Ask HN: Web app feedback (intelligent chatting system)

I like it too. I might even use it, if there are enough high quality participants.<p>I read the whole Theory page and it struck me as blah blah blah blah blah, <i>except</i> for these two points:<p>1. Conversations on topics you want, going on right now; 2. Karma keeps the quality high.<p>To me those are the core, and they're a pretty cool core. If I were you I'd strip everything else out. And emphasize those two things on the main page.<p>Personally, I'd drop the recommendation system, or at least drop talking about it. There's so much tripe surrounding that kind of thing that, when I read it, I noticed that your credibility instantly dropped in my mind. I'd rather you put your effort into making it really easy for me to browse/search what's going on so that I can make my <i>own</i> choices. Recommendations won't make me want to use your site if there isn't a lot of value there already. And if you do develop a kick-ass way of recommending related stuff, don't talk to me about it, just show me a few suggestions unobtrusively and I'll eventually catch on.<p>I also like the slogan "chat rooms that really work".<p>Edit: on reflection, I seem to notice a pattern which, if it really is there, I suggest you avoid like the plague. It is the idea of the system being "intelligent". It comes out in details like your choice of the word "Theory" and the title of this post, as well as in the emphasis on the recommendation system and its overtones of AI. To me this is a big turn-off. I don't <i>want</i> a chatting system, and I certainly don't want an "intelligent" chatting system. What I want is intelligent conversation. It seems to me you've got the kernel of something that could actually offer me that, which could be genuinely valuable. Focus on that and try to get the system <i>out</i> of the way.<p>Edit 2: while it's fresh in my memory... I noticed another thought going through my mind which was, "I wonder who is on here that I know from somewhere else", like HN for example. I wonder if people would be willing to link their user names to their names from other communities. I would, if I knew that lots of other people from HN were talking about stuff on your site.

I rather like it. No idea if it will take off or anything, but it's really nice.<p>Your approach to user signup is superb.<p>There should be an explicit "tag this conversation" link. Otherwise nobody will even know that they can do that.<p>Can I post a link to an ongoing conversation in some other place, like Twitter or, say, here?<p>The "Theory" page is... a bit too theoretical. I mean, everyone here will get it, but not the mass market. I doubt that many AOL Chat users understand what "asynchronous" means. Don't delete the existing page... just make a slightly simpler, shorter Theory page and relegate the existing text to a second-level "Theory of the Theory" page.<p>Other than that... it's hard to know what to critique. Many of the essential design features of such a site will only become obvious when it's flooded with traffic or overwhelmed by griefers. That's hard to test. Maybe you should start a really <i>provocative</i> conversation and then post a Digg link to it. ;)

Hey guys! I've been building this app in my spare time. It's based on a simple idea I had over a year ago - somehow after all this time there still has not been a great web 2.0 chatting site to come into existence, so I've been steadily working at it whenever I've had the chance.<p>You can read my whole spiel at <a href="http://www.circleofconversation.com/#tab=theory" rel="nofollow">http://www.circleofconversation.com/#tab=theory</a>, but basically the idea behind the app is that people like talking to strangers online(like we're doing right now) as long as there is a sufficiently precise topical specifier(like we have here). The app attempts to accomplish this by letting users give their chat rooms tags which fade out over time and then disappear if they aren't refreshed/spoken aloud. They're constantly replaced by now-accurate tags, so ideally every conversation has a very precise set of topical specifiers at all times, making them worth joining.<p>I'd love to get some feedback on the general concept as well as execution specifics, though the UI is rough and the feature set is basic. Thanks, HN.<p>P.S. I'm intentionally posting this in the evening to try to avoid any significant traffic, and to give myself time to hot-fox any glaring bugs, since I do client work during the day. I bet this sounds familiar to at least half of HN's readers.

Great concept. I would start by putting everything into the dashboard page. Perhaps borrow from the look and feel of the Wikipedia main page, in terms of fitting everything into four different boxes. The theory page isn't necessary; I know it's only for HN readers, but once the site is good enough the concept will speak for itself (it already does for the most part.) Choose a snappier name. This has the potential to get really big. (The YouTube of conversations?)

Good idea and nice start.<p>Suggestion: Add up-down voting for tags/topics, then rank the tags/topics on a redesigned front page that looks more like HN or Reddit. You could make the site behave like a HN for which all link submissions were self-referring (like this one), and all commenting/conversation happened in real-time.

The feedback here is valuable, but leaves out one point which you might not be aware of: an "intelligent chat system" will enjoy about as much widespread success as a poetry board. (Which is not to say that you should stop, or that this isn't valuable.)

I really like the idea. A few things I noticed:<p>Tagging a conversation with a pronoun like "I" will probably means it sticks around forever.<p>Can you join multiple conversations at once? What happens if two conversations share a tag? Are they merged?<p>To stop conversations being tagged incorrectly, you could perhaps ask users that join via that tag if it was accurate or not.<p>It'd be awesome if you could automate tagging of conversations. I'm not sure how many people will be motivated to maintain metadata about their conversations (the only way to find that out is to get more users though).

Are conversations archived somewhere? Here's my reasoning:<p>1. Some conversation and/or the site gets dugg<p>2. Thousands of incoming users waltz in with good karma<p>3. Everything goes to hell<p>Wikipedia, Everything2 et al. have some resilience because the audience is more than just who's using the site at the moment. Dunno if you've thought about that in great detail or not. Also,<p>* Friend system. Encourages people to band together against the trolls<p>* Bookmarking

"Under construction" is a phrase I have an immediate, strongly negative reaction to. I'm probably not alone. How about "Coming soon"?

Really needs a quick way to get your friends in the room. Should actually be very visible and very easy to get them in that room chatting with you.<p>Perhaps an obviously marked URL to copy/paste or something like that?

Typo on the theory page:<p>"Coupled with an analysis of your actual chatting history, this data lets Circle makes helpful suggestions as to what conversations you're likely to enjoy."<p>"makes" --&#62; "make"

Really cool!! I put all my comments in the chat system. We really need to link this with hacker news so we can discuss things.

Not to put a downer on things, but this is not going to be useful for me at all. Why should I want to chat with complete strangers about random topics. And why online?