Redundancy, anyone?
Redundancy anyone?

 

As you all probably know - Narrative niches need to be unique, clear, correctly spelled, and to not violate the Terms of Service.

To coordinate down-voting of redundant or invalid niches, rather than creating dozens of threads, we can alert the community here in one place.

Bookmark the thread for easy access, and follow the thread to be alerted via email when there are new posts.  Remember - voting to validate or invalidate niches under review, builds your Narrative reputation, which will strongly shape your experience of, and success with Narrative network.

Correctly voting down redundant or otherwise invalid niches is a powerful contribution to the success of Narrative - we're building the fabric of the network, one link at a time - that process started in late March and is on-going, with over 500 purchased niches already in place.  Ensuring each niche in the network is unique, and clearly understandable, is laying the groundwork for Narrative to excel. 

Let us know you voted by quoting the post in the thread, and saying you voted too - it will help anyone following you to become aware of the niche needing voting on, and so will help spread the alert.  If you give an explanation of how you voted, this might provide good information to the community as we all learn the best ways to evaluate niches.

Onwards!

Original Post

A couple of redundant niches to get us started - help avoid these going to the Tribunal for determination (which chews up energy the @Narrative Network Team could be using to build the platform)!

The Gaming Corner niche is redundant:

https://alpha.narrative.org/ballot/10182477413128240

The Gaming niche already exists ( https://alpha.narrative.org/niche/gaming  )

The ICON niche is redundant:

https://alpha.narrative.org/ballot/10323310571542334

The ICON - ICX niche already exists ( https://alpha.narrative.org/niche/icon-icx )

@Malkazoid. Thanks for starting this thread. I have a handful of  potential duplicates identified that have already been approved by the Community and being sent to the Tribunal.  So, the earlier we recognize the duplicates the better.

Also, beyond this thread (which will be very useful), remember to put comments in when voting. I think it really helps.  People can agree or disagree with comments, but they are still helpful and will get voters thinking.  

Ok, so don't hate on me.  I like pandas.

But the Panda niche has a problem.

https://alpha.narrative.org/ballot/10464048070848469

The description says it is about the Giant Panda, but there are several types of pandas out there.

So either the niche name needs to become Giant Panda, or the description needs to be changed to include all pandas.

As it currently stands, the niche needs to be down voted.

When the beta platform launches, how well presented the niches are will have a very direct impact on how the platform is perceived.  Cleanup has to happen now, before launch.  It goes against my nature to be this anal-retentive about things, but Niches, and the Search functionality that depends on them, will not work properly if we are not precise about these things.

https://alpha.narrative.org/ballot/10323310573468737

This niche is a mouthful: BITTUBE - MONETIZE YOUR CONTENT & FREDOM OF SPEECH & DECENTRALIZED MEDIA PLATFORM.

Should we perhaps enforce a character limit for niche names, @Narrative Network Team?  The niche should really just be called Bittube, with the rest of the information placed in the description...

For now though, there is a spelling mistake in the current name, so we should vote to disapprove of it in its current state.

Agreed. Besides, 'The Video Vault' already exists, and that's the function this Niche would serve, albeit with a different name.

These spelling mistakes and other simple fixes in names should be able to be changed without having to go through a week of waiting.

Either way, duplicate by function.

Michael posted:

Agreed. Besides, 'The Video Vault' already exists, and that's the function this Niche would serve, albeit with a different name.

These spelling mistakes and other simple fixes in names should be able to be changed without having to go through a week of waiting.

Either way, duplicate by function.

Hello Michael

Bittube appears to be a streaming platform but it is external to Narrative, and so should be allowed to have a niche dedicated to it.

The Video Vault is a Narrative niche that I think hopes to be the home for videos people post to Narrative directly.

I may be wrong, but I think that if the person who proposed Bittube makes a reasonable niche name, devoid of spelling mistakes - it should be acceptable.

Malkazoid posted:
Michael posted:

Agreed. Besides, 'The Video Vault' already exists, and that's the function this Niche would serve, albeit with a different name.

These spelling mistakes and other simple fixes in names should be able to be changed without having to go through a week of waiting.

Either way, duplicate by function.

Hello Michael

Bittube appears to be a streaming platform but it is external to Narrative, and so should be allowed to have a niche dedicated to it.

The Video Vault is a Narrative niche that I think hopes to be the home for videos people post to Narrative directly.

I may be wrong, but I think that if the person who proposed Bittube makes a reasonable niche name, devoid of spelling mistakes - it should be acceptable.

If it's an external website or platform, that's called a link.

I'll have to let @Ted or @MOLLY O respond to this one, because if Narrative wanted external links, they'd probably just use Google.

If we don't know what it is, needless to say, it will need to be specified.

Malkazoid posted:
Michael posted:

Agreed. Besides, 'The Video Vault' already exists, and that's the function this Niche would serve, albeit with a different name.

These spelling mistakes and other simple fixes in names should be able to be changed without having to go through a week of waiting.

Either way, duplicate by function.

Hello Michael

Bittube appears to be a streaming platform but it is external to Narrative, and so should be allowed to have a niche dedicated to it.

The Video Vault is a Narrative niche that I think hopes to be the home for videos people post to Narrative directly.

I may be wrong, but I think that if the person who proposed Bittube makes a reasonable niche name, devoid of spelling mistakes - it should be acceptable.

Agree with you @Malkazoid. I voted down for misspelling. @Michael This would be a valid niche assuming it is not just a link. Assuming this niche is to be about posting content related to that platform.

I'm not sure what the difference between "Shopping" and "Shopping Haul" would be.

Shopping: https://alpha.narrative.org/niche/shopping

Shopping Haul: https://alpha.narrative.org/ballot/10041739938077770

 

Hard to say, but if niches are very similar like this, their owners might end up fighting later on as to who has the valid space, it also might end up confusing members as to which niche to post in.

Technically, they're different, but really they're not. My thought is, why have a niche for both fishing, and fishing haul? Is one JUST dedicated to everything about fishing, while the other is dedicated to JUST showing pictures of what a person caught while fishing?

Does the owner of Shopping Haul promise not to post anything later on about Shopping. hahaha

It really depends on the precision of language, and if Niche owners intend to stick to that narrow niche, or if they'll eventually 'niche creep' into other areas.

MOLLY O posted:
Malkazoid posted:
Michael posted:

Agreed. Besides, 'The Video Vault' already exists, and that's the function this Niche would serve, albeit with a different name.

These spelling mistakes and other simple fixes in names should be able to be changed without having to go through a week of waiting.

Either way, duplicate by function.

Hello Michael

Bittube appears to be a streaming platform but it is external to Narrative, and so should be allowed to have a niche dedicated to it.

The Video Vault is a Narrative niche that I think hopes to be the home for videos people post to Narrative directly.

I may be wrong, but I think that if the person who proposed Bittube makes a reasonable niche name, devoid of spelling mistakes - it should be acceptable.

Agree with you @Malkazoid. I voted down for misspelling. @Michael This would be a valid niche assuming it is not just a link. Assuming this niche is to be about posting content related to that platform.

