Hello all,

I found myself having to downvote the Texas niche, even though I really wanted to upvote it.

It makes specific mention of crypto discussions in its description, and I see this as very detrimental to Narrative because it leaves users with the distinct impression that the platform is crypto focused.  A niche about a state or a country should be about that state or country and everything pertaining to it.  A specific mention of crypto means Narrative aims to discuss everything in relation to crypto.  A new user could come away with the sense that niches all look at their topics through a crypto lens.

Narrative needs to be as universal as any other social network.  The digital currency aspect of the platform needs to be almost behind the scenes in the minds of those who are not specifically interested in it.  This is the only way the platform will grow beyond the microcosm of crypto enthusiasts.

So my question is this: what do we do when a niche is perfectly valid, but the description is bad?  The only option I saw was to downvote it.  Happy if there is another way.

Likewise for the Futurist niche.  Fantastic niche, but the description is bad ("All aspects of life and anything that is not now").  Not now involves the past too.  And whilst futurism in the past looked at how life might be in the years to come - years which are in our past, the description can do a much better job of not sounding like it encompasses all of history.  For instance: "How we've envisaged the future of human life, throughout history" or something along those lines.

Last note: if Texas or Futurism get approved as is, can the community reject its description alone, after the niche is approved?  If so I will change my vote to yes, but appeal the description as needing to change.

The danger with this is I have to remember to do so!

I think the @Narrative Network Team should consider allowing people to vote on the niche name, and niche description separately, at the time of voting for the niche.  So two votes: do you approve of the name, yes or no?  Do you approve of the description, yes or no?

Original Post

Great post @Malkazoid I completely agree, I have also been put off by some of the descriptions which is a real shame as most of the time I really like the niche. Maybe we need the facility to offer suggestions to improve the description. There may be occasions where people are able to articulate the description, as a community it would be fantastic if we were able to support each other 

Agreed. I just voted YES for FISHING but had the same reservations about the description — and commented on the ballot. If it's just unique and non-TOS-violating... then we lack the ability to provide any qualitative assessment. 

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

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

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

I think the Niches need to try to be specific as possible what it wants to accomplish (which can be pretty hard). I think it will be possible to iron out some of these kinks though once it is purchased. It would be nice though if there could be an easier once to edit descriptions, offer suggestions to editing it, etc.

Brian Lenz posted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good points @Malkazoid! Totally agree. 

I think we already had a discussion about niche names + descriptions somewhere sometime in this forum. And I believe that this problem should be addressed. 

It is definitely good to have the guidelines that the niches should not be redundant + offensive but same as you, but I don't think that they are enough. 

I would just summarize it... 

1) There still are niches where the title and description do not correspond; either there is something that I am missing (which is definitely possible in some cases...) or the name/ the description is chosen in a wrong way. Which, as Malkazoid stated above, is not the best thing. It should be possible to change name/descr. even in the process of voting. If the platform launches in October and new members will search for some content and they will have a hard time to find it or find something else instead, it will put Narrative in not so favorable light.

2) there are niches where the description is just too vague or too broad. E.g. the niche Lifestyle where there can be posted practically anything. I am not particularly against this one niche and I supported it but I am generally not happy that there is no way to modify a niche before it is approved. Lifestyle niche is not the best example but there are others as well...

For me it comes often down to this situation, there is a niche in ballot box and I am ok with its general idea but I have some reservations which I think should be addressed. If I reject it, the idea might not come around again (or for some time + it may discourage the proposer). If I approve it, I have no certainty that the niche name and description will be modified to be more clear/understandable/indexable. What to do here?

3) then, there are those people who vote against almost every niche.... If you reject a niche, you should be required to state the reason.

Hi. I am in agreement with @Malkazoid And @Soňa are saying. Mass adoption  is important on this platform for it's success. Throwing crypto in to a Niche about life in Texas is inappropriate, and misleading, and at worst a money grab, if it was done intentionally. I did not notice it when I voted it and that is why i rejected it to the tribunal.

My suggestion to you both is to do the same.  Things can be rejected by multiple people, and a reason stated. I wrote that the Niche is strong, but that I only reject the description having the words crypto in it.

