Is there any way to tell a niche owner that their name/description sucks and should be edited?

Service: Narrative

Activity Stream

There is currently no way to give feedback like that (directly) to the niche owner. And niche owners are the only ones that can currently edit the niche names/descriptions, as well.

I think the idea of letting the community suggest niche name/description edits may have merit, but then again there are a lot of people who think that only niche owners should completely control such things.  In my view, niches are a public resource and because of that you can make an argument that community input on improving/fixes niche names/descriptions is a good idea. 

There are issues there, however.  All edits have to be approved by the Tribunal to ensure that the meaning of the niche has not been altered. And we don't want tons of suggests coming in per niche... also, what if there are multiple edit suggestions for the same niche, each technically good... how do you determine the "winner?"

In other words... this is a difficult issue.  

Maybe one way to handle the "tons of edit requests" problem would be to only allow one active edit request at a time per niche. If the Tribunal approves it, no one else could request another edit for... 30 days? 60 days? I'm just tossing out numbers.

Ted posted:

There is currently no way to give feedback like that (directly) to the niche owner. And niche owners are the only ones that can currently edit the niche names/descriptions, as well.

I think the idea of letting the community suggest niche name/description edits may have merit, but then again there are a lot of people who think that only niche owners should completely control such things.  In my view, niches are a public resource and because of that you can make an argument that community input on improving/fixes niche names/descriptions is a good idea. 

There are issues there, however.  All edits have to be approved by the Tribunal to ensure that the meaning of the niche has not been altered. And we don't want tons of suggests coming in per niche... also, what if there are multiple edit suggestions for the same niche, each technically good... how do you determine the "winner?"

In other words... this is a difficult issue.  

I think you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't expect people to pay narrative money to own a niche, and then turn around and say it is the a public resource and up to the community to make changes to it. if we are owners of niches, then we are owners. 

This doesn't seem too difficult to me at all. Join the community. Engage with it by posting, voting, and commenting on it. Then direct message the owner once we have some sort of messaging in place (hopefully beta?) Not everything has to be perfect for Beta. We aren't even going to have moderators in place properly for the beta launch, I am pretty sure we can continue to perfect niches as the communities for them grow.

I certainly don't mean to sound curt, if I come off that way. Just a long work day.

While I see your points, I still respectfully disagree. Redundant niches are not allowed. An uninvolved niche owner ignoring their duty to make their niche discoverable in search and show some semblance of professionalism hurts anyone who wants to contribute content on that particular topic. Blogging and Social Media aren't exactly long-tail niches, so having them stuck the way they are will hurt contributors.

I wouldn't be averse to a system like I described above, where community members suggest edits, that give owners veto power for a period of perhaps 7 days. If the owner isn't active enough to care to veto a suggested change, it could then take effect.

Christina Gleason posted:

While I see your points, I still respectfully disagree. Redundant niches are not allowed. An uninvolved niche owner ignoring their duty to make their niche discoverable in search and show some semblance of professionalism hurts anyone who wants to contribute content on that particular topic. Blogging and Social Media aren't exactly long-tail niches, so having them stuck the way they are will hurt contributors.

I wouldn't be averse to a system like I described above, where community members suggest edits, that give owners veto power for a period of perhaps 7 days. If the owner isn't active enough to care to veto a suggested change, it could then take effect.

Ownership is ownership. You cannot have it both ways. If I pay for something it is mine. I may allow it to be accessed by the community as a resource, because it serves us both, to do that, but it still has been bought and paid for, there for the decision on the name and description is mine to make. If it is redundant to someone else's previously purchased niche, then we have a mechanism in place to appeal that. But if the community prefers better grammar or description, that should be suggested privately to the owner and let them decide if they want to make the changes, via the tribunal.

If suggestions are reasonable, then I am sure most owners will see the logic in making changes to make their community feel better. But if community want to be owners, then they need to make their own niche purchases.

I am not saying that there not niches that could use work. Of course their are, but the buck will literally stop with the owner, not the community. If you don't want to post on a niche because the description and or title could be better, that is your prerogative. And if a niche owner isn't making any money, because nobody wants to post on his or her niche, it is the owners prerogative to fix or not fix. 

Supply and demand.

I also think it is important to remember that owners ARE part of the community as well. They are not this MIA delinquent landlord type whom are out to mess up individual's content plans. 

Narrative has people of different education levels, different language levels, different levels of deep thought, and different activity levels, all participating in Narrative. Of course we all would love everything to be at University level writing, where everybody has a deep handle on the English language. BUT THAT SIMPLY ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. 

Trying to control that is going to be an exhausting task, for anyone compelled to do so. Make your suggestions to a niche owner. Hope that they change it, then determine if you plan to contribute, if they don't subscribe to your suggestions. That about it.

 

Won't belabour this because we've said it all before... but in my opinion we should be looking at this first and foremost from the perspective of quality, so I tend to agree with Christina more.

People don't have to have university level English because we have a community of people who are willing to help.

Ownership is not incompatible with bylaws that upload quality.  In the desirable neighbourhoods, cities, and countries of this world, it is common that owners of real estate still have to adhere to standards to maintain the character and heritage of the area.  Do we want Narrative to be a desirable platform or not?  

Personally, I don't care how it is achieved.  It could be the Tribunal that fixes spelling and grammar.   It could be a different body formed from community members, who are given the authority to make spelling and grammar improvements to existing niche descriptions, through consultation with the owner to make sure their vision is respected.  

You can't have quality without standards.  Crowd sourcing is good for some things, but a laissez-faire approach to it isn't smart.  We don't rely on the wisdom of the crowd to design space shuttles, airports, or city traffic systems.  Infrastructure requires quality control from qualified people.  The places on this earth where that doesn't happen provide blatant examples of dysfunction that should make this conversation much shorter than it has been.

Niche names and descriptions are infrastructure on the Narrative Network.  I'm glad I can own portions of that infrastructure, but I wholeheartedly would embrace that there be a mechanism to override me if I were to make a spelling mistake, grammar mistake, or a confusing or false statement in a niche description.

Malkazoid posted:

Won't belabour this because we've said it all before... but in my opinion we should be looking at this first and foremost from the perspective of quality, so I tend to agree with Christina more.

People don't have to have university level English because we have a community of people who are willing to help.

Ownership is not incompatible with bylaws that upload quality.  In the desirable neighbourhoods, cities, and countries of this world, it is common that owners of real estate still have to adhere to standards to maintain the character and heritage of the area.  Do we want Narrative to be a desirable platform or not?  

Personally, I don't care how it is achieved.  It could be the Tribunal that fixes spelling and grammar.   It could be a different body formed from community members, who are given the authority to make spelling and grammar improvements to existing niche descriptions, through consultation with the owner to make sure their vision is respected.  

You can't have quality without standards.  Crowd sourcing is good for somethings, but a laissez-faire approach to it isn't smart.  We don't rely on the wisdom of the crowd to design space shuttles, airports, or city traffic systems.  Infrastructure requires quality control from qualified people.  The places on this earth where that doesn't happen provide blatant examples of dysfunction that should make this conversation much shorter than it has been.

Niche names and descriptions are infrastructure on the Narrative Network.  I'm glad I can own portions of that infrastructure, but I wholeheartedly would embrace that there be a mechanism to override me if I were to make a spelling mistake, grammar mistake, or a confusing or false statement in a niche description.

I don't think anyone has suggested a laissez-faire fair approach @Malkazoid, quite to opposite. But @Ted went down the path of entrepreneurialism in the white papers, by making to niches purchasable. He went further, when after you and then I both campaigned for TRUE OWNERSHIP. Which we achieved. 

I am in full agreement that bylaws are a part of maintaining quality controls. And Narrative has those bylaws in place. We voted on niches to approve or not approve, prior to niches being purchased. And when we don't like the outcome, we have a tribunal system. 

When those mechanisms fail, we have our personal votes for what we as a community feel is quality, or not quality content. I am suggesting that as a content maker you ultimately can suggest changes, and then withhold content if the niche doesn't improve.

As for your example of airports etc. this is not an accurate analogy. Those types of architecture are municipally owned assets, that are subject to a democratic voting system to elect politicians or not if they are not run in accordance to the public. You would be much better to use the analogy that niches are like restaurants and stores, and if they are not quality components of the community, then the community can put it out of business via frequenting elsewhere. 

This is how quality is maintained based on the @Ted's whitepaper. Otherwise, don't sell niches. Make them all free to use.

Personally I would be absolutely furious if someone changed my niche because I was at work for a week, or on holidays, or sick, and couldn't check in.

Furious. 

Emily Barnett 

 

Personally I would be absolutely furious if someone changed my niche because I was at work for a week, or on holidays, or sick, and couldn't check in.

Furious. 

I don't get it.  You'd be furious if someone corrected a spelling or grammar mistake for you?

Christina Gleason posted:

I wouldn't be averse to a system like I described above, where community members suggest edits, that give owners veto power for a period of perhaps 7 days. If the owner isn't active enough to care to veto a suggested change, it could then take effect.

I would vote this comment down if i could. 

Imagine if you your neighbor painted their house pink. you hated it. told them so, and still they ignored you. So when they went away to visit their sick mother, you decided to make it better quality and painted it blue, because after all you are part of the community.

You don't have a right to do that. You didn't buy the house. You can report it to the bylaw officers. They can issue a ticket if it actually breaks a bylaw. that is it. Niches should be the exact same way.

@Emily Barnett, Heads up that two of your "niches I own" have broken links in your support community profile. I was taking a look at your niche descriptions, and I don't think anyone could reasonably suggest and get approval for the descriptions in your niches, because YOU DID YOUR JOB as an owner to make them good ones. It's the completely absent niche owners I'm worried about, the ones who will literally never come back to respond to feedback because they just want their 10%. I don't know how else to explain why some of these names and descriptions are still so unprofessional. (Many of them were approved before I'd even heard of Narrative.)

Emily Barnett posted:
Christina Gleason posted:

I wouldn't be averse to a system like I described above, where community members suggest edits, that give owners veto power for a period of perhaps 7 days. If the owner isn't active enough to care to veto a suggested change, it could then take effect.

I would vote this comment down if i could. 

Imagine if you your neighbor painted their house pink. you hated it. told them so, and still they ignored you. So when they went away to visit their sick mother, you decided to make it better quality and painted it blue, because after all you are part of the community.

You don't have a right to do that. You didn't buy the house. You can report it to the bylaw officers. They can issue a ticket if it actually breaks a bylaw. that is it. Niches should be the exact same way.

But a house is private property. I don't invite people to come in and decorate my house and contribute to it so that I can (somehow) profit from their efforts. My house is not a workspace for people to come and show off their artwork or add to my book collection that doubles as a library or public reading room. I don't think your analogy works, because a private home is different than a public showcase.

Bylaws commonly impose standards on what is done with private property.

True ownership was always expressed by me, in the early days, as the ability to accrue capital gains by being able to sell niches.  I never meant to support some sort of protection from owned niches having their descriptions improved if the owner goes MIA.