Okay, cool.

It looks as though it's a Youtube replica. Users can broadcast as well as just upload videos.

https://bit.tube

Michael posted:

I'm not sure what the difference between "Shopping" and "Shopping Haul" would be.

Shopping: https://alpha.narrative.org/niche/shopping

Shopping Haul: https://alpha.narrative.org/ballot/10041739938077770

 

Hard to say, but if niches are very similar like this, their owners might end up fighting later on as to who has the valid space, it also might end up confusing members as to which niche to post in.

Technically, they're different, but really they're not. My thought is, why have a niche for both fishing, and fishing haul? Is one JUST dedicated to everything about fishing, while the other is dedicated to JUST showing pictures of what a person caught while fishing?

Does the owner of Shopping Haul promise not to post anything later on about Shopping. hahaha

It really depends on the precision of language, and if Niche owners intend to stick to that narrow niche, or if they'll eventually 'niche creep' into other areas.

Yeah @Michael, I don't know what the endgame regarding similar Niches is. It seems even the Tribunal doesn't care too much if Narrators have to 'duke it out' for content. I know I'm preparing for a 'fight' with at least one of my Niches 

Michael posted:

I'm not sure what the difference between "Shopping" and "Shopping Haul" would be.

Shopping: https://alpha.narrative.org/niche/shopping

Shopping Haul: https://alpha.narrative.org/ballot/10041739938077770

 

Hard to say, but if niches are very similar like this, their owners might end up fighting later on as to who has the valid space, it also might end up confusing members as to which niche to post in.

Technically, they're different, but really they're not. My thought is, why have a niche for both fishing, and fishing haul? Is one JUST dedicated to everything about fishing, while the other is dedicated to JUST showing pictures of what a person caught while fishing?

Does the owner of Shopping Haul promise not to post anything later on about Shopping. hahaha

It really depends on the precision of language, and if Niche owners intend to stick to that narrow niche, or if they'll eventually 'niche creep' into other areas.

Good questions!

Niche creep may well be a thing, and it is difficult to predict how many resources will need to be devoted to keeping it in check.

Before reading the full length of your post, I was of a mind that the niches are both valid and can coexist, because I saw the distinction that you mention: that Shopping seems to be all about shopping, and Shopping Haul seems to be specifically about sharing what got bought on the last shopping trip.  (Neither are very interesting to me so I have to make an effort to project myself into this space to begin with).

Once I read your post to the end, I still felt, and feel the niches are sufficiently different, given that distinction evidenced in the descriptions.  But I am concerned about niche creep.  No doubt this will be an on-going discussion after launch, and we may need to adjust policy if it becomes a significant problem.  For now though, my recommendation would be for the @Narrative Network Team to try to message clearly that niches must abide by their descriptions, so the moderators understand that a great article on how to determine what drone to buy, for instance, should not be accepted for publication on the Shopping Haul niche.

I see a different problem with the Shopping niche though.

The description says it is all about ONLINE shopping, but the niche name is more general.  Online shopping may one day be the only form of shopping (scary thought), but that day has not come yet and until it does, that niche should be considered unclear, and invalid.

I'll post about it separately so it can be addressed as a separate issue.

- EDIT

Ok - I see now the Shopping niche was approved already.  I've put in an appeal to the Tribunal.

Michael posted:

Talent acquisition phrase is used in two Niches.

As someone that hires others on Upwork on a contract-basis, these two terms are interchangeable.

Any thoughts?

talent acquisition

Yes - I agree they are interchangeable.  Worse still: there was a recruiting niche approved before either of these cropped up.

https://alpha.narrative.org/niche/recruiting

 So please downvote the Talent Acquisition niche if you agree they are redundant.

https://alpha.narrative.org/niche/talent-acquisition

Technically, the Recruitment Process Outsourcing niche could be considered unique because the niche name makes clear its focus is specific to outsourced recruitment - that's my take.

@Micheal - things will be easier with the beta launch. The matching will be better, etc.  For now, if you notice something , please keep posting here and also in the comments as you vote.  We appreciate your time and effort. All of these actions in alpha are helping with beta. 

Michael posted:

Done.

Yeah, I think Narrative will have to incentivize people to go through these. I'm a pretty busy father, and don't *usually* have the ability to spend half an hour searching through previous Niches or their synonyms.

Thanks for your attention to detail, @Malkazoid.

I agree!  I'm hoping we'll see that as one of the features of the new version of the alpha launching next month, or as one of the early upgrades they will roll out between that and Beta launch.

We're working to a deadline on a film edit here, so I only duck in to Narrative when I can steal a few minutes away!  I'd do more if I could...

The following German Shepherd niche is really problematic, downvote if you agree:

https://alpha.narrative.org/ballot/10464048079638319

Reading just the niche name, you would immediately assume this is a niche for posting all sorts of material about German shepherds.

Instead, when you read the description, you discover it is for a printing service that wants to help you print German shepherds onto merchandising.  

Description

"Print German Shepherd photos on T-Shirts , Mugs , Pillow , Mobile back cover , Tank Tops"

I'm open-minded, and completely cool with this being a thing, but the niche name has to reflect something of the service, rather than squat on the entire subject matter.  There are other things to do around the topic of German Shepherds than just printing them on T-shirts.  (I assume.  I've met a few German shepherds and was able to interact with them without reflexively emblazoning them on coffee mugs.  I'm hoping I'm not alone).

This sort of mercantile grab of a generic niche name will do a big disservice to Narrative, making it confusing for users wanting to tag their posts to the right niches in an intuitive manner.

And if you really want to be precise, throw the word 'dog' in there somewhere.

Otherwise some people might think you're referring to this:

( He might look good on a tank top though... )

Please vote down "Van Life" which is a redundant niche:
--> https://alpha.narrative.org/niche/van-life

The current VanLife niche is already active:
--> https://alpha.narrative.org/niche/vanlife

The "Van Life" niche already exists. Having two niches dilutes the concept of a niche. Having "VanLife" and "Van Life" as two separate niches devalues the original niche, and the second niche as well.  If Narrative is to call these topic areas, "niches" and gives them value, we cannot allow niches with such clear similarities as these two. 

Thank you for voting down the redundant niche. 

On suggestion I am reposting here. 

Hi Folks,

Lots of people are voting for Vintage Glamour but as the existing owner of Vintage Style I see this as way too redundant. The suggestion is trying to be a broad Vintage catch-all, for which i already own. 

case in point: the dictionary term for Style:

  1. .
    a distinctive appearance, typically determined by the principles according to which something is designed.
    "the pillars are no exception to the general style"
    • a particular design of clothing.
      synonyms:fashiontrendvoguemode
      "modern styles"
    • a way of arranging the hair.
  2. 3.
    elegance and sophistication.
    "a sophisticated nightspot with style and taste"
    synonyms:flair, stylishness, elegancegrace, gracefulness, poisepolish, suaveness, sophisticationurbanitychicdashpanacheelan
    informalclasspizzazz
    "wearing clothes with style"
    comfortluxuryeleganceopulence, lavishness
    "Laura traveled in style"

 

I would be supportive of a vintage niche that drills down to more specifics aspects of the alternative clothing choice, such as Vintage make-up looks, or Vintage Hairstyles, or perhaps exploring certain decades in more depth (I believe we have an 80's niche already), but Glamour is clearly redundant. 

