You see this on subreddits such as /r/IdiotsInCars and /r/Earthporn.
The former allows the user to upload videos while the latter is for images. This helps the user have a more pleasant experience because it reduces/eliminates
- popup fatigue (worldstar, local news sites, etc.), - back button hijacking (CNN, local news sites, etc.), and - walled gardens (NYT, Newyorker, WSJ, etc.).
I think reddit could encourage their users to attribute (some if not most would) by adding an optional source (sauce) link field to post forms. Might be nice to have a way the OP/mod could approve a crowd-sourced source edit.
It got to the point where I don't bother unfolding the video unless it's embedded.
Why did they only charge $10 a year for this gem of a tool?
It boggles my mind.
These sites should just give up, provide the URL to the raw video file, and let users play them back in whatever way works for them.
Ah! I was telling myself the same thing last month (how is it possible in 2023 that things which seemed solved _years_ ago, actually still do not work?), when I was trying to watch some recording of a sport event. The site proposed several players (generally 3).
3 different computers (Linux_A, Windows_A, Windows_B).
Linux_A with browser_A: only player_A worked OK.
Windows_A with browser_B: player_A some days worked, some days didn't; player_B and player_C worked OK.
Windows_B with browser_B: player_A gave audio but no video; player_B stuttered; player_C didn't work ==> no success with this OS+browser combination
Windows_B with browser_C: only player_C worked OK;
We can note that among those combinations, we had two systems with the same OS and the same browser, and yet the behaviour was completely different.
> These sites should just give up, provide the URL to the raw video file, and let users play them back in whatever way works for them.
In general, I agree I'd also rather _not_ have web players.
However, in the specific case I am talking about, the videos were more or less 6 hours long, so I'd rather not download the whole high resolution stuff (and likely see the process fail), but be able to skip parts and/or watch/download a few parts in lower resolution and other ones in high resolution.Reddit is a low-effort replacement for traditional forums, solving several problems of traditional forums:
1. One account for all communities. Nobody wants to make 100 accounts, whereas it's really easy to just click "join" and start participating in a new subreddit.
2. Consistent, uniform, familiar interface with Markdown for text. The old PHPBB etc. forums all had different layouts and slightly incompatible markup. And Discourse is just weird.
3. Easy to stay "casually engaged" with the community because of the customized per-user front page and the ability to group communities together with multireddits. Whereas with individual forums, you need to get email notifications or manually check several different sites to stay connected, which is much higher-effort. Also, it's easy to passively follow a low-population subreddit in the hope that it gains more users, while you're much less likely to make a new account on a forum that seems quiet. This helps keep the appearance of a high active population in niche communities, because people are less likely to forget about the community and can easily drop in and out.
4. Easy discovery of new communities and being a name brand makes it easy to attract users: people just assume a subreddit for X exists. The alternative is that they'd have to hunt around for a forum that will probably be low-population anyway.
5. Upvoting and downvoting helps the community moderate spam and bad actors. It also creates incentives to post content, in the hope that you get upvotes. Yes, there are problems with the system, but I think "the market has spoken" to some extent on this: the individual enjoyment of voting outweighs the systemic incentive problems associated with it.
It's easy to say that Reddit is "just" the two things that you mentioned, but that to me is reductionist to the point where it obfuscates why people prefer Reddit for discussion compared to other options.
Note that Discord has many of the same advantages over its alternatives, and I think similar points are relevant for both platforms.
THIS. i have seen so many people put Discord forward the last couple weeks a reddit replacement, and have wondered what they were thinking. Its a totally different format. The two formats can compliment each other but can't replace each other. its like saying sms is replacement for email because they are both text based messaging services.
And how many are actually run by the city government?
I never understood this point. Reddit provides zero discoverability.
Newsblur has this. It would probably be fine with more people. Occasionally there's something interesting, but usually there's no much of anything.
It's a cluttered user experience, though fairly configurable once you've started to find your way around. It's definitely a kitchen sink style tool, however.
EDIT: It's bottom left, sorry. I browse the web in a mirror.
But the main problem I've run into for link discovery is the voting system. If you actually want a distributed system counting votes becomes expensive fast.
I don't think replacing Reddit is just about throwing a toolbox at the problem
I don't think they necessarily have to be the same thing, but the voting for links to bring quality ones to the top, and the choosing of which site to be looking at today is very much like having a TV channel.
Lots of people find themselves watching films that are being aired on specific channels, despite the fact that they had access to that film for years on a streaming service and didn't watch it. I think of the link discovery aspect of Reddit as similar to an aggregated DJ or TV channel.
To some extent, this is what Artifact.news is doing though it's mostly mainstream news right now.
They have a neat feature that aggregates comments across different articles covering the same topic.
I think this might be pretty close to what you're looking for. It's an RSS feed reader with a platform for discussions.
Love this.
1. Link Discovery 2. Discussion
There are a few options for Link Discovery. I have a bunch of fora and sites hooked up to an rss reader (the old reader, since google shutdown reader) which does pretty well (although I'd like it to do a bit more). The link discovery thing is like the equivalent of having channels on your TV. You can stream any program (website) of a huge number but a channel gives you a reason to think about a specific one right now. I've been looking at https://pinboard.in/popular/, but it doesn't support rss which is a shame.
There's really nothing to compare with reddit for discussion of the links though (and that includes scoring and karma and responses etc). And a big part of that is because of network effects. Reddit is where the discussion is happening, because it's where the people are because it's where the discussion is happening. What's really awkward here is that some of the alternatives have ended up as seeding around communities that were too toxic for mainstream reddit. That toxicity will make it harder for them to grow.
I do find myself wondering what a system that connected my rss feed reader with global comments about webpages might look like.