Anyway, as I said, I'd support that the process happen in communication with owners whenever possible, as a collaborative effort, but with the authority for the quality team to correct spelling and grammar unless the niche is clearly meant to have misspellings or non-standard grammar (dialects or stylised expressions).  I don't think anyone can reasonably argue there is a downside for spelling and grammar to be cleaned up.  Are we going to spend our energies arguing over the right for a niche description to keep mistakes?  Seems like a weird use of our energies.

The analogy with infrastructure such as traffic control systems is not so flawed: niches are obviously hybrid private property/public spaces.  

Lets be pragmatic.  Niches have to be unique.  You and I can't create a new niche that is better than the poorly worded one, because our new niche would be a duplicate, and so invalid.  So the bad niche sits as a beacon of poor quality, throbbing like a sore thumb, causing people to wonder why Narrative is the first site to have such poor category quality.  Network wide, the effect of not addressing these problems will be significant.  Consider it to be like drag: we will never achieve maximum velocity if we don't minimise drag.

 

Christina Gleason posted:

@Emily Barnett, Heads up that two of your "niches I own" have broken links in your support community profile. I was taking a look at your niche descriptions, and I don't think anyone could reasonably suggest and get approval for the descriptions in your niches, because YOU DID YOUR JOB as an owner to make them good ones. It's the completely absent niche owners I'm worried about, the ones who will literally never come back to respond to feedback because they just want their 10%. I don't know how else to explain why some of these names and descriptions are still so unprofessional. (Many of them were approved before I'd even heard of Narrative.)

@Christina Gleason When we very first began, we didn't have spelling, or description as a legitimate reason for voting down a niche. That was only introduced months after the process began. So hopefully that clears up your confusion how this happened.

@Malkazoid Personally no I wouldn't have a problem with my spelling mistakes being changed, but that isn't the point that is at risk with this suggestion that the community can make changes if after 7 days they get no response. Surely you can see the very real problems and abuse that can arise from this suggestion.

I think you both are making a much bigger issue, than is neccissary here. I think a better question to you both is Why you think a niche owner whom clearly struggles for written English, NOT want to take the suggestions an active and perhaps even trusted member? To the point that you would want to introduce a rule that puts the power of changing someone's asset into the hands of someone who put no money down to own it.

At the very least, why not wait to see if this is even a real issue. Wait until it launches and we have a way to message owners, to suggest changes.

Emily Barnett posted:

You don't have a right to do that. You didn't buy the house. You can report it to the bylaw officers. They can issue a ticket if it actually breaks a bylaw. that is it. Niches should be the exact same way.

That's what is being suggested.  

Bylaws can force you to modify the way your property presents, to align with what the bylaws allow.

We're not proposing that any random community member can come and 'repaint' your niche.  We're proposing some form of authority - akin to bylaw officers - for Narrative.  And if your niche description has spelling mistakes or grammar mistakes, or has a scope mismatch between name and description, they should have the authority to work with you to fix such problems.

Emily Barnett posted:

I think you both are making a much bigger issue, than is neccissary here. I think a better question to you both is Why you think a niche owner whom clearly struggles for written English, NOT want to take the suggestions an active and perhaps even trusted member? To the point that you would want to introduce a rule that puts the power of changing someone's asset into the hands of someone who put no money down to own it.

At the very least, why not wait to see if this is even a real issue. Wait until it launches and we have a way to message owners, to suggest changes.

It already is an issue.

Christina has been saying this repeatedly.

There is no guarantee that there will be a way to message owners.  I seem to recall the team saying that won't exist at launch.  They seem to not be putting much emphasis on the social aspect of Narrative for now.

In any event, I think we should step back and recognise that a systemic problem requires a systemic fix.  Just hoping it will all get cleared up by individuals making suggestions to niche owners - is a recipe for mixed results.

As I mentioned, crowd sourcing infrastructure without a mechanism for efficient quality control = drag.

Malkazoid posted:
Emily Barnett posted:

You don't have a right to do that. You didn't buy the house. You can report it to the bylaw officers. They can issue a ticket if it actually breaks a bylaw. that is it. Niches should be the exact same way.

That's what is being suggested.  

Bylaws can force you to modify the way your property presents, to align with what the bylaws allow.

We're not proposing that any random community member can come and 'repaint' your niche.  We're proposing some form of authority - akin to bylaw officers - for Narrative.  And if your niche description has spelling mistakes or grammar mistakes, or has a scope mismatch between name and description, they should have the authority to work with you to fix such problems.

that is what the tribunal is. they are the by law. Actually yes, @Christina Gleason did suggest that if nobody responded in say 7 days, the changes could be made. 

I think there is just too much talk about policing grammar. Just send the owner a message, on how to change it. If they are smart they will take the advice. 

So many rules.....have some faith in people.

Emily Barnett posted:

that is what the tribunal is. they are the by law. Actually yes, @Christina Gleason did suggest that if nobody responded in say 7 days, the changes could be made. 

No - they aren't.  They have made very clear they do not view it as their role to make corrections.

Not sure what Christina said, but personally I would favour an official quality control team - and yes, if the owner doesn't respond, they should be able to make fixes anyway.  7 days might be too short, but the buck has to stop somewhere, and sometime.

I think there is just too much talk about policing grammar. Just send the owner a message, on how to change it. If they are smart they will take the advice. 

"If they are smart"...  Not everyone is.

Lets be real here.

It isn't even a question of smarts in many cases: it is a question of whether the person gets around to it, or even sees the message.

And some people are simply unreasonable.  Some people will simply think 'you don't tell me', and won't lift a finger.

You and I have both been on earth long enough to know such people aren't all that uncommon.

So many rules.....have some faith in people.

Having faith in people doesn't preclude having common sense, efficient measures in place for when people disappoint your faith in them.

The team would be foolish to not put in some way of sending a message to people. I don't believe that they are stepping back from the social aspect of it. I haven't gotten that impression at all.

I am not trying to be argumentative with either of you. I just have faith that these "lesser quality" niches that you refer to will either get fixed, or sink rapidly to the bottom. 

I don't equate Narrative to an airplane where "poor quality" will result in no lift of the wings, and result in the platform never getting airborne.  I just do not share this fear. I believe that just like everything else on the internet, what is popular rises to the top, and what is deemed unpopular gets buried. Hopefully there is enough people that cherish good quality content.

And this won't be liked by either of you, but one more stop gap is the annual renewal of niches. If someone has been absent, refuses to make changes, and as a consequence, has made no money on their niche, because nobody posts on it, I highly doubt they will pay another 75usd. So the niche will come up for auction and someone else can buy it and make the changes, and try to bring it out of obscurity.

it may not be the most immediate system, but in this, I think @Ted built it to function well enough, with plenty of checks and balances.

Okay, I've had a couple of brandies so forgive me if this sounds stupid. I skipped over a few comments to chime in and I'll come back to read the rest tomorrow.

I think this discussion of "niche ownership" is somewhat passé. When you "buy" a niche, you are technically only leasing it. You get it for a year, then you have to renew it. So, what happens if someone decides not to renew the niche? Who controls it then? If a niche remains "unowned" for a period of time because it is "pink," who gets to paint it?

I'm all for ownership and giving owners control, but there is also this thing called "community standards." Where do the two meet? I do believe this is a serious discussion with no easy answer, but an answer that deserves some consideration.

@Ted is there plans to have some sort of messaging system? I cannot believe that it wouldn't. Narrative would hardly be competitive with out it. But giving the group some clarity on this topic, would help dissipate anxieties that are flowing about the need to control the quality of people's purchased niche's. Thank you.

Christina Gleason posted:
Emily Barnett posted:
Christina Gleason posted:

I wouldn't be averse to a system like I described above, where community members suggest edits, that give owners veto power for a period of perhaps 7 days. If the owner isn't active enough to care to veto a suggested change, it could then take effect.

I would vote this comment down if i could. 

Imagine if you your neighbor painted their house pink. you hated it. told them so, and still they ignored you. So when they went away to visit their sick mother, you decided to make it better quality and painted it blue, because after all you are part of the community.

You don't have a right to do that. You didn't buy the house. You can report it to the bylaw officers. They can issue a ticket if it actually breaks a bylaw. that is it. Niches should be the exact same way.

But a house is private property. I don't invite people to come in and decorate my house and contribute to it so that I can (somehow) profit from their efforts. My house is not a workspace for people to come and show off their artwork or add to my book collection that doubles as a library or public reading room. I don't think your analogy works, because a private home is different than a public showcase.

My analogy perfectly works. You can invite people over to your house all the time. if people don't like your house they can suggest you fix it up, or they can refuse to visit. And as the house owner, you can take the suggestion and improve your house if you value having company. 

Emily Barnett posted:
Christina Gleason posted:

But a house is private property. I don't invite people to come in and decorate my house and contribute to it so that I can (somehow) profit from their efforts. My house is not a workspace for people to come and show off their artwork or add to my book collection that doubles as a library or public reading room. I don't think your analogy works, because a private home is different than a public showcase.

My analogy perfectly works. You can invite people over to your house all the time. if people don't like your house they can suggest you fix it up, or they can refuse to visit. And as the house owner, you can take the suggestion and improve your house if you value having company. 

Emily - I think you are focusing only on how your analogy works, and ignoring how Christina is showing you the important ways in which it does not work.  

It bears repeating for the nth time that niches are unique, and have public utility.  You can try to ignore this as much as you want, it remains true.  A person who disapproves of how a niche presents isn't just getting a negative impression of the one niche.  They're comparing it to categories on other sites - ones that do have quality control!  And they're being forced to live with posting their content to a category that does not fit as snugly as it should, if they choose not to associate with the poorly defined niche.  Meaning their content will be harder to find.  That's bad for the content creator, and that's bad for anyone who wants to find their content.  By extension, it is bad for Narrative.

Worse - nobody is going to move to another city just because they don't like a quarter of the homes in it: they'll just make their ten or twenty close friends and ignore invitations to the homes of all the other people, and find their happy place.  Not true for Narrative: a newcomer to our platform will be constantly wondering whether the place is worthy or not, and moving to another platform will be MUCH easier than moving cities.  They experience the NEED to go to many houses that suck because they are the most appropriate homes for their content, and they will feel their ability to earn from their content is being affected because those houses suck.  They will hesitate to share links to their content if professionalism matters to them and they feel their audience will be exposed to the lack of professionalism of the niche description under which their content lives.

Comparing this to homeowners and their guests fails completely to capture those important aspects of what we're talking about here, so your analogy is actually inhibiting relevant discussion.  We get it: homeowners feel entitled to paint their houses pink, and tough titty for people who don't like it.  But private homes are not public spaces - niches ARE.  Guests to your house aren't trying to make money by visiting you.  Niche users ARE.  Your house does not fulfil a unique service that no other house can fill, and that if not rendered, affects the usability of the entire city.  Niches DO.

You keep saying the quality niches will rise to the top and the bad ones will sink - but this ignores what we're saying over and over.  Niches are unique.  A crippled niche is a crippled, unique area of content creation.  It isn't replaceable by a better niche unless the owner decides to relinquish it.

