversations that devolve into multiple tangents. 

    Again, I wouldn’t mind a conversation in which someone who understands the member concerns about nested comments explains their benefit. (“Easier to read” isn’t much of a benefit, if it devalues the conversation in the way that many people commenting seem to think it will; the proper solution there would be to tweak the existing system so that IT is easier to read,)

    If someone can show us how nesting comments will actually lead to improved conversation and more interactivity here, then you might make a few sales. Shoving nested comments down our throats, and changing the way we interact with each other in ways most of us don’t seem to want, just because the current iteration of comments is sometimes ugly on the screen seems like a pretty poor solution, and certainly not one that has grown out of member requests, no matter how many times you try to force the issue, and no matter how many focus groups you entertain.

    It appears that you, Jon, Bethany, and perhaps Max see nested comments to a solution to “ugliness” on the screen. We see them as fundamentally changing the way we have conversations, in ways that we don’t like. And it seems to me that we ought to be able to have a conversation about that. Perhaps you can convince us that nested comments might be best in the long run. Or perhaps we could convince you that our concerns are valid.

    It’s not a concern about aesthetics, it’s a concern about readability and keeping comment threads coherent.  

    That is how conversations are supposed to work, after all.

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    That’s not the point of switching and the PIT will survive nested comments (and nuclear war).

    Not like that.

    It was a joke…

     

    • #28
  29. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    You’re paying for the community, but also for access to an audience, for some editing services (if you’re post is promoted),

    If they edit typos into the post it’s not a benefit. Nor is it a benefit (or ethical) when they edit their own words into a post or change the title, and thus change the writer’s intent or meaning. All of these have happened to me recently which is why I now mark most of my posts as Members only. If editors want to suggest changes then fine, it’s up to the member to reject or accept the proposed changes though. Anything less is unprofessional.

    Well, I certainly hope this was not a regular occurrence. We obviously do not want to insert typos into your posts and change the meaning. If something like this occurs, you are welcome to PM either the editor or even me. If you do, it will get corrected instantly.  

    I think a suggested edits feature is an interesting idea. 

    • #29
  30. Jim Chase Member
    Jim Chase
    @JimChase

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Jim Chase (View Comment):

    I’ll speak up and say that I’m probably more concerned about the unintended consequences of proposed site infrastructure changes than I am some of the proposed changes themselves (although I, like many, find nested comments to inhibit good conversation rather than enabling it).

    For example, previous structural changes over the last decade have had significant impact to site content (posts) – lost posts, lost information (likes, etc.) on posts and comments, not to mention forced archival and horrendous post-change format rendering of post and comments. Like the infamous, if not notorious after-effects of the transition to Ricochet 2.0, it took a while for the seas to settle.

    Is that the scale and impact we can expect with the next upgrade? Is this a major overhaul of the site, or a series of incremental updates (again, keeping an open mind, if change makes the site easier to maintain, so long as the experience isn’t degraded)?

    As for the rest, this bit about “writer-centric” … I’m unclear what that means, given that everything that’s not “podcast” is “writer-centric”. Unless you mean this as an aim to recruit more “Contributors” and swing the pendulum back toward making the Main Feed more of the drive-by publications (where the authors don’t mix with the commenters, a problem we had in the early days).

    Are there specific goals or objectives in mind here that can be shared?

    Fair points about prior site upgrades. That said, the worst upgrade was a migration from our previous platform (I will not speak its name) to WordPress and it was very difficult because the prior platform was intentionally designed to discourage sites from leaving it. This upgrade we are in the process of now will be on the same publishing platform and mostly cosmetic. I do not expect any data loss or downtime. I hope I didn’t just jinx it…

    That’s right, I do remember the platform migration – for some reason I blended that with 2.0 in memory.  Maybe I’ve just been here too long.  Thanks Yeti.

    • #30