Activity feed
#2775·Benjamin Davies, 1 day agoIf Veritula did implement articles, the first thing I’d want is the ability to criticize them; to submit deeply nested counter-criticisms; and to render a label showing how many pending criticisms an article has, calculated based on criticism chains.
I agree, and I think here you have inadvertently pointed at a key difference between discussions and articles. In terms of implementation, articles would be a near clone of discussions, except that the articles themselves can be criticised by users, including all the functionality that articles being criticisable may one day come with, like entire articles going dormant if they don’t answer criticisms within a certain period.
A couple of examples: If I wanted to keep and share information on Karl Popper, it would be a lot more intuitive to produce an article on him in encyclopedia style—where I can present information in a hierarchy, rather than creating a discussion and then making each detail about him a top-level idea, which is more chaotic. The same would be true if I wanted to make articles on CR terms—this doesn’t seem very natural to do in a Veritula discussion, but would be very natural in a series of Veritula articles, one for each term.
It also favours this articles idea that implementing it would be fairly straightforward, due to how much could be carried over from the discussions implementation. It makes it low cost to try.
If I wanted to keep and share information on Karl Popper, it would be a lot more intuitive to produce an article on him in encyclopedia style—where I can present information in a hierarchy, rather than creating a discussion and then making each detail about him a top-level idea, which is more chaotic.
You already don’t have to do divvy it up like that. Nothing is stopping you from creating a discussion called ‘Karl Popper’ and then posting a single, long-form, top-level idea where you present information in a hierarchy.
#2753·Benjamin Davies revised 3 days agoIdea: Veritula Articles
Currently, Veritula is a discussion website. I believe it could one day do what Wikipedia and Grokipedia do, but better.
A step towards that would be enabling users to produce ‘articles’ or something similar.
An ‘Articles’ tab would be distinct from the ‘Discussions’ tab, featuring explanatory documents similar to encyclopedia entries, and perhaps also blogpost-like content.
Articles focus on distilling the good ideas created/discovered in the discussions that occur on Veritula.
Forget the term ‘article’ for a second. It sounds like you want the ability to post ideas without having to associate them with a discussion, is that right?
#2783·Benjamin Davies revised 1 day agoThese are not standalone pages in the sense that a Wikipedia page is a standalone page.
Articles would have the same ‘page’ status as the discussion pages that currently exist. (Forgive my lack of technical vocabulary.)
A possible counter-factual that may or may not be relevant to the goals of Veritula: An article with title metadata ‘Boron’ would presumably be much more search engine-friendly than a top-level ideas for Boron where the metadata title is ‘#[ID]’ and the actual desired title is merely included as the first line of the body text, while it is effectively a subpage of a discussion of another name.
‘page’ status
What is a page status? How did you determine that an idea’s page status is not the same as a Wikipedia article’s?
#2783·Benjamin Davies revised 1 day agoThese are not standalone pages in the sense that a Wikipedia page is a standalone page.
Articles would have the same ‘page’ status as the discussion pages that currently exist. (Forgive my lack of technical vocabulary.)
A possible counter-factual that may or may not be relevant to the goals of Veritula: An article with title metadata ‘Boron’ would presumably be much more search engine-friendly than a top-level ideas for Boron where the metadata title is ‘#[ID]’ and the actual desired title is merely included as the first line of the body text, while it is effectively a subpage of a discussion of another name.
As far as search engines are concerned, every idea page is already a standalone page. Not an SEO expert but I cannot imagine search engines penalize URLs containing an ID.
Done as of a12ffb3, see eg https://veritula.com/discussions/veritula-meta/activities and the new link to ‘Activity’ at the top of each discussion.
A discussion aiming to identify and develop Critical Rationalist terminology
Dennis suggested I create this discussion and tag @dirk-meulenbelt and @darren-wiebe.
Logan Chipkin has also suggested I get in contact with @darren-wiebe in regards to putting together a CR encyclopedia or something of the sort.
I could simply give the footer the same background color as the rest of the page.
I could simply give the footer the same background color as the rest of the page. There’s a discrepancy between light and dark mode anyway. And on horizontal overscroll, the difference in background is painful.
In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black gap underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear.
This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the html element, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.
In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black gap underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear; seems to be a Brave quirk.
This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the html element, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.
#2793·Dennis HackethalOP, about 22 hours agoI could simply give the footer the same background color as the rest of the page.
That wouldn’t remove the gap.
In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear.
This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the html element, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.
In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black gap underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear.
This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the html element, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.
#2791·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 22 hours agoIn Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear.
This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the
htmlelement, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.
I could prevent vertical overscroll.
#2791·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 22 hours agoIn Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear.
This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the
htmlelement, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.
I could simply give the footer the same background color as the rest of the page.
In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear.
In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear.
This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the html element, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.
On iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer.
In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear.
On iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page.
On iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer.
#2700·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 days agoI can still reproduce the issue by clicking on the button to collapse/expand an idea.
Fixed as of 0178828.
#2626·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 days agoChanging the query on the search page moves the cursor to the start of the query input. It should move to the end or, ideally, keep its position.
Done as of 765ba05.
typo
These are not standalone pages in the sense that a Wikipedia page is a standalone page.
Articles would have the same ‘page’ status as the discussion pages that currently exist. (Forgive my lack of technical vocabulary.)
A possible counter-factual that may or may not be relevant to the goals of Veritula: An article with title metadata ‘Boron’ would presumably be much more search engine-friendly than a top-level ideas for Boron where the metadata title is ‘#[ID]’ and the actual desired title is merely included as the fist line of the body text, while it is effectively a subpage of a discussion of another name.
These are not standalone pages in the sense that a Wikipedia page is a standalone page.
Articles would have the same ‘page’ status as the discussion pages that currently exist. (Forgive my lack of technical vocabulary.)
A possible counter-factual that may or may not be relevant to the goals of Veritula: An article with title metadata ‘Boron’ would presumably be much more search engine-friendly than a top-level ideas for Boron where the metadata title is ‘#[ID]’ and the actual desired title is merely included as the first line of the body text, while it is effectively a subpage of a discussion of another name.