You also incorrectly assume that poorly defined niches will make no money, therefore they will be relinquished.  As I've argued before on these forums, the problem is much more insidious.  A poorly defined niche may still be profitable.  Mere profitability is not what is at stake here.  You, and many of us are being blinded by the focus @Ted has given us through the context of how he is approaching the Content Economy.  A profitable niche may be obscuring the fact that it could be making double or triple if the description wasn't riddled with mistakes or didn't have a confusing mismatch of scope between its name and its description.  Bad niches making a profit for their niche owners doesn't fix the fact that the ability for users to tag and find content is being impaired in a way they will NOTICE, and think LESS of Narrative for.  A niche owner might be making a small profit from their bad niche, or even a moderate one: but Narrative might be losing ten users per week because of the poor description.  Do we look only at the profit, or do we also care about not losing users unnecessarily?  The answer is obvious.

I suggest all of us start to question the priority of focus the team has on profitability.  Usability can make the difference between a platform that idles with a small or moderate membership, and one that grows to be first in class.  At launch, usability must be our primary concern. Three years from now, we might pat ourselves on the shoulder because the Content Economy is working, and most niches are turning a profit!  Hooray!  But if our membership is growing slower than ten other new generation social platforms, the reality will still be that our future won't be bright.  We're not aiming just for a proof of concept of the Content Economy.  We're aiming for this implementation of it to be competitive against many other implementations of it. 

It is not hard for a platform to implement quality control, which means you should be reading that our competitors will figure out a way to beat us on category cohesiveness and quality of descriptions, if we take the approach you are advocating.  All they have to do is not have the strange hang up Narrative has about wanting so much to be determined by the 'wisdom of the crowd'.  Wake up to this.  Narrative's current parameters and priorities have restricted your thinking about what the most successful platforms will really look like.  Nobody cares about our squabbles about ownership or the wisdom of the crowd, and nor should they: all they'll know is their user experience.  All they'll know is that platforms S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z all have easier tagging systems with descriptions with no spelling mistakes, no grammar mistakes, and that don't confuse people because of easily avoidable scope mismatches between tag name, and tag description.  That's the bottom line.

Finally, about messaging.  My statement was not one of opinion - it is what the @Narrative Network Team has told us.  I asked about it specifically a while back.

https://community.narrative.org/topic/messaging

Ted wrote:

Private messaging is not on our to-do list currently and will definitely not be included at beta launch.  I agree that it should be considered for the future, however.  

 Anyway, messaging would not diminish my concerns here.  Only an enforceable solution will, because that will achieve the best results, by far. 

  • What percentage of contacted owners will disagree with feedback because they don't take criticism well?
  • What percentage of contacted owners will agree with feedback, but never find the time to implement the changes?
  • What percentage of contacted owners will agree with feedback, make a change but only fix half the problems?
  • What percentage of users will ignore the feedback because they CAN (slum lords exist for that very reason - as long as they're making a profit, they don't care)?

These are the hard questions you should be asking, and weighing against the fact that everyone wins if spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and scope mismatches are efficiently corrected through a well-defined process that results in big improvements 100% of the time.

Malkazoid posted:
  • What percentage of contacted owners will disagree with feedback because they don't take criticism well?
  • What percentage of contacted owners will agree with feedback, but never find the time to implement the changes?
  • What percentage of contacted owners will agree with feedback, make a change but only fix half the problems?
  • What percentage of users will ignore the feedback because they CAN (slum lords exist for that very reason - as long as they're making a profit, they don't care)?

These are the hard questions you should be asking, and weighing against the fact that everyone wins if spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and scope mismatches are efficiently corrected through a well-defined process that results in big improvements 100% of the time.

You left out:

What percentage of people will feel entitled to the niche, because they are a regular contributor, and therefore start changing the niche to reflect more of what they want it to be, through enforced community changes?

What you and Christina are proposing has flaws as well.

Those ones seem worse to me. It hasn't even launched yet. I don't think Narrative is going to spontaneously combust on April 4th because we have some poorly crafted niches. I just don't.

Youtube, instgram, Facebook, Reddit, all have terrible content creators as well. They all reached mass adoption, despite their drag. In fact it was their inclusiveness that made it happen.

All I am saying...and then I am done with this topic, is that why don't we wait to see if this actually becomes a major problem. Let the team launch, we are weeks away, they have a mammoth amount to do. if in a few months these niches are absolutely empty and their is no way to contact owners, then bring up a need to address owners. Or use the  tribunal system. Reporting to the NEW Tribunal team, which will have an accountability to the community, because they can be voted out of the position if they are not doing their job correctly, to report the live niche from still being unclear, or containing spelling mistakes.

Neither of you are using the system as it was designed yet, so neither of you can say conclusively that it won't work. You are only projecting.

Emily Barnett posted:

You left out:

What percentage of people will feel entitled to the niche, because they are a regular contributor, and therefore start changing the niche to reflect more of what they want it to be, through enforced community changes?

How would that be a danger?  If there is a dedicated QC team, how do you propose they be manipulated by individual regular contributors, and bent to their will? 

I've been really clear and simple in my proposal: a QC team that targets spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes and mismatches in scope.  That doesn't sound like a body that is going to start kowtowing to individual desires to modify the intent of a niche.  I've even been really specific in saying the QC team should work WITH niche owners to make sure any fixes preserve the original vision of the niche as much as possible.  

What you and Christina are proposing has flaws as well.

Those ones seem worse to me. It hasn't even launched yet.

What flaws?  The only flaw you've pointed out is the one I just debunked above, as far as I can tell?

 

I don't think Narrative is going to spontaneously combust on April 4th because we have some poorly crafted niches. I just don't.

Nobody said it will.  Perhaps you are reading more drama into this thread than is actually there?  I thought we were just weighing the merits of voluntary improvements vs a dedicated QC team with a guaranteed outcome.  

Youtube, instgram, Facebook, Reddit, all have terrible content creators as well. They all reached mass adoption, despite their drag. In fact it was their inclusiveness that made it happen.

Sure.  A content economy is a different beast though.  Everything is more casual, when money isn't involved.  Our ideal target audience is necessarily the better professional content creators out there, and when you are publishing content professionally, you care more about the quality of the context in which it appears.  If I'm already getting paid for publishing on Medium, I might think twice to publish my articles to niches that display zero journalistic standards.

There's also the pesky little detail that none of those other platforms you cite billed themselves as aiming for quality, with claims that quality will rise to the top.  I'm sure quality content will be made more visible than poor quality content on Narrative, but that doesn't help the niches themselves, and their descriptions.  There is no rising of one good niche over a bad niche because niches are unique.  So either the niche you ideally want for your content is good, or it isn't.  If it isn't, it isn't sinking away out of view.  People are still going to want to publish to it, and will still be pissed to see how poorly it presents.

All I am saying...and then I am done with this topic, is that why don't we wait to see if this actually becomes a major problem. Let the team launch, we are weeks away, they have a mammoth amount to do. if in a few months these niches are absolutely empty and their is no way to contact owners, then bring up a need to address owners. Or use the  tribunal system, by reporting to the NEW Tribunal team that has an accountability to the community because they can be voted out of the position if they are not doing their job correctly, to report the live niche from still being unclear, or containing spelling mistakes.

Neither of you are using the system as it was designed yet, so neither of you can say conclusively that it won't work. You are only projecting.

Nobody is saying anything needs to be done about this before launch - I'm not sure why you're acting like that is what is being said.  It is abundantly clear that the Team has been in pure execution mode, with zero headspace for any modifications to what will be in the Beta launch.  Anyone who has paid any attention at all over the past six weeks or so knows this, and I think you know both Christina and I have been paying attention.

So I of course agree: let the team launch.  How would you propose anyone not let them?  We don't have the power to stop them from launching.

What we do have the power to do is to put forth suggestions - it is what this forum is for.

The only person in the thread who has even solicited a response directly from the team is you: you wanted them to clarify whether messaging would be part of Beta, and I dug up where they had already addressed that, ostensibly saving them the trouble of doing so.  So I don't think it is fair to make it sound like we're getting in the way of their work here.  We're discussing platform functionality... hopefully we can all agree that's exactly the sort of thing we should be doing here.

@Malkazoid you didn't debunk anything, you just said that it wouldn't happen. I can say the same thing to your questions. "that won't happen." There i have debunked your claims. A QC team is just as suggestive as, the tribunal, and the niche approval process, which we have seen over and over again, don't always get it right. In fact, in my opinion there is already a niche suggestion at the moment that I think demonstrates more of my point than yours. People do a lot of funny things to be right.

LOOK. this is a forum for making suggestions on how the community would like to see Narrative operate. @Ted gets tagged and he reviews things, and takes it into consideration, or not. Because ultimately, it isn't truely a 100% decentralized platform, he is still the owner of the platform, not the community. We profit-share, we vote on some things, but in the end the architecture is Ted's to decide on. Good, bad...all we can do is make suggestions. We don't have a system in place, that if Ted does't respond in 7 days, our suggestions take effect, which is what was suggested here for niche owners.  Nor should we!!

The same goes for niche owners, it needs to be the same dynamic. Somewhat decentralized, in that the community can make suggestions for the owner to take into consideration. We have a community forum. Tag owners, and most likely we will have comment sections on our content, make suggestions. use the tribunal system, and use the voting system. But the architecture that the owner has over his/her niche is title/description/and keeping the moderator on task, and that should not be subverted. not even for good reasons. I think there is a good system that is built for maintaining quality on Narrative. By the way quality is not the same as perfection. Nobody promised anyone perfection. People need to accept that they cannot control everything on the platform. 

I think a Quality control group is overkill. I don't think the money to pay for a quality control group should be taken from any other portion of rewards. I think it is perfectly acceptable to use the tribunal to achieve better quality, after we hold an election for it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want spelling, and unclear niches either. But nobody promised you, that the standard of quality on Narrative was going to match yours or Christina's. Or mine even. I suggest people work with the systems we have in place, once we get going, and focus on creating the best quality content.. That is going to outshine the niche description anyways.

And maybe don't get too hung up in the architecture at this point. Lets let all the elements get in place to see if it is even broken, before we start suggesting how to fix it.

Apart from that, we won't reach an agreement on this. Nor do we have to.  

 

Emily Barnett posted:

@Malkazoid you didn't debunk anything, you just said that it wouldn't happen. I can say the same thing to your questions. "that won't happen." There i have debunked your claims. A QC team is just as suggestive as, the tribunal, and the niche approval process, which we have seen over and over again, don't always get it right. In fact, in my opinion there is already a niche suggestion at the moment that I think demonstrates more of my point than yours. People do a lot of funny things to be right.

Emily: we've been over this.  The Tribunal's role, as they see it, is not to make any fixes to niches.  So why are you now saying a QC team, whose explicit role would be to arrive at, and make fixes with the niche owner, is just as 'suggestive' as the Tribunal?  I've said really clearly I'm proposing that the QC Team should have authority to make fixes within the tight definition of spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and scope mismatches.  I feel like a lot of what I'm saying isn't sinking in.  I understand your heart isn't in this discussion...  Which is fine - but a bit frustrating.

