[rehaanahmad]

One of the co-creators of this site. A lot of great suggestions I'm reading so far, a lot of them are currently in the works (zooming in/out, infra issues for slow loading times on some papers, google scholar claiming papers).

For some more context, we are a group of 3 students with a background in AI research, and this site was initially built as an internal tool to discuss ai papers at Stanford. We've been dealing with a lot of growing pains/infra issues over the past month that we are in the process of hashing out. From there we would love to make a more concerted effort to share this in areas outside of AI. Happy to hear your thoughts here, or more formally via [e-mail].

I do want to highlight, our site has a team of reviewers/moderators and having folks from different subject areas is critical to making sure the site doesn't end up a cesspool, apply here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/11ve-4cL0axTDcqnHF66zX6greFV....

[musicale]

Moderation is typically the thing that doesn't scale. I am not sure it's a solvable problem (see reddit, stackoverflow, youtube, quora, etc. for negative examples and anti-patterns.) Often sites start out great and then degrade when they become popular.

My main recommendation was going to be organizational: to cooperate and work with arXiv itself, rather than risking a potentially adversarial or competitive relationship.

Now that I think about it however, I am convinced by a peer comment that was basically "leave arxiv the way it is and don't mess it up." So carry on then.