What is wrong with the division of "Habrahabra" or Hello, "Giktayms"

Let's talk about how and why we all ended up here.


The first picture is on request GT in google. Perhaps this can be seen as a symbolic wish of luck.

Title

Well, taste, of course, but to call geek resources using the word “Geek” in the title is moveton. It’s like “Dunno” was: “Magazine for the Clever”, “Magazine for the Foolish”. Habrakat now needs to be renamed to the geocate, well, in general, so many good words disappear. On Habré - Habropost, and here - gikopost? Therefore, I guess I will continue using the abbreviation GT - so even cooler, vrrum-vrrum, that's all. And the picture, again, has.

Drafts

What changed? Well, in general, the main thing has not changed: drafts still can not be deleted. Taking into account that the posts published on Habré are also now duplicated in the drafts in GT, this has become not just necessary, but downright necessary - moreover in the form of a group manager à la the tracker.
')

Double posts

In principle, old posts can be raised from drafts on GT - the omnivorous nature of the new resource allows it - and no one, except the search engines, will have any problems with this, because posts are still old. But at the same time doubles will inevitably go again: at least from companies. Owners of corporate blogs are now in a state of confusion, which I don’t remember for three years - since the main one was “killed” by entering into hub divisions, then corporate acres then, instead of the millionth audience, Habr still had miserable thousands of his own subscribers. Now everything looks even worse.

In general, you can put before the fact and prohibit duplicate posts - forcing you to choose between the good old Habrom, on which the account was bought - and the good new GT, where it is unclear what audience (more precisely, it is clear that at first it is ten times smaller than ). Either come to terms with who the companies will start figuring with two hands, or, as if nothing happened, offtopic on Habré. True, self-regulation can help here - users who have become brutal from duplicate posts in tapes will begin to merge such corporate catamarans, forcing companies to decide on their policies - the Solomon's solution, and Themed Media seems to have nothing to do with it. But sediment, of course, will remain. In the future, of course, corporate blogs should be sold to each resource separately, and TM, of course, will not tell us, but the sales decline is quite possible until GT gains strength - due to those companies that decide that the resource is “clean for programmers »They have nothing to do (sobs of the TM's chief accountant will of course drown out the joyful laughter of those who believed that they had nothing to do there before).

Posting

It is obvious that a certain number of authors will feel the need to write on both resources at times. The authors, perhaps, suffered from separation the most. As one of, I want to say that I would like to see a single form of writing topics for both resources, with the choice of the place of publication at the hub level - i.e. like before.

I understand that this contradicts the concept of “complete sharing of resources that live their lives”, but in this case I can say that TM has another concept - the deep integration of its projects. So it would be possible to make a separate universal posting page, from where messages would be sent to all resources available to the author for publications - Habr, GT, Freelansim, Toaster, Huntim - with the choice of the format a la the existing “post / transfer”.

Navigation

deniskin has already promised that a link to GT from Habr and vice versa will soon appear in the sidebar. In this vein, a single posting looks more logical. In general, I don’t see much to write about navigation; redesign did not happen. To whom it is interesting - the old post “What's wrong with the Habrahabr redesign” is still in place, as well as a significant part of the problems described in it. But in general, thinking about navigation leads to more global arguments about the essence of what happened.

Conceptual

The key problem of Habr and GT in this case, it seems to me, is to make the two resources complement each other, rather than try to eat. Intraspecific competition is terrible and inconvenient. The origins of the problem are obvious: despite the long-term work of the Habr administration to streamline the hubs, they still did not always work as they wanted. Now they tried to solve the problem with the radical method: “No legs - no cartoons”, but the author’s dilemmas (and Habr did take off as a community of writers, not readers) only made it harder. In fact, it can be said, Habr was torn apart in a lively way, no matter how hard they tried to perform the operation with surgical precision.

Here you need to understand that the separation is actually stimulated by the gentle, but steadfast gaze of Roskomnadzor, turned to Habr. There were no internal reasons for doing two resources at once. The desire to make your editorial board, which arose, as far as I know, even before the official’s factor was included in the game, it would be more logical to implement inside Habr.

It is obvious that for a significant part of the audience and even the authors of the “Habr” GT looks preferable - for example, they moved all the hubs about gadgets that once had a great influence on the old Habr, moved to GT. There also moved the popular science part of Habr. Those. in general, Habrom - like the Old World - the name remains, and the main audience, like most authors, should switch to GT. Those. Now GT will become Habr. The old name, of course, is a pity - like the old logo. But I have a question: how does the idea of ​​taking Habr away from political risks are tied away with the idea of ​​making a new big resource, with the editorial board and investments, which now will be literally let down because of the risks, because everything that was offtopic on Habré has become a top here?

Different sites - one user

Is there any wise way out of this? I see one option: it was necessary to share sites - but not users. Active users of Habr are not only writers of posts, but also commentators are much more important than readers, since the reader in any case goes for the content. And it was precisely the writers who walked with a knife: the idea that it is possible to separate “super-hygiene” from just a geek seems to me irreconcilable. The same space was a wild offtopic on Habré, if you think about it - but I’m showered with tomatoes for such an assertion, because this topic attracted a huge number of super artists - coders, engineers, admins, etc. - as a kind of geek-romance. Pokodil, looked pictures from Mars - and again code. In the end, probably, every harshest programmer himself has a couple of bookmarks for the soul (hussars, be silent!) - with sites not related at all to the working theme. Now GT will be added to these bookmarks. And they went through their interests too, having shoved their posts and comments on different sites.

It seems to me that it would be wiser to take the user’s essence into a separate project in the TM portfolio: single tape, single posting, single rating, posts and comments of the user in one place - but different domains, maybe even different legal entities. Everything is as before in one place - just now the tape is not composed of one site, but two (and you can even load the “Toaster” - then there will be three).

This opens up quite interesting opportunities for scaling. Let's say TM wants to raise Autokadabru. Or start writing about movies. You will not need to make a new site, with a new authorization, and force or persuasion to drag users there. It will be possible to simply create a new thematic portal, in which all users with TM-regoy will be able to write, and to read - just by adding one button to their ribbon. Setting the mechanism as it should, you could buy entire content projects, embedding them into the TM ecosystem with one elegant movement ... sorry, inspired by music.

On the other hand, it perfectly diversifies risks: in case of a possible blocking of one of the projects, it would just disappear from the tapes, it would fall off as a kind of trailer - just posts from the GT of the banned site would stop falling into the Habr tape. But before this hypothetical sanction caught up with GT this site - the reform would be far less dramatic. Not in the style of "non-commissioned widow carved herself."

Competitors

A wise exit can also come from the side. By scale and, hmm, ambiguity, Habr's separation reminds me of a suicide attempt at free-lance.ru . As we remember, then a bunch of resources instantly surfaced, wishing to occupy its niche. Only "Freelance" took off, but we know why - figuratively speaking, for the same reasons that Dmitry Medvedev won the presidential election in the first round. I think that now everyone who wants to make "their own Habrahabr with preference and charming women" will get into trouble - because the stress associated with sharing resources is an opportune moment to promise a safe haven to other users, of course. Does it harm Habra? It is unlikely if TM will actively respond to the movement of users. But you have to move. There was no sadness, but Roskomnadzor made him think.

Background: "Habrahabr" represents Geektimes