I may have been a bit presumptive in saying I debunked your claim - but if I didn't, then please tell me how on earth you imagine the QC Team might fall prey to the special interests of individual niche contributors trying to modify niches to their benefit?  Until you give some inkling of how that might happen, that just sounds a little far-fetched, to say the least.

As for proposing fixes before knowing something is broken - right now, it is broken.  Despite discussing this quality problem for more than the past six months, the Team has not given any inkling at all as to how these mistakes might get corrected - in fact, they've said explicitly they don't think they need correcting... that bad niches will just fail, and that's ok.  Well, we already can say with a high degree of certainty that that is not ok, with the current rules.  You seem just as resistant as they are to the reality that niches are unique, so a bad niche holding a unique position in the nichescape is a blight that cannot be removed until the owner releases it.  It stands to reason that the only other way to fix the bad niche, if it won't conveniently go away on its own, is to actually fix it.

We already know all this, so forgive us for coming up for solutions we think are highly likely to be desirable.  If you don't like that we're doing so, that's duly noted.

This has been a very enlightening discussion. Both sides are making good points, but there is a real-world example of this problem riding through the Niche approval process right now. Unfortunately, it looks like I'm going to be banned from suggesting more niches for another week because of a silly little typo (and as anal as I am about language, I'm ashamed I made it).

I suggested the Poetics niche, which is likely to be unprofitable and only garner the interest of a few people on the whole. Here's the description:

A place to discuss poetics and poetry writing techniques. No poems aloud.

I understand that "aloud" instead of "allowed" might misconstrue the intent a little bit, but not much. One person has already done so in a way I hadn't considered, but actually in favor of the niche. Funny joke that is. 

This niche suggestion is going to fail, not because it's a bad idea, but because of one little misspelled word in the description that really doesn't obscure the intent. And the irony is, one person voted it down with this comment:

Downvoting because there is no way to guarantee that a poorly crafter Niche Title/Description will be corrected post-approval. This should not be a "we'll fix it in post" environment.

Two things: There is a typo in the comment explaining why this person downvoted the niche suggestion because of a typo. Oh, sweet irony!

Secondly, the comment about "we'll fix it in post" is simply ridiculous since this same individual has an active niche with the following description:

Transforming community through a gospel response to place; establishing roots at the intersection of geography, demography, economy and culture.

What the heck does that even mean? If I had been around when this was suggested, I'd have voted it down because THAT is definitely unclear. And the niche passed approval with 57.69% indicating that several other people thought it was unclear, as well.

My point is this: People ARE imperfect. Despite the thought that I put into my niche suggestion, and the perfect niche name for that niche concept, it is likely not to pass (it now has 20 votes) because of one little typo in the description that doesn't obscure the intent in any way. Why? 

Sometimes, the community is wrong. And, many times, niche owners are going to be wrong. So what's wrong with having a process in place that offers checks and balances to correct natural imperfections? This can only improve the community of Narrative and serve to make us all more profitable in the long run.

I just want to add that my "if the niche owner doesn't respond in 7 days..." was an arbitrary length of time I chose. Narrative would certainly take multiple factors into account before actually deciding upon a reasonable amount of time to wait for a niche owner to respond.

Thanks @Garden Gnome Publications for the reminder that the lack of any direction from the team about even the intent to correct mistakes in the future, is causing many of us to feel like voting is the only way to insure quality.

Simply stating that a QC team will be put in place to fix simple mistakes would give us license to relax and vote in niches that can easily be fixed later.  That would go a long way.  But the best time for that was months ago, before the Team got too busy with trying to deliver Beta on time...  I wish they had made that simple statement back when they had the time to consider this problem with us.  I don't feel like trying to solicit it from them now because I'm a bit weary of soliciting responses from them, and I do know they became too busy weeks ago.  If I ever was in danger of forgetting that, I'm sure @Emily Barnett would remind me in no uncertain terms 

There is nothing wrong with suggesting Poetic Techniques @Garden Gnome Publications btw I just changed my vote because @Bart is right with his comment. Hopefully more people see his comment and change it. Maybe start a new thread and campaign for votes. I have seen this done quite effectively in the past.

@Malkazoid People defer to others, and definitely some people seem to have influence on this platform. We have seen it in both levels discussed here, niche voting, and I believe also in tribunal voting. I am not saying it is the rule, but it is fool-hearty to think it also wouldn't happen, if we allow people to change descriptions and titles of niches. The use of different words has a way of changing meaning; words can be used in and out of context, which can result in niches having new meaning and direction.  Bart's comment on Allen's post clearly demonstrates that. Giving people power to change niches because they think they can create a better description CAN most definitely lead to manipulating a topic. If you cannot see that, then I don't know how to help this sink in for you either. ( btw, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am not capable of process ideas, I would be wary of that kind of language.)

Whose portion of rewards, are you suggesting a Quality Control board gets paid from? Neither you nor @Christina Gleason have offered any suggestions of practical implementation. This entire thread has begun with a complaint about other community members, whom have not possessed the luxury of achieving a better education.  I don't know why people feel entitled to anything more than making suggestions, and vote down niches. @Christina Gleason it is unfortunate that you were not here from the beginning, it is also unfortunate that we didn't have all of the same voting rules at the beginning that we do now. But it is what it is, and it is fair to say that you need to find some personal acceptance for the active niches that you have grammatical issues with, outside of making suggestions to the owner, because that is your only option, as outlined by ted in his response to you.

I have not once said that we shouldn't have suggestions from the community. Neither did @Ted. He clearly said that was a good idea too. But you two are the ones whom think the platform should have a mechanism that changes it, to give the community control over purchased niches...

No. I don't agree. Campaign just like we do for everything else that we want, on the community board and hope that it sticks. 

IT ISN'T Broken. You just don't like it.

 

Malkazoid posted:

Thanks @Garden Gnome Publications for the reminder that the lack of any direction from the team about even the intent to correct mistakes in the future, is causing many of us to feel like voting is the only way to insure quality.

Simply stating that a QC team will be put in place to fix simple mistakes would give us license to relax and vote in niches that can easily be fixed later.  That would go a long way.  But the best time for that was months ago, before the Team got too busy with trying to deliver Beta on time...  I wish they had made that simple statement back when they had the time to consider this problem with us.  I don't feel like trying to solicit it from them now because I'm a bit weary of soliciting responses from them, and I do know they became too busy weeks ago.  If I ever was in danger of forgetting that, I'm sure @Emily Barnett would remind me in no uncertain terms 

aha! Something we agree on again. I too wish that @Narrative had put into place a time frame to hold a funeral for unpurchased niches. I think this is a far superior suggestion to fixing this problem than to implement Grammar Police. 

 

Emily Barnett posted:

 The use of different words has a way of changing meaning; words can be used in and out of context, which can result in niches having new meaning and direction.  Bart's comment on Allen's post clearly demonstrates that. Giving people power to change niches because they think they can create a better description CAN most definitely lead to manipulating a topic. If you cannot see that, then I don't know how to help this sink in for you either. ( btw, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am not capable of process ideas, I would be wary of that kind of language.)

You are manifestly capable of processing ideas - things don't sink in for a number of reasons, even when people are very capable.  As I explicitly mentioned - your heart isn't in the conversation, and you think we should just wait and see what develops: that's why I think what I said about a QC Team having authority to make strictly defined fixes was not sinking in.  Because you're tired of the conversation.  I said this very clearly.  If you want to turn this into me insulting your intelligence, I suppose I can't stop you...

Look, if the scope for the QC team is to fix spelling mistakes, and grammar - how does that become changing meaning?  If their mandate is to work WITH the niche owner whenever possible, what is your concern, exactly.  As for the minority of problems that are related to scope - the owner either has a choice to make the name of the niche more narrow or more general, to fit the description, OR to make the description more narrow or more general to fit the name.  Again, the only change of meaning that needs to happen is one that fixes the scope problem.  That change of meaning is the point, and not a problem.  The only thing to be on the look out for is if another niche exists that precludes making the scope more general or more narrow.  In which case the fix becomes easier: the owner and/or QC team must pick the modification that keeps the niche unique.

If you fear the vision of niches is going to get distorted despite the preservation of meaning being a specific stipulation of QC Team duties, I guess you could have that sort of fear about every single aspect of Narrative: that we'll somehow fail at everything we set out to do, making everything a bad idea....

Whose portion of rewards, are you suggesting a Quality Control board gets paid from? Neither you nor @Christina Gleason have offered any suggestions of practical implementation. 

Actually, we have in the past.  An entire thread was devoted to this topic, describing mechanisms for quality control.  As I mentioned, this has been a concern for many community members, for a long, long time.  I'm not inclined to rehash it here.  The problem is not the economics of it, unless you are looking to manufacture problems.

 

This entire thread has begun with a complaint about other community members, whom have not possessed the luxury of achieving a better education. 

It would be really nice if you stopped inferring elitism in those who want to see the community HELP raise the bar.  You make this sort of inference quite often, and I usually let it slide without saying anything, but eventually you have to be called out for it.  This is not about privilege, or elitism, or penalizing people with poor English skills.  Ok?  We'll all get along much better if you don't try to make it about that.

 

 

 I don't know why people feel entitled to anything more than making suggestions, and vote down niches.

'People'?  We're really only pragmatically speaking about an official QC Team.  So talking about entitlement in people in general is deliberately obfuscating things, it seems to me.

People HAVE been making suggestions and/or down-voting.  More than half the time, the suggestions left in the comments of niche approvals were completely ignored.  Lots of problematic niches have been approved, hence the discussion on how we might improve them.  Seems natural enough to me.

 

 

I have not once said that we shouldn't have suggestions from the community. Neither did @Ted. He clearly said that was a good idea too. But you two are the ones whom think the platform should have a mechanism that changes it, to give the community control over purchased niches...

No, but you've been trying to say we should just let the platform launch and see what problems arise then.  Your words, more or less.  And eerily similar to the words team members have used in relation to feedback.

And my answer remains the same.  Sure.  What else do you want us to do - we HAVE to wait until launch.  But meanwhile, we're free to make proposals and argue why they are desirable.  Thanks.

No. I don't agree. Campaign just like we do for everything else that we want, on the community board and hope that it sticks. 

IT ISN'T Broken. You just don't like it.

I think dozens of niches with spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes and scope problems - with no systemic way to fix them, means the system is broken.  If you're fine with those problems potentially staying with us for the duration of Narrative's operating years, just say so.  It will end the conversation, which will probably be a relief for everyone.  Otherwise, the system is broken.  That doesn't mean it is hopelessly broken, or beyond repair.  Just that it has something that needs fixing.  We're not attacking Narrative.  We're not creating drama.  We're laying out our observations, and suggestions with relation to the topic of the thread.

I think half of our problem here is you've decided to take on a defensive duty to protect the platform that really isn't necessary.

There is a clear and very well defined problem here, and trying to say it is 'just' something people don't like, isn't helpful in any shape or form.  

One the the great problems I have with community moderation is that usually a petty bureaucracy becomes entrenched, and drives away everyone else.  

