• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • FB has public, closed, and secret groups (you have to be invited). Some groups require that posts be approved by admins before being published for the group to see. I don't know if groups can be set so no one can post at all. On business pages you can do that. I think you mean unless you are a FB user, you can't post or join. That is the same as it is here, right?

      They also have "watch parties" (I have no idea about them) but I can see paying a fee to attend and participate in a Cake panel. I don't think paying more should get your comments elevated though, lol.

      Also, I'm not sure I'm inspired by any of these icons, but it's a start:

    • The description of FB features is interesting. What I meant by "can't post" was being a site member here but not part of the panel for the specific discussion. I can see why an admin review of the posts prior to publishing could become useful. Perhaps a little tweak in the Cake panels could enable their creator and also panelists to do exactly that for that specific discussion (receive input from audience and depending on scenario either post it as a question or as comment in the conversation). This would mean many to many, then "published", rather than many to one, to "published" so more posts would get out there, perhaps faster. Interesting is how the panelists would collaborate in approval of what gets posted.

      Looking for icons, I found this site and think the terminology of "Circle", or "Group Discussion" terms might suit..

    • I like the discussion icon with the row of people. I didn't see that one when I was searching!

      One of the icons below that is a person sitting at a computer with someone standing behind them looking over their shoulder, pointing at the screen and telling them what to do. Don't we all HATE when that happens, lol!

      We need something that will fit with the house/hashtag/search/bell icons already in use, too. Thank you, @Dracula, for playing icons with me.

    • That icon says "Coach, coaching, guidance, mentor, supervisor, training icon" lol.. I agree on always preferring freedom over someone watching over my shoulder! Come to think of it, to this day I never had to do such work.. 😊

      I will keep thinking about icons and the panels in general, and now that you mentioned "that will fit with the house/hashtag/search/bell icons already in use" I see your point... Icons and general site aspect are quite important!

    • ‪Sure, if I want to limit panel responses to 288 characters or less. Can you imagine three guests simultaneously responding with multiple tweets because they can’t complete their thought in one tweet? They will be tripping over each other and you will have interactions (1/3) ‬

      ‪worse than Jack’s interview disaster on Twitter last spring. Or you are somehow going to figure out who responds first, when they are finished, who goes next, etc. Also, try allowing audience questions on a Twitter panel and you are back to the Jack signal to noise issue (2/3)‬

      ‪that cratered his interview. I think that it can only help Cake because when people realize that a panel on Twitter is shit, they’ll try better alternatives like Cake. Btw, this message was written as if it was three separate 288 character tweets (3/3)‬

    • I never used twitter although inevitably read it from time to time.. it's just too dumb a way to talk to the world. Who enjoys it and why, anyone's guess is as good as mine. My problem is with allowing social media to shape my interactions with the human world I can't reach physically (which is the majority of it). When we die all there will be left of us will be these bits and fragments of our consciousness, floating so to speak in an ocean of data. So that part does not really concern me. What does concern me is being told and forced to regulate my living life expression by some canonical algorithms designed for profit.

    • Personally I don’t like the panels thing. I think it’s an unnecessary complication.

      But If it works for folks I don’t have a problem with that either - go for it - but I’m not a player.

    • Some people like to respond to a great comment by leaving an emoji 🚀. Other people don’t. In either case, it’s completely voluntary. Some people choose to participate in Sunday Panels, even signing up ahead of time when I post a sign up sheet. Some people choose not to, which again is completely their choice not to participate. The great thing about Sunday Panels is that they increase engagement on Cake significantly on what is traditionally a “slow day” on social media. Consistently, I have seen Sunday panelists start a new conversation or contribute to other conversations after participating in their panel. I’ve also seen a spillover effect where engagement is consistently high on the Monday after a Sunday Panel. So even if you have no use personally for panels, the quality of your experience on Cake is ultimately improved as a result of it. In addition, we’ve been featuring some of the Sunday Panels and, as a result, new visitors to Cake see it—the default view for visitors is the Featured timeline—and they have signed up in part because of them. I guess my view on panels is the same as my view on motorcycle discussions. Not everyone on Cake is into motorcycles, but for those who are not they can just ignore those conversations while enjoying the non-moto conversations with riders.

    • I don't like them either. More specifically, I dislike them when they're misused or misguided. In my opinion they make everyone viewing them, who is unable to comment, feel ousted. Having to ask permission to say something in a public, trivial conversation, that's not carried under a clearly defined criteria of why the actors were selected, imparts such panels a sense of exclusivity club selected based on arbitrary, ambiguously used emoji's.

    • If there is a particular member that you feel starts too many unnecessarily exclusive panels. Use the ignore feature. Works for me😉

    • In my opinion they make everyone viewing them, who is unable to comment, feel ousted.