If you have voted yes already, I hope you will reconsider after my plea. I hope you will vote it down as redundant, if you haven't already. If this does get approved I will be making a case against it at tribunal, as I very much see this as redundant.

Thank you for your time.

Please read Niche titles and descriptions carefully.

If a Niche is poorly written and gets approved... it's "approval" is a testimony to the efficacy and quality of (to borrow @Ted's language) "The Wisdom of This Crowd."

And, there are some Niches getting upvoted that should not. 

Here are a few from my perusing of the ballots this morning. I try and always leave a comment when I vote no in order to help clarify the thinking behind my vote. 

Beta Testing
https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/12716610878367493

These next three are all submitted by @yousaf1981 and all exhibit the same behavior. Submitting a Niche, and a poorly written definition of the title word instead of describing the type of content that it would contain. These are all three passing with overwhelming support. Check your work, people.

prediction
https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/12575872447897609

success
https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/11168345952844470

celebration
https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/11309083456079189

Allowing a Niche to be submitted with only a definition (no matter how poorly/eloquently it is written) for a description... then we're heading towards reinventing the dictionary. 

Bryan posted:

Please read Niche titles and descriptions carefully.

If a Niche is poorly written and gets approved... it's "approval" is a testimony to the efficacy and quality of (to borrow @Ted's language) "The Wisdom of This Crowd."

And, there are some Niches getting upvoted that should not. 

Here are a few from my perusing of the ballots this morning. I try and always leave a comment when I vote no in order to help clarify the thinking behind my vote. 

Beta Testing
https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/12716610878367493

These next three are all submitted by @yousaf1981 and all exhibit the same behavior. Submitting a Niche, and a poorly written definition of the title word instead of describing the type of content that it would contain. These are all three passing with overwhelming support. Check your work, people.

prediction
https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/12575872447897609

success
https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/11168345952844470

celebration
https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/11309083456079189

Allowing a Niche to be submitted with only a definition (no matter how poorly/eloquently it is written) for a description... then we're heading towards reinventing the dictionary. 

Thanks for raising the issue of poor descriptions again Bryan.

I feel like this has not been clearly addressed by the @Narrative Network Team.

My sense from Tribunal votes is that niches with seemingly viable names, but imperfect descriptions, seem to get approved by the tribunal?

Which in turn forces me to vote in a similar fashion, because I don't want the rep penalty for voting out of step with how the Tribunal will finally vote - even though I suspect it would be better for us to reject niches with poor descriptions.

One of the reasons I feel this way is because we are rewarding niche suggesters with reputation bonuses if their niche gets approved.  It doesn't make sense to do that unless they put the effort into making a niche viable and well described.

And to go in Bryan's direction, a good description is not just a definition of the word(s) in the niche name.  As he points out, Narrative isn't a dictionary.  We need to know what kind of content belongs on the niche.

My understanding is that the team has so far operated on the notion that a viable niche name can get approved, and the description can be cleaned up later, but if we are to continue in this fashion, we really need to know precisely how this cleanup will be enforced.

And to conclude, I would reiterate that we're being wasteful if we accept flawed descriptions from users we are still rewarding with rep for those flawed suggestions, then having to organise cleanup work of what should have been done right the first time.  So I remain in favour of rejecting niches with confusing and/or poorly written descriptions.  If the team agrees that the efficiency of doing so is in fact preferable, then we need some clear expression from them that the Tribunal guidelines will be updated mandating that they vote in the same manner.  This decision needs to be from the top down since we get rep hits for voting out of lock step with the Tribunal.

Another Niche falling into the Dictionary Trap

https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/13279573545214159

If I submitted "the" as a Niche... and "described" it as: 

denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.

Would this fly? Should this fly? 

It just takes a couple extra seconds to present a point of view on the type of content that could be submitted to a Niche. And then, that point of view should be written using complete sentences. 

Malkazoid posted:
 

because I don't want the rep penalty for voting out of step with how the Tribunal will finally vote - even though I suspect it would be better for us to reject niches with poor descriptions.

One of the reasons I feel this way is because we are rewarding niche suggesters with reputation bonuses if their niche gets approved.  It doesn't make sense to do that unless they put the effort into making a niche viable and well described.

My understanding is that the team has so far operated on the notion that a viable niche name can get approved, and the description can be cleaned up later, but if we are to continue in this fashion, we really need to know precisely how this cleanup will be enforced.

And to conclude, I would reiterate that we're being wasteful if we accept flawed descriptions from users we are still rewarding with rep for those flawed suggestions, then having to organise cleanup work of what should have been done right the first time.  So I remain in favour of rejecting niches with confusing and/or poorly written descriptions.  If the team agrees that the efficiency of doing so is in fact preferable, then we need some clear expression from them that the Tribunal guidelines will be updated mandating that they vote in the same manner.  This decision needs to be from the top down since we get rep hits for voting out of lock step with the Tribunal.

I guess I don't care if I'm out of step with the Tribunal. I was drawn to this project because I believed that quality content was an integral aspect of building the new content economy.

It's hard to criticize people for submitting definition Niches when the @Ted is doing it too. Come on, Ted!

I agree @Malkazoid that we're rewarding/creating bad behaviors. It's just easier to approve things and let Time sort it out.

I could just approve all Niche submissions. Knowing that the bad ones will just sit in the ballot queue forever, never being bought. And, it doesn't hurt me to do so. And if the Tribunal thinks/acts in the same way (because it'd be a lot of work to regulate this with some standards), then people that disagree will get dinged for shining a light on problems with the platform/process. 

If this is just another type of race to the bottom, then we're closer to a state of idiocracy than I would have hoped. 

Bryan posted:

Another Niche falling into the Dictionary Trap

https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/13279573545214159

If I submitted "the" as a Niche... and "described" it as: 

denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.

Would this fly? Should this fly? 

It just takes a couple extra seconds to present a point of view on the type of content that could be submitted to a Niche. And then, that point of view should be written using complete sentences. 

So in the case of the San Francisco niche - I'm torn.

Specifying what San Francisco is may in fact be enough for most people, since it is kind of assumed the niche is destined to receive anything relating to the city.

Then again, since the extra clarity coming from a more explicit description can't hurt and in other instances, is really desirable - I think I'm still in favour of seeking more specificity across the board rather then defining complex exceptions to a rule.

Some niches simply say "All about X".  That could get us across the line with a San Francisco niche, for instance?

Bryan posted:
Malkazoid posted:
 

because I don't want the rep penalty for voting out of step with how the Tribunal will finally vote - even though I suspect it would be better for us to reject niches with poor descriptions.

One of the reasons I feel this way is because we are rewarding niche suggesters with reputation bonuses if their niche gets approved.  It doesn't make sense to do that unless they put the effort into making a niche viable and well described.

