Please read Niche titles and descriptions carefully.
If a Niche is poorly written and gets approved... it's "approval" is a testimony to the efficacy and quality of (to borrow @Ted's language) "The Wisdom of This Crowd."
And, there are some Niches getting upvoted that should not.
Here are a few from my perusing of the ballots this morning. I try and always leave a comment when I vote no in order to help clarify the thinking behind my vote.
These next three are all submitted by @yousaf1981 and all exhibit the same behavior. Submitting a Niche, and a poorly written definition of the title word instead of describing the type of content that it would contain. These are all three passing with overwhelming support. Check your work, people.
Allowing a Niche to be submitted with only a definition (no matter how poorly/eloquently it is written) for a description... then we're heading towards reinventing the dictionary.
Thanks for raising the issue of poor descriptions again Bryan.
I feel like this has not been clearly addressed by the @Narrative Network Team.
My sense from Tribunal votes is that niches with seemingly viable names, but imperfect descriptions, seem to get approved by the tribunal?
Which in turn forces me to vote in a similar fashion, because I don't want the rep penalty for voting out of step with how the Tribunal will finally vote - even though I suspect it would be better for us to reject niches with poor descriptions.
One of the reasons I feel this way is because we are rewarding niche suggesters with reputation bonuses if their niche gets approved. It doesn't make sense to do that unless they put the effort into making a niche viable and well described.
And to go in Bryan's direction, a good description is not just a definition of the word(s) in the niche name. As he points out, Narrative isn't a dictionary. We need to know what kind of content belongs on the niche.
My understanding is that the team has so far operated on the notion that a viable niche name can get approved, and the description can be cleaned up later, but if we are to continue in this fashion, we really need to know precisely how this cleanup will be enforced.
And to conclude, I would reiterate that we're being wasteful if we accept flawed descriptions from users we are still rewarding with rep for those flawed suggestions, then having to organise cleanup work of what should have been done right the first time. So I remain in favour of rejecting niches with confusing and/or poorly written descriptions. If the team agrees that the efficiency of doing so is in fact preferable, then we need some clear expression from them that the Tribunal guidelines will be updated mandating that they vote in the same manner. This decision needs to be from the top down since we get rep hits for voting out of lock step with the Tribunal.