This is exactly the kind of thing that I see coming.  Yes, there are some niches that could be improved.  So what?  It's not going to kill the platform.  I think the ability to message the niche owner would deal with the problem 90% of the time.

 

You can't change someone's niche. Hopefully they will put a time frame on how long an unpurchased niche will stay on the rejected list before being removed. A very simple solution. 

Just because you feel a certain way about something doesn't mean you are right. I happen to think you are not right on this topic. It has nothing to do with my heart being in, or not in the topic. I just don't agree with you. That also doesn't make me wrong.

I certainly do feel that there is a certain amount of elitism that you are implying, and you can go ahead and call me out on it all you want. I believe that the majority of people will make changes to their niches based on the communities suggestions, if they are hear and present. If not. We must learn to live with it being buried as a poor quality niche.

right now the majority of niches that have had suggestions on them for edits are unpurchased, so if it really bothers you, buy it and change it. I did that. I bought Photocomm suggested by poopypeepee and had it changed to Photography lessons, and tweeked the grammar and spelling. Simple, Elegant, Solution. no need for changing the platform, or the rewards pool distribution, no need to have more voting, etc, etc, etc. 

It doesn't seem to be that the daily suggesting of niches has any baring on our reputation anymore, so maybe this rush to constantly come up with niches each day, which some seem to be moving into the realm of who is going to write content on it anyways, in my opinion is greatly reducing this problem anyways.

I guarantee there are many others who probably do not want a Quality Control policing team implemented. The community can work it out, and if it can't, we either find a way to live with it or move on. I am here for those reasons, way more than for the word quality. 

I am done on this topic. I have so much more i prefer to accomplish than bark at the moon. It is going to be what it is going to be.

 

Christina Gleason posted:

I think it's a shame not only that you get the time-out that comes with a rejected niche, but also that "Poetics" itself is unavailable as a niche name for all of the foreseeable future.

Exactly. If this doesn't pass, the perfect name for the niche will be lost forever. That's the real shame in this. 

I saw that Emily changed her vote based on Bart's reading. Clever reading, but not what I intended. I may have to take Emily up on her suggestion to start a community thread. I'm not sure how I'd approach that.

Robert Nicholson posted:

One the the great problems I have with community moderation is that usually a petty bureaucracy becomes entrenched, and drives away everyone else.  

This is exactly the kind of thing that I see coming.  Yes, there are some niches that could be improved.  So what?  It's not going to kill the platform.  I think the ability to message the niche owner would deal with the problem 90% of the time.

 

You are at once very optimistic about messaging being enough to resolve the problems 90% of the time, and very pessimistic about a QC Team becoming a petty bureaucracy.  

Few people like bureaucracy Robert.  But they tend to overwhelmingly do a better job than leaving things up to chance.  In any event, the QC Team wouldn't be much of a bureaucracy.  It would take a couple of people perhaps less than one week to work through all the problem niches we already have, and if the creation of new niches picks up, they might get a new case or two per week.  

Hardly a big boogey man of a bureaucracy with such a straightforward and light workload...

Robert Nicholson posted:

One the the great problems I have with community moderation is that usually a petty bureaucracy becomes entrenched, and drives away everyone else.  

This is exactly the kind of thing that I see coming.  Yes, there are some niches that could be improved.  So what?  It's not going to kill the platform.  I think the ability to message the niche owner would deal with the problem 90% of the time.

 

OMG Yes!!! Thank you @Robert Nicholson SO WHAT!! 

Yes...I too foresee a very heavy handed bureaucrat forming, with this scenario as well.  The word Drag can be used again, in a different way. 

I just don't see the big deal. I really don't. Quality content will rise. Careful steps have been taken to ensure no bot voting. 

I was not at all a fan of nudity being on the platform, because i think it lowers the quality. I have to accept that it is. Done. I can't go in and make changes to those photos because i feel it lessens the quality of Narrative. I just accept it.

Malkazoid, Christina, your definition of quality is not having any spelling mistakes, or less articulated niche descriptions, but Ted has made a decision on that one too...so as I have said over and over again, probably best to find some way to accept it. I would start by just asking yourself "So what." 

Robert Nicholson posted:

And if this discussion really is about quality, and not control, then the best thing Narrative could do it to build a spelling and grammar checker into the niche and post editor.

Why would it be about control?  That would mean us Narrators are pretending to be concerned about quality, but actually want to create a separate organ of control?  Why would we want to do that?  What would anyone here have to gain from that?

Yes, a spelling and grammar checker is a fantastic suggestion and it has been made.  This is a timely moment for it to come up again.

Emily Barnett posted:

 

I certainly do feel that there is a certain amount of elitism that you are implying, and you can go ahead and call me out on it all you want. I believe that the majority of people will make changes to their niches based on the communities suggestions, if they are hear and present. If not. We must learn to live with it being buried as a poor quality niche. 

How can it be elitist to want an organised way for people to get help with their niche problems?  That's simply absurd.

And if the niche owner is MIA and don't respond to the team's efforts to contact them for long enough, for the team to be able to go ahead and - GASP - fix their spelling and grammar mistakes?  That's somehow elitist?

We might not be working with the same definition of what elitism is: what's yours?

Garden Gnome Publications posted:
Christina Gleason posted:

I think it's a shame not only that you get the time-out that comes with a rejected niche, but also that "Poetics" itself is unavailable as a niche name for all of the foreseeable future.

Exactly. If this doesn't pass, the perfect name for the niche will be lost forever. That's the real shame in this. 

I saw that Emily changed her vote based on Bart's reading. Clever reading, but not what I intended. I may have to take Emily up on her suggestion to start a community thread. I'm not sure how I'd approach that.

start by saying that it does stand soundly legit, as Bart pointed out. It isn't breaking any rules. But that if purchased the word aloud could also be changed to allowed by the niche owner. 

Save your suggested niche @Garden Gnome Publications

Emily Barnett posted:
Malkazoid, Christina, your definition of quality is not having any spelling mistakes, or less articulated niche descriptions, but Ted has made a decision on that one too...so as I have said over and over again, probably best to find some way to accept it. I would start by just asking yourself "So what." 

Thanks for the constant reminders of what @Ted has decided.

We're still entitled to discuss things as we see them, and your repeated invitations to just accept things as they are seem disingenuous.  When you see something you feel is problematic but that the Team has decided upon, you don't just accept it.  You speak your mind.  As you should.  Let others do the same.  I think we've heard you loud and clear: you think the niche quality issues are not a problem.  Great.  

Malkazoid posted:
Emily Barnett posted:

 

I certainly do feel that there is a certain amount of elitism that you are implying, and you can go ahead and call me out on it all you want. I believe that the majority of people will make changes to their niches based on the communities suggestions, if they are hear and present. If not. We must learn to live with it being buried as a poor quality niche. 

How can it be elitist to want an organised way for people to get help with their niche problems?  That's simply absurd.

And if the niche owner is MIA and don't respond to the team's efforts to contact them for long enough, for the team to be able to go ahead and - GASP - fix their spelling and grammar mistakes?  That's somehow elitist?

We might not be working with the same definition of what elitism is: what's yours?

Making people feel like they are not good enough to be niche owners, and that if they don't comply, the communities edits will be forced on them. That is my definition.

Honestly it doesn't bother me that the grammar isn't perfect on some niches the same way that it does you. Not to the point that I need a Grammar Quality Control. not at all. 

Wabi Sabi my friend. Narrative has imperfections. To me it shows that we are open to all. And yes we will make suggestions to improve your niche, but enforcement is not what we do here. We are democratic, we vote, we suggest, and we accept.

Malkazoid posted:
Emily Barnett posted:
Malkazoid, Christina, your definition of quality is not having any spelling mistakes, or less articulated niche descriptions, but Ted has made a decision on that one too...so as I have said over and over again, probably best to find some way to accept it. I would start by just asking yourself "So what." 

Thanks for the constant reminders of what @Ted has decided.

We're still entitled to discuss things as we see them, and your repeated invitations to just accept things as they are seem disingenuous.  When you see something you feel is problematic but that the Team has decided upon, you don't just accept it.  You speak your mind.  As you should.  Let others do the same.  I think we've heard you loud and clear: you think the niche quality issues are not a problem.  Great.  

@Malkazoid you seem to be getting a real edge. You have been stating that you think it is a problem over and over again, with no resolve in site. How long do you need to keep restating it.  Everybody also knows how you feel on the topic. I am just as entitled to oppose your position, as you are to stating it.. I didn't start this thread. Maybe you and Christina are the ones that need to let it go.

Emily Barnett posted:

Making people feel like they are not good enough to be niche owners, and that if they don't comply, the communities edits will be forced on them. That is my definition.

Have I ever said anything even remotely implying that people are not good enough to be niche owners?

Can you start being a bit more honest, and call community edits what they are: the fixing of actual mistakes?  Since when is it elitist to correct mistakes?  ZERO penalties have been proposed.  Just a helpful service to fix problems.  You are going out of your way to always make it sound like people will be doing more than that.  Changing the meaning of niches.  Adapting them to their own benefit.  Or going on some sort of elitist crusade to belittle the people they are trying to help.  Do you think it is a recipe for civil conversation to project such intentions on the community, or on me, for that matter, without any grounds for doing so?

Your attempt to paint this as elitism is frankly disappointing.  I have always felt up until now that you were able to conduct discussions with me without stooping to personal mischaracterizations of this sort.

Are automatic spell checkers elitist?

When moderators merge threads on other platforms, are they being elitist?

Come on...

Honestly it doesn't bother me that the grammar isn't perfect on some niches the same way that it does you. Not to the point that I need a Grammar Quality Control. not at all. 

Wabi Sabi my friend. Narrative has imperfections. To me it shows that we are open to all. And yes we will make suggestions to improve your niche, but enforcement is not what we do here. We are democratic, we vote, we suggest, and we accept.

As has been said over and over again in this thread and others before it - we can correct spelling and grammar in niche descriptions, and still be open to all.  There is precisely ZERO relevance with how accepting we are of people.  Everyone is welcome to propose and buy niches, and nothing proposed here would even remotely change that.  You are getting more and more disingenuous by the minute.  Along with pretending I've insulted your intelligence, it seems you are attempting in several ways to defame me.  I think the best thing for me to do is give you a wide berth Emily - this is not helpful behavior and I want to focus on exchanges that can remain above this sort of tendency.

Emily Barnett posted:
Malkazoid posted:
Emily Barnett posted:
Malkazoid, Christina, your definition of quality is not having any spelling mistakes, or less articulated niche descriptions, but Ted has made a decision on that one too...so as I have said over and over again, probably best to find some way to accept it. I would start by just asking yourself "So what." 

Thanks for the constant reminders of what @Ted has decided.

We're still entitled to discuss things as we see them, and your repeated invitations to just accept things as they are seem disingenuous.  When you see something you feel is problematic but that the Team has decided upon, you don't just accept it.  You speak your mind.  As you should.  Let others do the same.  I think we've heard you loud and clear: you think the niche quality issues are not a problem.  Great.  

