Search Ideas
Tags on discussions would solve the same problem with less. A discussion could carry several tags, and nothing would need its own pages, moderators or membership. Subreddits come with all of that.
Idea: communities.
Discussions vary widely, but people gather around topics, like nutrition or software engineering. Communities would group discussions by topic, as subreddits group posts, so people can find the discussions on topics they care about.
Could live at /v/community-name.
There could be a community around nutrition, another for software engineering, a meta community for Veritula, etc.
Ben could have his own community to build his Wikipedia competitor.
“Group or maybe even replace discussions” leaves open two different designs. Grouping adds a level above discussions. Replacing removes them and has to move what hangs off them, like chronicles, the timeline, embedding, and the MCP endpoint’s discussion tools. Until it picks one, it can’t be built.
Veritula doesn’t have enough discussions yet to split into communities. There are few, and most have only a handful of people in them, so most communities would sit empty, and empty ones make the site look abandoned.
#4652 doesn’t say what people can’t do now that a community would let them do. A discussion already gathers ideas on one topic, so Ben could start one for his Wikipedia competitor today. Without the problem communities would solve, there’s no way to judge the design.
@tyler-mills I’ll leave it to you to see if this chart type would give V anything the tree doesn’t. Archiving this idea for now.
Tyler suggested (#3904) we use the chart type from Kialo:
Could be a useful visualization in addition to trees.
Each top-level idea would be the center node, with its replies in segments around it. They’d be colored like the visual tree’s discs: the idea blue, criticisms red, and comments gray, solid if rationally adoptable and hollow if not.
Unlike Kialo, though, segments with the same parent would all be the same size: they’d split their parent’s arc equally between them.
#6063 doesn’t say what the chart would show that the visual tree doesn’t. Since #3904, the tree has come to do what Tyler asked for there: every reply is a node, criticisms are red, and edges to pending criticisms light up, so you can see at a glance which threads are still open. Without a problem the tree leaves unsolved, there’s no way to tell whether the chart is worth building or how it should look.
Gray for both non-pending criticisms and neutral comments makes them look alike, though a criticism that’s been addressed is still part of the argument and a comment never was. The visual tree’s discs keep them apart: criticisms are red and comments gray, solid if rationally adoptable and hollow if not.
Tyler suggested (#3904) we use the chart type from Kialo:
Could be a useful visualization in addition to trees.
Each top-level idea would be the center node. Then red segments around it for pending criticisms. Gray for non-pending criticisms and neutral comments.
Unlike Kialo, though, segments with the same parent would all be the same size: they’d split their parent’s arc equally between them.
Segments can’t all be the same size on their circle and still sit within their parent’s arc. Say an idea has two criticisms, which split the first circle in half. If one gets a single reply and the other gets five, each of the six segments on the second circle takes a sixth of it, so the five replies span five sixths of the circle, well past their parent’s half. The chart would then no longer show what replies to what.
Each reply answers one idea, so addressing an idea’s pending criticisms directly is always the quickest way to rehabilitate it: one new criticism for each. Going further down the tree never takes fewer, so there’s no shorter path to show. What helps is going through them one at a time, which the guide now does (#2628).
Done, live now. Every idea with pending criticisms has “Rehabilitate” under it, which opens that idea’s guide, and “Guide” in the navbar goes through all of yours, starting with the ideas closest to being adoptable. Either way, it’s one pending criticism at a time: you can criticize it, revise the idea, move on, or skip. Moving on is the abandoning from #4089: it sets the idea aside for you alone, and the idea comes back if it gets new criticisms.
Same criticism as #6058: this feature would need to pay its rent somehow.
Maybe one day, when Veritula makes enough to pay for this feature.
Need summaries at top of discussions and for nodes in the discussion tree. Could be AI generated.
Since people can now post on their profiles, there’s arguably no need for something other than ‘discussions’ outside of profiles anymore.
Renaming costs a lot. URLs like /discussions/… would need redirects, and the MCP tools and the code all say ‘discussion’.
Chronicles depend on the word ‘discussion’. They retell discussions, like the one between Newton’s and Einstein’s theories.
The original request has since gone. Benjamin’s articles idea (#2753) and my reply to it (#2878) are both archived.
The word ‘discussion’ sets the right expectation. Veritula is built on the idea that anything you post can be criticized. ‘Entry’, ‘post’, ‘note’, etc suggest a place to put information out unchallenged. Someone who only wants to share information can already do that with a single top-level idea.
https://veritula.com/discussions/veritula-meta/activities
It’s not quite the same but should give you an idea.
It would be nice to have a changelog as i cannot see the commit history (ex. of one of an app i built https://understandtutor.com/changelog)
Idea: AI suggests criticisms to address before you even submit your idea.