Metahaby - evil
Metahabs are general-purpose hubs for which there is no meaning to subscribe (if you try to filter Habr at all), because at best there will be two or three in one place in your area of interest for you.
Metahabs are pure evil, because theoretically interesting posts for me do not reach me, because the authors put them only in metahabs, or occupy a place among three hubs (in which you can put a post) with one or two metahabs, and on thematic, but slightly less relevant hubs space is not enough.
I wrote about this issue a year ago , wrote in support, but to no avail. I hope to draw this post attention to the problem. (To be fair, for the year at least the stunningly senseless hub Translations was deleted, but this is not enough.)
')
For example, let’s analyze meta-tabs from the “Programming” section:
In addition to metahababs, here are the hubs, which should be clarified and removed from them posts that do not meet the specified topic:
In order not to get up two times, I will mention the problem of “purely nested hubs”, for example
The problem of purely embedded hubs is that if the author forgets (or cannot, due to the three hub restrictions on the post) put a post in a hub subset or hub superset, the subscribers of this hub fly past the post.
This problem cannot be solved only by splitting, merging and renaming hubs. You can mark up purely nested hubs programmatically and do something special if the author wants to put a post in one of them, for example:
at the same time, the restriction in the “three hubs per post” should not apply in these cases.
Metahabs are pure evil, because theoretically interesting posts for me do not reach me, because the authors put them only in metahabs, or occupy a place among three hubs (in which you can put a post) with one or two metahabs, and on thematic, but slightly less relevant hubs space is not enough.
I wrote about this issue a year ago , wrote in support, but to no avail. I hope to draw this post attention to the problem. (To be fair, for the year at least the stunningly senseless hub Translations was deleted, but this is not enough.)
')
For example, let’s analyze meta-tabs from the “Programming” section:
- Programming
- Web development
- Game Development - here they put both about mobile and severe C ++, news of engines and indy-developers. Can be divided into Mobile game development, Game design and anything else.
- Algorithms - divided into omputer Science and Algorithms of graphics. In addition to these two topics, now in Algorithms they often put posts on some completely random topics, exaggerated “Algorithm of finding the nearest free toilet in the city”. Nuacho, the algorithm is the same.
- Development. Instead, you can add something in the spirit of Methodology or DevOps. Plus there is already a Project Management.
- Mobile development
- High performance. Can be divided into the development of high-load websites and low-level optimization.
- Abnormal programming
- Debugging
- Industrial Programming
- Perfect code
- Codebred, besides, there is no difference with Abnormal programming
In addition to metahababs, here are the hubs, which should be clarified and removed from them posts that do not meet the specified topic:
- Open source. All would be nothing if they did not put here posts on the topic of release or update absolutely any open source software. According to the meaning, taking into account the real interests of the readers (as I feel), it is necessary to rename the Open source to “Licensing and the Free Software Movement”, and Copyright - to “Copyright for Works of Art”. Naming is important because it prevents the hubs from being misused.
- Client → Browser Optimization
- Parallel programming
- Functional Programming → Paradigm of Functional Programming
- Design and refactoring
- Data compression
- System Programming
In order not to get up two times, I will mention the problem of “purely nested hubs”, for example
- TDD Testing
- Git, Mercurial ⊂ Version Control Systems
- Creative Commons ⊂ Licensing and Free Software Movement ∪ Copyright to works of art
- Agile ⊂ Methodologies
- etc.
The problem of purely embedded hubs is that if the author forgets (or cannot, due to the three hub restrictions on the post) put a post in a hub subset or hub superset, the subscribers of this hub fly past the post.
This problem cannot be solved only by splitting, merging and renaming hubs. You can mark up purely nested hubs programmatically and do something special if the author wants to put a post in one of them, for example:
- If the author wants to add a post nadhab, suggest him to add a post and in one or more
- If the author wants to add a post subhab, oblige him to add a post to one or several nadhabs
at the same time, the restriction in the “three hubs per post” should not apply in these cases.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/239895/
All Articles