Search ideas
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.
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. 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; 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.
Correct, but the gap wouldn’t be noticeable anymore.
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 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.
I could prevent vertical overscroll.
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.
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 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. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer.
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.
I think it is worth noting that I am much more excited to publish standalone articles than to drop top-level ideas into discussion topics.
I am not marking this as a criticism, as my personal desires in this respect may be irrelevant to the goals of Veritula.
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.
See #2777.
While it is true that discussions don’t restrict people from posting long-form content like what is on the ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ discussion, that is not the intuitive function of a discussion thread. I believe the long-form content in that discussion is much more natural to an article format.
See #2777.
While it is true that discussions don’t restrict people from posting long-form content that on the ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ discussion, that is not the intuitive function of a discussion thread. I believe the long-form content in that discussion is much more natural to an article format.
If a goal of Veritula is for it to eventually be widely used, it should cater to at least some of what people are used to. The articles and encyclopedia formats are the most standard way for high-level information to be presented in written form, and internet users expect different kinds of content in articles vs discussions.
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.
Just because something feels unintuitive or unnatural to you doesn’t mean it isn’t the right way for it to be done in the grand scheme of things.
If 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.
I used to think that articles would need to be grouped in some way, but I no longer think so. Articles will often compete, even if they aren’t about the same or even similar topic.
E.g. an article ‘Easy-to-Vary Explanations’ would compete with an article ‘The Simulation Hypothesis’
Users would be able to point out and connect conflicting articles, but that wouldn’t cause them to be connected by topic, but rather by conflict.