My understanding is that the team has so far operated on the notion that a viable niche name can get approved, and the description can be cleaned up later, but if we are to continue in this fashion, we really need to know precisely how this cleanup will be enforced.

And to conclude, I would reiterate that we're being wasteful if we accept flawed descriptions from users we are still rewarding with rep for those flawed suggestions, then having to organise cleanup work of what should have been done right the first time.  So I remain in favour of rejecting niches with confusing and/or poorly written descriptions.  If the team agrees that the efficiency of doing so is in fact preferable, then we need some clear expression from them that the Tribunal guidelines will be updated mandating that they vote in the same manner.  This decision needs to be from the top down since we get rep hits for voting out of lock step with the Tribunal.

I guess I don't care if I'm out of step with the Tribunal. I was drawn to this project because I believed that quality content was an integral aspect of building the new content economy.

It's hard to criticize people for submitting definition Niches when the @Ted is doing it too. Come on, Ted!

I agree @Malkazoid that we're rewarding/creating bad behaviors. It's just easier to approve things and let Time sort it out.

I could just approve all Niche submissions. Knowing that the bad ones will just sit in the ballot queue forever, never being bought. And, it doesn't hurt me to do so. And if the Tribunal thinks/acts in the same way (because it'd be a lot of work to regulate this with some standards), then people that disagree will get dinged for shining a light on problems with the platform/process. 

If this is just another type of race to the bottom, then we're closer to a state of idiocracy than I would have hoped. 

As I said in the white paper:

a Niche is a subject area into which any Narrator may publish content. All Niches should be unique. You should not find one Niche called “New England Patriots” and another called “NE Patriots”. The goal is to create unified content streams around singular subjects.

Of course a definition is acceptable for niche title.  A niche is just a unique subject, so the point of the description is to DEFINE/CLARIFY what the title is.  So, yes, I am guilty of using definitions in descriptions because that is the purpose of a description-- to define and bring clarity to what the niche represents.

I also want to be clear about something else.  Niches are not "communities". So a description that says something like, " a place for mom's to hang out," is technically incorrect. I'm not saying you should reject a niche because it describes a niche like that, but I do want to make clear that niches are merely subjects and that a definition of the subject is not only appropriate but ideal, in my opinion.

The goal of the niche description is to define and clarify exactly what the niche represents. Find me a niche I suggested that does not do that.

Is requiring definitions/descriptions part of the problem then?

What ends up happening in voting claims/arguments is really more about the converging/diverging of semantics (see: games, gaming, video games!) than arguing over title word choice—though they are both problematic. This is further complicated by the notion of someone being able to "own" these Niches. My vision for gaming might be different than yours. "I would run my hotdog stand much different than you'd run yours..."

"Hey, no fair, your title means the same as my title even though you used a different word."

"Nuh-uh. It does not. I was here first."

To use another familiar example: NY Giants, NFL Giants, and New York Giants were used to demonstrate redundancy, even though they are unique when evaluating spelling alone. But, if we add to each of these a slightly different definitions/descriptions... then the task of evaluating becomes more involved. Using only definition thinking, two of the Niches above should be rejected as redundant. But, if we consider the descriptions and not the definitions we might learn that:

  • NY Giants is a Niche for a little league jr. football association in NY sponsored by the...
  • NFL Giants which is a Niche for content focused on the NFL team itself, which is quite different from the...
  • New York Giants Niche which collects historical and contemporary biographies of people whose lives had a positive impact on the neighborhoods of Manhattan. Totally not sports-ball. 

 

Or, if people want to contribute content about shredding with guitars and they prefer to identify with the term Metal over Heavy Metal... and some one else thinks there is a difference, in spite of conventional evidence to the contrary, why shouldn't they both exist? Content creators might resonate with one over the other. If we go with dictionary definition, they are the same. If we go with gut feeling, or popular opinion, or subjective preference... they might be totally different to some people.

My point is this: I don't think a dictionary definition is enough. 

@Ted I agree with you here:

a description that says something like, " a place for mom's to hang out," is technically incorrect.

but I disagree with:

I also want to be clear about something else.  Niches are not "communities"... niches are merely subjects and that a definition of the subject is not only appropriate but ideal, in my opinion.

because Niches WILL become communities. They will become interest groups. They will become a place for people to gather and share a point of view on a topic. They won't get warm and cuddly with a dictionary definition. 

OPTION 1
Niche: Trees
Definition: woody perennial plants

OPTION 2
Niche: Trees
Description: a place to share and learn about the varied species, environmental influences, and sustainable use of woody perennial plants. 

Descriptions are very important because a title alone can be ambiguous and by itself may even have more than meaning (many words do).

I'm really not following your logic here, @Bryan.  A definition is the perfect way to clarify the meaning of niche.  What else is there?

A community may certainly develop around a niche, in that it has its own unique set of followers, but the niche itself is just a subject. That is the distinction.  And the content posted to that niche is the important part.  The niche itself also does not have a personality. It is simply intended to be a unique subject. 

The Niche system is cool, but it's not perfect. This is a new content economy. The model is new. It has flaws. The longer that flaws (even if they are flaws of understanding and not execution) persist, the taller the building becomes with unstable bits in its foundation. 

As a Founder, and a very interested and vest member of this community, I am trying to provoke/test some of the weaknesses of the system to make it better... not tear it down. 

It is troubling that my reputation (the more I've thought about it) is going to get dinged for authentic participation...assuming that my votes that don't align with Tribunal/Community votes count as a negative mark. 

Ted posted:

Descriptions are very important because a title alone can be ambiguous and by itself may even have more than meaning (many words do).

I'm really not following your logic here, @Bryan.  A definition is the perfect way to clarify the meaning of niche.  What else is there?

A community may certainly develop around a niche, in that it has its own unique set of followers, but the niche itself is just a subject. That is the distinction.  And the content posted to that niche is the important part.  The niche itself also does not have a personality. It is simply intended to be a unique subject. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but what I understand from @Bryan's posting on this matter is that merely defining the word(s) of a niche name can actually be confusing.

'Celebration' is a good example of that.  The description takes the dictionary approach.  Ok great.  Except, everyone already knows what a celebration is.  What we really want to know is what type of content belongs there - we might not be inclined to do the thinking on this ourselves, or perhaps not with sufficient confidence.  People appreciate guidance: it takes away that powerful social inhibitor: the suspicion that our contribution will be deemed inadequate.

Personally, I would wonder: are they expecting stories of epic celebrations?  Are they expecting us to describe the preparations for an upcoming celebration?  Is it ok for me to write about celebrating something very personal, that did not involve a gathering, or other people?  

We want a quality network, and part of delivering that quality will entail niches overcoming such hurdles of confusion - that's where I agree with what I think @Bryan is saying.

Bryan posted:

It is troubling that my reputation (the more I've thought about it) is going to get dinged for authentic participation...assuming that my votes that don't align with Tribunal/Community votes count as a negative mark. 

I agree with this, and I think the solution is for the Team to fairly rapidly start homing in on more specific guidelines for what a good niche name and description is.  Or rather, to enforce them and make not following them cause for rejection.  Molly wrote a great Medium blog post with such guidelines, but they are not enforced.

