I want reviews on Habr

From the moment of my registration on Habré I had a feeling of some understatement in articles. Those. here is the author, here is his article = opinion ... but something is missing. Something is missing ... After a while I realized that there was a lack of a critical look. In general, it can be found in the comments. But they have a significant minus - the alternative opinion is lost in the general mass, it turns out to be fragmented and brings more “risks” to its author rather than benefit. I propose to consider this problem in more detail.



So, comments as a means of expressing an alternative opinion do not work. Causes:

1. An article reader treats comments as a by-product of the article itself. So far I have not met such a person who, in addition to reading the article, is studying all the comments. Rather, in 80% of cases, they are simply ignored. And in 20% they go to read hype.
2. Comments are not structured. This is a tape of scattered opinions. Only commentators themselves keep the thread in their heads. The rest to delve into the thread about 100a messages is simply physically difficult.
3. In the comments, often there is a transition to the individual. And instead of reading the essence, you are grabbing a significant share of the negative. It makes you think not with your head but with your “heart”. Get on one side.
4. Comments are written, including by “professional” commentators. Those. people who do not write articles. For different reasons. But most importantly, they do not seek to express their opinions consistently. Preferring style of comments.
   
   
5. Expressing your opinion in the comments, you are much more likely to get a minus in karma. Why? See point 3. Given the remaining points, it makes no sense to write something in the comments outside the general trend.
6. You are limited in expressing an alternative opinion with negative karma.

But there is a way: you write an article in which you refer to a peer-reviewed one. So many do. And here it is - happiness! But no, and here's why:

1. Communication articles unidirectional. Those. From criticism to the point. This is at least inconvenient.
2. There is no clear, understandable mechanism for obtaining existing alternative opinions = reviews of existing, previously written articles.

Why are reviews so needed? Because very often articles have populist themes that exploit common misconceptions. Such articles are gaining a rating, which makes them seemingly weighty for inexperienced readers. They are trusted a priori. IMHO this is a frank and pure evil. And Habr indulges him.



Separately, I want to say that the review mechanism was invented for a very long time. And for good reason. This is just the tool that allows you to structured, consistent and valuable to express your alternative view. This is an artifact of scientific culture.



But reviews allow us to convey not only a critical look. It is perfectly normal to receive a positive review from a distinguished author. What makes your work valuable both for you personally and for others.



My suggestion:

• Add a review mechanism to Habr;
• Make a review in the form of a full-fledged article;
• When completing a review article, point to the peer-reviewed article;
• If the article has reviews, display them as other article artifacts (rating, bookmarks, etc.);
• Implement convenient review navigation.

I am sure that now many have a question - why didn’t you write to the administration? I wrote. And he received two completely opposite answers. In the first, they promised me to consider the proposal, in the second they frankly said that there are more important matters. By the way, this is a separate insult to Habr. But not about that now.



It seems to me frankly that I was not the only one who would like to have such a mechanism on Habré. And I invite you to vote for him.



UPDATE 09/09/2019 Administration comment: habr.com/en/post/468623/#comment_20671469

UPDATE 09/30/2019 Review of the article: habr.com/en/post/469429

UPDATE 10/03/2019

Following an exchange of comments with a representative of the Habr administration, pragmatik , who stated at the end that he expresses his private opinion, although his profile says “Habr technical support specialist” ... I was going to write a separate article “Who does Habr work for?”. Moreover - wrote. But I will not publish. The reasons are as follows:

• I did everything I could to get my idea across;
• I was convinced that this would not change anything and did not see the point of the fight against “windmills”;
• I mistakenly understood the meaning and essence of Habr;
• I am sure that they will accuse me of wanting PR or nagging, because I will create a new article on the same topic.

I'll just leave it here

The point is that mediocre / mercantile users will be able to draw attention to their texts, making them out as reviews of articles with good readability.

Source



Author? Is it because of you that Habr cannot introduce reviews?

Are you seriously trying to argue the correctness of your position with abstracts from promotional material?

Source



This is about this statement:

On Habré, thinking people share unique experiences

Source



Draw your own conclusions.