I don’t see how repurposing the spam flag to also include LLM output is going to make things better. People will complain the same for being “unfairly” tagged as spam (of course they will!).
In my opinion it will make things worse. Despite complaints, vibecoding-for-all was clear and it didn’t prevent anyone what wanted to read that content from reading it, while “ai-tooling” plus “spam” are going to be misused and the conclusion will be content harder to filter by people that don’t want to read anything related to LLMs.
I feel like there is a missed opportunity here to make everybody happy. If the reason to not use “vibecoding” was “a tag of shame” that it would push people away, what do the moderators think this new situation is going to accomplish?
It took 5 meta posts to get to this change. I don’t see why we can’t have one meta post every week if things aren’t working for everybody.
To start this off, from an ontological perspective, Lobsters has always been closer to a collection of record store bins versus a library catalog. We have tags which overlap in weird ways, and tend to have fuzzy definitions on overlap. That’s generally been fine, and quite frankly more of a feature than anything else. With that in mind, if the only problem with the “vibecoding” tag was that it cast too wide of a net, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
We are having this discussion because while the “vibecoding” did allow for community members to filter out content that they did not want to see, it also was a catalyst for other community members to act poorly towards each other. That behavior does not foster a healthy, supportive community.
I will also point out that Lobsters, as a community, has evolved from where it started and will continue to do so. I don’t consider these actions to be an end state.
My impression is that the biggest issue was the negative connotations of “vibecoding”, not it being too wide. If the tag was neutral and someone disagreed, it would be easy to resolve in most cases. Obviously, I could be wrong.
Now lobsters won’t accept submission of repos, despite them having a README that can be enough to start an interesting conversation, and LLM generated content will be tagged as spam, again with negative connotations.
I also liked to read some posts that now are off-topic under the “careers” umbrella. People sharing experiences about burnout, and the responses in comments, helped me personally. I’m sad lobsters is not the place for that now.
And most importantly: it is complicated, IMHO. People looking to use lobsters instead of contributing won’t pay attention, and for those that didn’t want to read LLM stuff and yet enjoy lobsters, things are going to be harder.
Anyway, thanks for trying. The work mods do is very appreciated.
I agree, sadly.
I don’t see how repurposing the spam flag to also include LLM output is going to make things better. People will complain the same for being “unfairly” tagged as spam (of course they will!).
In my opinion it will make things worse. Despite complaints, vibecoding-for-all was clear and it didn’t prevent anyone what wanted to read that content from reading it, while “ai-tooling” plus “spam” are going to be misused and the conclusion will be content harder to filter by people that don’t want to read anything related to LLMs.
I feel like there is a missed opportunity here to make everybody happy. If the reason to not use “vibecoding” was “a tag of shame” that it would push people away, what do the moderators think this new situation is going to accomplish?
It took 5 meta posts to get to this change. I don’t see why we can’t have one meta post every week if things aren’t working for everybody.
score 3 · canonical
This is why I’ve advocated for the tag to be called “llms”.
score 1 · canonical
To start this off, from an ontological perspective, Lobsters has always been closer to a collection of record store bins versus a library catalog. We have tags which overlap in weird ways, and tend to have fuzzy definitions on overlap. That’s generally been fine, and quite frankly more of a feature than anything else. With that in mind, if the only problem with the “vibecoding” tag was that it cast too wide of a net, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
We are having this discussion because while the “vibecoding” did allow for community members to filter out content that they did not want to see, it also was a catalyst for other community members to act poorly towards each other. That behavior does not foster a healthy, supportive community.
I will also point out that Lobsters, as a community, has evolved from where it started and will continue to do so. I don’t consider these actions to be an end state.
score 2 · canonical
Thanks for the response.
My impression is that the biggest issue was the negative connotations of “vibecoding”, not it being too wide. If the tag was neutral and someone disagreed, it would be easy to resolve in most cases. Obviously, I could be wrong.
Now lobsters won’t accept submission of repos, despite them having a README that can be enough to start an interesting conversation, and LLM generated content will be tagged as spam, again with negative connotations.
I also liked to read some posts that now are off-topic under the “careers” umbrella. People sharing experiences about burnout, and the responses in comments, helped me personally. I’m sad lobsters is not the place for that now.
And most importantly: it is complicated, IMHO. People looking to use lobsters instead of contributing won’t pay attention, and for those that didn’t want to read LLM stuff and yet enjoy lobsters, things are going to be harder.
Anyway, thanks for trying. The work mods do is very appreciated.
score 1 · canonical