@Malkazoid you seem to be getting a real edge. You have been stating that you think it is a problem over and over again, with no resolve in site. How long do you need to keep restating it.  Everybody also knows how you feel on the topic. I am just as entitled to oppose your position, as you are to stating it.. I didn't start this thread. Maybe you and Christina are the ones that need to let it go.

I wouldn't be repeating anything if you weren't arguing repeatedly that I don't have a point.  

I don't feel the need to restate anything, but when you mischaracterize repeatedly what is being said, naturally, I want to set the record straight.

I'm learning perhaps the best way to avoid this pattern is to avoid discussion with you.  That's fine by me.  Live and let live.  But don't try to say all of this is just on me for restating things fruitlessly.  It is called a conversation, and you played a role in it.

@Malkazoid I disagree with you. I don't have a problem with this aspect of the platform. That doesn't make me disingenuous at all. This is one word people who know me well never would use to describe me. 

I disagree with you. plain and simple.  I really think it is time for you to take a step back. It's freaking spelling. On a social platform, to earn some crypto currency. 

Ya. I am not going to get hot under the collar if someone in Venezuela, or Bangladesh wants to own a niche and doesn't write English very well. If they want help making it better, then they will listen to the suggestions the community makes. And if they don't want to take that advice I am not going to get worked up about it. I am also not going to accuse people of not having their heart in it, or being disingenuous, or infer that things aren't sinking in. 

My perspective is different than yours, on this issue.

you have the last word, because i am leaving now. Just please don't respond to my post directly or tag me.

Emily Barnett posted:

@Malkazoid I disagree with you. I don't have a problem with this aspect of the platform. That doesn't make me disingenuous at all. This is one word people who know me well never would use to describe me. 

 

It isn't your disagreement that comes across as disingenuous.  Clearly.  Accusing me of elitism, or urging folks to accept the status quo only when you agree with it (when you are one of the most stubborn and fierce voices when you don't) - those elements were what was disingenuous, and I was very clear about that.

You said yourself you weren't into the conversation - that's why I acknowledged that by saying you didn't have your heart in it.  Want to take offense at that?  Nobody can stop you.  

I clearly explained to you that things not sinking in was not a slight of your intelligence.  If you just want the conversation to be over and for people to wait for Beta, that's a very good reason why some of the things being said might not sink in.  Want to pretend I was slighting you - great... you are clearly going out of your way for that to be the takeaway.

Of course we can disagree.  Happens all the time.  Good and natural.  Have a great evening.

Yes I have a big fierce, stubborn voice, something we both share in common. But I have also accepted many things on the platform, that i find problematic. 

the core of this whitepaper is that nobody edits content. People own their content. Christina's suggestion of community going in and changing someone's niche if we don't hear from them, even if it is for the betterment, flies in the face of what the platform is about.  Niches may be a public resource, but editing people's words has been clear from the get go isn't what Narrative is about.

I hope you both can step away from your position of good grammar being supreme, to consider the perspective that I am seeing  for a moment.

If we value full ownership of words, then we own it, good, bad and ugly.

 

Emily Barnett posted:

Yes I have a big fierce, stubborn voice, something we both share in common. But I have also accepted many things on the platform, that i find problematic. 

the core of this whitepaper is that nobody edits content. People own their content. Christina's suggestion of community going in and changing someone's niche if we don't hear from them, even if it is for the betterment, flies in the face of what the platform is about.  Niches may be a public resource, but editing people's words has been clear from the get go isn't what Narrative is about.

I hope you both can step away from your position of good grammar being supreme, to consider the perspective that I am seeing  for a moment.

If we value full ownership of words, then we own it, good, bad and ugly.

 

Niche descriptions are not content.  They are part of the infrastructure of Narrative - by which many users will either know what tags to use, or be confused by and unimpressed with the content management system (and by extension, Narrative) if there are mistakes and scope mismatches.  You wouldn't think less of Narrative, as a newcomer, if the niche you are interested in posting to was riddled with errors.  Great.  Not everyone is like you, and it is the people who are not like you that we should make a little effort to keep on page with us.

Malkazoid posted:
Emily Barnett posted:

Yes I have a big fierce, stubborn voice, something we both share in common. But I have also accepted many things on the platform, that i find problematic. 

the core of this whitepaper is that nobody edits content. People own their content. Christina's suggestion of community going in and changing someone's niche if we don't hear from them, even if it is for the betterment, flies in the face of what the platform is about.  Niches may be a public resource, but editing people's words has been clear from the get go isn't what Narrative is about.

I hope you both can step away from your position of good grammar being supreme, to consider the perspective that I am seeing  for a moment.

If we value full ownership of words, then we own it, good, bad and ugly.

 

Niche descriptions are not content.  They are part of the infrastructure of Narrative - by which many users will either know what tags to use, or be confused by and unimpressed with the content management system (and by extension, Narrative) if there are mistakes and scope mismatches.  You wouldn't think less of Narrative, as a newcomer, if the niche you are interested in posting to was riddled with errors.  Great.  Not everyone is like you, and it is the people who are not like you that we should make a little effort to keep on page with us.

I see this differently.  Niche Descriptions are content.  They are written by the people who propose them, and they are activated by the people who buy them.

If Narrative considers niches to be infrastructure, and wants to control them, then abandon the idea of selling niches.

 

And again, I see the poor niche descriptions as a small problem, and one that could easily be addressed with a simple messaging feature.

Narrative has MUCH bigger problems, such as the perception that the site is a scam, and the issue of being unable to post in unpurchased niches.  

 

Malkazoid posted:

 

    Not everyone is like you, and it is the people who are not like you that we should make a little effort to keep on page with us.

that is your opinion. We are not part of the marketing team, so we don't have the full picture who we should be targeting towards. Only speculation. So much speculation... We have no idea who they are courting for advertisers, to have a real grasp on who the intended demographic is. Or maybe they plan to let it unfold and see who the demographic is and try to pair advertiser to it.

Either way I would prefer to see quality written niches, but i absolutely don't want to see a Quality Control group for niches, ( which are individual micro-content platforms, with written words that I perceive as a form of content).  Nor do i want to see it digress and become campaigned for content as the next step. 

The effort that you speak of, will come in the form of content, way more than the niches, anyway. 

Why are you so worried about it? You stand to make more because the people you are referring to will most likely be interested in posting to your niches over these misspelled niches anyways.  And People will come. Spelling mistakes or not. 

 

Robert Nicholson posted:

I see this differently.  Niche Descriptions are content.  They are written by the people who propose them, and they are activated by the people who buy them.

Yes - but they serve a public role - the very organisation of data depends on them making sense.  So to lump them in with 'content' as if nothing different is going on with niche descriptions, makes no sense.

 

If Narrative considers niches to be infrastructure, and wants to control them, then abandon the idea of selling niches.

I disagree - you want to see the world in black and white on this one - whereas I think most people are happy to see the shades of grey.  You can buy a niche, but that doesn't mean anything goes in terms of names and descriptions.

This is the Achilles heel of the concept of crowd sourcing and selling niches, but it can work with a bit of quality control.  It isn't rocket science, it isn't difficult, and putting aside strange fears that the meaning of the niche is going to be violated if spelling and grammar is fixed, it is easy to see the benefits.

And again, I see the poor niche descriptions as a small problem, and one that could easily be addressed with a simple messaging feature.

Yes, you do see it as a small problem.  I don't see it as a huge one, but one worth finding a fix for: why not?

Narrative has MUCH bigger problems, such as the perception that the site is a scam, and the issue of being unable to post in unpurchased niches.  

Actually, these problems are linked.

As I laid out on another thread, people have a strong tendency to be mistrustful of spelling and grammar mistakes in online contexts where money is involved.  I hope the reason why is obvious: poor spelling and grammar are the easiest ways of detecting scams.

So when a newcomer lands on Narrative, unless he is part of the very small majority of crypto savvy people, the crypto aspect of Narrative will already have at least a slight connotation of scam.  Add to this the problem of unowned niches needing someone to pay $75 dollars in order for people to be able to post to them... 'scam' will be quite firmly planted in the periphery of a lot of people's minds.  

What do you think then happens if there's lots of typos, spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes in places that newcomers will perceive as the infrastructure of the platform?  

We have a serious optics problem when it comes to trust, and spelling mistakes and poor grammar are really going to compound that problem.

that is your opinion. We are not part of the marketing team, so we don't have the full picture who we should be targeting towards. Only speculation. So much speculation... We have no idea who they are courting for advertisers, to have a real grasp on who the intended demographic is. Or maybe they plan to let it unfold and see who the demographic is and try to pair advertiser to it.

No, it isn't my opinion.  Not everyone is like you.  That's a fact.  Some people will have a problem with spelling mistakes and poor grammar in content categories.

It doesn't matter who the marketing team decides to focus on - we already know that losing potential members is a Bad Thing.  You're really going out of your way to resist simple facts now.

Either way I would prefer to see quality written niches, but i absolutely don't want to see a Quality Control group for niches, ( which are individual micro-content platforms, with written words that I perceive as a form of content).  Nor do i want to see it digress and become campaigned for content as the next step. 

The effort that you speak of, will come in the form of content, way more than the niches, anyway. 

Why are you so worried about it? You stand to make more because the people you are referring to will most likely be interested in posting to your niches over these misspelled niches anyways.  And People will come. Spelling mistakes or not. 

I want Narrative to succeed.  I don't care if a few more people choose my niches because they are better written - I care about the platform losing users.

I know that success in a competitive world means caring about those small fractions of a percent, and making sure you don't lose business you could very, very easily keep.

It boils down to 'you' feeling this isn't a problem.  But not all people who come to Narrative will be like you.

1) They will know nothing about the platform, and niche descriptions will be part of their first impression

2) They might be professional writers who have NEVER published any of their work in a setting where editorial allows spelling and grammar mistakes in relation to their content.  Guess what, these are the same people who tend to produce the highest quality content

3) You know Narrative is not a scam.  They absolutely don't know that.  They haven't been involved with the platform for a year.  Newcomers will have been involved with it for mere seconds.  My experience is that most people I have introduced to the platform have started out thinking it is a pyramid scheme or a scam.

If you want to ignore these outside optics because, you, Emily, don't have a problem with spelling mistakes and grammar, be my guest.  Maybe just let other people who do see it as a problem have their conversation?

And not everyone is like you either @Malkazoid, not everyone is bent out of shape by some of the spelling mistakes, they may not leave at all. You haven't and neither has @Christina Gleason so far we don't know if ANYONE has.

You are really going out of your way to demonstrate that we will loose people if niches have an occasional spelling mistake. I don't think so. So we are at a stand off. 

You really seem to need to win this argument, that has no outcome. Go ahead. put on the champion hat. 

By the way I really want to see Narrative succeed too. That is why I too have been digging in to this debate. There is more than grammar at stake. You just don't want to look at anything but that. I and others see, a different risk as a result of the proposed Quality Control, than you. But you just dismiss our concerns as a rebuttal.

Malkazoid posted:
Robert Nicholson posted:

I see this differently.  Niche Descriptions are content.  They are written by the people who propose them, and they are activated by the people who buy them.

