The late Cohost also lacked like, reply, and follower counters; it was generally regarded positively. It did have an unread notifications counter though, so you knew you went viral when that read 99+.
I like the rationale you have behind trying to be anti-addictive with the design. I wish more places around the net had that sort of mentality. Though I am curious, why remove timestamps?
I always sort of hated social networks. Even the ones I eventually participated in, such as Reddit or HN (although I tend to see those more as forums).
I navigated a bit on textlog, and I found it strangely compelling. I will give it ia shot.
Yes, your client is trying to connect using IPv6 and failing. This is odd however because we had this problem and then we’ve configured it properly and it was working. This must be some upstream issue from our hosting provider.
Edit: I’ve opened a ticket and waiting for their answer. Thanks for the report!
I disagree with removing timestamps. It's extremely frustrating to read some technical post somewhere only to finally see that it was written in 2008.
The very first thing I read now on that site when looking for a good example of this was "Which Linux distribution do you like, and why". You know, it REALLY matters if that discussion is from 1995 or 2025.
Nowadays I tend to close articles if they don't have a year listed. Without the context of knowing if it's from last century, it's often less informative than not reading it at all. It could still be relevant, but the context is very important.
To add insult to injury, some unhelpful people write month and day, but not year.
Generally the correct default, I think. And sometimes the correct non-option too.
I personally prefer to have them in many social media things (it's a hint for "this is popular enough that they won't even notice my contribution" vs "likely ~nobody else has seen this, maybe I should spread it"), and I think I manage to avoid the addictive parts pretty well... but it does still affect behavior (e.g. above, do I boost it or no?) and sometimes that's a net negative for the ecosystem.
(unintended but fittingly: ^ above is just barely under their 500 char limit. though this addition is not. I generally don't like small char limits, but to each their own)
I've had textlog open in a tab for a few weeks now. Was iffy as I've never really used anything like Twitter before. I finally made an account as I really like this change. I already embarrassingly posted my bio as a note.
I'm on the fence about timestamps but I don't think it's inherently bad, and could be good. It depends on the goals of the platform. I'm actually overwhelmed by how both freeing and extremely weird it is not to see any numbers. But I will say that I think it's great to be able to respond to a thread with zero stigma or worry if you are "necroing" it or not. I think I'm learning more toward no timestamps.
Timestamp is not mentioned in the linked text. Timestamp is useful, I wouldn’t remove timestamp if possible. I don’t know why it made into the title though…
I agree with removing the obvious dopamine-related signals, but removing timestamps is a mistake, as they are vital for technical and news-based posts. They're a valuable relevance signal in many cases, not 'noise'. At least make them available on-hover or as a user option. Yes, you could try with a 'limit to historical posts' option, but that's going to be difficult as some topics move a lot faster than others, e.g. current affairs versus web standards.
This sort of unilateral action-before-asking is imo not a great signal to send out if you're trying to grow a platform. If you're going to run experiments, let people know first.
Could I also suggest making the comment text size larger (it's smaller than CSS 'small'), changing the typeface to be proportional, and most importantly making sure the contrast between foreground and background elements is WCAG-compliant? Most of the text is less than 3:1. Currently the site may be quite challenging to access for a visitor with visual impairments, and I think many such users would enjoy a site such as this if it were more accessible. Thanks.
Re: timestamps, feel free to vote[0] on the matter!
Re: design, a lot of people seem to like it the defaults. If you make an account you can customize theme, color scheme, font face/size, and more. If we’re missing a more contrasty theme it should be easy to add.
Your default should be WCAG-compliant. That's the whole point! A visually-impaired user shouldn't have to customise your site for it to be readable. Your site will be failing some accessibility metrics until you do that, and that will affect your search ranking etc. Plus it's generally a good audience-friendly thing to do.
I was aware of the poll, but putting that up after the fact and it being only about the timestamp is a bad signal, too. It says that you're willing to pull the rug on whole sets of features at a whim and just because _you_ think it's the right thing to do. If you're trying to foster a community, I'd argue that this is not the best approach. These sorts of things could be reversible experiments - such as a banner at the top of the page saying "We're trying out removing timestamps and counters like likes! Click here to give us feedback or to switch back to the old UI." And then you keep track of everyone who switched back or re-enabled the feature you're fiddling with. Or you let people switch for a while and give their opinion after the test period.
I see the retries. Sorry about that. I don’t know what going on, I’ve sent you an email with an invitation magic link from my personal gmail. It can be used within a week. Hope that gets delivered!
What's the overall philosophy/design of this community visa vie the github repo? Are users meant to start their own communities? or connect their community to larger communities somehow? Or or something else?
23 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 17.1 ms ] threadI always sort of hated social networks. Even the ones I eventually participated in, such as Reddit or HN (although I tend to see those more as forums).
I navigated a bit on textlog, and I found it strangely compelling. I will give it ia shot.
>Secure Connection Failed
>An error occurred during a connection to textlog.cc. SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length.
Edit: I’ve opened a ticket and waiting for their answer. Thanks for the report!
(¹in this case)
The very first thing I read now on that site when looking for a good example of this was "Which Linux distribution do you like, and why". You know, it REALLY matters if that discussion is from 1995 or 2025.
Nowadays I tend to close articles if they don't have a year listed. Without the context of knowing if it's from last century, it's often less informative than not reading it at all. It could still be relevant, but the context is very important.
To add insult to injury, some unhelpful people write month and day, but not year.
I personally prefer to have them in many social media things (it's a hint for "this is popular enough that they won't even notice my contribution" vs "likely ~nobody else has seen this, maybe I should spread it"), and I think I manage to avoid the addictive parts pretty well... but it does still affect behavior (e.g. above, do I boost it or no?) and sometimes that's a net negative for the ecosystem.
(unintended but fittingly: ^ above is just barely under their 500 char limit. though this addition is not. I generally don't like small char limits, but to each their own)
I'm on the fence about timestamps but I don't think it's inherently bad, and could be good. It depends on the goals of the platform. I'm actually overwhelmed by how both freeing and extremely weird it is not to see any numbers. But I will say that I think it's great to be able to respond to a thread with zero stigma or worry if you are "necroing" it or not. I think I'm learning more toward no timestamps.
This sort of unilateral action-before-asking is imo not a great signal to send out if you're trying to grow a platform. If you're going to run experiments, let people know first.
Could I also suggest making the comment text size larger (it's smaller than CSS 'small'), changing the typeface to be proportional, and most importantly making sure the contrast between foreground and background elements is WCAG-compliant? Most of the text is less than 3:1. Currently the site may be quite challenging to access for a visitor with visual impairments, and I think many such users would enjoy a site such as this if it were more accessible. Thanks.
Re: design, a lot of people seem to like it the defaults. If you make an account you can customize theme, color scheme, font face/size, and more. If we’re missing a more contrasty theme it should be easy to add.
[0]: https://textlog.cc/post/2326
I was aware of the poll, but putting that up after the fact and it being only about the timestamp is a bad signal, too. It says that you're willing to pull the rug on whole sets of features at a whim and just because _you_ think it's the right thing to do. If you're trying to foster a community, I'd argue that this is not the best approach. These sorts of things could be reversible experiments - such as a banner at the top of the page saying "We're trying out removing timestamps and counters like likes! Click here to give us feedback or to switch back to the old UI." And then you keep track of everyone who switched back or re-enabled the feature you're fiddling with. Or you let people switch for a while and give their opinion after the test period.
There is a discussion on it but cannot figure out if it's new or not.
https://textlog.cc/post/1933