Veritula – Meta
On the search page, there should be a button to clear the query input.
Feature idea: a page that shows you a random idea of yours that has pending criticisms and then helps you address them all.
#420·Dennis HackethalOP revised over 1 year agoNow that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, those are the ones he can rationally hold. And another tab for problematic ideas, ie ideas he has submitted that he cannot rationally hold.
Then people could occasionally check the second tab for ideas they think they can rationally hold but actually can’t. And then they can work on addressing criticisms. A kind of ‘mental housekeeping’ to ensure they never accidentally hold on to problematic ideas.
#2601·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoWould be nice highlighting strings matching the query in search results.
Done as of f2531a2.
Would be nice highlighting strings matching the query in search results.
#2597·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoAutomatically generated ideas are polluting the search page.
As of 2d3d38f, system-generated ideas are excluded from search results. They can be included again by checking a new checkmark in the form.
Automatically generated ideas are polluting the search page.
#2572·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoBug: tooltips sometimes don’t disappear. They should disappear when the user stops hovering over the element that triggered the tooltip.
Fixed as of f7833c6.
Bug: tooltips sometimes don’t disappear. They should disappear when the user stops hovering over the element that triggered the tooltip.
#2160·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 months agoPeople could wrongly think they have epistemological relevance. For example, they might adopt an idea that has pending criticism just because it got positive reactions.
In a way, reactions might have epistemological relevance.
If an idea has pending criticisms, it can still have parts worth saving in a revision. Reactions based on paragraphs (#2458) could point out those parts.
#2160·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 months agoPeople could wrongly think they have epistemological relevance. For example, they might adopt an idea that has pending criticism just because it got positive reactions.
The red “Criticized” label is far more prominent than reactions would be.
#2547·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoFeature idea: selecting some text, then hitting ‘Comment’, automatically pastes a quote of the selected text into the textarea, Telegram style, with the proper Markdown formatting.
Done as of 7061786.
Feature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see.
Feature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see.
Feature idea: selecting some text, then hitting ‘Comment’, automatically pastes a quote of the selected text into the textarea, Telegram style, with the proper Markdown formatting.
Feature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see.
#2522·Benjamin Davies revised 5 months agoYes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands, but maybe it belongs somewhere higher up the chain.
Superseded by #2524.
I’m not sure yet, but I’m playing with the idea that the criticism can’t have any pending counter-criticisms by some deadline.
I’m not sure yet, but I’m playing with the idea that the criticism can’t have any pending counter-criticisms by some deadline. Each counter-criticism could reset the deadline to give everyone ample time to respond.
Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands.
Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands, but maybe it belongs somewhere higher up the chain.
Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands.
#2515·Dennis HackethalOP revised 5 months agoSorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying, wouldn’t they?
Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
Sorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying.
Sorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying, wouldn’t they?
#2504·Dennis HackethalOP revised 5 months agoI would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.
Sorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying.
#2472·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoBut then bad actors could always submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just before the deadline to avoid paying.
Idea: when you create a bounty, you set the amount you’re willing to pay per criticism and a ceiling for the total you’re willing to spend (no. of crits * amount per crit).
Your card is authorized for twice the ceiling. In addition, there’s a button to report abuse. If you’re a good citizen, you’ll be charged the ceiling, at most. But if you’re found to submit arbitrary criticisms to avoid paying, the bounty stops early and your card is charged the full authorization.
#2504·Dennis HackethalOP revised 5 months agoI would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.
If you submit a criticism, you won’t want to wait indefinitely to get paid just because others are keeping the discussion going in a different branch.