Re: Shadow Wednesday
Subject: Re: Shadow Wednesday
From: Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com>
Date: 12/7/10, 15:00
To: "Vertesi.com" <campbell@vertesi.com>
CC: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>, Emma Allan <emilieduchatelet8@gmail.com>, "dynamicuno@gmail.com" <dynamicuno@gmail.com>, SundeepGottipati <gsundeep@gmail.com>, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com>

Below is a description I wrote up of the probationary period. Campbell and Sundeep, kindly comment if this is what you had in mind. Please note that I wasn't considering that the invitor's metrics would be impacted by the invintee's content (although it certainly would be telling if we could perpetually keep track of the quality metrics of everyone a person has invited even though there may be some biased involved). For example, Barrett has invited people who are liked while Scott invites people who are disliked.

The probation system would 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 is that a newly invited person would want to push high quality posts so they are off probation and gain access to additional features such as commenting, pushing, etc.

 

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Vertesi.com <campbell@vertesi.com> wrote:
I didn't hear about any proposed series of punishments, but I'd be interested to.

Sundeep and I had discussed a probationary period, wherein your inviting blogger's reputation score would reflect the quality of the invitee's posts. We considered this to be a very powerful way to ensure that quality begets quality. People on probation don't necessarily see any disadvantage in this situation, so I don't understand how this could be a disincentive to join.

Perhaps we're talking about two different probationary period ideas?

C

Le Dec 5, 2010 à 18:18, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> a écrit :

The probationary period as well as the proposed series of punishments from earlier were rejected because they would antagonize a lot of potential bloggers and prompt some not to join in the first place, whereas we think the schematic will be sufficient to handle any problems those are intended to solve. For instance, I'd be disinclined to join any such network, and obviously I need to be able to sincerely convince others to join. 

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:
Can someone refresh my memory on why the probationary period was rejected? Sorry but my memory sucks.


On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
No, the changes appear to be fine. I've also made changes to the other document on specs to remove the portion regarding a probationary period for bloggers as per our conversation with Campbell and the others.


On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:
So I see Shadow has made some modifications to the Initial Release Spec document Sundeep created.

I didn't notice any gross changes so I assume the adjustments were both minor and benign.

Since I was curious who this Shadow Wednesday was I did some quick Googling and came the conclusion that Shadow is associated with Quebec's branch of Anonymous.

Barrett, I take it I need not concern myself with the changes?



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302




--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302