 

Emily Barnett posted:

Hi. I am in agreement with @Malkazoid And @Soňa are saying. Mass adoption  is important on this platform for it's success. Throwing crypto in to a Niche about life in Texas is inappropriate, and misleading, and at worst a money grab, if it was done intentionally. I did not notice it when I voted it and that is why i rejected it to the tribunal.

My suggestion to you both is to do the same.  Things can be rejected by multiple people, and a reason stated. I wrote that the Niche is strong, but that I only reject the description having the words crypto in it.

 

I put in for the appeal too...

2 of 6 tribunal members have voted, both to approve the niche.  My sense is the other members will too since Brian is correct in stating the niche is not violating any of the criteria. 

I’m happy for the niche to be approved - what I don’t want is for the problem of the description to be swept under the carpet in the process.  

Malkazoid posted:
Emily Barnett posted:

Hi. I am in agreement with @Malkazoid And @Soňa are saying. Mass adoption  is important on this platform for it's success. Throwing crypto in to a Niche about life in Texas is inappropriate, and misleading, and at worst a money grab, if it was done intentionally. I did not notice it when I voted it and that is why i rejected it to the tribunal.

My suggestion to you both is to do the same.  Things can be rejected by multiple people, and a reason stated. I wrote that the Niche is strong, but that I only reject the description having the words crypto in it.

 

I put in for the appeal too...

2 of 6 tribunal members have voted, both to approve the niche.  My sense is the other members will too since Brian is correct in stating the niche is not violating any of the criteria. 

I’m happy for the niche to be approved - what I don’t want is for the problem of the description to be swept under the carpet in the process.  

well perhaps just the mere fact that it went to tribunal and that people in the community think that the description needs work, will prompt the niche owner to fix it on his own. I really doubt there will be much posting of crypto content to it. So why potentially weaken your niche? Texas could be a really great earning Niche with such a loyal following.

A perfect alpha issue ....

I'm with Brian on not making the voting more complex but I do think there's work to be done in making people choose their reasons.  Eventually,  your voting will put your reputation at stake so thoughtless clicking will be reduced.   That will be a tricky algorithm but definitely in the works

I wish  [this is not a feature under consideration] there were some tidy way to send a niche back for fixing early in the game.  Quite a few are simply malformed.  Do they need to be voted down with a penalty to the suggester, just to fix what may be weak English skills?  

My thought (hunch, really)  is that content creators will be submitting to niches based on the name and less the description.  The name and most of all the performance/reach of the niche will attract content creators.  It may be a dubious description won't matter as much as we fear.

FWIW. The current strong representation in crypto is not surprising given the Founders who bought 60+ NEO worth of NRVE who got first crack.  Even patrons are, by defintion, crypto types.

Michael Farris posted:

A perfect alpha issue ....

I'm with Brian on not making the voting more complex but I do think there's work to be done in making people choose their reasons.  Eventually,  your voting will put your reputation at stake so thoughtless clicking will be reduced.   That will be a tricky algorithm but definitely in the works

I wish  [this is not a feature under consideration] there were some tidy way to send a niche back for fixing early in the game.  Quite a few are simply malformed.  Do they need to be voted down with a penalty to the suggester, just to fix what may be weak English skills?  

My thought (hunch, really)  is that content creators will be submitting to niches based on the name and less the description.  The name and most of all the performance/reach of the niche will attract content creators.  It may be a dubious description won't matter as much as we fear.

FWIW. The current strong representation in crypto is not surprising given the Founders who bought 60+ NEO worth of NRVE who got first crack.  Even patrons are, by defintion, crypto types.

Thank you for your reply!

In fact, it got me to think of another issue which I always consider a good thing since it leads to a deeper understanding and more discussion which is always interesting

Now in this niche voting if I consider the basic rules we approve/disapprove that the niche is not redundant (or offensive - this is just automatic, so I will omit the rule for now). We do that based on niche name and the description. Now if you say that the description might not be that important in beta, it means (at least for me) a situation when content could be submitted to niche just based on niche name, not really on a description. 

On the first sight, this seems fine to me. But then the tiny differences (stated exactly in description) between one niche and another similar one could be just wiped out and those two niches which were pretty close at the beginning would become the same. 

