Search Ideas

‘Discussions’ are too narrow a term for a collection of ideas. See #2878.

While ideas should always be ‘discussable’, that doesn’t mean everyone who wants to share an idea always wants to start a discussion. Maybe they just want to put some information out there.

The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.

This is how relating discussions works currently. For instance, if I start a discussion on Bitcoin, I might want to connect it to the existing discussion on Zcash. At present, the only way to achieve this is by adding a link to the Zcash discussion within my new Bitcoin discussion.

I suspect you would agree with me that this approach to how discussions interact isn’t really an issue. I also think it wouldn’t be an issue for independently published ideas, for the same reasons.

Note: This has led me to the idea that links within Veritula could be bidirectional. Each idea could have an option to display all other ideas that refer to it. I will submit this as a top-level idea in this thread.

Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for using Veritula?
I noticed that you’ve started a bunch of discussions but I don’t believe you’ve reached a resolution on any of them.

The purpose of the reaction would be to record a kind of agreement or acknowledgment.
That way, Veritula could show ‘pending’ criticisms to users, say – ‘pending’ in the sense that they haven’t responded to those criticisms. So in addition to revising or counter-criticizing, they get a chance to accept a criticism without it remaining in a ‘pending’ state.

Posting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.

The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.

Posting a sibling on an existing discussion is far easier.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

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.

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.

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.

Right now, to get a good sense of an idea on Veritula, a user often has to study a branching discussion, which can take a lot of work depending on how the discussion played out.

While this is true for most existing discussions, it’s not a fundamental limitation of discussions in general. For example, ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ has several long-form posts without much discussion. It just depends on what kinds of posts people want to submit.

Didn’t you want competing articles on some topic? In which case the same criticism applies to articles as well, unless I’m missing something.

There could be a side pane that stays visible while scrolling content.

Search page is getting slower the more ideas there are in the db.

Autofocus should put the cursor at the end of an input, not the beginning.

I started a discussion earlier, and what I wrote in the “about” section of the discussion was not written well. I would like to revise it. Is this possible? If not, is there an intention to make this possible eventually?

Feature to collapse all criticized ideas of a discussion? Useful for todo lists.

Need email notifications.

If it’s mostly done, what’s missing?

There could be periodic reminders and a review board to make it easier.

This could inadvertently hide dormant but important ideas.

Proposed solution: edit a discussion to hide top-level ideas. That way, discussion owners can hide ideas they no longer deem relevant.

For example, completed tasks in discussions used as issue trackers, like this Meta thread, could be hidden so they don’t pollute the thread.

There could be a button for users to reveal hidden ideas so nothing is lost or hidden dishonestly. And direct links to hidden ideas would continue to work.