An interesting thread on how to handle Duplicate niches has started to branch into the territory of hierarchal organization and there are some interesting points raised why we may want some sort of visual roadmapping of the Niches,  and the so called "sub-niches". These are the words that we as the community seem to gravitate too, but on many occasions members of the @Narrative Network Team have corrected us that there is no such thing as Sub-niches; that all niches are equal. 

This may just be a semantic of the use of the word Niche and sub-niche. Obviously when we are dealing with rules of duplication it is our human nature that we feel compelled to start categorizing topics, with sub-topics. It also seems like the community has no hang-ups in using the term sub-niche. That this term is just something that the team does not want us to use.

Personally I don't understand why they keep saying that all niches are equal to each other. I don't perceive it to be about equality, but rather compartmentalizing subjects...and I suspect most of the community does too. Perhaps they are being overly Politically Correct on this matter. Perhaps there is a reason that has not been made aware to us. I just don't know.

I am posting this thread to hear different thoughts on the subject from both community and team members. Do you feel that Narrative has topics that don't nestle into each other--that they are all just one big liner flow of niches, or do you feel it is advantageous that we sort of map out topics with sub-topics like a family tree.

To sub-niche, or not to sub-niche? That is the question 

Original Post

I'm in favor of the sub-tree hierarchical model of distribution, as we expand as a community it is inevitable over time groups will duplicate niches, and niches will not remain static and change overtime. 

As the community grows and the boundaries of what constitutes a niches area converges with other niches, the issue of the tribunal being used to challenge strong established communities could become a possible risk that could alienate groups within niches if we only accept mergers and duplicates as options.

A viable alternative is a system that entails association among various niches that can work as a cooperative, in that way content creators can control where their content is posted among a group of niches while still allowing target marketing for advertisers. 

A methodology of allowing users to naturally navigate into a funnel of related content down a Rabbit hole as Emily pointed out in a previous thread is where I think narrative will bring more value in the long run, versus standalone niche islands that do not communicate with one another. 

The niches being EQUAL may be great in theory, design, and programming terms, but financially, entrepreneurially, and culturally they are not.

 

Like domain names and real estate, the marketability, location, and relevance matter. Especially since money is spent annually to keep the niche. One pays for this in an effort to get a return. And those fees increase with its popularity. 

I haven't found anything discussing if you can share a post's link between niches, or if there is a simple reward system for my niche driving traffic to another niche which will benefit that niche, but this could remove many duplicate and sub-niche problems. This could also reward narrator's who treat their journal as something akin to posting on Facebook, but getting paid. 

See next post for discription.

Rewards for sharing:

Just add reward points to the person/niche that reposts  a link to a article/pic/video. 

As the members of one niche link through to the link, that link sharing niche gets some reward and the other post niche will grow and get rewards. 

This creates an atmosphere of content providers can decide more easily on where to post since they can get traffic from multiple niches easily, and niche owners are more accepting of sub/side niches since the niche gets rewarded for sharing.

Also, a moderator may only want certain quality of content on their page, but will share links to lesser quality that the other niches is OK with.

Back to journals. Maybe I want to mostly post photos on my journal, but I could share the link to one to a relevant niche. The moderator could allow it and I get rewards for the traffic and the niche gets rewards for driving the traffic to my post. Maybe many other people sharing to their journals and even a brand does (let's say Pepsi, there is a vending machine in the background ) and everyone gets regarded as it goes viral. It gets shared out site of Narrative and drives people onto the platform, new Narrators sign up.

I hope there is a sign up reward bonus for the content provider, niche and narrator involved in driving that traffic. 

This is a small divergence from the main topic, that said I came across a project in the launch stages that may provide another solution, it's called blinked. The way they are generating their advertising model is interesting and runs counter narrative. 

Instead of focusing on a central niche reward, they build their system to focus strongly on the user and empowering influencers, feels a bit like steemit that said it could be a clone of narrative in theory.

I'm waiting on a whitepaper release to compare it to what we have in narrative as sometimes we can learn from other competitors what models may be good solutions to issues we face.

https://medium.com/@julie_45376/why-youre-the-new-influencer-c3d84f01252e

https://medium.com/@andrewjchapin/online-advertising-sucks-brave-browser-blinked-benja-future-blockchain-2b75b62fe4ca

@Mark Hollingshead

The execution you mentioned of how rewards can be distributed among niche contributions and connecting personal journals makes sense, by allowing users to promote across multiple niches and spreading the rewards fairly users would be able to benefit and reduce the need for niche islands. 

A connected set of niches and topics an individual can contribute to will ensure stronger engagement and a better tailoring of content. 

 ---
(let's say Pepsi, there is a vending machine in the background ) and everyone gets regarded as it goes viral. It gets shared out site of Narrative and drives people onto the platform, new Narrators sign up.
 
I remember their is a cryptocurrency that can do that already, you can drop the reward in a location and as people pick it up they can trade it for real world products, in theory its great for promotions. 
 
I can't remember which one it is off the top of my head though, that said I agree it would be a good idea. 
Mark Hollingshead posted:

 

I haven't found anything discussing if you can share a post's link between niches, or

I don't remember where I saw/heard this, but I believe that any content will have the option to post/attach/tag/flag "up to 3 Niches"... 

