Inri137

Best followup comment.

I feel like either you're doing a bad job of answering my question or, more likely, I'm doing a bad job of asking it, so I'm really sorry. I guess the crux of what I'm asking is: How is what you've described different than reddit mods curating content on subreddits?

On reddit, moderators choose what content is allowed on their subreddit. Users choose which subreddits to follow.

On bookshlf, experts choose what content is allowed on their shelfs. Users choose which shelfs to follow.

The difference is that on Bookshlf, ___________.

---

EDIT They answered my question below, but I can't reply as the topic has been locked.

It sounds like, from their answer, a more fair comparison would be that Bookshlf is like Instagram, except you can post more than just images, and your content has to be narrow in scope to a specific subject of expertise.

Actually, it sounds mostly like reddit, but you can only follow userpages, not subreddits.

What is the process for selecting experts? I'm reminded of Scholarpedia, which was supposed to be like Wikipedia with curating by invited experts. It's quality was markedly worse than Wikipedia from the get-go. It turned out that an army of interested professionals working in their spare time can produce and edit 1000x more content than a handful of Nobel Laureates who put in a few hours a year...

Edit: looking into your platform, it seems a lot like reddit, with shelfs being analogous to subreddits. Except you pick the mods. And you don't host any OC. And there's some content pulled off reddit. I guess my original comparison was more spot-on than I realized, bookshlf seems to be to reddit what Scholarpedia was to Wikipedia.

I mean, pandas is getting exponentially better every single year. Mathematica has gotten marginally better in the same time period. Python is probably not kicking mathematica's ass in terms of capability, but I know that even in my industry (quant on wall street, where $3000 is a rounding error), python/pandas users outnumber Mathematica users probably 1000:1.

It says so much that your response is "the allegations were never substantiated" instead of making an affirmative, refutable claim. This is straight-up canary logic. :P

Can you make an affirmative claim for us? Do you publish a transparency report?