That's where the problem arises. 

On the one hand we're rewarding people for suggesting niches that get approved even if they don't follow the quality guidelines.

On the other hand, we're penalising voters who reject niches because those guidelines aren't followed, when the Tribunal then approves the niche.

So we're rewarding sub-par niche suggesting, penalising those in the community who are trying to correct them, and ending up with subpar quality niches.

This is a problem and I've tried to state it as simply as I can.  That's all I've got.

It is troubling that my reputation (the more I've thought about it) is going to get dinged for authentic participation...assuming that my votes that don't align with Tribunal/Community votes count as a negative mark. 


We have not disclosed the reputation formula, so I would not make too many assumptions about the importance of one thing versus another.

 The longer that flaws (even if they are flaws of understanding and not execution) persist, the taller the building becomes with unstable bits in its foundation. 

I think this is a bit much.  Are niche descriptions really an unstable flaw?  

I think we are beating a dead horse at this point, but I want to make sure you understand that your opinions and feedback are welcome. That does not mean that we are always going to be in agreement, of course, but different perspectives are always welcome.

Ted posted:

Descriptions are very important because a title alone can be ambiguous and by itself may even have more than meaning (many words do).

I'm really not following your logic here, @Bryan.  A definition is the perfect way to clarify the meaning of niche.  What else is there?

A community may certainly develop around a niche, in that it has its own unique set of followers, but the niche itself is just a subject. That is the distinction.  And the content posted to that niche is the important part.  The niche itself also does not have a personality. It is simply intended to be a unique subject. 

I agree descriptions are important. I believe a description goes beyond a definition. One taps the aesthetic perspective, the other taps a clinical one.

Define your spouse. 
Describe your spouse.
These should be very different responses.

So, to answer your question, the "logic" I am using may not be logical by definition, but there is a method to my madness. I am design-focused, rooted in delivering aesthetic experiences. I believe people are more likely to be inspired, moved by, aesthetics than they are clinical executions — unless, of course, they are sick  

This is called Narrative after all.

If Niches are just tags (which was a question I asked many moons ago), then why own them? Let tags be tags. No need to reinvent the wheel.  Then Niches can become curated corners of Narrative where owners, moderators, and content creators craft quality content for community consumption. 

Sorry, what else can you do with a dead horse but beat it!?

"Flaw" may be the wrong word... but, I believe it can be improved. Already it (the voting process) has been improved quite a bit from the first attempt. I'm just saying I don't think we've arrived yet. 

I appreciate that you're taking some time to discuss. It's difficult to raise objections in a text-only medium where my genuine concern for the success of the project carried by the "tone" of my voice gets reduced to glyphs on a screen. 

Maybe more emojis: 

Malkazoid posted:
Bryan posted:

It is troubling that my reputation (the more I've thought about it) is going to get dinged for authentic participation...assuming that my votes that don't align with Tribunal/Community votes count as a negative mark. 

I agree with this, and I think the solution is for the Team to fairly rapidly start homing on in more specific guidelines for what a good niche name and description is.  Or rather, to enforce them and make not following them cause for rejection.  Molly wrote a great Medium blog post with such guidelines, but they are not enforced.

That's where the problem arises. 

On the one hand we're rewarding people for suggesting niches that get approved even if they don't follow the quality guidelines.

On the other hand, we're penalising voters who reject niches because those guidelines aren't followed, when the Tribunal then approves the niche.

So we're rewarding sub-par niche suggesting, penalising those in the community who are trying to correct them, and ending up with subpar quality niches.

This is a problem and I've tried to state it as simply as I can.  That's all I've got.

I completely agree, based on my interactions with the platform.

It should be up to the developers to first accept that they have a problem with their voting mechanism, and that it would be a mess (to say the least), if this project were to scale to even double the size, with Niches being populated. (10K users)

Nobody on this platform should be voting on Niches if their reputation is negatively effected. That's not a practice that will scale. This is quite obvious.

These things can be fixed, for sure, but it represents a much, much larger problem if those leading this project are in disagreement with the community about something so obvious.

 TLDR: Accept there's a problem, fix it, move on.

Bryan posted:

Good catch Bryan.

The suggester of the niche made a good defence in the comments, but I'm afraid for me this niche does remain redundant.  I don't see the notion of passion for travel, or the aspiration for the niche to be a 'club' as distinctive enough from the existing Travel niche because the name 'Travelogue' does not embody those distinctions.  Call it "The Passionate Traveller: People who live for travel and experiencing new places and cultures.  We are not your average holiday-makers or business trippers.  For us, travel is a way of life." - and there would be a better case for it.  

Or, if the niche name were to focus specifically on cultural experiences, for instance, this would set it aside enough from generic travel.  Something like "Experiences of Other Cultures".

I think we need to judge the distinction of the name from other names because this is what will help the experience of Narrative be intuitive.  People will get confused if two niches exist with names that do not convey enough of why they are different.

 

No, I don't use Telegram.

I'm a big fan of keeping my community involvement out in the open, along with any interactions.

The ICO industry has matured away from the 'telegram phase' and more into a business where development needs to be transparent and open for all to see. After all, an ICO is a community-owned business venture.

If a community or team has issues to address, it needs to be seen by everyone. Anyone is free to reach out to me on this platform.

Michael posted:

No, I don't use Telegram.

I'm a big fan of keeping my community involvement out in the open, along with any interactions.

The ICO industry has matured away from the 'telegram phase' and more into a business where development needs to be transparent and open for all to see. After all, an ICO is a community-owned business venture.

If a community or team has issues to address, it needs to be seen by everyone. Anyone is free to reach out to me on this platform.

No worries Michael.  I understand your preference, although I don't think it can be generalised to a rule for ICOs in general... and I don't even see us as part of the ICO industry.  Instead I see us as a community, and I think there will always be a use-case and a need for private communication in any human community: not sure why this one would be an exception.  

Ted posted

As I said in the white paper:

a Niche is a subject area into which any Narrator may publish content. All Niches should be unique. You should not find one Niche called “New England Patriots” and another called “NE Patriots”. The goal is to create unified content streams around singular subjects.

Of course a definition is acceptable for niche title.  A niche is just a unique subject, so the point of the description is to DEFINE/CLARIFY what the title is.  So, yes, I am guilty of using definitions in descriptions because that is the purpose of a description-- to define and bring clarity to what the niche represents.

I also want to be clear about something else.  Niches are not "communities". So a description that says something like, " a place for mom's to hang out," is technically incorrect. I'm not saying you should reject a niche because it describes a niche like that, but I do want to make clear that niches are merely subjects and that a definition of the subject is not only appropriate but ideal, in my opinion.

The goal of the niche description is to define and clarify exactly what the niche represents. Find me a niche I suggested that does not do that.

Actually @Ted A Niche is exactly "a place" by definition and the word does not mean a subject, no matter what you write in your white paper. The word itself, by definition implies community far more than it implies a subject.  Please see the definition of "niche" inserted below. So yes,  a description that says something like, " a place for mom's to hang out," is actually a technically Correct description. And a description of a subject, is technically incorrect, no matter what your white paper states. Words still matter. Especially on a writing platform. 

