Reply to "Texas niche, description"

Brian Lenz posted:

Hi @Malkazoid et al., thanks for your thoughts. I'm not anticipating a change to allow granular approval or rejection of just the niche name or the niche description. I think that would get confusing very quickly and introduces more problems than it actually solves.

Niches should be considered in their entirety when voting, and the tribunal will do so, as well. In my opinion, the Texas niche is clearly all about the state of Texas. The fact that it simply mentions crypto isn't grounds for rejection. I do agree that it may not be the best choice of description in terms of inclusiveness for all that is Texas, but that's really up to the niche owner to decide.

In its current form, the niche is not redundant (there's not another niche that resembles Texas) and doesn't violate the TOS, so I am voting to approve it as part of the tribunal appeal.

Fair enough Brian - but that does leave the concern of folks perceiving Narrative as crypto-centric unaddressed?  In my opinion, even a whiff of this will lose us users.

Statistically, the way to look at it is to consider the sum total of niches at launch, and what proportion of them are either directly about crypto, or mention crypto in the description, even though the niche name is far more general.

That proportion, we know, will be inordinately high compared to the interests of the general population, who are our target audience.

The vast majority of users in Q4 2018 will not understand crypto, and will feel they don't belong in a place where crypto seems to be a prevalent topic.  Whilst we can't force people to create niches representative of the general public's interests, we can - and I believe we should - be less lax about allowing people to taint general topics like the state of Texas, with a very prominent mention of crypto (right up there next to the state's culture, and ethos).

We also need to remember what niches are: a tagging system for submitted content.  People who see the Texas tag are going to find it very counter intuitive and off-putting to find their content about Texas culture, history and current events sharing the same space with a dominant conversation of cryptocurrency.  They will rightly wonder why there isn't a tag/niche called Texas Cryptocurrency for that instead.

Poorly defined, poorly targeted niches will be a problem that might come to define Narrative in a negative light.

Your vote makes sense within the narrow scope of the criteria for niches, but we're looking beyond that too, to launch, and to what non-optimal trends we're seeing today might blossom by launch time, into sprawling headaches if left unchecked.

Lastly, I wouldn't see much complication in casting two votes at the same time, one for niche name, one for description.  The outcomes are simple, it seems to me:

A) If the niche name is rejected, the niche is rejected, end of story

B) If the niche name is accepted but the description rejected, then the niche moves on to the auction stage, in a state of 'Description pending'.  The niche will remain inoperable until an approved description is attached to it.

C) If both name and description are approved, the niche is approved, end of story.

Does B really introduce any problems that outweigh the benefits?  What are those problems, and are they solvable?

I know it would be nice if niche name and description could be kept neatly bundled, but I think we should face the fact that they are in fact two different things, and the narrow niche validity criteria that the tribunal looks at during appeals are not designed to address problems with poorly described niches... so something needs to be done?