My reading of the @Narrative Network Team's references to there being no sub-niches was that they wanted to make clear that one topic being a sub-topic of another doesn't prevent them from being two distinct niches.  

I think they reacted this way because community members were complaining about niches that address sub-topics of other niches, and the form their complaints took was to say "X" is a subniche of "Y", therefore it should not be allowed.

I didn't read anything further into it than this, but I may be wrong.

As I mentioned in the other thread - I think a hierarchical map of niches might be useful as a roadmap and a record of precedent for Tribunal decisions about which niches are redundant and which are not.  Perhaps the team has already has a more suitable mechanism that serves the same purpose, but if they don't, I think this is something to strongly consider.

 

Yes, when you create a piece of content, you get to optionally submit it to up to three niches.

Also, regarding the idea of a "map of niches," that's an idea that is very much under discussion and consideration...the idea of making content in interconnected subject areas easier to find. You'll probably be hearing more details on that soon.

Malkazoid posted:

My reading of the @Narrative Network Team's references to there being no sub-niches was that they wanted to make clear that one topic being a sub-topic of another doesn't prevent them from being two distinct niches.  

I think they reacted this way because community members were complaining about niches that address sub-topics of other niches, and the form their complaints took was to say "X" is a subniche of "Y", therefore it should not be allowed.

I didn't read anything further into it than this, but I may be wrong.

As I mentioned in the other thread - I think a hierarchical map of niches might be useful as a roadmap and a record of precedent for Tribunal decisions about which niches are redundant and which are not.  Perhaps the team has already has a more suitable mechanism that serves the same purpose, but if they don't, I think this is something to strongly consider.

 

Exactly!  

As Rosemary said, we'll be providing some more details about this pretty soon.  I'll be doing a blog post sometime next week. IMO it's one of the nicer features that was NOT in the white paper.

Malkazoid posted:

My reading of the @Narrative Network Team's references to there being no sub-niches was that they wanted to make clear that one topic being a sub-topic of another doesn't prevent them from being two distinct niches.  

I think they reacted this way because community members were complaining about niches that address sub-topics of other niches, and the form their complaints took was to say "X" is a subniche of "Y", therefore it should not be allowed.

I didn't read anything further into it than this, but I may be wrong.

As I mentioned in the other thread - I think a hierarchical map of niches might be useful as a roadmap and a record of precedent for Tribunal decisions about which niches are redundant and which are not.  Perhaps the team has already has a more suitable mechanism that serves the same purpose, but if they don't, I think this is something to strongly consider.

 

explain what you mean by a "hierarchical map" of niches, and what is its effect?

I have a couple of competing thoughts. I think sub-niches can make things a bit easier to navigate and organizationally pleasing. 

 

However, I do not want "sub" niche owners to have to fork over reward to the "main" niche owners. A couple of reasons that come to my mind is: 1) I think it would be unfair and unneeded for the vegan cooking niche to give some of their rewards to the food niche. The subniche is curating content for a specific audience that wouldn't fit neatly into the food niche. Therefore it is serving a unique purpose that shouldn't 'owe' another niche 2) Where do we draw the line, does everyone owe to the universe niche (obviously this is a ridiculous example, but you get my point)?

In short: I think sub-niches could be a great organizational tool that can make a site more user friendly. However, we should not reward subniches less.

 

 

A connected topic or "sub-niche" should not have to kick-back anything. I see it just as a way of mapping and discussing topics that nestle into each other. ownership is ownership...I have not ever used the word sub-niche with the intention to it being like a pyramid scheme. Yuck!

I think that being able to submit up to 3 "niches" is good enough, assuming they exist. 

I think the main reason there are not "sub niches" is while they are related, it would eventually turn into a logistical nightmare to manage them all. 

The "Kickback" thought is a valid one, and no, it shouldn't kick-back earnings to the "top dog" or you'd have niches like "games" getting kickbacks from everything from video-games to table-games to political-games. 

Making each "sub-niche" it's own niche is what is best for the platform, because realistically, you will need an owner and multiple mods for each sub niche, so having them have their own owners and mods would be best.

From a user-standpoint it makes it more appealing and fair and hey, as a niche owner, you can always buy the sub-niches for your main niche fair and square too - nothing preventing that. Aside from the fact that you can only "own" 5 niches anyway. 

From a company standpoint - it means a whole lot more revenue, and more NRVE back to the community as well - 

Example: Would you rather have only the NRVE/Revenue being earned once on Cars and Cool Cars - or would you rather have Cars and Cool Cars both paying their share back to the network to get the rewards pool bigger?

Now from a strictly niche owner viewpoint it becomes a little bit of a conundrum when we talk about these "sub niches" because - Say someone sees an article on my main niche, but it also fits on another similar one, who gets the rewards for that? 

Also, it could be a draw away from my main niche - Example: I own Homesteaders, but if someone makes a sub niche for "masonry jar production" at some point a huge following could just go there right? However, I don't really foresee this being a huge problem as I think there will be room enough for everyone and we can share the traffic. 

So I believe that they submit to 3 niches, and then they can go to each of those niches to read more similar content is a good idea. Because it flows both ways - example if someone posted a nice home recipe in food, but it's made with homegrown hydroponic vegetables so it goes into my homesteader niche too, they may decide to click it and see what else is there. Likewise if they see the recipe in homesteader and see this person linked to food too, they may decide to see what they posted under food as well. 

 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×