Today (March 27, 2015) OpiWiki went online for the first time, starting the early beta phase with no promotion yet. What are your first impressions of the site?

added by ps
5 opinions, 5 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
3 votes
Apr 9, 2015

I like it very much. Very clean and well organized website. Seems like you're striving to make the discussions a bit more intellectual than what we have on other sites. Not an easy goal, but I wish you luck. I hope to see more and more new users coming to OpiWiki. I'll keep my eye on it and I'll try to contribute as I'm available. Good luck!

subscribe
100
2 votes
Apr 23, 2015

The "You don't have to respect other people's opinions" might be controversial (aka good) for philosophy purposes but dunno, i guess it's there in all the other websites for a reason.

For a first day impression, i feel like this webpage will end up unused and forgotten unless some things change. For starters, the whole "comment on anything, and we mean ANYTHING" can only go two ways. One, this place becomes the new reddit/wikipedia, with tons of "good" info and remains "the next big thing" for a while. Two, most if not all but a few pages end up empty or vandalized, with harmful opinions, wrong facts or simply trolling rampages.

Then there's also the fact that the interface might feel interactive, but it really, really is not. The "category" tool feels too much like Wikipedia's, and the Front Page feels too much like Reddit's. Wikipedia has needed to take several actions to make sure their categories don't fall into stagnation, like WikiProjects, integration with several communities (art, science and philosophy-wise) and the whole "featured article" schema. Reddit is famous enough to make such a front page sustainable, but other, less famous reddit-like websites haven't had much success.

Also, following the previous point, most options and uses of the page are hidden in plain view, so to speak. The default font usage and color combination feel dull and old, the editing is confusing (though understandable, and let me be clear on something here, i'm speaking for others, not for myself, because i can see where you guys in charge are coming from. If the moderators or admins feel like i'm criticizing too much and not doing enough, well, feel free to give me some power) and the ranking's not really optimized. Most if not all pages feel crowded with words and not enough "shiny things" to attract people's attention, though i expect that to change in the future.

Ultimately, keep in mind that this is only a first day impression. I literally stumbled upon this website hours ago, and have been this comment since. Sorry if i'm too harsh, it's just that i know that you guys can just ignore my words if you want, so i'm trying to give some actual feedback, which is more than most people do.

Anyways, it's a great concept! The execution might be lackluster, but it's only one month old!* Best of lucks with this new endeavor.

*or so you say

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 24, 2015

Thanks for the feedback.

There are not many users yet, but this is due to a simple fact: even a penny hasn't been spent on the promotion yet. The site is currently in its early beta phase and some issues need to be addressed or tested before I decide we're ready for many users. Don't worry, I devoted 3 years of my life to make OW not to give up on it eventually. It will be big one day. Just give us some time.

Among many small improvements, there are currently two big things I'm working on – a "forum system" for items and precisely categories. The forum system should be ready in the next 3 days. A significant improvement regarding categories and categories interface should be ready next week.

Now layout/fonts – here I think the exact opposite. Considering the character of the site, the layout is near perfect; elegant, clean, unique, "encyclopedic" - but not dull, and combines what's good about old school and modern. I don't think a brilliant font shouldn't be used anymore because it's old. Furthermore, in the world of "modern" Internet, where every website uses same modern fonts, looks the same, and the only thing that varies is a logo, using old good fonts may seem like something new. That's of course a matter of taste and I uderstand you would prefer something else, but certainly there won't be any major changes of the layout/graphics (not to be confused with the interface improvements) soon, as I consider it one of the biggest OW's advantages, and the feedback has been very positive so far.

OpiWiki is not about flashy things – it's about substantive content and about bringing something new to the Internet. Of course there must be a balance and I try to keep the site beautiful and substantive at the same time. The start is the key – if we start wrong, it may be hard to bring great people to the site. As you expect, OW will be evolving and there will be many adjustments regarding the way the topics are displayed, the categories, categories interface, etc.

