Re: probationary period
Subject: Re: probationary period
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: 12/6/10, 16:26
To: Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com>

Let me look over this some more and give it some thought as I may have indeed been confused about what was being proposed. I'll get back to you.

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks again for your input. I want to make sure we're on the same page regarding the probationary period since either Campbell or Sundeep originally concocted this. I found your email confusing for this and one small other reason. Specifically, this is not meant to be any sort of punishment-based system, but rather a tool used to ensure high quality members permeate PPM.

 

After discussions with Sundeep, Campbell and Clark, I envisioned the probation system to loosely work as follows:  Barrett invites Scott to join PPM but since Scott has no history on this site, all of my works pushed through the system show up as something to the effect of ‘endorsed by Barrett Brown’. This process allows for two things to occur (1) provides me with credibility so others would read my works and (2) allows me to start accruing metrics. At this same time, this further enhances the idea that people you bring into PPM should be of high quality since during the probationary period you’ll be endorsing the works that the newly added person decides to push.

 

Ultimately the person is released from probation once certain quality metrics are achieved. (Granted I can see a potential negative associated with this, such as, a person who gets invited and only pushes one post may not be eligible for full membership). Ignoring that important fact, though, the intent was that a newly invited person would want to push high quality posts so they are off probationary and gain access to additional features such as commenting, pushing, etc.

 

PPM’s other systems should be sufficient to alleviate quality concerns, but I believe we’re trying to prevent what Campbell refers to as the “cat” phenomenon present in similar systems. In other words, as the size of PPM expands exponentially, current controls in place may be insufficient to maintain quality. This would be one tool out of many to help achieve this goal.

Please let me know if this exactly is what your impression of the probationary period was, or if we did a poor job explaining it to you. Either way I just want to make sure there is no confusion.



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302