So when a newcomer lands on Narrative, unless he is part of the very small majority of crypto savvy people, the crypto aspect of Narrative will already have at least a slight connotation of scam.  Add to this the problem of unowned niches needing someone to pay $75 dollars in order for people to be able to post to them... 'scam' will be quite firmly planted in the periphery of a lot of people's minds.  

What do you think then happens if there's lots of typos, spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes in places that newcomers will perceive as the infrastructure of the platform?  

We have a serious optics problem when it comes to trust, and spelling mistakes and poor grammar are really going to compound that problem.

They will probably think the same thing they do on steemit, Minds, and Trybe. That this is a decentralized platform, that has a very global community. If they need a platform with an editor, to contribute then maybe they should contact the New York Times.

But if they stick around and spend more than a minute, they will see a unique community with a whole pile of different entry levels. They can find the communities that maintain a standard of quality that they are more comfortable with, and they may even enjoy that this isn't one big North American suburb, where everything is built the same.

Guys. Just Chill. It will be ok. chill.

Attachments

Photos (1)

I don't know why you feel the need to make this discussion so personal, @Emily Barnett. You've accused me and @Malkazoid of being elitists overreacting to a non-issue, among other things. 

I've been TRYING to recruit my fellow bloggers to join Narrative.  For MONTHS. They are telling me it looks scammy, non-professional, and what the hell is up with needing to pony up $75 to buy an unowned niche if you have content that belongs there but you can't contribute to? (I've tried pushing the "Do you have $75 to invest in a new content platform where you'll earn 10% of all the revenue it generates?" angle, too, and the only people biting on that are already alpha users.) And then I go and look at the niches a lot of the content I'm re-purposing belongs to - what should be known as Blogging and Social Media - and no wonder I can't get my fellow bloggers to take it seriously. 

We have :

BLOG

Publish your passions in your own way. Share your knowledge, experiences, ideas or latest news. Create your own words and thoughts, your own universe. Live your life and share it with the world.

Internet social media

discussion and sharing thoughts of internet social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Telegram, etc.

Do YOU think those are going to draw in talented bloggers who have never been able to monetize despite being top notch content creators?
And I don't think it's elitist to expect a site that REQUIRES USERS TO SPEAK ENGLISH to fix niche names and descriptions that could end up in "Engrish" memes. No offense to people whose first language is not English, but editing for spelling, grammar, and wording would only HELP these niche owners improve the potential performance of their niches.
To be fair: BLOG is not written in "Engrish," but contains little meaningful language for people to search for. But "Internet social media" is problematic in its name, because NO ONE calls it that. It's just "social media." 
These are, by no means, the worst examples I could produce. They are simply the most relevant to content I HAVE READY TO PUBLISH, posts which may never be seen because the niche owners haven't seen to it to optimize their names or descriptions.
Oh, and thanks for not getting the point of the niche I suggested to replace BLOG. The Content Entrepreneur doesn't make any mention of blogging, and cannot be found by searching for said term. Or any of the other terms I included in the description to make it both unique and searchable.
 

And I'm not going to JUST CHILL. That's a lovely technique used to silence and be dismissive of people in marginalized groups ALL THE TIME. "Be civil." "Don't worry about it." "You're making a big deal about nothing." That's gaslighting. I've been fighting that garbage elsewhere online because I'm autistic and calling out discrimination, dehumanization, and harassment of my fellow autistic people. I don't need it here, too.

I'm a freaking content creator who realizes that a lot of my posts are going to perform poorly because the relevant niches to tag them with SUCK. I've invested less money in Narrative than you Founders have, but the money I have invested in niches is probably a much higher percentage of my income than the money you've invested in yours. I've invested my TIME in trying to make this site as high quality as it can be so WE CAN ALL SUCCEED. I've thrown all of my energy into this to help make it work, and that includes calling out site issues in the Alpha here. Sure, Emily can find backup to agree with her, from other people who are already thoroughly invested in the site and think their particular niches are going to do well. Malkazoid and I are backed up by the silence of people who aren't even going to bother to take the platform seriously because of the issues we've described AT LENGTH here.

+1 for having no ‘Quality Control team’. Seems like a waste of resources at best and at worst, could lead to unwanted censoring and creative suppression. I don’t want Narrative to be polished to perfection. If we were to choose an existing model to follow, I prefer the edgy (and often ugly) template of Reddit over the ‘perfect’ Medium or Quora, both of which I only land on by accident and quickly navigate away from. To be honest, I even find the guidlines for Narrative Niche approval to be prohibitive. Being put on a week-long Niche suggesting time out for suggesting “Dunder Mifflin”, for example, was absurd. 

My $0.02

I was a user experience (UX) specialist for several years. I'm not just speaking from personal preference here, although my personal preferences were shaped a LOT by my time in UX. The UX issues are piling up here, and no one cares.

@Christina Gleason don't put words in my mouth I didn't call you an elitist @Malkazoid used the word.  As for the over reaction that is my observation, not a personal slight towards you. 

Go ahead get wound up about it. I doubt it is going to change anything. You asked a question and ted answered it. You then suggest that you should be able to change peoples mistakes in niches, if they don't pay attention to the suggestions.

I am telling you. That idea is going to turn off a lot more people, than spelling mistakes in a niche description. Seriously a lot more people.

Please show me one successful social content platform that has a spelling and grammar patrol on duty. 

Emily Barnett posted:

|There is more than grammar at stake. You just don't want to look at anything but that. I and others see, a different risk as a result of the proposed Quality Control, than you. But you just dismiss our concerns as a rebuttal.

Mischaracterizing ... again.  Spelling, grammar AND scope mismatches.  

I've understood that you think some people will feel belittled if their spelling mistakes are fixed - I'll be blunt: I think that's BS.  Anyone who gets upset about having their niche description mistakes corrected for free by people trying to help them be successful in their endeavours - those people don't sound like people we should be fighting too hard to keep.  Actively resisting quality?  Yeah, lets waste our energy worrying about those folks!  I've actually never met someone who responds that way, and I've worked in a number of industries, in several countries, in over a dozen companies.  People who respond negatively to a process designed to help them improve, generally... don't... get... hired.  It is anyone's guess as to why that is.  Should we be giving more importance to their irrational responses, than to the very rational responses of strong talent?

There is nothing irrational about receiving a negative impression from poor spelling, grammar and domain/scope, especially when it is found in areas that literally define the space!  Why?  Because they are objectively one of the tell tale signs of scams, online.  When we are presented with a money making opportunity online and there are spelling and grammar mistakes, how many people out of ten, do you think become suspicious?

At best, these sorts of mistakes are interpreted by many serious content creators as a sign of a lack of professionalism.  

You need to understand that to a newcomer, the niche owner and Narrative will be thought of as somewhat akin to a publisher.  What serious writer wants to publish with a publisher who can't be bothered to spell and grammar check two all-important sentences that literally define their outlet to the world?  You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to avoid the obvious.

Plenty of people will be like you, and won't care. 

But it is simply common sense that the higher the standards the content creators hold themselves to, the higher the standards they will generally expect of where they choose to place their work.  Quality attracts quality.  Talent generally wants to work with talent.  These are basic truths in the professional world.  I think you know this - you've been around, and you are a professional yourself.  These are the people we SHOULD be fighting to keep.  Isn't that obvious?

It seems to me that you are the one who just can't stand not to win this 'argument', and that's the only explanation I can find for why you're explicitly denying this logic and trying to paint others as elitists.

Nobody has to win - but it would be fantastic if we could be more honest with each other.

 

Christina Gleason posted:

And I'm not going to JUST CHILL. That's a lovely technique used to silence and be dismissive of people in marginalized groups ALL THE TIME. "Be civil." "Don't worry about it." "You're making a big deal about nothing." That's gaslighting. I've been fighting that garbage elsewhere online because I'm autistic and calling out discrimination, dehumanization, and harassment of my fellow autistic people. I don't need it here, too.

I'm a freaking content creator who realizes that a lot of my posts are going to perform poorly because the relevant niches to tag them with SUCK. I've invested less money in Narrative than you Founders have, but the money I have invested in niches is probably a much higher percentage of my income than the money you've invested in yours. I've invested my TIME in trying to make this site as high quality as it can be so WE CAN ALL SUCCEED. I've thrown all of my energy into this to help make it work, and that includes calling out site issues in the Alpha here. Sure, Emily can find backup to agree with her, from other people who are already thoroughly invested in the site and think their particular niches are going to do well. Malkazoid and I are backed up by the silence of people who aren't even going to bother to take the platform seriously because of the issues we've described AT LENGTH here.

I am not dismissing your concerns, and I'm sorry if it seems that way.  

I just don't believe we need some new bureaucracy to manage this (and take away the ownership rights that people have paid for).  I think it would be quite sufficient to follow your original suggestion and provide a messaging mechanism "to tell a niche owner that their name/description sucks and should be edited."

I'm much more concerned about the very limited number of niches, and the difficulty in finding relevant content without any sort of hierarchy or taxonomy (and a very lame search capability).  

Emily Barnett posted:

 

I am telling you. That idea is going to turn off a lot more people, than spelling mistakes in a niche description. Seriously a lot more people.

Please show me one successful social content platform that has a spelling and grammar patrol on duty. 

Please show me how many people are going to be niche owners compared to how many people are going to be content creators or consumers. The latter number is exponentially higher. 

And the opinions of content creators SHOULD matter a hell of a lot to Narrative, because we earn 60% of the revenue from the content we're creating, while owners sit back doing potentially nothing and earning 10%.

Hi everyone

I appreciate the passionate and thoughtful dialogue ongoing here. I do think we probably should all take a step back at this point. I think everyone's viewpoints have been made clear.

Just to throw a little perspective into the conversation: I think there are ideas that have merit all around here. The reality is that our team is working hard right now on delivering the Beta. We have a lengthy roadmap in front of us. From my perspective, we aren't likely to change the way that Niche names and descriptions are managed/edited soon. This isn't to say that I don't agree with some of the ideas being thrown out here, but we just have many, many other components of this platform to build before we can get into these kinds of tweaks.

I realize some of you feel that this is a make-or-break issue for the platform. I don't see it that way. I think there's a chance we may be able to make improvements in the future, but I'm of the mindset to wait-and-see what problems arise once we at least have content live after Beta. Until then, I think we're getting a little bit stuck in the weeds solving problems that may not present themselves in real, impactful ways.

I'd request that everyone take a deep breath and take the night off from the conversation here. I don't think it's a healthy debate at this point, so I think it's in everyone's best interests to let it be for now.

Thanks again for caring so much about what we are building. It really helps to inspire us to see our community so passionate about Narrative 

Emily Barnett posted:

@Christina Gleason don't put words in my mouth I didn't call you an elitist @Malkazoid used the word. 

Yes, and you agreed you did think we were being elitist.  I just made you come clean instead of inferring it.

 

Please show me one successful social content platform that has a spelling and grammar patrol on duty. 

Please try to differentiate between people's content published to niches, and the descriptions of the niches themselves.  You constantly try to act as if they are the same thing, so you can be outraged about the spelling police.  We would still be having a much more civil conversation if you could just admit that niche descriptions play a different role to general content.