In my opinion this is why so many people are upset that what they thought they were buying was a Niche-- meaning a digital place for people to congregate and share content surrounding a mutual enjoyed topic, but are disappointed to find out that what you meant by the word "Niche" is that we are actually nothing more than hashtag promoters. Myself included.

I suspect that @Bryan's issue with the description being just a definition is because it is stripping away the personal flair--the subtitles and nuances that a thoughtful description can have, and the direction it can send a niche's content towards. Your response to him stating the the "correct" approach is the more clinical definition, is a tad worrisome to me regarding the future adoption of Narrative.

At this point I would like to caution you to LISTEN to your early adopters//initial investors more (yes I am an investor...I have piled loads of my money and time into Narrative with an expectation to one day see a return). Your misinterpretation of the definition of niche, should be enough to demonstrate that your white paper may have not been as clearly written, as you think.

I leave this post with one more thing to ponder. Just because you had an original vision doesn't mean that your every original detail is the best approach. If Narrative is to become authentically adopted by the masses, I feel you will need to be much more fluid and responsive. How the majority of people want to use Narrative's Niches for their content will determine if it succeeds or not. The "rules" in the white paper, and your definition of Niche as only a subject, where ownership means getting 10% for promoting a hashtag, is greatly disappointing for so many.  I just cannot understand the benefit in the decision to remove the owners involvement in developing their niche with personable flair, as previously discussed in other threads. If you try to control and correct people too much, they simply will lose interest and move along, to post their content on the next platform that suits their needs better. 

That is my two bits. Personally I am on side with Bryan for the most part. I prefer personalized descriptions. But i am not going to vote down dictionary descriptions, just for that reason alone.

Screen Shot 2018-11-10 at 5.34.15 PM 

 

 

The latest niche suffering from Dictionary Definition syndrome:

-----------------------------

https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/14124068787930351

Population

Description: The volume of people living within a set area of land.

-----------------------------

As Dylan (the first person to comment on the suggested niche) expressed perfectly: 

"What exactly is this niche going to include posts about?  Population statistics, trends perhaps?  It just seems you've defined a noun.  Apologies for my ignorance."

We're getting multiple examples of niches with this problem, and multiple community members raising this as a problem.  At this point, I think it would be highly beneficial for the @Narrative Network Team to adapt to this situation and give clear guidelines requiring niche descriptions to explain what sort of content the niche is designed to receive.

The clearer and unambiguous niches are, the more appealing Narrative will be.  This much is absolutely certain.

 

I think they should just turn suggestions off at this point. At least until beta launch, preferably until the reputation system is implemented. There are plenty Niches available for sale now, but that pool is being diluted while the few active members are becoming frustrated.

I'm curious what everyone makes of this one:

https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/13701841665512174

Ulogs

Reproducing here the comment I left on the proposed niche page: 

Not sure what to make of this one.  My first reaction was to think: how is this an improvement over the Personal Journal every Narrative user gets from the platform?  I understand the stipulation that everything must be fresh content: that can be achieved in a Personal Journal also.  I went to ulogs.org - and got the sense that the site exists to try to give visibility to Steemit users who blog: basically an up-voting community.  Narrative isn't supposed to need or encourage this sort of banding together just to upvote each other's content...  So my overall impressions aren't all that favourable.  I would encourage existing uloggers to publish their content to their Personal Journals on Narrative when the platform launches, and to any niche that they might also belong to.  For instance a blog entry that centres around a day hiking in the Himalayas, could also be published to a Himalayas niche.  That, in my view, is the Narrative way: however I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.

Thoughts?  I have not voted yet.

This one was amusing:

https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/14546320797512484

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cryptocurrency market and exchange

Description: "Very unique niche to adop by all crypto lovers!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite the description's claims, this niche is not unique at all.  It is redundant, as there is already an approved niche: Cryptocurrency exchanges

Downvote if you agree - to avoid this going to the Tribunal.

re: https://alpha.narrative.org/n/inspirational-center@MOLLY O you mentioned in a comment on Inspirational Center that:

When the Niche is purchased, it can be edited. Just remember that Niches are public therefore, people can post to the topic via the Moderator.
 
Can you help me understand the value of evaluating Niche submissions against a set of criteria if we are also supposed maintain the assumption that problematic Niches can be edited post-vote?
There are many who spend a lot of time evaluating Niches, checking for redundancies across the spectrum of abbreviations, alternate wordings, etc.
Am we/they wasting time?
It seems  a drastic shift is taking place in the way the Narrative Team perceives/presents/discusses the role of Niches. They have moved from owner-maintained content channels to a group-managed tagging system.
If Niches are truly emerging as mere "content tags", then why care about a description (sufficing for dictionary definitions over creativity), and why care about redundancy?
I also am unclear how to interpret this statement: 
Just remember that Niches are public therefore, people can post to the topic via the Moderator. 
Is this a reminder to the Niche submitter that anyone (public) will be able to post content to Inspirational Center?
Or, a reminder that any content posted will be filtered by a Moderator... in which case, it's not really "public" and that filter will be managed by someone other than the owner. (Further compounding the problematic description of this Niche as it's written with a first-person focus—the direct object of the proposed Niche may not end up being the one who owns the Niche). 
 
I want to be contributing positivity on here. I want to be encouraging others to join up, become investors, owners. I have invested quite a bit myself, but until I can settle the feeling of things being derailed, I'm not sure where to find the positive spin. 

@Bryan. My point about editing is that folks were saying that description was in all Caps…that is an easy fix if the Niche is purchased.  Of course, all edits will need to go through the tribunal to make sure that the meaning isn't changed.  

Regarding the friendly reminder that anyone can post to this via the moderator. My point there to address part of the description saying that "invite others"- and less about moderators.  Just wanted to remind folks that these are Niches and not personal journals so others should be posting to the niche. 

Hope that helps. 

Question for @MOLLY O on this one:

https://alpha.narrative.org/n/inspirational-center

The description is fatally flawed, but you gave some guidance with your YES vote, and your comment that descriptions can be changed.

My question is: will it be changed?  Do we have a robust and efficient mechanism in place that will make sure that niches approved with broken descriptions will all require description changes?

Unless a capable crew does the changes, we could be in for a lot of back and forthing with people trying to fix their own descriptions, many of whom won't have English as their first language.

Because the community is a little bit in the dark about how these description cleanups will be taken care of, it makes me strongly suspect we should be rejecting niches with bad descriptions.  I still strongly believe we should be enforcing quality control at the source: making it clear to folks that niche descriptions have to be good or else they will be rejected.  Why settle for people submitting unclear, unsuitable, misspelled niche descriptions when we know someone is going to have to clean them up (of course this particular niche does not necessarily sin on all those levels, but I've broadened the scope to talk about improving our overarching workflow, which currently is deferring work until later, and loading it upon unknown shoulders?).  You are giving rep boosts to people who suggest niches that are approved.  Why reward people's rep for niches that will need further work by the community before they are actually viable?  Make them REALLY deserve the rep boost!