      Drac, all Sunday panels are open to all users. All you have to do is sign up and you are on the panel. They have been that way for all of the last three Sunday Panels and all future ones.

      According to my records, you chose not to sign up for any of these three panels. And you chose not to submit audience questions to any of them.

      So I’m not sure I understand how you can feel ousted here. Can you clarify what you mean?


      Having to ask permission to say something in a public conversation

      Any user can sign up to participate in the Sunday Panels and any user can submit audience questions. We do review questions before releasing them to panelists, which could be construed as having to ask for permission; however, we do this to protect participants from abusive comments or questions. Otherwise, we release them. Does that make sense, Drac?


      that's not carried under a clearly defined criteria of why the actors were selected, imparts such panels a sense of exclusivity club selected based on arbitrary, ambiguously used emoji's.

      Sunday Panels were brought back after making sure that they were no longer exclusionary. Anyone can sign up to participate and many have.

      There’s no conspiracy behind how invites are decided upon for the Sunday panels. I’ll be happy to explain it here. I did explain it all over a month ago on Cake, but no worries if you missed it.

      Okay, in addition to those who sign up for a panel on a given topic, I review the archives and recent conversations to identify users who have shown a passion or expertise, or both, for the topic. I also try to rotate panelists so that I am not overburdening anyone with multiple invitations in a row. So I may not include someone who’s passionate on this weekend’s topic because they participated in the last panel. (Obviously if that individual had signed up for the current panel then they would be on the current panel as well.)

      Does that clarify things, Drac?


      Again, anyone can participate in a Sunday Panel.

      And people who’ve participated in the last three Sunday panels have enjoyed it, including

      Chris, zorxique, Lidja, DanSolarMan, Munch, CygnusX1, Factotum, Shay, Ride2ADV, mbravo, Pathfinder, rsorenson, MountainMom, kwthom, EddieB, and rtwPaul.

      I honestly hope that you don’t think that all of these users are being in an “exclusive club” when you are more than welcome to join in on the fun.

      Or you can choose to just ignore the Sunday panels as RussP recommends.

      Happy to answer or clarify any further questions or comments you may have on this.

    • Thank you for bringing up this option to customize the user experience on Cake.


      For those who don’t know, you can set up Cake so that you see none of the posts and conversations from a particular user. Click on the arrow to the right of any user’s post. From the drop down menu, select “Ignore” and that user’s content will no longer show up in your timeline. In conversations, you will see the below message in place of their post. If you change your mind, click the arrow and then select “Unignore”.

    • To explain why I haven't "signed up" - if I had ever grasped the concept and agreed with it - I would have to unveil too much perhaps about my personality, of which if you haven't caught a glimpse of by now, would be perhaps uninteresting, and lost?

      The reason I am making this mini drama is one of hoping to generate some better understanding and incite much deeper consideration for panels usage. In the end it's all about us - humans, complete strangers (I know you tried to convince me otherwise but I prefer to find out the hard way some things in life), coming together. And also breaking apart, graciously. There is beauty in both. No?

      I think panels, or however Cake wants to call them, have a place on the web. But go back to drawing board and really think what some buttons on a screen are driven by? And what for?

      I can see these a great tool in debates. I mean real, fierce debates, such as the life and death of political kind, or environment, or legislative. I do not however see panels useful for sharing and commenting on which brand of powder milk people prefer. Maybe it's just me, but this is my .02 cents.

      Arguing as an art, of polemic, is entirely different than truly reaching to the individual's heart, each has a role, for a reason.

    • When I brought up with Chris MacAskill the idea of bringing back Sunday Panels, I said that we had to address the exclusionary concerns that you and other users had raised a few months ago. After some serious discussion, both Chris and I agreed to bring Sunday Panels back. The sign up list was a big part of that decision because it meant that anyone who wanted to participate could do so. I even made the process so frictionless that all you have to do to sign up is to open the sign up conversation and react with a 🚀 emoji. That’s literally all you had to do to participate, Drac. You mentioned your personality being a barrier to signing up for panels. I certainly respect your desire to keep that private, but without greater disclosure it’s impossible for me to understand why you consider me, Chris and/or everyone who’s participated in the panels as being exclusionary.

      I think you provide some interesting ideas for panels. I don’t view panels as just one thing and I think it’s important to allow a range of options for panels in the same way that we have a range of topics open for discussion on Cake. Some people would absolutely hate your idea of using panels for debates. The last thing they want to do after a long day at work is to consume a debate on politics. But if they’re not interested, they’ll do what RussP suggested and ignore it.

    • Oh, I don't consider exclusionary you or Chris or anyone in that panel. That is how it comes across! I just tried to understand why so much effort to twist *everything* into a panel? I completely missed the little rocket, must admit! I will send rockets next time I want to post in a panel!