| Subject: probationary period |
| From: Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> |
| Date: 12/6/10, 16:08 |
| To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> |
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 youll 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.
PPMs other systems should be sufficient to alleviate
quality concerns, but I believe were 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.