Nobody is going to care if Francois from Rennes posts an article with a bunch of spelling mistakes.  He's French.  Good for him for writing something intelligible in another language.  

Do you think people will say the same about a niche that couldn't define itself in two sentences without spelling and grammar mistakes?  Newcomers don't know who wrote the niche description - they won't know where that person comes from, or whether they graduated highschool.  They won't care: the niche is a category for content and people traditionally consider those have had some care given to them.  Some thought.  You know - when a platform gives thought to writing two sentences to define a repository of content, they tend to avoid spelling and grammar mistakes.  A lot of people will come here with that expectation.  Crazy, I know.

Christina Gleason posted:

Please show me how many people are going to be niche owners compared to how many people are going to be content creators or consumers. The latter number is exponentially higher. 

This ^^^.

Content creators will probably outnumber niche owners, 100 to 1 or more by the time Narrative has hit its stride.  This conversation is truly surreal.

I'm out, at least for the time being. My fucking PTSD has been set off, and I'm physically sick about some of the personal attacks in here. Thanks for making me need extra anti-anxiety meds, Emily. Did you "win" yet???

Christina Gleason posted:

I'm out, at least for the time being. My fucking PTSD has been set off, and I'm physically sick about some of the personal attacks in here. Thanks for making me need extra anti-anxiety meds, Emily. Did you "win" yet???

@Christina, nobody attacked you. this is a debate, because many people here disagree with you. A debate that you started by saying that other people's niches suck, which frankly is pretty darn rude in my opinion. So save me the victim speech.

@Brian Lenz sage advice.

Gord posted:

+1 for having no ‘Quality Control team’. Seems like a waste of resources at best and at worst, could lead to unwanted censoring and creative suppression. I don’t want Narrative to be polished to perfection. If we were to choose an existing model to follow, I prefer the edgy (and often ugly) template of Reddit over the ‘perfect’ Medium or Quora, both of which I only land on by accident and quickly navigate away from. To be honest, I even find the guidlines for Narrative Niche approval to be prohibitive. Being put on a week-long Niche suggesting time out for suggesting “Dunder Mifflin”, for example, was absurd. 

My $0.02

Yes - the week long time out thing is universally loathed at this point.

But I just want to make sure you understand nobody wants quality control for content posted to niches.  Some of us just see value in correcting spelling mistakes, grammar and scope issues between niche names and descriptions.  It is extremely easy to make sure that doesn't turn into censoring or creative suppression.  If the owner says: "I spelled kidz with a Z because this is a niche about graffiti", that's a pretty clear cut case of where non-traditional spelling is completely acceptable.  But if the niche is about Stamp Collecting, and the description goes something like "Lets all collekt some stampes!", it is equally clear cut that most people will read it and wonder why, in 2019 when auto spelling correction has existed for almost 20 years, nobody gave enough of a damn to get it right.

Point taken though, that you represent a certain user type that prefers things to be less polished.  I just don't think less polished has to extend into niche definitions.  There's plenty of room everywhere else on Narrative for people to post content with as many spelling mistakes, meaningless sentences and grammar fiascos as they could possibly want!  Moderators can't censor posts based on quality, so folks will be completely free to post WOTEVA.  I'm ok with that.  Niche content is easily identifiable as coming from users.  Niche descriptions will be assumed by newcomers to come from the platform, or from someone who is supposed to have their sh*t together 

Wow...I take a little time off and come back to this!   I personally think only the owner should be able to change the Niche name / description, and it should probably go through tribunal approval to make sure it isn't changing the essence of the Niche itself (like changing from "Dogs" to "Lizards").  As far as a way for the community to provide feedback, I think the following would be a cool idea: What if each Niche had it's own 'Community' area.  This area would have nothing but content specifically related to the Niche, and would function much like the current community site, except that when you create new topics / threads it would only be specific to the Niche in question.  This would enable people to publicly discuss issues and have other people respond related specifically to the Niche, it's owners, moderators, etc.

@Gord, interestingly, I'd prefer Quora over Reddit. I like polish. Who wants to drive around town in a dirtied up Mazarati? 

lol

Seriously, no platform can appeal to everyone. But I'm in agreement with those who say having the description clear and clean is a pretty good idea. HOW we go about accomplishing that is a different story. I don't know the answer, but I do know that there are some niches I'd be leery about posting to based on their descriptions, even if my content would fit well there.

Banter posted:

Wow...I take a little time off and come back to this!   I personally think only the owner should be able to change the Niche name / description, and it should probably go through tribunal approval to make sure it isn't changing the essence of the Niche itself (like changing from "Dogs" to "Lizards").  As far as a way for the community to provide feedback, I think the following would be a cool idea: What if each Niche had it's own 'Community' area.  This area would have nothing but content specifically related to the Niche, and would function much like the current community site, except that when you create new topics / threads it would only be specific to the Niche in question.  This would enable people to publicly discuss issues and have other people respond related specifically to the Niche, it's owners, moderators, etc.

That's a good idea in my book.  It would certainly allow a kind of free-form communication on niches that currently isn't described anywhere.

@Emily Barnett You don't get to decide that you didn't attack me (and Malkazoid). You made sure you did it in a very roundabout way, but you've spent days now basically telling us to shut up because we disagree with you. 

And HOW DARE YOU accuse me of "playing the victim" when I tell you that you triggered my PTSD, a mental health problem I've been in therapy for for over a DECADE? Sure, maybe "sucks" was rude, but I haven't been deriding any specific individuals for over 48 hours. 

I used to think we could respectfully disagree over things, but you've managed to make me physically ill with all of your dismissiveness and your innuendo. I will ACTIVELY choose to support niches you do not own because I don't think you care about the platform as much as you claim to, and because I don't want you to profit from my hard work. You are an ableist bully. Never tag me in one of your posts again.

@Christina. I disagree with your approach to altering people's niches. That is all. I didn't attack you. I didn't attack your autism. And now I am being accused of being an ableist bully, and not caring about the narrative platform. This is a gross mischaracterization on your part. I don't want spelling mistakes in niches any more than you do. But what i want even less is to grant a group of people to go in and make changes on niches on behalf of people. 

There have been plenty of suggestions being made today and in other threads, for which i have been a part of. 

If you had a bad day and had to take anxiety meds today, that is unfortunate. I also did not enjoy my day either. But you cannot put an argument all on me. I tried to walk away as well. I asked to stop tagging me here about 7 hours ago, and still you and @Malkazoid continued to tag me and quote me. Saying chill was not passive aggressive. I meant. just back off a little ease up. The exact same way that Brian Lenz did. I said lets wait and see how it goes. Non of that is bullying.

Frankly , I think both you and @Malkazoid have said some very unfair things about me as well today, simply because I don't agree with your approach to resolve this. 

Anyways. it is totally your prerogative to post where ever you want. 

Well Emily - I certainly wish this discussion never happened.

None of us are saints, but I'm a very patient communicator and there are few things that raise my pulse in simple conversation - yet you still managed to do that very effectively.  You're welcome to disagree with me all day and all night, day in day out, for months.  I have zero problems with that.  But you did something different here today.  No need to revisit it, but I sincerely hope you don't continue believing all you did here was disagree with people, and that's why things went south.  I'd like to believe there's a part of you that knows full well that isn't true.

Malkazoid posted:

Well Emily - I certainly wish this discussion never happened.

None of us are saints, but I'm a very patient communicator and there are few things that raise my pulse in simple conversation - yet you still managed to do that very effectively.  You're welcome to disagree with me all day and all night, day in day out, for months.  I have zero problems with that.  But you did something different here today.  No need to revisit it, but I sincerely hope you don't continue believing all you did here was disagree with people, and that's why things went south.  I'd like to believe there's a part of you that knows full well that isn't true.

I just reread everything I wrote here. For the most part I have been extremely cordial and unheated.  I too feel that you did something different here today as well. 

None of this thread has been good for narrative. From the title, all the way through. That includes your participation as well @Malkazoid

I would like to thank Malkazoid, Allen, Robert, Gord, Banter, and the members of Narrative staff for tossing about ideas in a constructive manner, offering dissenting opinions without tearing each other down.

(@Robert Nicholson, you weren't being dismissive of me when you presented your opinion. Even though we disagree, I also am concerned about the limited number of niches and the ability to find them. I'm just concerned about niche quality, too! Even with a better search function, many niches could not be found because they don't include the first 3-5 words someone might try to search for!)

I think most of us were able to agree that it would be helpful to be able to communicate with niche owners with suggestions for improving the niche.

Where we differ is that some of us think it's also important to have a mechanism in place for absent niche owners who won't respond to their community's concerns, and some of us don't.

Malkazoid posted:
Gord posted:

+1 for having no ‘Quality Control team’. Seems like a waste of resources at best and at worst, could lead to unwanted censoring and creative suppression. I don’t want Narrative to be polished to perfection. If we were to choose an existing model to follow, I prefer the edgy (and often ugly) template of Reddit over the ‘perfect’ Medium or Quora, both of which I only land on by accident and quickly navigate away from. To be honest, I even find the guidlines for Narrative Niche approval to be prohibitive. Being put on a week-long Niche suggesting time out for suggesting “Dunder Mifflin”, for example, was absurd. 

My $0.02

Yes - the week long time out thing is universally loathed at this point.

But I just want to make sure you understand nobody wants quality control for content posted to niches.  Some of us just see value in correcting spelling mistakes, grammar and scope issues between niche names and descriptions.  It is extremely easy to make sure that doesn't turn into censoring or creative suppression.  If the owner says: "I spelled kidz with a Z because this is a niche about graffiti", that's a pretty clear cut case of where non-traditional spelling is completely acceptable.  But if the niche is about Stamp Collecting, and the description goes something like "Lets all collekt some stampes!", it is equally clear cut that most people will read it and wonder why, in 2019 when auto spelling correction has existed for almost 20 years, nobody gave enough of a damn to get it right.

Point taken though, that you represent a certain user type that prefers things to be less polished.  I just don't think less polished has to extend into niche definitions.  There's plenty of room everywhere else on Narrative for people to post content with as many spelling mistakes, meaningless sentences and grammar fiascos as they could possibly want!  Moderators can't censor posts based on quality, so folks will be completely free to post WOTEVA.  I'm ok with that.  Niche content is easily identifiable as coming from users.  Niche descriptions will be assumed by newcomers to come from the platform, or from someone who is supposed to have their sh*t together 

I just don’t think we need a governing body to make sure things are clear. If I want a Niche about, say, footwear and call it “Let’s all collekt some stampes!”, I think I should be allowed (provided it isn’t redundant). Maybe some cool kids will take a shining to it and it eventually becomes a cultural meme. Or maybe everyone thinks it’s dumb, it doesn’t catch on and I don’t renew it. 

Regardless, I’m happy with @Brian Lenz ‘ explanation and like @Banter ‘s suggestion. 

Question Answered

This action was taken by Brian Lenz.
To follow up on this question, please click here.
×
Post
×
×
×
×