I could illustrate that in one example. Currently, there is a niche "universe" which was approved by more than 90% and is up for auction. Then there is a niche called "space - astronomy" (or so I believe) which was already won by someone. I get that those niches COULD be about different stuff but they appear quite similar to me. I was considering for some time whether to downvote it but downvoting seems to be a too strong action and since there is no other action I could take, I approved. For me, the description is what makes the niches different. 

But then over time as those two niches become more and more similar (since everyone will just look on names), someone will think, ok let's just cancel this one (either one or the other) because there is another one with same content.

What I try to say is that the description is in many cases for me the guide on whether the niche is unique or not. But what if in beta nobody respect those borders made by its description and will publish in this niche even the topics for which the niche was not specified? So the final question, why to confirm uniqueness if it will not be respected in the end?

@Michael Farris Strong English skills in a description is important! To say that people won't read the descriptions as much is not as important, is Crazy Talk! The Niches are like Magazines...a standard for which to aspire to get your content posted on for greater visibility.  What Magazine would publish a cover with poorly written headlines and say that it doesn't matter as much?

You may be right that there will be people who want to post on your Niche no matter what the description says, But some of us are looking to build a higher standard than that. I want quality... lots of quality content on my Niche pages, because that will attract lucrative advertisers.

Context is very important to many content providers. Many high Quality content providers will simply, not associate with a platform that is too idiosyncratic AND  poor editing. And this could also apply to potential advertisers as well. 

Anyway. this is the time for us all to try and share our perspectives, to have others view big pictures, and different perspectives. I am here because i want an alternative to Steemit, which sometimes feels to me like you have to be  posting about Steem or crypto in order to have recognition. I am super hopeful that Narrative will be a much fuller experience for the readership. If it is, then I absolutely know it will be even more successful then Steemit. And isn't that what we all want here.... Lambos for Christmas?!!!

I support all the individual crypto niches. Crypto is exciting. I don't like blurring niches Texas life is not crypto news. I hope to see it modified.

 

Totally agree with you  @Emily Barnett!

I am also looking for quality content where good English skills and interesting point of views, opinions, discussions are expected. And I came to Narrative exactly because it seemed to me that it can fulfill those expectations. I hope that the platform is being made also with this goal in mind...

Malkazoid posted:
Brian Lenz posted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey @Malkazoid. I don’t know if it would be wise to try and decouple the niche name from the description when voting. I’ll use a couple of my niches as an example.. If I had submitted ‘Beauty’ as a niche suggestion, with a description of ‘The Beauty Industry and beautiful crypto discussion ’, which is then voted in as a niche as the name is unique (and perceived meaning of the niche), but the description rejected due to randomly adding ‘crypto’, I could then change the description to ‘The Beauty Industry and natural beauty such as nature’ and start to encroach on the ‘nature’ niche which might seem far more acceptable at this point, but the initial voters for the niche name might not agree with this.

Basically, I think we shouldn’t decouple to make it clear what combo of niche name and description was initially voted in, then leave everything else to appeals/tribunal...

Gerbino posted:
Malkazoid posted:
Brian Lenz posted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey @Malkazoid. I don’t know if it would be wise to try and decouple the niche name from the description when voting. I’ll use a couple of my niches as an example.. If I had submitted ‘Beauty’ as a niche suggestion, with a description of ‘The Beauty Industry and beautiful crypto discussion ’, which is then voted in as a niche as the name is unique (and perceived meaning of the niche), but the description rejected due to randomly adding ‘crypto’, I could then change the description to ‘The Beauty Industry and natural beauty such as nature’ and start to encroach on the ‘nature’ niche which might seem far more acceptable at this point, but the initial voters for the niche name might not agree with this.

Basically, I think we shouldn’t decouple to make it clear what combo of niche name and description was initially voted in, then leave everything else to appeals/tribunal...

@Gerbino my understanding is that changes go up before the community again. I could be wrong....lots of different rules. But I thought i read that somewhere. So the community would have final say on the new encroachment...ultimately people should just not encroach...it isn't a good strategy anyways....content providers are going to go with the clearest niche for their topic. 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×