People are humans, and humans feel a need to express their approval or disapproval.

The culture is much more influenced by which crowd is attracted by the site than by any attempts to encourage good behavior.

When you get your edit function off the ground you'll see a marked improvement. I've typed things into the new system that I've later thought better of (I'm talking seconds later). In the old days I'd just go back in delete it and leave a note saying "Sorry, rethought that!"

The edit function's really going to help a lot.

Funny snark would be at the tip of the pyramid, right?

1) I think it's important to not take comments personally. It's only an argument on your screen. When you log off, it's over and your dog wants to walk, your cat wants petting and your boyfriend (or girlfriend, wife, husband) wants time, your peers, colleagues, and professors want attention and your parents and siblings want to know how you're doing. You know - life outside.

I know that things get said and things happen on threads that can make one angry, but that is more a function of instant response and facelessness of the whole encounter. Personally, what helps me is the belief that I know less than anyone on this site. That perspective always keeps me polite and also, we can only speak from our own experience.

2) Snark uber alles.

Thanks for seeking input, Andrew.

To have a culture of conversation it matters how easy or difficult it is to determine if someone has responded to or commented on a post or a comment we made in some thread.

As it is, in order to do this, we have first to enter the relevant thread and then scroll down through it to find our comment and see if someone has replied or not. If it's a thread we started, we have to scroll down to identify the new comments. I doubt I am alone in finding this process cumbersome and consuming of more time than I have or want to spend at times.

I understand that work is underway, or will be underway in the near future, on developing a "tracker" function. I hope this new feature can come online as soon as possible, and that it will address this issue. Are you able to comment with information on where that process stands at this time, or at least what the intentions or goals are?

Where would the following styles fit in?

Refuting the argument by calling into question its premises
versus
Going off on a tangent

(bearing in mind that it might be difficult to distinguish between these two)

I see that happen a lot here, and at times it drives me nuts. These are the threads that contain indents to about 20 levels deep. But if the premises actually are questionable, I see this as a legitimate style of argument, and I think it cross-sects several of the layers in the charts, not just one.

Yeah, contradiction is a non-starter.

One thing we could definitely use: an "Ignore" button. Many times, the ad hominem attacks are launched in an attempt to make the other person go away. An Ignore button is much nicer and more efficient.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with uncivil conversation, as long as there are no death threats or whatever. Some of the best discussions I've had are with people I've vehemently disagreed with. We scream and fight and call each other names, but that doesn't mean we hate each other. Usually it just means that the other guy is a complete idiot. :)

Ad hominem and name-calling

Andrew, there is a problem of both fairness and efficiency in proscribing these two uglies utterly. It goes to an old problem: using terms like "forum" and "community", not to mention yelling "fire" with terms like "freedom-of-speech" while seldom following long-standing conventions of parliamentary custom, usage, and law.

For instance, name calling is allowed when it is "gentlemanly", albeit obtusely and humorously belittling.

And, ad hominem is allowable in refutation if and only if responding to a predicate where some or all of (i) undisclosed conflicts of interest, (ii) arguments from presumed but no recognized authority, or (iii) just sycophancy comprise most of the initial point that stands otherwise.

This is a real problem in the designation and conduct of "credentialed" state blogs at the Democratic National Convention where the state parties in questions are, often, self-perpetuating patronage-chains, comprised mostly of sycophants operating from behind a perpetual cloud of "permanent campaign" spin.

That certainly includes the notoriously chaotic conventions and unproductive committees where there is mostly covert negotiation and overt bargaining but little, if any, deliberation, hence flimsy compromises or even corrupt deals where decision and resolution should be.

Parliamentary authorities correctly note than all forms of digital communication fall short of the requirements of an open assembly or fair hearing.

There are theorectical but not any commonplace digital tools I know of for blogs and such that can complement live events by providing elements of notice, disclosure, submission of evidence, circulation and mark-up of drafts, additions and corrections to agenda or minutes, and, of course, recording and archiving of non-secret votes.

An obviously large and immediate contribution to the practical art of efficient deliberation -- the whole purpose of Henry Martyn Robert's work on rules of order would be issuance and authentication of credentials.

Here I think "the community" has a root problem: allowing anonymity and spoofing but whining about the discourteous and irresponsible discourse that follows.

But, I would add that application of the Seven Laws of Identity to the problem of credentialing members of a community might mitigate all the, so far, irremediable problems that ponderous "terms and conditions" of usage and treacly "netiquette" sermons have not in about twenty years now.

HINT in cyberspace I am often thought to be a "pedantic prick". That is rude terminology, but true enough. So, how does one deal with a medium that does not rise to the level of of proficient deliberation and debate, but descends regularly into something like grafitti, implying the practical absence of the sort of discourse usually though necessary for a republican democracy.

I really love that chart.

Ad hominem has its place as well, but not in the way it is primarily used. Sometimes the authority of a writer needs to be challenged.

"hundred dollar sentences about topics of ten cent importance,"

Wow, Dan, you qualify as a certified 9th level blogger for that fitty cent sentence...

I'll stop snarking, but a word of caution from an older feller who was at back when we just called them chatrooms...

Blogs that stay strictly on-thread lose readership.

And to put it more cerebrally, since when could you pan for gold and get only nuggets without the gravel?

More from SuperDan;
"the level of discourse and quality of ideas at TPM Cafe fall a few notches distinctly below the level of mainstream media discourse."

Then leave, and don't come back you arrogant blog-snob. I for one disagree with your bitter assessment, and find this blog to be one of the most colorful and informative (in that order, thanfully) on the wqeb.

If you have to wallow around in a pig sty you think is stinky, either join the pigs or find a cleaner playground. But telling all of us how stinky our pigpen is suggests you might want to extricate yourself before you sound like a hypocrite.

OOPS, too late for that!

I understand the chart as a set of guidelines people should seek to incorporate in their posts, not rules to be enforced.
Some commenters have used terms like "proscribe," but I don't think that's where Andrew is going with this.
I have no problem with certain individuals being banned, however. Some easy way to signal abusive posts or comments would be good to that end.
Free speech is great in theory, but the recent influx of Larouchian spam is just poisoning the well.
Some ferally racist stuff has also cropped up.
Promoing your own website should be acceptable only if you're linking to something that elaborates or expands the topic at hand.
Naked unadorned name-calling should be a capital offence, but it should be fair game to call someone an ass hat if you first demolish their argument (in effect proving they are ass hats).
Repeat trollery (we all know it when we see it) should get you banned, and people who engage in tedious troll-antitroll debates (you know who you are) merit warnings followed by suspensions.
Do not -- repeat NOT -- attempt to segregate would-be humorous posts. A lot will be crap, but not necessarily crappier than the more serious stuff they are in with.
That's my advice for Andrew.
For fellow commenters, show some restraint. "You're so wrong" and "I agree" add absolutely nothing to a discussion. We're not running an online poll here.
Read to the end of an existing thread before hitting send. If someone else makes the point you thought of bringing up, don't bother to post.
And for more detailed instruction on what constitutes a valid argument, rent the Monty Python skit. Time's up.

The culture of websites, or social networking is not something you can TRY and control. It either happens or it doesnt.

Is it a good idea to continue to posts things like this and remind everyone how your comments can be helpful, and less asshatish? Yes...very much so. But when you attempt to "enforce" it, you are then stifling the natural phenomenon of what the culture of your website is. And are then making it how you think and feel it should be(which of course, is your right, if this is your site).

But see thats the difference between THIS website, and say another website I have been apart of for a number of years www.hiphoppoetry.com.

When someone comes along and does something the owner, or others do not like, they get banned, they get their thread closed, they get their ability to posts removed for a short time. But that also requires you to keep a thorough eye on the people on the site.

The biggest thing that this requires is to make individuals on your site with Mod or Admin capabilities so such activities can be policed. Not exactly with a Iron Hand persay, but if you want a culture to stick and not get out of control, from what I have seen, this is the best method. And requires more planning, AFTER the software and tools are created.

Slightly OT:

Why would I be contacting someone at stinson.com.au when I have a tech problem here at TPM?

Had a page-load failure a moment or two ago and the error message prompted me to contact a server administrator at that domain.

Googled the domain and see that error message is uniquely associated with TPM.

While I'm on the subject, when I logged in today, I got a page that loaded on login saying "Hello, wanderindiana" on one line while in the body of the page it told me there was no such user.

Perhaps if there was a functioning, dependable interface, commenters wouldn't be so surly.

You don't argue. You state positions, or counters to positions. Then a discussion ensue's, hopefully a debate, and I believe in the end - a truth is discovered and "the truth will set you free". Once the conversation devolves into argument - the battle is lost for both camps, and nothing is gained. Arguements are never won, but debates can change the world.

Hence our dire consequences and dread concern

Andrew (et al), I think I've mentioned before that the discussion threading UI, while clean, can be rather confusing... Just to experiment a bit, here's how it might look with just a couple tweaks:
http://www.peasandhoney.com/tpm/the-myth-of-unity.html

(NB -- I messed something up, so it works better in Firefox than IE, though you can still get the point in IE.)

Anyway, just an idea, and I'm sure your design and development folks have plenty of better ones. But this was the simplest/easiest thing I could think of that might quickly alleviate some confusion

Rules and software tools are good (and I'm sure some folks will have advice on that count), but I'm of the school of thought that you should only go there if you can't solve the problem with community culture.

You've got enough input on the behavior topic to keep your head spinning for days. I will therefore just say that if you're going to be doing political discussion, the only rule I've really truly seen work to keep the trolling and vitriol down is to allow insults concerning political figures or groups or ideologies but not allow them towards other members or contributors. Now I myself am always looking for a site that permits neither, never was a fan of Larry Johnson's writing style, insults don't entertain me, but that's my wacky preference. But as to insults slung at each other, I have seen a lot of evidence that simply limiting the insults on the basis of not being allowed to do it to other members, i.e, "attack the argument, not the poster" does a great deal to providing good discussion, a great deal, it really works. (Go to any family therapist, military truce negotiator, abritrator or diplomat, prize-winning debater, what do they tell you? First step: quit the verbal abuse. Google "verbal abuse" and you will easily see examples remarkably similar to comments in the worst political internet forums.) Precisely because that is the main way that trolls work, irritating people with insults into insults back and forth. OK, so you lose the witty ad hominens in the process--so what, it works, it's a small price to pay for a halfways decent forum that isn't struggling with trolling all the time, letting the few witty insulters go elsewhere or limit their insults to Bush or Hillary or whoever else doesn't post here. I repeat, the rule that really works: no ad hominens or insults against other members or contributors. Post it prominently and regularly reinforce community self-policing of it.

----

BUT Speaking of longer discussions,

I just saw this very interesting comment regarding the navigation capabilities of your new software:

i'm only leaving this comment for the link i will get to it, b/c i want to read this discussion later, and it's about to fall off the list.

Posted by SPQR
May 22, 2008 11:51 AM Permalink

Suggestion to show it to your software guys, maybe it will make something register with them about what your audience has shown time and time again to want and to find frustrating about their setup.

On that front, if they can't do a set up where people can find easily stuff that they were reading just yesterday, when might the Recommendation lists on user pages actually work for all threads including Reader Blogs, not just for when one recommends a Contributor Post? (And will the first contributor post I ever recommended stay on my list forever? That seems to be the case so far.)

Also, if recommendation of Reader Blogs registered on each user page, there would be the added benefit of both management and other users knowing who is voting up what in Reader Blogs. From what I can see, it seems as if as this software was designed with that in mind, but in this particular installation of it, it didn't happen. Strikes me that this obviously is a tool that was designed with community, audience and behavior in mind, and you are not currently getting full benefit because it's not working properly.

What I really really wish for in the TPM family, is a way to comment on the front page (TPM) posts themselves (not the Cafe, Muckraker, ElectionCentral, etc.). A place to post reactions and followup questions to the pieces that Josh, David Kurtz, et.al. write. As it is, I have to email TPM and hope my message is commented on publicly (which has never happened), or go off and make my own blog post, which often seems like a lot of work, and frankly my comment or question is usually not worth a blog post of its own -- it's just not that contentful.

I agree with DanK that reader posts need to be relocated, and I wouldn't really care where these front-page comment threads end up as long as I had a place to record my thoughts and questions (and maybe find out if someone else has the same reaction or question, or even an answer).

Andrew, hear my plea!

-- Ned

Look here at a 2006 discussion about the site....

Josh calls us stakeholders, sorry about the formatting but can not preview or edit.

Looking for Feedback: Ideas for a New Cafe
From: Cafe Management
[b]By Andrew Golis[/b] | bio
Hello TPM friends. I'm helping Josh on an upgrade of TPM Cafe and we want to know what you think about some of the things we're working on.
The basics of this proposal is to focus the site around three core features:
1. A main page that integrates reader blogging.
2. Tables (TPM and user-created) that allow for distinct nodes of conversation.
3. An improved underlying social network.
Details after the break.
None of this is a major departure. TPM Cafe is designed to be a "collaborative discussion of politics, culture and public life, from a politically left perspective." But these revisions are intended as a response to your requests for an improved site so we want to know what you think of them.
As noted above, this current proposal would focus on three core features:
1. An integrated community blog with popular and recent reader posts presented on the front page in the side column (similar to Daily Kos and other community-based blogs). We want to bring the reader blogs closer to the rest of the conversation so that you can get more involved and have more readers for your ideas.
2. Conversation tables: some created by us (like America Abroad), the rest created by you. Each table would have the same functionality as the main table (the Coffee House): an administrator controlling posting privileges, designated front page writers, table members who can comment and basic readers.
This allows you the readers to create your own group blogs on the site and maintain whatever subject or geographically-based nodes of conversation you'd like. So that new tables can be integrated into the design, the tabs will be removed from the top of the site and the titles will be listed under "Your Tables" in the right hand column. Readers can add whatever tables they want to their list and we will sometimes feature particularly good tables (management-initiated or otherwise) in the site's header.
3. A much-improved social network. We already have individual profiles and internal messaging, but by allowing you to make friends and improving the profile page by including Your Tables, Your Posts and Your Comments on the same page (as opposed to on tabs), we hope to make the whole thing tighter and more fun.
--
So what do you think? Love it? Hate it? Anything to add? It's hard to squash a design into a few paragraphs, so what remains unclear?
This site is built around its community so we want to know what you think.
‹ Even More on Feedback and Design User Needs Help Creating a Blog Entry ›

Nov 27, 2006 -- 08:18:25 PM EST
On November 28, 2006 - 11:36am irishkg said:
You've got to be kidding, asking about our views on NEW features and ways to conduct various discussions. Have you read the basics about what does not work?
Have your read Cafe Mngt threads from last spring on to understand the views and issues of the vocal amongst the Cafe. (And I have no way to know if the vocal ones are even close to representative of the membership.)
I don't see how the shaky software and operations will support new features that will likely require technical kludges to add what you suggest.
The job Josh advertised is now closed and the winner is you?
Rated 4 by 3 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 11:54am irishkg said:
As to your questions to the multitudes I am struck by the "have fun" and interact with each other outside the public conversation.
I come here to talk about ideas, events, policy, politics and whatever else seems like an interesting conversation. I come to learn. I don't want to be amongst a bunch of people who think like me, where's the challenge in that?
I am not looking for friends but to find interesting people to talk with. I am not looking for an online social network. I am using this physical network to talk. I enjoy the online camaraderie but that is just what it is, nothing more.
This is like a Cafe in that there is all sorts of talk. Let's not stretch this thing too far. Cafes are full of people who know each other, we don't and I am not trying to.
Rated 4 by 3 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 2:17pm lally said:
The "have fun" aspect of the changes have also given me pause.
I posted on a site that had a small but very active community with politics and foriegn policy discussions drawing all sorts of opinions. The site was set up to be bipartisan.
Some of the best threads went into great depths of detail. Often, those discussions between political "enemies" evolved from sniping about political differences into real exchanges of knowledge and information. For instance, one of the best of them was all about Afghanistan and was active just before 9/11 happened.
Then a new feature called "The Bar" was introduced for discussions that disallowed politics or anything else of a serious nature. IMO, the site's quality started to erode from that point on. People had silly fun, insulted each other even more than they did on the political threads and after time, formed cliques. Eventually, the bar thread personality-based ethos (social networking) dominated the site and posters who had contributed to the more complex, serious (for lack of a better word) discussions drifted away.
Of course, it's entirely possible that there's a sort of natural evolution or devolution that occurs with sites of this nature. I've certainly made note of "old timers" bemoaning the loss of posters were valued contributers to the early Cafe and wonder if the changes are, in any case, inevitable.
However, I believe that encouraging more personal interchanges is detrimental and that's also why I don't post a bio, don't utilize the "private email" option and am reluctant to use the ratings system. (I should probably get over the latter prejudice. Maybe)
That said, online camaraderie is a positive and evolves under it's own steam without artificial structures designed to foster it.
Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

reply | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 2:37pm lally said:
LOL. Thanks for the "4" irishkg. You got me.
Not yet rated.

reply | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 6:15pm artappraiser said:
Oh boy, I could have wrote that. (Are you me? :-) It's not impossible, as I discovered recently that with this software one could sign up for a new name and instead be assigned the name of another member.)
Did you also see it devolve into the group therapy thingie? Oh boy, what joy, especially when the more pyschologically troubled members start to ask for help and advice in private messages, and the teens start "sharing" things like the size of their penis, and the cliques and clubs form, they pyschoanalyze each comment accord to what they know about other members, some cliques go off and form their own site cause they are having a revolution against the rules, and then they come back because that clique petered out...
More seriously, on the big meta thing here, even beyond politics, there are plenty of "have fun and make pals" sites on the internet.
I was intially drawn to this site because I was looking for a place to discuss news and politics with grown-ups, of the type that like the type of articles on the site Arts & Letters Daily or similar. Yes, an elite group, not a democracy free-speech free-for-all, as there are plenty of those already available. I think lots of others that came about a year ago were looking for the same thing, an alternative to what was out there.
I don't need a family or friends, I already have some of those. The only problem is that they don't share my need for analyzing what is going on with news and politics with others.
But hey, I can vote with my feet if they decide to go for "fun club" here as well, and I doubt that my vote will matter, because as My Space shows, that's where the money is right now. Is that where you want to go here? If so, be kind and let us know.
I think a clear, front page statement about what political views are welcome here would really help here. Because I often see the conversations devolve in quality whenever someone not sufficently "liberal" contributes, a group who think they own the place who is under the impression that this is a coffee shop for liberals only attacks and the attacked then can't control attacking back. Granted, this goes in cycles, but without a clear statement, i.e., this is a site for liberals or it's not, it's for something else, it happens.
I think management should do a poll asking how many members and lurkers are here because they dislike Kos as a site and hate the "family" commenting at places like Huffington Post and Firedoglake and are looking for something DIFFERENT. That might give a clue.
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 7:04pm joshtpm said:
I think the site mixes both. But fundamentally I think it's about discussion. But the reason we started a thread about these potential changes is that we wanted to discuss them, not because we'd made up our mind. If the potential social networking additions would change the site in a way we don't think makes sense then let's discuss it. AA, you've been one of the longest-standing and most active contributors to this site. and i know youve spent a ton of time at the cafe management table trying to improve things. but can we avoid some of the hyperbole? Fox News and the Khmer Rouge? Please. We're asking for suggestions. Not flames.
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 8:02pm artappraiser said:
Well to be honest, if I am "flaming" it's because I am disappointed. The site started out with a mix of views, which is what I was looking for. Perhaps I was naive thinking that this would be a site where liberal, centrist and right ideas could mix, not another liberal pap producer like most of the rest of the blogosphere. I thought that because you yourself on TPM link to DLC sites and invite mainstream and even conservative dems to contribute here, some who seem to be your acquaintances, and Kate or you set up both "Republican" and "Democrat" discussion tables.
On that basis, I used to challenge liberals who said "we need to do this" or "we need to do that" with the question" "who is we?" I no longer bother to do that. In commenting and rating, it's become clear that the liberal/progressive view is in charge here, that is the "we" they are talking about, and that any other ideas are tolerated at the pleasure of that crowd. It was a gradual thing, where non-liberals started to gravitate to Yglesias's threads only because his "reality-based" balance did not appeal, and then, when he left, lots of those commenters did too.
I'll give you this: you deserve a great deal of credit in that you still manage to scavenge up those non-liberals willing to participate, and I greedily await those posts as a challenge to my own pre-conceptions. It's amazing that you can do so with the reception they receive. The comments on the recent post by James Carville are a perfect example. No one in their right mind would want to stick around and converse with such a reception. I have absolutely no interest in reading the kind of "activists" who want to rant against James Carville and vent anger because he doesn't meet some litmus test as a liberal. Rather, what I looked forward to on this site in the past was reading intelligent discussions between James Carville and others. I see that slipping away, hence, I merely come here now to look at what the people who I already know to be original thinkers have to say and ignore the rest.
This is the main reason I have consistently requested more strict directions from management on the site vision and on use of ratings and the like. It's not because I am a software nerd. I am looking for a product that is still not being offered where liberal orthodoxy does not dominate the discussion.
In the end, I admit I'm ambivalent: more's the pity for the site in my mind, but not so bad for me as I am much less addicted to the place and get more high-quality print reading done.
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 8:17pm artappraiser said:
p.s. Is not the Fox news model inextricably mixing analysis and activism? News used to be as rigidly separated from opinion and agenda as possible, that was the program for the radical new mid-20th century of a "profession" of "journalism." Fox started it, and the blogosphere continues it for the most part, they all have a "slant" according to agenda, it's back to the 19thcentury, no separation.
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 9:36pm sphealey said:
=== you still manage to scavenge up those non-liberals willing to participate, and I greedily await those posts as a challenge to my own pre-conceptions. It's amazing that you can do so with the reception they receive. The comments on the recent post by James Carville are a perfect example. No one in their right mind would want to stick around and converse with such a reception. ===
Interesting observation. My personal reaction was the exact opposite: I got very tired, very quickly, of what felt like the "name" conservatives and DLCers delivering drive-by spankings which basically amounted to "if you don't live/work in Washington DC, you have no right to an opinion on politics. Shut up and send us your checks". And then refusing to respond to any of the very well-written, very polite (if not respectful), very thoughtful criticims of their work that were posted in response.
I felt then (and now) that the world really doesn't need another Washington Post-type institution where betters deliver lectures to inferiors. One of the more serious problems with the Democratic Party (again IMHO) is that with the unions essentially gone it has lost all mechanism for feedback from the real world past Tyson's Corner. This site seemed as if it might be headed in a different, more inclusive direction.
Admittedly many of those very good early commentators have since left. A regular essayist of Ygleasis' quality (but with an easier-to-spell name) is also sorely missed.
sPh
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 29, 2006 - 4:00am artappraiser said:
On November 29, 2006 - 12:58am Dan K said:
....Frankly, I have lately come to doubt the overall honesty and intellectual integrity of the site. Again, I'm sorry to have to say this, but that's how I feel. Lately, TPM Cafe strikes me as though it were designed more to propagandize readers, to "sell" a certain narrow political perspective, to encourage co-dependent group think, and to manufacture and discipline a partisan message - rather than to foster open, frank and imaginative debate across a range of issues and perspectives....
Sounds remarkably similar to the Fox News model to me.
One current example: Republican is used as a smear label here against a member who calls himself a progressive libertarian not interested in partisanship in his user bio. and who 90% of the time offers very intriguing and thoughtful commentary. This kind of reply to someone like him is common here and is often either rewarded by high ratings or at minimum endorsed by lack of ratings or any objection. If a liberal was treated like that, they would be all kinds of reactions. It's not at all clear that the participation of people like Gettysburg is valued here, rather he is given the distinction of tolerated pet troll by many. And he's not even conservative by any reasonable reality-based defintion of the term. It's not at all clear whether this is a management sanctioned attitude, because it's not been prominently posted one way or another, just discussed in subtle ways hidden away in 200-comment-long threads on "appropriate behavior" that most havent' read.
A good summary point is lally's statement below, even though he/she is leery of the idea of saying clearly who is welcome here:
....Guidlines are good things and should be simple, clear and easily accessed from the front page. I don't even know what behavior gets a poster "transhumaned".
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 29, 2006 - 7:53am cscs said:
I'm not going to argue on the validity of your perceptions of TPMC -- but I'll go on the record saying I disagree, that not everyone here agrees with you on this point.
At the least, I think you're taking the exceptions and making them seem like the rule. For every "disrepectful" comment to James Carville and Gettysburg, there are plenty of comments saying that this place is one of, if not the only, place in the blogosphere that allows for different points of view and civil discourse. (And, personally, I find the idea that Media Celebrity and Democratic Consultant James Carville is somehow going to be hurt by harsh criticism here laughable. Maybe he will be, but then maybe he's just not cut out for the brave new world of blogging, where one has to actually face the public. Other traditional media people have withered online as well.)
You're looking for some mechanism, through Josh's edicts or FAQs or ratings, to control everyone's behavior, to get them to act in whatever manner you personally deem "civil." That's never going to happen. We're just silly humans. Someone is always going to call Gettysburg a troll for one of his comments.
We need to keep the 80/20 rule in mind, and, to me, this place hits that mark pretty darn well.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 9:37pm lally said:
"Did you also see it devolve into the group therapy thingie? Oh boy, what joy, especially when the more pyschologically troubled members start to ask for help and advice in private messages, and the teens start "sharing" things like the size of their penis, and the cliques and clubs form, they pyschoanalyze each comment accord to what they know about other members, some cliques go off and form their own site cause they are having a revolution against the rules, and then they come back because that clique petered out..."
At the time I was a regular, the private email option wasn't enabled.Folks rarely asked for help or advice but did use the Bar to discuss or announce personal joys and/or tragedies. Penis comments did come up, usually in the context of size claims and estimates or suggestions and invitations. Age wasn't a factor.
Checking back much later, I noticed the clique behavior almost exactly as you describe it(!), ie huffing off to a new site, etc. By that point, the private email option was enabled and from what I could tell, things had devolved into such an ugly scene that some posters were permanently banned.
Also in a more serious vein, I'm not a big fan of announcing who is or isn't welcome here. It's obvious what TPM is about. Those who have opposing poitical ideas come here because they like to mix it up. Sure there is some piling on, but, IMO that's often a function of newness to the site and dissipates with time. In comparison to that "other place," this Cafe is High Tea.
When it comes to Kos or any of the other sites mentioned, I use them as sources of information and only rarely read the comments. Isn't the "family" nature of the commentary an inevitable by-product of blogs that allow comments?
Guidlines are good things and should be simple, clear and easily accessed from the front page. I don't even know what behavior gets a poster "transhumaned".
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 3:03pm Andrew Golis said:
That makes sense to me. Clearly the social tools aren't the most essential aspect of the site and the conversation is more important.
Do you think having the option of the improved social network underlying the site will be detrimental to that primary use?
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 3:29pm irishkg said:
Where have you read that social networking is important to members?
Why in the total blog world is social networking best incorporated here?
Interaction happens during the discussion of the topic at hand. Interaction is not, in my view, an end in itself, a goal of my participation here. I don't interact to get interaction pleasure (oh the ways this could be read) but to talk with others about a subject. Is that clearer?
Andrew, when I read of you and others starting and using online forums to create a social network otherwise unavailable at Harvard I feel sorry for all of you. Back in the day we talked in person. Andrew I believe that your Harvard solution to a perseived social deficit has nothing to do with what Josh intended to be a place to discuss ideas and issues.
To you, Josh and the rest of the folks in charge fix the existing software. Once the software works then set about making it more efficient for users. Then spend time and money on making it more effective as a place for discussions. It's about working priorities in the order of critical to nice to have.
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 5:03pm Andrew Golis said:
To be clear, this has nothing to do with the things I did when I was in school. That project was a blog, pure and simple. The "social network" function we're discussing here is simply an improvement of that which already exists.
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 5:18pm irishkg said:
I was trying to understand your outlook since I have not read of concerns with social networking in the Cafe. I was guessing that you were looking to bring something from your past forward.
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 6:23pm artappraiser said:
irish, some of what you are saying relates to what has always bothered me in Josh Marshall's initial description of the site (I dunno if it is still here somewhere.) It said the site was for discussion of news and politics but was also for "activism." Fortunately for people with preferences like mine, the activism thing never appeared much here. But I think that the two are at odds--the kind of interaction we crave, a challenge to thinking and ideas and help analyzing news, and "activism." Activism means pushing to form clubs and cliques of like minded individuals to push a point of view and to get things accomplished. Isn't that sorta like the Fox News model? Or the Khmer Rouge indoctrination sessions after toiling in the fields? Or the pep rally in high school? :-)
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 7:27pm irishkg said:
Here's what Josh says about activism in ABOUT [TPMCafe]
TPMCafe is a public meeting place to read about and discuss politics, culture and public life in the United States....
TPMCafe was launched as a companion site to TPM on May 31st, 2005 to provide a forum for commentary, discussion, collaborative journalism and activism.
Activism was discussed when viviance initiated the Cafe Charter.
Perhaps we can get agreement on a version you described during that Cafe Charter discussion:
And that the TPMCafe theme is a coffee house, I would tend to think that it was meant to accomodate mostly discussion, discussion that might bear seeds for activism.
Josh, Andrew, whomever:
How about describing the Cafe as a place to discuss ideas [i.e., ideas, news, analysis, and so on] that may become a springboard for activism. The Cafe remains a place of ideas. Those who want to talk ideas have a forum. Those who want activism have a place to think about ideas that form the foundation of activism. Short and sweet: the Cafe is talking about ideas, while advocacy for action happens in ________.
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 9:27pm Devon said:
On activism: I see your point at a logistical level, that a more activist bent encourages more conformity. But there is no logical necessity that the two will go together, and I don't think that they need to here. My impression is that - well, I share with you a sense that things have gone a little too far in the direction of uniform outrage than I'd like, but I'd say debate still predominates.
I agree with most of the people I regard as central to the site about the irrelevance of social stuff... but then again, I wonder if the circle I think of as at the center mightn't be one of many. I won't use that stuff, but perhaps others will. Will I notice if they do? Probably not. So what's the big deal?
Anyway, nothing's changed: I share your feelings, but to a lesser degree!
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 7:06pm joshtpm said:
irish, i'm not sure what you accomplish by such an ad hominem response to someone i've hired to help work on the site. What did that accomplish exactly? I get your point. You don't think the social networking features are something we need at this site. You might be right. We may not add that. But why get in his face?
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 7:55pm irishkg said:
Josh you asked why I got in Andrew's face. Well, I responded with some passion and persistence because the subject and approach got my attention and I had the time. I am one voice and have no presumption that I am "right."
Based on all sorts of professional experience I saw the classic new person's entrance onto the scene to make everything better. Andrew wanted to start with a clean slate which means that everything I and others have been saying in other threads was a waste. Andrew described new/expanded features when a myriad of technical issues have kept members out or unable to post, etc.
Andrew - I did not intend to be personal. I did want to express myself on the ideas you presented for consideration. Clearly you and Josh feel I was personal. Sorry.
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
[b]On November 28, 2006 - 8:09pm joshtpm said:[b]
Irish, There's no need for an apology. And I can understand the proposed changes coming off that way. But that's the not intent. And I'm still the ultimate editor of the site. So that's not going to happen. [b]There's a reason why I asked Andrew to start a discussion about this with the regulars at Cafe Management -- because the folks here are the stakeholders in this site. I appreciate your all sticking with the site and I understand the frustration of all the technical problems. I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding. But please have confidence in the editorial management that I assume/hope has kept you here this long even under imperfect circumstances.[/b]
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 9:01pm irishkg said:
Josh I continue to come because the discussions are interesting.
In the world of football offensive linemen are only noticed when they do something wrong. Right now the software is the offensive lineman who is not playing particularly well so we are watching every move. This can change and the software can go back to toiling away in the obscurity of the skillful offensive line.
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 12:01pm sphealey said:
Sorry to say I don't think you are going to get many comments. There have been at least half-a-dozen topics in the last 6 months where your best and most committed members have discussed bugs, problems, feature requests, community strategy, etc. All have been ignored, with no action taken and zero feedback to the community. The problem is that even the most dedicated will put up with that for a certain amount of time, but will eventually reach a tipping point and check out. Two weeks ago I predicted that Josh had 1/2 Friedman (12 weeks) to get this site back under control or lose it; I suspect I may have been optimistic in that assessment.
That said, if you look at the history of software (and web sites/web logs for that matter) you will most likely find that NONE of the successful ones were designed by committee, nor by accumulating feature requests. Zero. What is needed first and foremost is a solid vision of what is to be done and why, and second is a good solid systems architect who can translate that vision into reality (and also explain to the visioneer what cannot be done {within constraints, and also on an absolute basis}). You guys started out OK two years ago, but you have lost your way. And Josh talking about opening up 2-3 more sites in 2007 isn't a good sign.
sPh
Rated 4 by 4 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 12:37pm irishkg said:
Sorry to say I don't think you are going to get many comments.
The first clue that there won't be many comments from members is the 15 hour gap between the original post and the first comment (8pm Monday until 11am Tuesday)!!
Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 3:06pm Andrew Golis said:
Josh realizes that we weren't able to respond to community concerns (both just talking in comments like this and with technical solutions). That's why we're putting more resources and time into the site in an effort to fix it.
Please don't give up on us now, right when we finally have the ability to get things right!
Rated 4 by 4 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 3:59pm irishkg said:
I look forward to the proof on my screen: "we finally have the ability to get things right"
Meantime please read the previous threads. After digesting them, then come back with the technical and functional ideas and plans.
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 4:12pm joshtpm said:
Let me butt in here.
First, the suggestions and requests for glitch fixes haven't been ignored. What's happened is that you have a company that runs three major traffic sites with three employees who are responsible for editorial content, business and tech. All of it. In most cases we simply have not had the resources -- read the money -- to pay the consultants who run the site to make the requested changes or to fix the bugs. We're not part of a big corporation. And we don't have big foundation grants keeping us afloat like a lot of other similar sites. We exist entirely in the market economy. In some cases, I've been quite dissatisfied that they've failed to fix things we asked them to fix or introduced new bugs in the process of making fixes. A lot of stuff got screwed up in various changes we made on the site to keep the site online. But that's for another conversation.
We now have more resources to fix these problems and tech help too. We've brought Andrew on staff to help shepard that along. As Andrew has said, our first priority is to fix the bugs. But the nature of the investment in making the improvements creates a logic for making important changes at the same time. If we think this or that change to the site are important to make, it doesn't make sense to spend the money we now have on debugging sections of the site we're going to change.
So I can understand where it seems like putting the cart before the horse. But there's a strong logic to it.
As for sphealey's pessimistic view of the site, I'm sorry you feel that way. I've been frustrated that certain things about the site haven't gotten fixed or improved as quickly as I would have liked. And the site has been without an employee dedicated exclusively to the site for almost six months now. And that's hurt a lot. All told though I'm still happy with what we've accomplished and made possible here at TPMCafe. If you've lost patience, there are certainly other community sites to choose from. But for those who think we've started something special here and that it can be improved I invite you to work with us to make it what it can become.
Rated 4 by 3 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 4:50pm irishkg said:
Josh -- I don't expect perfection or a site with unlimited functionality. I don't assume that you have a bottomless budget. I do believe that I and other members have tried to make the site better. We also rant in frustration.
You/staff could help yourself if you took advantage of your publishing forum to communicate to the multitudes. Examples that would help you and members: a front page note when staff are away because they are doing real life things like a new baby; a front page note when the site is very shaky and it will be a few days/weeks before it can be addressed; a front page note that different members are seeing different problems because of whatever; a front page plea to not send email to the Cafe staff for a while because it cannot be answered; a front page notes with dates for planned changes and so on.
I appreciate the technically proficient here helping the less than proficient among us. They have tried to explain to the rest of us what might be causing the problems some/all were facing. I found it useful to understanding the challenge of site software and architecture.
Rated 4 by 4 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 4:56pm joshtpm said:
Irish, some of these points are really good ideas. Some are possible, some aren't. I think you'll see that we've actually done some of these things you've suggested already.
In any case, I think the only relevant point for me to make is the problems with TPMCafe have been a personal frustration of mine for a long time. And that I've just hired an employee for the specific purpose of fixing the problems with TPMCafe, getting the site the personal focus and attention that just isn't possible from a staffer who's also responsible for TPM or Muckraker.
I asked Andrew to come up with ideas for ways to revitalize the site and I asked them to run them by the regular readers. My aim in hiring Andrew was to make sure that the site gets fixed and that it gets the attention that it deserves going forward. To the extent that it was unclear from what Andrew wrote yesterday, I hope it's clear now that fixing the existing bugs is our top and first priority.
So there it is. I won't ask any more from then to judge us on what we produce from here on out. But I would ask that you focus on what we do now.
Rated 4 by 3 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 29, 2006 - 11:35am viviane said:
Some of these points are really good ideas. Some are possible, some aren't.
Could you let us know which things are possible and which aren't? I know it's a bit time consuming, but it would eliminate a lot of the frustration on the denizen side.
That way, we could know that our suggestions have been heard but aren't feasible right now. Such a "pipeline" or "to-do list" would do a lot to mitigate the sense that we keep trying to reinvent the wheel. Also, we'd stop asking if we knew which things we can't have!
Rated 4 by 3 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 29, 2006 - 6:11pm joshtpm said:
In a word, Yes.
Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 12:21pm jhaber said:
First, yes, I'd be concerned that we address glitches first. Second, yes, it doesn't seem that in touch with site feedback to date.
Some have criticized the distinction between two kinds of user-initiated posts (among reader blogs and discussion tables) or simply wondered what the distinction is for. The proposal would appear to perpetuate the division by combining discussion posts with other section areas rather than combining reader contributions. Some have also worried that too many discusson posts don't provoke discussion, even with moderation, so giving them greater prominence and frequency raises quality issues.
Some have found the navigation way too complex, with several kinds of tabs and menu bars; with some sections by topic and others not; with the role of the Coffee House, as neither quite a catch-all for what's left, not quite featured posts, and indeed not quite defined, but certainly as an arbitrary division of the home page that keeps some posts up too long and excludes others; and some have criticized the arbitrary right column choices, which appear selective rather than simply the latest, requiring one to hunt to see everything. I'm not sure, but a further division into a proliferation of discussion topics might exacerbate any or all of these.
Some had asked that a tab, brief lift of recent items, or other navigation feature as in the old design make sure that reader blogs are accessible from the home page at all times. (And indeed a tab has been restored.) However, I'm not sure there's been that much demand for them to play a more central role, they're rarely commented on, they vanish quickly, and obviously many come here for their favorite columnists instead. (There are too darn many amateur blog sites and news groups as it is.)
Mostly, however, it sounds like the same as the present structure, plus easier ways to initiate direct contact with other members. Has anyone asked for that? Is the private message used much? At least one member has already expressed concern for privacy in contacts.
In sum, I fear too much clutter, a shift away from TPM's experts to a collection of news group, and too little attention to navigation issues and bugs/glitches that come up repeatedly and persist. I don't wish to dismiss the changes outright, especially as I'm havnig trouble envisioning them clear, but is it the wisest use of staff time?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
Rated 4 by 4 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 3:12pm Andrew Golis said:
The glitches are obviously issue #1. We have a long list and are trying to fix them as quickly as possible. However, we're limited by the current system (we're stretching this platform beyond where the code can coherently go) and we're thinking about making a complete fresh start. I agree that the navigation is too complex. Our hope w/ this redesign would be to tighten up the user interface significantly. I also agree that the distinction between user-posts and discussion tables feels arbitrary, and under this conception the discussion tables would simply be folded into the general table function along w/ America Abroad and the rest. Sorry that it's hard to be clear. Is there anything in particular that's unclear? I'll try to re-explain.
Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 12:29pm cscs said:
I hate to do this, but I have to concur with the others -- there are already posts in Cafe Management re: what we'd like to see. No need for another. More importantly, I think any new functionality should be held off until you can demonstrate you can fix what's wrong right now. New functionality means new bugs, and there's already enough problems with the basic functionality of this site.
I said "I hate to do this," because I don't want to seem unappreciative that Josh wants to upgrade TPMCafe. I am.
But we have two posts in Management right now re: everything that's wrong with the site ("Glitches..."), and it just doesn't seem like the right time to talk about new features. I'd like to think we can walk and chew gum, but so far that hasn't happened.
All that said, here's some general reactions to the above proposals:
- Improving the Reader Blogs is needed. Recommended posts that go to the top, or even the Front Page, would be great.
- The Discussion Tables need work. We've gotten some improvement on the main Discussion page, and somewhere there's a Cafe Mgmt post about what we'd also like to see.
- I think the idea of multiple "Conversation Tables" is risky -- the big problem right now is we have too many categories.
Personally, I'd rather see tags incorporated into the site, rather than more categories of Tables. With tags, we can all categorize our own content however we want. If anything, I'd like to see the ability for me to tag OTHER people's content, so I can include other posts in my own categorization scheme.
- Finally, I'm not so sure about the "social networking" thing, and I'm wary of modelling this site after Daily Kos. Yes, this is a community, but it's quite different from DKos. There's no Sunday morning flower blogging here. If I want to develop a social network, I'll do it at DKos. If I want to find people to meet up with in real life, again, DKos.
This community is about ideas, and thinking. I come here to read what people smarter than me have to say. (And that's the users here, in addition to the Front Pagers.) Maybe I learn something new, or maybe it confirms what I already know. Or allows me to say it better. But it's about the ideas. I would keep that as the driver of whatever vision you have in developing the new features of TPMCafe.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
Rated 4 by 5 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 1:06pm irishkg said:
For those interested in the perspective Andrew brings:
TPMCafe Biography: grew up in California, studied American political history and social theory at Harvard College ('06), and currently shuttles between New York and Berkeley. He is a political organizer, a "new media" enthusiast, and PBS fanatic. He likes meeting new people, so email him.
From Wikipedia: In 2005, a progressive weblog .... was launched by Andrew Golis at Harvard University. The site ... covers a wide range of topics ranging from campus debates to international affairs, and was one of the earliest sources to break the news of Larry Summers' resignation as president of Harvard...
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 1:21pm sphealey said:
That is a good background for making the crucial decision between 2-tier (database centric; my preference based on bitter experience) and 2.5/3 tier (current website practice {fad?}) in the fundamental architecture of a high-volume site.
sPh
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 4:23pm joshtpm said:
What's the point of a comment like this?
Not yet rated.

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 3:15pm Andrew Golis said:
Hey, that's me! Happy to answer any and all questions.
Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 1:52pm Devon said:
Is it safe to assume that the plan is to roll out a new iteration of the site that takes into account the various glitches brought up in other Cafe Management threads, and also to do some of these new things?
The social networking stuff, CS is probably right, matters little. My sense is that this is a community primarily of ideas, and that people come here to talk, and not nec. to build more robust relationships than those formed on the threads.
I'm beginning to realize that some of the social components are important, to me, though - in particular, I'd like to have ratings back on my comments page. I realize now that they're gone that I use them to gauge my participation here - whether it has any point, really. Without seeing some evidence of that, I'm posting less.
Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 2:26pm irishkg said:
I don't view the rating system as social in nature. I like the ratings because it tells me if at least someone read what I wrote and thought enough of it (good or bad) to rate it. Rating also continues to be a quick way of saying I hear you without writing the words and cluttering up the thread.
I too want the cumulative rating next to each of my commnets on MY Account page.
Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 3:21pm Andrew Golis said:
Absolutely the new iteration of the site would seek to squash all of our bugs by creating a new code base.
We absolutely understand that glitches and bugs are job #1 but we also know that the site is being held back by some of its basic architecture (the separation of reader blogs from general content, the awkward design of the tables).
In terms of the social network, I think that you're right that it needs to focus on people's intellectual selves, not their "personal" selves. Probably a better way of explaining it would be an improved internal intellectual network. More on this in a new post above.
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 6:33pm artappraiser said:
Are you going to police the system according to whatever vision of the site ends up being "the one"? That means reading most of the threads.
Otherwise, to prevent morphing of the site into something that drives away the type of contributors and active members that you desire, if you plan to continue to have the community do it, you need back a fully functional rating system.
That means being able to see ratings on a user's comments page. It would also be a very good idea to be able to see ratings given by a member, so others can police for abuse. Also the hidden comments, those rated below one, need to be collected in one place for trusted members to review them.
I'd actually prefer toughly enforced editing and moderation by actual persons like is done on Juan Cole's site if I had my druthers. But it's tough to find someone willing to do such a lousy job, especially with a big site. If you are going to rely on the community to do it, first you need a clear statement about what kind of site this is and who and what is welcome here, one that people can point to. Second, you need to give them full tools to do it, the equivalent of the full Scoop Trusted User system, the best invented so far. Third, you need to state rules for ratings and use of ratings.
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 6:39pm artappraiser said:
I agree with irishkg that step one is getting any kind of functioning system.
Many will not bother to contribute quality thoughtful content that takes time if their comments are not visible to lurkers (the vast majority that look at this site) and to certain members for god knows what reason unrelated to ratings. (See the first "Glitch" thread for particulars.)
I am sure all of your software problems have deterred good fresh blood from signing up and participating. Some of the best commenters on a certain topic are often very unsavvy about using the internet as they have been busy learning and doing other things in their lives.
Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 28, 2006 - 7:12pm cscs said:
Thanks to Josh and Andrew for further clarification, here and in the subsequent post.
Here's something to consider, something we've discussed before. Part of the problem with the site today is that it's too hard to find things. I think there are three kinds of users here: one that just posts on the front page and doesn't care about anything else, one that gets into these meta-discussions in Cafe Management (and the other Discussion Tables), and a third that would LIKE to participate in these discussions, but just doesn't know about them.
So, I suggest spending some time on figuring how to make people aware there are Reader Blogs, there are Discussion Tables, etc. Like I said, we've already touched on some ideas in previous posts (putting the top Rec'd Reader Blog on the front page, putting the latest Discussion Post on the front page, etc).
Also, what about putting a link to this post on the Front Page, with a one-liner, something about "help determine the next stage of this site" (but worded better...)? While we old-timers know what we like/dislike/want-to-improve, this discussion would definitely be helped by some users new to TPMCafe. They might see things we can't.

