WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

463

I think it would improve the discovery of fresh and/or active subs if the random selection was actually sorted... You know, like Steve Jobs once pointed out, true randomness is not always desirable. I suggest:

  • Subs with no activity in the last year should be at the bottom of list of "random subs",
  • Subs that the user never visited (or never commented on) placed at the top of the list

Either one of those two or both would make the random feature much more effective IMO.

I think it would improve the discovery of fresh and/or active subs if the random selection was actually sorted... You know, like Steve Jobs once pointed out, true randomness is not always desirable. I suggest: * Subs with no activity in the last year should be at the bottom of list of "random subs", * Subs that the user never visited (or never commented on) placed at the top of the list Either one of those two or both would make the random feature much more effective IMO.

(post is archived)

[–] 3 pts

If you sort things it's not random anymore, but I get your point.