Why not let the community, which is working for Narrative with their voting, enforce the guidelines for descriptions that you wrote such an excellent article on?  The difference between merely writing an article with recommendations, and actually allowing them to be enforced, could well mean the difference between a 15% and a 90% effect of your article on the actual quality and efficiency of Narrative niche generation.  Only the top 15% of users - and that might be generous - are paying enough attention to have even read your article.  (You may even be able to compare how many views your article has received with the number of Alpha users).  With what I am proposing, you would allow those top 15% of committed users to translate your guidelines into an actual positive outcome that would hold the remaining 85% of users to the correct standards.  How can we pass up the opportunity to boost efficiency to that degree, especially considering you've already put in the work to make the solid guidelines?  They are being wasted right now.

So back to the niche in question.  Why not reject the niche, engage the suggester in a community discussion on how the description could pass muster, and link them to your guidelines, and let them submit it again, with increasing penalties each time it gets rejected?

@Malkazoid, you are correct. I reread this Niche and the second part of that first line description is off and not very good. The Niche itself has great promise, but as described - falls short of our mark. I am going to change my vote.  To be frank, most of my response was because I saw some other issues i wanted to point out that I noticed - voting no just for all caps. That said, there are some other issues - as you state. 

Truth is, we have a bit of a learning curve when we have new people joining. Even those Founders and early adopters got better and better…which is why its easier for the more established members to see the issue/flaws. I do encourage you and others to keep true to voting. keep us all honest! I try and go in to just provide comments early (without voting often) to help.  The more others can do to help guide the new members, the better.

I am sorry that I created so much confusion with my niche, but I was not able to correct anything. It was a beginner's mistake. Yes, this niche is designed to be a pool of inspiration to all users and not my personal journal. English is not my native language. I tried to write something personal, so everyone can have the feeling that he part of this story. 

Teddy posted:

I am sorry that I created so much confusion with my niche, but I was not able to correct anything. It was a beginner's mistake. Yes, this niche is designed to be a pool of inspiration to all users and not my personal journal. English is not my native language. I tried to write something personal, so everyone can have the feeling that he part of this story. 

Don't even worry about it @Teddy - all of this is a learning curve for each and every one of us, and it will all lead to a quality network!  The co-created nature of niches is part of what makes them so exciting to me and I'm looking forward to that process becoming more and more communal, so that we end up helping each other to make each niche all that it can be.  Please keep the niche suggestions coming.  It is our mistakes that make possible, and define our successes, right?

 

@Teddy - here is a suggestion for the description of that niche, and this is me trying to stay as true to your vision as possible:

"Have you ever been strongly inspired by a person, thing, event, or perhaps a piece of art or music?  Tell that story here and watch the inspiration spread!"

Teddy posted:

@MALKAZOID 

Can you help me with my niches? I really need your support. 

https://alpha.narrative.org/n/your-story 

I want to change to: Tell your story! 

Here I need an inspiring text, to encourage people to tell their life's story. "Everyone has a story to tell. Your story can make an impact on many lives." 

Something like this!

Sorry, if I am asking  too much from you. 

That one is tougher for me - because I think that niche might be replicating the functionality of Personal Journals.  Every Narrative user gets a Personal Journal where they can post whatever they like (within the T&C of course).  Because the term Personal Journal is strongly suggestive of blogging about one's own life, I expect many people will use it for that.

BUT - if your description emphasises the impact on other people's lives very strongly, then I personally think there is a valid reason for it to be a niche.  After all, if you are looking for someone's story that might apply to your current situations in life, it would be nice to be able to find that content on a niche, rather than have to trawl through Personal Journals until you find something!

The only remaining problem is that the name of the niche doesn't really explain that it is about inspiring others.  In a way, you've done a better job of that with your other niche that we have been discussing ("Inspirational centre").  The two niches have a lot of overlap - perhaps too much...

So yeah - not sure I can help with that one.  My vote would actually be for appealing to the Tribunal to make 'Your Story' redundant, and for you to use 'Inspirational centre' with an improved description.

Teddy posted:

The problem is, I won the auction on "Your story" and I already paid for that niche. It is not my suggested niche, I won the niche at the auction. Now I need to make this niche more attractive.  

 

Ok!  

Go into your profile, then click Your Niches. Then click the name of the niche that you want to edit.  Then on the top right you'll see 3 dots. Click that and you'll see "request an edit".   

Inspiration

https://alpha.narrative.org/n/inspiration

This niche is currently up for approval. Is has a title and description far superior to the already approved niche that makes it redundant...

INSPIRATIONAL CENTER

https://alpha.narrative.org/n/inspirational-center


The latter was approved by a narrow margin and has no bids on it. The former would be far more appealing to narrators, readers, AND advertisers. 

Is there anything that can be done in situations like this?

Christina Gleason posted:

Inspiration

https://alpha.narrative.org/n/inspiration

This niche is currently up for approval. Is has a title and description far superior to the already approved niche that makes it redundant...

INSPIRATIONAL CENTER

https://alpha.narrative.org/n/inspirational-center


The latter was approved by a narrow margin and has no bids on it. The former would be far more appealing to narrators, readers, AND advertisers. 

Is there anything that can be done in situations like this?

Oh wow.  You've really unearthed a tough one.

I always feel a pang of sorrow when a redundant niche pops up that presents much better than the original one, but this one is that, squared.

The name is simpler, the description is powerful in ways few niche descriptions have been to date... and we have to vote it down and keep the previous one that for now has a flawed, self-referential description?

And where is the justice, if the original niche proposer amends his description to use the phenomenal description of the newcomer?  The newcomer gets his idea taken from him and has nothing.  Sure, the network benefits, but I can't ignore the newcomer's perspective.  It just wouldn't be right.

I feel like this is a situation that we should seize as an opportunity to establish a policy for dealing with this.

One possibility would be for the Tribunal to have the power to determine that the new name and description are much better for the network, so the original niche owner can keep his niche, but he should adopt the better name and description... and to recompense the newcomer, a nice rep boost would be in order.  Personally, I think I would feel ok about that, putting myself in the newcomer's shoes.  As for the owner, if he feels imposed upon and wants to refuse and keep the old name and description, he should be able to do so, but he would take a small rep hit for ignoring what the Tribunal have suggested would be in the interest of the network as a whole.

The Team might not go for that solution because it may be too interventionist for their liking.  There is a strong prerogative to not be a middleman whenever it can be avoided, and overall, I agree with that ethos.

Also there is a chance that this approach is just too complicated.

My take tends to boil down to: what is better for Narrative.  What will make the network more successful, what will make everyone feel this is the most fair way of delivering a quality experience for Narrative's users.  If stepping in once and a while with a small carrot and a gentle stick is what it takes to make a poor niche awesome, and everyone feel fairly treated in the process... I personally think it may well be warranted.  But that's just from where I stand: I don't see all the moving parts as well as the Team can.

That's all I've got.  Do you have any thoughts Christina?  Thanks for presenting this really tough situation.  Perhaps the Team will come up with a great solution that we cannot see, but definitely beneficial to look at this among ourselves and let them be amused, bored or inspired by our musings.

