Michael Farris posted:
My thought (hunch, really) is that content creators will be submitting to niches based on the name and less the description. The name and most of all the performance/reach of the niche will attract content creators. It may be a dubious description won't matter as much as we fear.
Here was my train of thought:
a) Surely the search function that kicks in when people are tagging their content will search description text as well as niche names? Surely?
b) The owner of the niche - who will probably end up being the person who chose to put cryptocurrency in the very brief description of the 'Texas' niche, will be approaching content producers. Not a stretch to believe he'll be soliciting material from crypto bloggers, and the Texas crypto scene...
c) My hunch is that both name and description will be taken into account by most creators. And once you read that bizarre mention of crypto on a niche that's supposed to be about one of the 50 states, I'd love for someone to explain to me how creators won't come away thinking Narrative truly is looking at the world through a crypto perspective.
FWIW. The current strong representation in crypto is not surprising given the Founders who bought 60+ NEO worth of NRVE who got first crack. Even patrons are, by defintion, crypto types.
No, not surprising at all! But what's important here isn't whether it is surprising or not - what's important is what we're going to do to ensure that strong representation doesn't cross a line into unnecessarily damaging territory.
We can't help that the bar to entry to Narrative's early stages has been a familiarity with cryptocurrency. But we can help this - and I think we should. Surely the Team does too?
I think my suggestion for niches which have name approval but not description approval, to remain inoperable until they do have description approval, is not being given proper consideration. The niche owner will have every incentive to get the description approved, since she wants her purchase to be usable.
You have community members telling you here that we would be ok with clicking twice to vote, instead of once. After all, why wouldn't we be: niches are important, and once they're approved, they will probably be there to stay. It is important to get this right, and I think it is awesome community members understand this well enough to be volunteering to do a little more work in order to get it right!
But at the end of the day - I'm not in love with my solution if there is a better one. What I do expect is for the Team to either propose a better one, share why the one on offer won't work or is not worth it, or tell us the problem is being taken seriously and a solution will be rolled out as soon as possible.
This is a huge potential point of failure... everyone submitting content is going to rely on niches being well defined, and is going to be vulnerable to confusion and demotivation if they aren't.
I'm serious: if I came to Narrative all excited because I've got a fantastic article about the Austin, Texas art scene, and then found the 'Texas' niche sounds like it has a strange cryptocurrency angle - if that was my first impression of Narrative, or even my fifth or tenth, I'd come away thinking Narrative is in fact a community made of, and made for, crypto geeks. If I'm a crypto geek, then great. If I'm not, and odds are that I'm not, then I might think of taking my content to a platform that manages to pull of the universality thing better.
Last note - I think it is really important to put the accent on quality over quantity here - as in other areas of Narrative. The concern against making niche validation slightly more involved seems bizarre to me. Maybe it means tweaking the system in such a way that an average of 45 new niches arise every week instead of 50. Is that a problem? A niche is an entire universe - 45 new universes born every week instead of 50 seems like a non-issue to me. What seems like a real issue, is if each of those new universes runs the risk of its laws of physics being flawed because the Gods didn't pause long enough to get them right?