I noted your impressions and don't worry – I appreciate such feedback.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Oct 14, 2015

Hi guys, I recently discovered this website and decided to give it a try as an active user today. I must say I see a definitive potential in it, but I also see it needs a lot of hard work - from all of us - so it can become what it could become.

Here are my first impressions!

Visually, it looks very effective, easy to read and to access, but also somewhat empty. It clearly looks like a beta phase website and from what I understand it is still in a beta phase, so it's alright for now. Personally, I have no issues with how it looks, but I know some viewers might not find it appealing to the eyes at first, which could lead some people to give up on it on day 1. Of course, it doesn't need to turn into a 3D CGI website, heh, but there are a few things which I believe could be a deterrent for many could-be contributors, most importantly what is shown on the main page ( I'll talk about it on the main page discussion ) and the categories on the right - there are many categories which are missing, and it "looks" like the website simply doesn't "want" them, if you know what I mean. For example, there are a few sports being listed, but so many other sports could be there as well. I know it's just because no one has created them for the website yet, but the first time visitor is not aware of this.

As for the current user base, it's relatively small, but I also like the overall quality of the users. Most people know how to type and take the time to read others, which is great. A lot of people will bring different opinions, and I haven't seen discussions turning into arguments so far, which is even better. But we all know, if the website becomes famous, that there will be rotten apples at some point. You guys have better be ready for this. Not only will you need a bunch of moderators, you will also need bots who will be able to deal with bigger, systematic issues such as mass spam or 4chan raids!

I believe this website needs some sort of mentorship program like Wikipedia has with its newbies. Or, perhaps, a discussion forum similar to topic discussions could be made. Creating topics was somewhat scary to me even with the explanations given. It would be good to have "featured articles" to be given as examples of what to do. Screenshots of existing, almost perfectly made topics, for example.

Financially, I'm not quite sure how you could make the website truly profitable. This website pretty much has the potential to be a free survey database. There are many companies who conduct surveys and sell the collected data to other companies so they can understand the market. Your website has the potential of doing the same thing, but since it is public and for all to see, you give away the data to the companies without gaining any money.

Of course, ads could always be a solution, but you will have to be careful with the ads you choose since this website is about opinions and that it must remain as neutral as possible. If one day there is a doubt as to whether or not your website is being paid to spread certain ideas, opinions, etc. it would probably die instantly.

I don't think you should give up on this website any time soon, but I also believe you will need help from programmers and investors to take it to the level you want to take it. In the meantime, I'll probably be active around here from now on. I wish you the best of luck!

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Oct 16, 2015

Thanks for the feedback and much bigger thanks for the contributions. You're adding very good photos for the items and I can tell you definitely feel the spirit of the site. Great to have you.

I'm glad you like the layout. As I mentioned in the other reply, I find it near perfrect for the site. There's one issue however – it's not quite ready for 1920x+ resolutions. In those cases, the site may look a bit empty, as you said. This is not an easy issue to resolve, as I personally wholeheartedly dislike the modern fashion in design, and for me it's not just about fitting the content to the screen. Doubtlessly though, this is an issue to be addressed in the future.

It's also nice to see you appreciate the quality of discussions. At the moment, our highest priority is to build a user base of people who enjoy intelligent discussion. In principle, OpiWiki is obviously for anybody, nevertheless I believe it's the strategy to start with. At the same time, our community is very diverse so far, we have people from all continents and of a various age.

No, we won't give up, and yes, be active :). Thanks!

subscribe
0
0 votes
May 13, 2015

I just found this site today and it feels great so far. Customizing categories - great option, I have never seen something like this anywhere else. Maybe some categories are too broad tho? I'd like to see some of them (for example "Health") narrowed a little. Anyway, it seems like a great idea and site. I'll dig deeper into it and let you know if i have any other suggestions.

subscribe
0
opinion
0 votes
Jul 19, 2015

Just a quick first impression -- how is this an 'encyclopedia', when most of the questions can only capture an ephemoral snapshot of the users. For instance, a question like "are you a vegan" can only answered in a moment in time, since it is entirely possible for people to change their status. There is a danger to assume a poll can represent a truth.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Jul 27, 2015

Pretty sure you've just given us the definition of "opinion". If it held out throughout time, it'd be a belief, i think. However, when speaking of clinically sane people (aka by far, most of the world), generally an opinion has the same, if not more, emotional value as a fact. You don't seek to improve your facts and make them as "right" as possible, because they are already "right" enough. After all, they are facts, are they not?

When speaking about opinions, you can debate and argue and defend yours with such ferocity and raw intellect that the verbal clash might discover new* facts. Or you can go the usual route and go all "critizing of wikipedia". Too many definitions, not nearly enough sources and the belief that common sense will always point towards facts. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. You're using a map instead of the territory. And that's not a threat when speaking about opinions. There is no "map of opinions of a person"**. At most, there's a map of sorts of opinions of a big group of people (sociology, statistics, polls, etc), but even then, they're black or white, made to resemble facts as much as possible.

In opinions, you can be wrong. You can be so clearly wrong as to be openly mocked about them (disregarding the ethics of it, which i must admit, are a heavy topic), and said mocking can lead you to revise, update and create better opinions. Because they're not striving towards truth, towards fact-dom, but towards utility and intelligence. And that's why, i believe, an encyclopaedia of opinions is not just an interesting social experiment, but the next big example for the rest of the internet to follow. After all, whenever one hears "opinions on the internet", the usual thought is more around "youtube comments" or "tumblr SJW'ing" or "4chan free rage-speech", than, say, educated guesses and actual efforts at saying things that are close to the target and can be accepted by others.

*or long forgotten by history, or taboo, or restricted to a different discipline than the one you're filtering your thoughts through at the moment, or a thing you can't quite remember.
**Well, there's stereotypes, but that's more focused in conduct, as in, the things you do, than conscience, as in, the things you think.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Jul 28, 2015

First of all, this is not "an encyclopedia", but "the encyclopedia of opinions". As Teku has stated in his reply, an encyclopedia is usually related to facts, at least that's what we usually associate an encyclopedia with. Magnus Carlsen, as far as I know, have no idea on how to read the notes, yet he's been called "the Mozart of chess". It's because, although those two gentelmen's profession is different, people see some similarities in terms of their talent or character. The same with OpiWiki – although facts are only a base of inference of the whole, we share, at least that's what we aspire to, some attributes with encyclopedias, in terms of the format, prestige, elegance, quality, or character.

To add to Teku's reply:

"There is a danger to assume a poll can represent a truth." – it's like saying that a poll titled "Did you eat a carrot yesterday?" won't represent a truth. It will represent a truth. The truth is that among people who visited the site and voted, since a certain date, these are the results, and the reasoning is up to you. Now, you can use the settings button to filter the votes. We don't claim it's "an absolute truth", it's impossible to have it in such cases, and we don't take the responsibility of people thinking so.

Teku; after coming up with the idea of the site, the term (TEoO) was the first thing that came to my mind. I felt "The Encyclopedia of" is very strong and had no uncerainty here. I gave a bit of thought to the "Opinion" part, as "opinion" is not what describes our matter perfectly. Such word doesn't exist though. My other ideas were:

The Encyclopedia of Experience
The Encyclopedia of Thoughts
The Encyclopedia of Choice
The Encyclopedia of Arguments

But the "Opinion", in my opinion, is by far the best choice. Not only it's the closest to describe our matter, but it's ceraintly the most appealing and lets formulate the "OpiWiki", which, having agreed on the TEoO, is a near-perfect name.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Jul 27, 2015

However you're right in that the word "encyclopedia" sort of has "fact" somewhere among the definition. Maybe a better term is needed? Maybe not, because it conveys the feel the owner wants to make the users feel? I dunno.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: