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. 

Michael Farris posted:

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

Here was my train of thought:

a) Surely the search function that kicks in when people are tagging their content will search description text as well as niche names?  Surely?

b) The owner of the niche - who will probably end up being the person who chose to put cryptocurrency in the very brief description of the 'Texas' niche, will be approaching content producers.  Not a stretch to believe he'll be soliciting material from crypto bloggers, and the Texas crypto scene...

c) My hunch is that both name and description will be taken into account by most creators.  And once you read that bizarre mention of crypto on a niche that's supposed to be about one of the 50 states, I'd love for someone to explain to me how creators won't come away thinking Narrative truly is looking at the world through a crypto perspective.

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

No, not surprising at all!  But what's important here isn't whether it is surprising or not - what's important is what we're going to do to ensure that strong representation doesn't cross a line into unnecessarily damaging territory.

We can't help that the bar to entry to Narrative's early stages has been a familiarity with cryptocurrency.  But we can help this - and I think we should.  Surely the Team does too?  

I think my suggestion for niches which have name approval but not description approval, to remain inoperable until they do have description approval, is not being given proper consideration.  The niche owner will have every incentive to get the description approved, since she wants her purchase to be usable.

You have community members telling you here that we would be ok with clicking twice to vote, instead of once.  After all, why wouldn't we be: niches are important, and once they're approved, they will probably be there to stay.  It is important to get this right, and I think it is awesome community members understand this well enough to be volunteering to do a little more work in order to get it right!

But at the end of the day - I'm not in love with my solution if there is a better one.  What I do expect is for the Team to either propose a better one, share why the one on offer won't work or is not worth it, or tell us the problem is being taken seriously and a solution will be rolled out as soon as possible.

This is a huge potential point of failure... everyone submitting content is going to rely on niches being well defined, and is going to be vulnerable to confusion and demotivation if they aren't.

I'm serious: if I came to Narrative all excited because I've got a fantastic article about the Austin, Texas art scene, and then found the 'Texas' niche sounds like it has a strange cryptocurrency angle - if that was my first impression of Narrative, or even my fifth or tenth, I'd come away thinking Narrative is in fact a community made of, and made for, crypto geeks.  If I'm a crypto geek, then great.  If I'm not, and odds are that I'm not, then I might think of taking my content to a platform that manages to pull of the universality thing better.

Last note - I think it is really important to put the accent on quality over quantity here - as in other areas of Narrative.  The concern against making niche validation slightly more involved seems bizarre to me.  Maybe it means tweaking the system in such a way that an average of 45 new niches arise every week instead of 50.  Is that a problem?  A niche is an entire universe - 45 new universes born every week instead of 50 seems like a non-issue to me.  What seems like a real issue, is if each of those new universes runs the risk of its laws of physics being flawed because the Gods didn't pause long enough to get them right?

 

Gerbino posted:
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...

Hi Gerbino,

I think you may have misunderstood what the niche validation process is about.  A niche name should not be redundant, and should not violate policy.  That is all the approval we get to give, when it comes to a niche name.  So no matter how the description might change, the niche name is either valid with respect to those criteria or not.  Once it has been found to be valid, a change of description is not a problem.

The only problem we have here, is that we're getting bad, confusing descriptions, and we don't have a mechanism to deal with it effectively.

 

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?

Thanks for those thoughts - this makes sense to me.

Words matter.  Especially in written media (hehe)...  I've said it a few times before, and I think we'll all have said it many times before Narrative has grown into its own: words matter and we are creating our path with them.  We have to get our messaging right early on.

In a hundred little ways, inefficiencies can be introduced without the proper care to wording.  Look at the maximum bid functionality for Chaucer.  The developers went to the trouble of creating that necessary functionality, but simply through the wording of the interface, many of us were confused and thought the functionality was not there!

Here, we're not just talking about one instance of wording: we're talking about a systemic sink hole where poor wording can make its way into the descriptions of a vast number of niches.

Like you say, the wording of these descriptions matter a great deal.  It is not ok to leave it up to the good will and language abilities of the niche owner to get the wording right.  The community must be able to disapprove of a description.

It is a pretty simple, and pretty intuitive delineation. 

a) Niche name validation - simply requires uniqueness and non-violation of policy

b) Niche description validation is where the more nuanced human evaluation becomes possible: is the description clear, does it correspond with the niche name or is there a conflict with it, does the description help define the niche as non-redundant whereas it otherwise could be assumed to be redundant?

Wishing this process were simpler isn't going to make these considerations magically disappear, nor will it make vanish the problems we risk if we don't try to make the right calls.  We have to face the music and let the community do the best job it can at making determinations on these two distinct but interrelated items - niche names and niche descriptions.  My sense is the @Narrative Network Team assumed niches would be simpler to deal with than this.  We have to adapt and face the reality that there is going to be more work involved if we want to get this right.  I don't think it has to be a lot more work, and I certainly think it is more than worth it.  The niche name and its description, are the foundations of an edifice - content will be built upon them for years to come.  I need to hear superb argumentation if I am to believe we should not be diligently helping these foundations be as solid and straight as they can be before we start building upon them.  The City Council doesn't come and inspect a construction site, and say: hey, your foundation is crooked but I'll trust you'll straighten it before you build a house and sell it... 

 

Thank you everyone for the thoughtfulness of this discussion along with clearly articulating concerns regarding the description. I am (pending the Tribunal review) the current proud owner of the Texas Niche.  I see two levels of this discussion: 1) The Macro level as in the Tribunal review process which I imagine should have a standardized and consistent process and I will happily comply with that judgement from editing the description to (in the worst case) bidding temporary farewell to my beloved Texas. 2) The Micro level as in the specific concerns on the Texas niche description. From this view, my guiding principle is “to do what is in the best interest of the community.” If it is in the best interest to edit the description and if I am able to make the edits, I will happily do so too. 

A little about me, I found Narrative through crypto and approached the Niche by offering my passion for Texas for which I have a love that runs much deeper than crypto. I think that many of the early adopters to Niche will have crypto leanings and we can be a group that can be overwhelming at times (I only try to speak the truth) though we are also a group that has varied passions, talents, and interests. Hopefully Narrative is a place that is inclusive of these early adopters while also gently nudging them towards a diverse, varied culture that includes the much larger non-crypto community members. For me, my Texas roots go back to 1834, I have a love of taking Texas backroads photography, and have wrote about my favorite Texas small towns in the past. I am excited to bring this Niche to the community. I also love crypto and while I do believe there is a vibrant community in parts of Texas (even beyond Austin,) this will not be the focus of the Niche. 

Lastly, here are some photos that I took today of my Texas hometown.  The 3rd (I consider it 2nd in my mind and 1st in my heart) best Courthouse in Texas built in 1895.6734D5B8-FAA7-41E5-9286-999B73A6B4796B9B4414-CC41-4880-B266-FE9DA7EAF3AD

Attachments

Photos (2)
TheRandomOne posted:

Thank you everyone for the thoughtfulness of this discussion along with clearly articulating concerns regarding the description. I am (pending the Tribunal review) the current proud owner of the Texas Niche.  I see two levels of this discussion: 1) The Macro level as in the Tribunal review process which I imagine should have a standardized and consistent process and I will happily comply with that judgement from editing the description to (in the worst case) bidding temporary farewell to my beloved Texas. 2) The Micro level as in the specific concerns on the Texas niche description. From this view, my guiding principle is “to do what is in the best interest of the community.” If it is in the best interest to edit the description and if I am able to make the edits, I will happily do so too. 

 

Hello TheRandomOne - thanks for introducing yourself and sharing more insight into your passion for Texas.

I think we've lucked out here: you seem to embody the kind of rational approach that can help our niches be guided towards a coupling of niche name and niche description that creates an intuitive and efficient user experience for the millions of creators we expect to call Narrative home.

I don't want the system to rely on everyone being as reasonable as you, though.  I'm very grateful for the Texas niche, and the flaw in our system that it has demonstrated to us, and I hope it will lead to the system being improved.  That's the value of alpha, after all.

It may be as simple as people being able to appeal the description, once the niche has been approved?  I can see how that would require less systemic change to the process of voting, although the validation voting would remain less than clear as a result.  It is after all inherently confusing to be presented with a niche name, and a niche description, and yet be expected to effectively ignore the niche description to validate the niche, and it brings us back to the questions Sona raised about the description sometimes being the only thing that can determine whether a niche is redundant or not....  I hope the @Narrative Network Team ponder these questions, and jump in on the nitty gritty of it when they can fit it into the schedule.

Hi @TheRandomOne Welcome to the conversation.. and a pleasure to have your voice wade in. As we chatted via telegram's pm service. I want to reiterate publicly, that I love the niche idea and just think it is stronger as a single focus. Texas. Our crypto community is vibrant and well supported on Narrative. What we need a lot more of, is Niches that support the none crypto community as they enter our stratosphere, such as your Texas. I believe your Niche will be utilized by both the crypto and non-crypto community by simply sticking to Texas. 

I will also say that I would love to collaborate with you on a vintage photoshoot in some amazing historic place if I every get down to your neck of the woods, which as we discussed could be as soon as next year. 

Anyway thank you for indulging our lengthy debate. We all like Texas as a Niche. I am certain the tribunal has sided with you after looking at the votes. So it really is up to you if you wish to drop the crypto part or not.

Either way, Congratulations on getting your passion niche!

Malkazoid posted:
TheRandomOne posted:

Thank you everyone for the thoughtfulness of this discussion along with clearly articulating concerns regarding the description. I am (pending the Tribunal review) the current proud owner of the Texas Niche.  I see two levels of this discussion: 1) The Macro level as in the Tribunal review process which I imagine should have a standardized and consistent process and I will happily comply with that judgement from editing the description to (in the worst case) bidding temporary farewell to my beloved Texas. 2) The Micro level as in the specific concerns on the Texas niche description. From this view, my guiding principle is “to do what is in the best interest of the community.” If it is in the best interest to edit the description and if I am able to make the edits, I will happily do so too. 

 

Hello TheRandomOne - thanks for introducing yourself and sharing more insight into your passion for Texas.

I think we've lucked out here: you seem to embody the kind of rational approach that can help our niches be guided towards a coupling of niche name and niche description that creates an intuitive and efficient user experience for the millions of creators we expect to call Narrative home.

I don't want the system to rely on everyone being as reasonable as you, though.  I'm very grateful for the Texas niche, and the flaw in our system that it has demonstrated to us, and I hope it will lead to the system being improved.  That's the value of alpha, after all.

It may be as simple as people being able to appeal the description, once the niche has been approved?  I can see how that would require less systemic change to the process of voting, although the validation voting would remain less than clear as a result.  It is after all inherently confusing to be presented with a niche name, and a niche description, and yet be expected to effectively ignore the niche description to validate the niche, and it brings us back to the questions Sona raised about the description sometimes being the only thing that can determine whether a niche is redundant or not....  I hope the @Narrative Network Team ponder these questions, and jump in on the nitty gritty of it when they can fit it into the schedule.

Not trying to sound like a parrot to @Malkazoid but rather to reiterate that more than one person thinks we should be able to vote separately on the name and description.

Or if it really is to complicated of a voting procedure then, I guess the solution is to work it out amongst ourselves like we just did, but I think that caused a lot of undue concern placed on the part of the winner of a Niche. I can only imaging the crappy feeling one has when you win only to find out somebody rejected it to the tribunal. I feel badly about that. But I also think that this Niche will be more profitable as a result, if it gets a more aligned  and in focus description to match the Niche Name, as a result of this process. 

I too think a two vote system should be considered. Name and description.

Emily Barnett posted:

Not trying to sound like a parrot to @Malkazoid but rather to reiterate that more than one person thinks we should be able to vote separately on the name and description.

Or if it really is to complicated of a voting procedure then, I guess the solution is to work it out amongst ourselves like we just did, but I think that caused a lot of undue concern placed on the part of the winner of a Niche. I can only imaging the crappy feeling one has when you win only to find out somebody rejected it to the tribunal. I feel badly about that. But I also think that this Niche will be more profitable as a result, if it gets a more aligned  and in focus description to match the Niche Name, as a result of this process. 

I too think a two vote system should be considered. Name and description.

No danger of sounding like a parrot to anyone Emily - your voice and presence are very distinct and valuable!  It is very helpful for the community to hear more voices than one, but also helpful to me because everyone needs rational others to help them better understand their own perspective.

The ICO and Chaucer alpha are a powerful filter, not only favouring those with crypto knowledge, but probably also selecting for passion, adventurous spirit, and various forms of intelligence.  I don't want to assume that everyone will be as rational and devoted to community success as TheRandomOne is - when the general public can buy niches, we'll get a very mixed bag.  I'm glad some of us feel it is important to try to solve this in a systemic way!

Malkazoid posted:

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?

Totally agree with you! 
It would be totally pointless if you can randomly add unrelated topics into the niches! 

Malkazoid posted:
 

a) Niche name validation - simply requires uniqueness and non-violation of policy

b) Niche description validation is where the more nuanced human evaluation becomes possible: is the description clear, does it correspond with the niche name or is there a conflict with it, does the description help define the niche as non-redundant whereas it otherwise could be assumed to be redundant?

 

I think @Malkazoid that you summarized it just right!

Without proper descriptions that set limits to what niche should and should not contain it would just become a mess. 

However, I understand the idea that @Michael Farris developed here, that people will rather look at niche names in the end than read through all those descriptions. And perhaps this is how it will look. I personally hope it will not because it seems to me (in addition to arguments stated above) that this system of individual niche creation is not really suitable for that. If there was a predefined set of niche topics/categories and the bidders would just come and choose a category/subcategory which interested them, then YES. That would be a system where searching just by niche names = categories would be suitable. 

But when there is a bunch of niches concentrated on one topic (e.g. crypto), and then some other niches focused on other diverse topics (with small concentrations around some topics, e.g. gaming etc.), I think the system structure itself might tend to be more chaotic - some categories are more than full whereas other categories are empty. Therefore from my perspective, the categorization and search tools should be thought through in detail since the structure of the system will not be as intuitive as on other platforms (medium,...)... or so I think. 

And then just imagine that there is a niche Texas and in addition to other crypto related niches, you will be able to read there also about cryptocurrencies. It would just add another confusion to that not so intuitive structure. Maybe I am wrong and the structure of all niches will be fine and understandable in the beta version. But I am concerned. I like Narrative a lot, so better safe than sorry

@TheRandomOne sorry for mentioning your niche in this context. Believe me, there are other better examples than Texas but yours was just the closest one. I hope that your niche will exist in the end, I like the idea very much! Friends of mine visited Texas already twice and liked it a lot. I hope to visit it one day too! So good luck and also sorry for the appeal in the tribunal.

Ok - from the chaos of this strange collection of issues, a picture is emerging.

I'll start another thread because I don't want this to be forever hitched to The RandomOne's Texas niche!  It feels like everything relating to that niche has been neatly resolved (but only because the owner appears to be a reasonable person who has the greater good of the community in mind).

I'll link here to the offspring of all of this once the new thread is up.

Here it is:

https://community.narrative.ne...ing-niche-validation

One last comment from me. As a Texan and knowing that my state really likes to get attention along with an inflated sense of geographic pride, I just ask that whatever decisions, compromise, agreement, or plan results from this case study, that you all consider naming it after Texas. Like the 2018 Texas Agreement.  Ha. 😂

TheRandomOne posted:

One last comment from me. As a Texan and knowing that my state really likes to get attention along with an inflated sense of geographic pride, I just ask that whatever decisions, compromise, agreement, or plan results from this case study, that you all consider naming it after Texas. Like the 2018 Texas Agreement.  Ha. 😂

I think that has a nice ring to it, and I have no prejudice that would make me feel upset Texas's name was affixed to it!  

Who knows, Social Network Theory classes may spring up in schools around the world soon, and that name may even become something that is taught.  Stranger things have happened.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×