Malkazoid posted:

My take tends to boil down to: what is better for Narrative.  What will make the network more successful, what will make everyone feel this is the most fair way of delivering a quality experience for Narrative's users.  If stepping in once and a while with a small carrot and a gentle stick is what it takes to make a poor niche awesome, and everyone feel fairly treated in the process... I personally think it may well be warranted.  But that's just from where I stand: I don't see all the moving parts as well as the Team can.

That's all I've got.  Do you have any thoughts Christina?  Thanks for presenting this really tough situation.  Perhaps the Team will come up with a great solution that we cannot see, but definitely beneficial to look at this among ourselves and let them be amused, bored or inspired by our musings.

In this particular case, INSPIRATIONAL CENTER doesn't yet HAVE an owner, as it's still up for auction with no bids. This would be the ideal time to un-approve the inferior niche without actually stepping on anyone's toes. (There are LOADS of terrible niche names and descriptions still up for auction now, many approved before I knew Narrative existed, when niches could be won for 450 NRVE. Because the names and descriptions are so bad, they may not show up with the automated "related niches" list.)

Having previous worked as a Quality Rater for Google (through a temp agency) I'm particularly sensitive to what provides the best user experience. Looking at INSPIRATIONAL CENTER as it is now, I'd never submit anything there because it just wouldn't perform well. The suggested Inspiration niche, though, seems like it would be more lucrative for all involved: Narrative, owner, mods, narrators, readers, AND advertisers.

But in the case where an old niche has an owner and a newcomer suggests something redundant but objectively better for niche performance, I like your suggestion about having the owner of the original niche edit the name and description, compensating the newcomer for reputation loss associated with being rejected for redundancy, and potentially giving the newcomer first refusal for an open moderator position in the respective niche.

Christina Gleason posted:

In this particular case, INSPIRATIONAL CENTER doesn't yet HAVE an owner, as it's still up for auction with no bids. This would be the ideal time to un-approve the inferior niche without actually stepping on anyone's toes. (There are LOADS of terrible niche names and descriptions still up for auction now, many approved before I knew Narrative existed, when niches could be won for 450 NRVE. Because the names and descriptions are so bad, they may not show up with the automated "related niches" list.)

Good point - I suppose all the newcomer was going to get out of his suggestion was a rep boost since it is only at the approval phase.

So if he still gets a rep boost for the Tribunal finding his suggested name and/or description to be an improvement over the original niche - all should be well in his world. 

 

@Christina Gleason - I guess we're not any closer to knowing how to vote with the Inspiration niche...

I can't bring my self to vote against it.  It is too good, even though it is redundant.

I wish there were a way to flag it as redundant BUT better than the earlier niche in name and/or description.  If there were such a flag, this could automatically bring the rejected niche to the attention of the Tribunal...

I stumbled on this one Crowdfounding, https://alpha.narrative.org/n/crowdfounding this niche is going through approval. It is in my understanding a misspelling of crowdfunding.

In this case crowdfunding hasn't been suggested yet. Can the suggester of the crowdfounding be asked to edit his suggestion entirely and pass it through tribunal or can someone suggest crowdfunding and thereby render the former redundant (?). 

 

 

Osita posted:

I stumbled on this one Crowdfounding, https://alpha.narrative.org/n/crowdfounding this niche is going through approval. It is in my understanding a misspelling of crowdfunding.

In this case crowdfunding hasn't been suggested yet. Can the suggester of the crowdfounding be asked to edit his suggestion entirely and pass it through tribunal or can someone suggest crowdfunding and thereby render the former redundant (?). 

I was wondering the same thing about what to do with that one.

@Christina Gleason - I've decided to downvote the Inspiration niche.  It is redundant after all, and we're supposed to downvote redundant niches until something changes with the guidelines and/or process.

I hope the @Narrative Network Team can find the bandwidth in the not-too-distant-future, to implement a procedure whereby these redundant but better niches can be folded into improving Narrative rather than just being shot down.

Osita posted:

I stumbled on this one Crowdfounding, https://alpha.narrative.org/n/crowdfounding this niche is going through approval. It is in my understanding a misspelling of crowdfunding.

In this case crowdfunding hasn't been suggested yet. Can the suggester of the crowdfounding be asked to edit his suggestion entirely and pass it through tribunal or can someone suggest crowdfunding and thereby render the former redundant (?). 

 

 

Hey @Osita - thanks for posting here.  Yes, that is a misspelling, and we are supposed to downvote such niches.

I think currently the only way forwards for a misspelled niche is for it to be rejected.  Someone, in fact anyone, can submit the correctly spelled niche.  

 

We already have "Digital Video: All about video production with digital cameras for digital publishing channels. Hardware, story telling, editing tips, publishing on facebook, youtube, instagram" so 'Videography: All the great content for videographers around the world. Get tips, information, inspiration, entertainment and resources from top creators and filmmakers!" is redundant.

Emily Barnett posted:

We already have "Digital Video: All about video production with digital cameras for digital publishing channels. Hardware, story telling, editing tips, publishing on facebook, youtube, instagram" so 'Videography: All the great content for videographers around the world. Get tips, information, inspiration, entertainment and resources from top creators and filmmakers!" is redundant.

Nice catch, I have to change my vote I think!

Here is an interesting one.  Not sure how to vote yet.

Video Game Critique

https://alpha.narrative.org/hq...al/26791059735535845

There is already a Video Game Reviews niche.  Although I understand the distinction between short reviews, and in depth ones, I don't understand how the distinction can be quantified in a way that does not cause confusion.

We have niches for shorter, and longer pieces of fiction, for instance - but there were clear definitions of how short a piece had to be, in order to belong in the short fiction niche (sorry, can't recall the exact niche name).

And we are also faced here with the possibility of this sort of doubling up of niches become abused.  If we allow this, we give a green light to every niche being copied, with the slight modification of adding "in depth", or "short".

In this particular instance, I'm also wary of the potential for confusion on the name level, since only the description of this niche makes clear that it intends to be in depth.  Though 'critique' can mean an extensive evaluation, it is also used to refer to comments and observations of any length.

As time goes by, I'm homing in on the number one criteria for voting being the potential for confusion.  This makes me feel like this should be voted down, but I'm uncertain.  Any thoughts?

 

The approved Niche "blackandwhite photography" seems like a duplicate of another approved Niche "BLACK-WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY". What seems strange is the more appropriately spelled Niche "Black and White Photography" was rejected. Was this based on their descriptions and timing?

"BLACK-WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY" was suggested first and its description seems geared toward creating B&W photos and techniques. "Black and White Photography" was next and I guess the description is about sharing and discussing other artists' B&W photography but it was strongly (71%) rejected. Then "blackandwhite photography" is narrowly approved (52%) with a similar (misspelled) description as the rejected "Black and White Photography".

Is this just a natural result of community voting? I like what @Malkazoid had to say about the quality of descriptions and would further apply it to the naming of Niches. I'm not a huge stickler for spelling and grammar but I don't think it benefits the community if Niche names and descriptions are both poorly worded. 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×