CC: Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com>, Tim Ellis <dynamic@nocturnalcommissions.com>,
Sundeep Gottipati <gsundeep@gmail.com>
Just a few more things regarding this before I have to cut out and finish this Guardian column:
I'm basing this on a number of elements that I haven't had a chance to relate to some of you, including the specific bloggers whom I've talked to about PM over the past year and some of my more specific observations about the problems that I've seen in blogging and in the various new media operations I've been involved since I first started out at a writer, and the solution I've proposed is intended to correct those in such a way as to not add what could potentially be similar barriers to what I've seen. Quality control is obviously a fine thing but I'd like to handle it in the least restrictive manner possible for several reasons, and of course I also want to avoid any features that not only restrict the ability of participants to interact with other participants - something I am very, very keen on avoiding - but which might also cause procedural problems in addition to turning off the people that we absolutely need to participate. The fact of the matter is that I, as a blogger of the sort of we are seeking, am personally turned off by both the probation system and the karma invite system, and would not be happy about the result of what we've been working on for a year now if those elements are in play.
The specific problem with the probation system that I have upon thinking about it further - beyond the more general comments that I've gotten in opposition to the idea of new people being set off to some extent from the network - is that it is an attempt to solve a problem that is accounted for by way of the fundamental of the schematic itself. I understand that this system goes further in an effort to solve that problem, but I disagree with you guys on whether or not the positives outweigh the negatives. To some extent, I'd gone along with it because you guys seem to be pretty keen on the idea, but now that I'm hearing almost entirely negative feedback from the sort of people for whom this network is intended, and after having had some discussions lately with some other relevant contacts from outside of PM, I'm absolutely convinced that this is something that either needs to be left out entirely or at least not applied universally such that no one has a choice whether or not they want to use such a system. I feel basically the same way about the karma invite setup, which is not something stuck out as much as the probation system did but which I and a number of others think will be a negative for the manner in which the network grows and operates.
So, no matter what we decide tomorrow, people need to be able to have the option to join something a bit closer to what I have in mind even if those additions are utilized in a connected "area" of the network. That way, we don't miss out on bloggers who are turned off by the probation thing and who aren't going to have the opportunity to hear the explanations you've provided, while also giving the tweaks that you guys have put a lot of discussion into a chance to operate among those would be more inclined to join onto the more structured and complex schematic that you've developed. Aside from that, I'm fine with everything else that has been added and am course always open to additional methods by which to change the schematic, but this is basically the first and only thing that I've really been uncomfortable with.
Certainly. Another option would be to have the system without those tweaks of concern as well as another system, connected to the other through myself and whoever else, which does implement those two features, and then those who would prefer such a system can join on either side. Obviously we would have to work out some details but it would satisfy our concerns while also giving the changes you want a chance as well. I haven't had enough time to think about it yet but that strikes me as the best solution at first glance.
Please do talk it through - the purpose of both systems is to raise barriers to entry for low quality content providers... Or in other words, to make sure the only members of the system are high quality content producers.
Instead of taking the general direction of people's commentary, against karma based invites and probationary karma sharing, let's look at the detail of what they said. WHY do they dislike the karma limited invites? WHAT about it sets them off? Equally, what is the negative reaction to probationary karma sharing?
The quality-guarding positives of both systems are easy to see. The rest of us felt that both of those aspects had good value for the system. So I think it would be a great idea for us to talk through the specific concerns raised by your impromptu conceptual test audience, one by one. It may be that by tweaking or altering the systems, we can come up with a new alternative that will be even better.
> Howdy-
>
> I've sent the blogger schematic info to some of the bloggers and journalists who were interested enough to take a look and several of them are down on the probation system as well as the feature whereby one can only invite other bloggers after getting a certain amount of karma (the latter of which I didn't notice until I sent it out, having not paid as close attention as I should have). I've had those same concerns about the probation system, of course, and having seen that some of the other bloggers (and both of the journalists) share those concerns, we've definitely got to scrap it. If for some reason we decide later that such a system would benefit the network more than it would stymie it, we can always implement it in an update or what have you. As for the karma-based invitation system, several people had similar reactions, and I'm now concerned that such a seemingly minor adaptation as that could have a large impact on the nature of the resulting network, which is something we need to stay from until later on when we've seen how the network grows and what problems will end up needing to be address through tweaks of this sort. We can discuss further tomorrow night if this means that we have to change anything else or if there might be any other technical tweaks that will need to be made by virtue of losing the probation and karma systems.
>
> If anyone nonetheless has any major objections, reply to all and let's discuss it or we can do so at the meeting if that would make for a better format.
>
> Also, let me know if there's anything I still need to do regarding other programmers whom we might need to get involved, or if we're all set, and if there's anything else I've neglected lately, as I'll have some time tonight and tomorrow to catch up on all PM business.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Barrett Brown
> 512-560-2302