Dissent Protects Democracy.
Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 29, 2006 - 1:05am viviane said:
A few thoughts on the proposed changes…
1. I agree that it would be nice to have the good Reader Blog posts be more integrated, more prominent. A couple of concerns, though. As the site population has grown, we’ve gotten lots of turnover on the current Reader Blog home page. I don’t want to see the same kind of turnover on the front page. Instead, would it be possible to have a sidebar or section on the front page that features RECOMMENDED Reader Blogs? That would help separate the wheat from the chaff, if you will, yet still spotlight Reader Blogs as a whole. (It would also give us Café denizens an incentive to write well!)
2. I’m unsure of what is meant by a “conversation table.” Does this mean integrating the current Discussion Tables with the front page Group Blogs? That would streamline things, I suppose.
At the same time, I’m chary of eliminating the denizen vs. invited guest distinction, though I’m not sure why. Also, I enjoy the mishmash of topics that usually grace the front page, if only because I read things that I might not otherwise search out. I don't want to lose that.
Also, one of the main requests in the past was to limit the number of tables. Is that being abandoned?
Architecturally, I’ve never really understood the difference between The Coffee House and the other front page, group blogs. Eliminating that confusion would be wonderfully helpful. Unless there are substantive differences…?
3. Like others, I don’t see a huge advantage with new social/intellectual networking tools. I would like to have all of my posts (whether blog or discussion table) show up in one place. I would also like to see the aggregate ratings on my comments. And I would like to be able to track a thread even if I haven’t commented on it.
Rated 4 by 3 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 29, 2006 - 1:18am viviane said:
Here are some of our previous requests, many articulated initially in this User Requests thread and then added to in Suggestions Wanted.
There have already been some huge improvements to the Discussion Table interface. But here's a summary of the other main points, all of which I endorse.
1. Cafe pipeline -- please let us know what's going on. If there are features that aren't happening, tell us that.
2. Bring back Recommended Reader Blogs! This has happened to some extent, but I'd like to see the creme de la creme gathered in one place.
3. Use a five-point rating scale (1-5), rather than the current four-point one. That allows a "neutral" rating, which is especially helpful if one wants to compensate for an inappropriate downrating. It also makes the system more helpful generally, allowing a greater degree of discrimination in ratings.
4. A link on the home page labeled "all recent posts", using the chronological global tracking link, already available, no special techies needed:http://www.tpmcafe.com/tracker
5. Also, it would be lovely if one could not submit a discussion table entry without a specific table assignment. That would prevent posts from being lost in the ether of the internet. Related to this, is there some way for the author of a discussion table post to know what has happened to it -- i.e., declined, posted, in queue?
6. Add daily or weekly spam cleaning. On a regular basis remove all the spam comments (crazy characters) and remove the users' access. The troll rating of 0 is better than nothing but the trash would be better. It's annoying to try to read, messes up the global tracker, and, I think, encourages more spam via the broken-window effect.
Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 29, 2006 - 2:41am artappraiser said:
You are a gem, viviane, for doing the work of rounding up all the most popular requests.
I would add two things to that which seem to irk newbies (often previously part of that huge mass of lurkers that probably pays a lot of the bill around here) until someone deigns to help them out:
1) A very simple fix: Put the default comment viewing options at "oldest first" rather than where it is now at "newest first," so that they can see and understand the comment conversations.
2) Put a "parent" link on the the replies to comments. There's a reason most forums supply that, it helps people figure out the more intricate conversations, who is talking to who. The indents just don't do the trick all the time, sorry; it's difficult to judge a few millimeters indent halfway down your screen.
Rated 4 by 3 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |
On November 29, 2006 - 2:25pm jhaber said:
I haven't kept commenting because I had my say, but Viviane's to-do sum up is excellent. And while I very much side with sphealey's feelings that the DLC posts are packaged lessons to us common folk or, similarly, Dan K's that such content is predictable to ArtA's concerns that our rudeness is keeping them from engaging with us, I doubt we can control the commenters that much more anyhow, other than by drawing better readers.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
Rated 4 by 3 users. see individual ratings

reply | write to author | link |

Posted by Thinking
May 23, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink

Sure, start your own web site.