undefined | Better HN

0 pointshombre_fatal11mo ago0 comments

There is a similar question about message board systems.

Instead of posting a topic in a subforum, what if subforums were turned into tags and you just post your topic globally with those tags. Now you can have a unified UI that shows all topics, and people can filter by tag.

I experimented with this with a /topics page that implemented such a UI. What I found was that it becomes one big soup that lacks the visceral structure that I quickly found to be valuable once it was missing.

There is some value to "Okay, I clicked into the WebDesign subforum and I know the norms here and the people who regularly post here. If I post a topic, I know who is likely to reply. I've learned the kind of topics that people like to discuss here which is a little different than this other microclimate in the RubyOnRails subforum. I know the topics that already exist in this subforum and I have a feel for it because it's separate from the top-level firehose of discussion."

I think something similar happens with modules and grouping like-things into the same file. Microclimates and micronorms emerge that are often useful for wrapping your brain around a subsystem, contributing to it, and extending it. Even if the norms and character change between files and modules, it's useful that there are norms and character when it comes to understanding what the local objective is and how it's trying to solve it.

Like a subforum, you also get to break down the project management side of things into manageable chunks without everything always existing at a top organizational level.

0 comments

efitz11mo ago

I agree, but go farther:

Most things have multiple kinds of interesting properties. And in general, the more complex the thing, the more interesting properties it has. Ofc "interesting" is relative to the user/observer.

The problem with hierarchical taxonomies, and with taxonomies in general, is that they try to categorize things by a single property. Not only that, the selection of the property to classify against, is relevant to the person who made the selection, but it might not be relevant, or at least the most relevant, property for others who need to categorize the same set of things.

Sometimes people discover "new" properties of things, such as when a new tool or technique for examining the things, comes into existence. And new reasons for classifying come into existence all the time. So a hierarchical taxonomy begins to become less relevant, as soon as it is invented.

Sometimes one wants to invent a new thing and needs to integrate it into an existing taxonomy. But they have a new value for the property that the taxonomy uses for classification. Think back to SNMP and MIBs and OIDs. Now the original classifier is a gatekeeper and you're at their mercy to make space for your thing in the taxonomy.

In my experience, the best way to classify things, ESPECIALLY man-made things, is to allow them to be freely tagged with zero or more tags (or if you're a stickler, one or more tags). And don't exert control over the tags, or exert as little control as you can get away with. This allows multiple organic taxonomies to be applied to the same set of things, and adapts well to supporting new use cases or not-previously-considered use cases.

taeric11mo ago

Yeah, I suspect this is one where the general hierarchy does lift quite heavily. Such that it isn't that I would want to lose it, entirely. More that I think it is best seen as a view of the system. Not a defining fact of it.

Is a lot like genres for music and such. In broad strokes, they work really well. If taken as a requirement, though, they start to be too restrictive.

skydhash11mo ago

Tags are great only when hierarchical structures becomes cumbersome. And even then, there's some limit to how much tags you can have before they become useless.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse