Actually @Trewkat brought up my biggest issue with the current system - scrolling.
The reason I asked about the classifications, @metamynx is because I had hoped with the “right” classifications I could avoid scrolling (I.e I know how all community channels are at the top, the guilds, then projects, then social, etc). I know it’s not the intent with your system, but I wanted to give you this feedback.
Re: calendars, it’s true it’s crowded, but when I first joined the DAO the global calendar was an easy way to get myself engaged. TBH after I integrated with my google calendar I don’t find it hard to use. Sesh list works exactly as I’d expect. It’s not a huge pain for me yet.
I think this has a lot of potential, but it seems over complicated. I think there needs to be a better balance between machine/bot readable and human aesthetic/readable/mnemonic. I like the basic idea of conventions, but there are certainly better codes that could be used. I think the biggest thing for me is that adding the “_ba02” and the like on the end of channels makes them LESS readable.
I would propose something simpler. Use the upper 2 char code for each section, and that’s the main look up. After that, you have conventions for “standard channels” such as “_cal”, or “_ann” or “_start”. Channels that are specific to the guild could have their own tag with the code and whatever they want (ex: [AV_rocks]).
Let’s use the AV Guild as an example
AudioVisual Guild [AV]
start-here [AV_start]
general [AV_gen]
announcements [AV_ann]
governance [AV_gov]
podcast-incubator [AV_pod]
rocks [AV_rocks]
…
This allows you to search for all things AV by using “AV_” or all general channels with “_gen”. If I just want the top AV channel I can search for “[AV]”
This also makes it easier to remember, and to my eyes “start-here [AV_start]” looks better than “start-here_av_01”. And when I search for all things “AV_”, the name of the channel is next to it which makes it easy to see what it is.
If we recognize that there should be another standard channel, we can add that to the “standard channels list”.
I think this has great potential, but need some finessing. Thanks for tackling this!
Should there be? There’s no services to pay for. It’s all restricted to the Discord. It’s just renaming, channels, for the most part.
What kind of financial implications do you think should be included?
This consideration has already been made when I was working in Figma. It’s also been suggested by others in the above comments, and I’ve also mentioned it in a couple of my initial comments.
The L2s (AAJ, Angyts, Bpetes, Bo, etc) I’ve been working with also pointed this out, but generally agreed that from a scalability perspective (which is the main issue the system addresses, at this point - not the readability factor) it would be better to have a more machine-readable system.
If individual guilds really wanted it, there’s nothing stopping them from wanting additional characters at the end of their alphanumeric code (which would be part of the additional individual guild discussion and voting). For most people in Discord, channels with long names already, won’t be seeing it anyway.
I definitely understand where you’re coming from. But limiting it to a standardized alphanumeric code, instead of a string that the person would have to individually remember, may make a search query more streamlined (imo, obvs). Also, my original proposal was to make it an prefix (as you suggested - and as it is reflected in parts of my Figma draft) and not a suffix, but that idea was shot down by AAJ for readability reasons. Not only that, but opting to go with a mnemonic code instead of a machine-readable code effectively nullifies the need for it in the first place. Why not just type in the name of the actual channel instead of having to remember an abbreviated version of it? (yes, I do recognize the irony). At least with my proposal, a person has the option of going either way.
Speaking as someone who has plenty of software development experience, I don’t see why there is a need to have _av01 on the end of a channel when something as straightforward as [av_gen] works just as well, and keeps it human readable. The discord community is here to serve people, not bots. To me, this makes is less user-friendly.
Also, having _av01 doesn’t make it any more accessable for a bot either. You still need to know where you want to post something. One guild could have 01 as their start-here and the other could have 02 as their start-here so the numbers on the end are aribturatriy and have no meaning. Tags like [av_gen] serve both purposes.
If you do insist on prioritizing machine readable over human readable, at least put the code at the end like “start-here [av_01]”. Having it attached as “start-here_av01”, at least in my view, makes it less user friendly.
I’m going to have to vote no on this because I think that it makes things worse.
I don’t care for it as it is more confusing than before. You’d have to have this classification thing on hand to get what the arbitrary codes meant for starters. Second, why not have it alphabetically sorted first between Guilds and Projects, (either the projects need to be above the guilds or vice versa, right now there are several projects both above and below.) And once you’ve sorted Guilds and Projects, list alphabetically from there. It shouldn’t have to be overly complicated.
The reference for codes would be right in the Discord list, as indicated in my first example.
Alphabetical could work - I mean, that is partially what this code system is trying to apply, aside from the rather arbitrary (you say it’s alphabetical to a degree, already, but guilds and projects are mixed in… there is a certain level of alphabetization half-way through, then there isn’t any). There’s no reason why we can’t have both - perhaps the standardization of the first 4 channels, then alphabetical for the rest.
I’m really just trying to inject some level of first-glance new-user intuition into it. I did say in my proposal that individual guilds can vote on the order in which they like their chanels - suggesting it doesn’t have to be the order that I suggested. The perspective of a new user VS all y’all that have been around longer than 1 month seems to be vastly different - biased.
I think people are confused as to how flexible the suggestion of this system is. I’m not saying that everything is 100% set in stone. Like anything - any system must adapt to changing needs in order to stay relevant. I suggest a number of times throughout the proposal that decisions still need to be made to iron-out the details. A proposal doesn’t outline 100% of every single detail - it is an outline of what may come.
I shall note to everyone that if it doesn’t work out: it’s easy enough to change it back; it should just be a few hours of work – theoretically, in less time than it would take to do the re-namings in the first place.
Or if it sort-of works, it’s “easy” to collaboratively - of course - evolve the idea over time (as necessary) so that it does work.
Perhaps I should add an additional implementation step of a DAO-wide survey, after some time (say, 2 weeks?) to see how it’s been working for everyone… or it may be time for a discord project channel by that point.
I’m a newbie, technically, maybe not quite, and I admire your ability, you’re really good！But I have some different opinions.Please forgive me.I’ve been at Bankless for 1 month, maybe I’m dumb and based on interest, I probably don’t pay much attention to other channels.Although I’m lost here, at least now I can see two paths.Maybe my comprehension is not good and I don’t last the last modified organization.If I can’t see the new found path, then I’m better off going the original way.
Although our discord needs some reorganizing, I think this is more confusing. Alphabetizing Guilds and Alphabetizing projects would help a lot. And if we could add colors to headers for those of us with ADHD, we could find what we’re looking for faster.
I love colour-coding everything, whenever possible. Or, breaking out of endlessness with visual discontinuity, somehow. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is possible in Discord right now?
Voted no because I agree with the comments that it will still be confusing for new members. But I love the ideas here and think with some revisions this proposal could really help our DAO! I recommend checking in with some talent scouts (I’m the writers guild talent scout, nice to meet you!) because we work with new members every single day. The @Talent Scout tag will summon us!
People who disagree with this proposal are not biased, nor do they prefer ‘eternal chaos & unending confusion’. From the comments you can see a desire to improve the organisation of the Discord for everyone’s benefit, but it seems that the overly complex approach taken in your proposal isn’t considered fit for purpose.
I support consistency in channel naming, intuitive sorting ( like groups together and alphabetical ), and descriptive labelling.
I don’t support machine-readable tags appended to channel names, systems that need an explainer session to understand, or polls that include subjective response options.
Thank you for your effort, but I’d love to see some more engagement with the feedback other than defensiveness.
“Defensiveness”? Where are you reading that? Perhaps you’re projecting? I’ve been nothing but open and receptive to all suggestions. The only places where I may get “defensive” is in places where I’ve received support by the Ops and Dev L2s, who love the idea - I’m defending them, not myself. Whether this goes through or not doesn’t much matter to me, either way. I have no obligation to do this. I’m not getting any money for this. I’m already stretched wayyyy too thin between life/work/school.
And, as mentioned in a previous comment - the “eternal chaos & unending confusion” was a joke (which I asked the Ops working meeting people about, when the poll was still fresh, and they said, “it’s okay” - that it is funny) - which follows the light-hearted humour that dots my entire proposal. I can’t change the poll options 24 hours after I’ve made them - I’ve already tried.
Not only that, but isn’t it natural be defensive of a thesis? One must defend against the rigors of criticisms to work out the kinks. I know I’ve refined the idea after debating the idea, here. Perhaps you could try reading things in a more neutral tone? I don’t think it’s been nearly dramatic here as you’ve made it out to be?
I simply posted a comment in response to your assertion that “The perspective of a new user VS all y’all that have been around longer than 1 month seems to be vastly different - biased.”
I apologise if it came across as dramatic, it’s certainly not my intention to inflame.
Well, isn’t it true that the perspective of a new user - to both Discord, and Bankless - would have a vastly different perspective than that of a member that has been around for months? An experienced user that has spent the time, energy, work to navigate the discord/dao, and has become accustomed to how it’s organized?
Perhaps this proposal does complicate things in some ways, it’s true - there’s always going to be inherent flaws in a system that doesn’t enable it to work at its most optimal level for everybody, but the idea is that it should work for at least most people. As a relatively new user (and certainly, a new one when I came up with this), I felt I could help.
In any case, as I’ve said before - if the system ends up not working, it’s easy enough to change it back. And if it sort-of does, then we can adjust it as necessary.
To be honest I find this more confusing than before. I don’t see any benefit to having a bunch of letters and numbers attached to the channel names + having to learn the coding system now. In my opinion the role select does a fairly good job at making things less cluttered. It reminds me of a corporate style coding system and like I said I don’t see the benefit as it now becomes unreadable on top of being cluttered. Also strongly agree with @Trewkat here. And afaik channels already have machine readable IDs. Edit: Also I feel your choice options are a little biased.