This post is not about elections or trolls. It was inspired/provoked by several factors:

1) A series of awful Clinton-hate posts in the recommended list, devoid of substance, objectivity, and journalistic value

2) An eloquent post by roo_P imploring bloggers, particularly Obama supporters, to produce thoughtful, positive posts

3) An excellent, insightful critique by dws which missed the recommended list entirely

4) A complaint by longtime cafe member, artappraiser, that the forum software is utilized for the masses to happily enjoy churning out whatever their heart desires and form their own in-groups where they then jeer or cheer within group

5) A post by Yoda Urbinato for the sole purpose of testing the maximum length of a post title, which nonetheless made the recommended list. (No disrespect to Yoda, who has produced many an excellent post.)

I've been feeling for some time that the quality of the cafe threads has been deteriorating. We still see terrific reader journalism from time to time, such as flyonthewall's latest, but they're becoming scarcer. Instead, we see anti-Clinton screeds, undigested links to videos and news items ("Obama snags another delegate"), and jokey meta-posts*. The reader posts, which used to require some talent and/or research to make the recommended lists, are starting to become indistinguishable from the comments, which require nothing more than a computer and too much time on one's hands. It's my impression that quality posts are still common, but they've been drowned out by the poorer ones. The cream is no longer rising to the top.

* I don't claim to be innocent in all this. Indeed, I have perhaps been a pioneer of the jokey meta-post, and I do love them dearly, but I recognize that they are of little interest outside a select crowd.

I see several factors behind these changes:

1) The quantity of posts has increased. Depending on traffic, a post may stay on the recent list for less than half-an-hour, not enough time for people to see and recommend it. In addition, some bloggers have become extremely prolific, posting multiple times per day (or even per hour). The first change is welcome, though it has some negative consequences. The second is not. Posting multiple times a day on a regular basis is kind of egoism, and it brings no value to the cafe.

2) Recommendations are more partisan. Traditionally, the cafe has tended to follow Josh Marshall's example of melding political passion with objective journalism. Lately, the former seems to have taken over. A pro-Obama post is far more likely to make the recommended list than a pro-Clinton post. Yes, because of the preponderance of Obama supporters, there are many more good Obama posts on the site, so it's not surprising that they outnumber the pro-Clinton recommended posts, but there have been many inferior pro-Obama posts that have no business on the recommended list and, were the word "Obama" replaced with "Clinton", would have quickly disappeared with barely a recommendation. Simply put, people have become more likely to recommend a post because of its political position than because of its journalistic merit.

3) Insiders have been creating "chat rooms". I am perhaps unintentionally responsible for initiating this trend. Several weeks ago, I dashed off a cranky criticism of the posts on the recommended list (all of which were far better than many of those that have been making the list lately) which I expected readers to ignore. Instead, it made the recommended list and quickly lost all focus as insiders used it to shoot-the-shit. Yoda Urbinato aptly labeled it the "Seinfeld thread": an entertaining thread about nothing. Since then, Seinfeld threads have appeared with regularity. The comedy threads--Fake Sinbad posts and troll competitions--have also contributed to the "chat room" trend.

What can we do about these changes:

1) Better technology. I hope that Andrew Golis will weigh in on planned changes.

a. The recent list and perhaps the recommended list could be made longer to make more posts available for more time. I should think that this would be be a trivial software change.

b. Display the number of recommendations in the list. I seldom go through the recent posts list unless I see a name that I recognize or a particularly intriguing title. But if I saw that a post had 10 recommendations but had not yet made the recommended list, I would more likely to read and recommend it, perhaps saving it before it disappeared.

c. More effective editor recommendations. Charles Gelman recommends reader blogs at the coffeehouse every few days, which often serves the purpose of highlighting posts that did not make the recommended list. But judging by the number of recommendations that such posts receive even after Gelman has highlighted them, I don't think that many people are reading them, especially those below the fold. I would like an editor recommendation mechanism that is more immediate and more visible. Perhaps an icon next to posts in the list or a third sidebar list of editor recommendations.

d. Daily post limits. I don't think that anyone should be allowed to post more than twice a day. Anyone producing more than that is probably not producing quality. A limit may also help people to think twice before they post the latest superdelegate endorsement, for example.

2) Better posting. We can take it upon ourselves to make efforts to post less frequently and only when we have something particularly important to say. This particularly applies to prolific posters (you know you are), news posters, and insiders. Because it's easier for "insiders" to get our posts on the list, it's especially important for us to take care not to abuse that ability by writing frivolous posts that make the list just because we like to slap one another the back. If a substantial post turns into a Seinfeld thread, that's fine. Uninterested outsiders don't have to read the whole thread. But let's at least avoid taking up spots on the list with posts that only appeal to us.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating an end to snark. I consider satire to be a form of journalism which can be far more substantive than some of the tripe that passes for news. But let's try to avoid purely comedic posts, especially when the jokes are all "in" jokes. For example, daily back-to-back troll competitions are probably unnecessary. (I'm not naming names, but it rhymes with "Ballsburg". And yes, I realize that I have my own sins to expatiate on this score.)

A word on news posters. TPM eventually catches almost every piece of important news, so please don't rush to get out a link to Obama's latest speech. We'll see it. If you post it, that bare link will hang out on the recommended list for hours after the speech becomes old news. Worse, someone else may post about it at the same time, and then both links hang out on the list, blocking other worthy posts. But if you have something interesting to say about the piece of news you wish to share, some analysis or criticism, then by all means share. Your goal should be to write, not to scoop.

3) Better recommendations. This is perhaps the most important change we can make. People are going to post crap. We can't stop them. But we don't have to recommend them. And all the technology in the world won't help the recommended list if we continue to recommend poor quality posts. If you see a post that has little journalistic merit, don't recommend it. If you see a post that you strongly agree with or which is written by someone you like, you should be more, not less, critical. Remember that your natural bias in such cases will be to recommend, so ask yourself whether it really deserves your recommendation on its merits. Do not think of yourself as waging a battle to put more pro-Obama posts on the list or to make sure that everyone hears the latest news about so-and-so.

4) User recommendation thread. I've very hesitant about this one but wanted to throw it out for discussion. Earlier today, Chino Blanco linked to a set of reader posts that he recommended. I've done the same thing, both for other people's posts and, yes, to shamelessly gloss my own. I wonder if it makes sense for us to create a permanent thread where anyone can recommend this or that post, even their own. Essentially, this would serve as a parallel to Gelman's editors recommendations, but it would be more comprehensive and timely. The danger to such a thread would be that it would increase the control of insiders who know about it. If these insiders link and recommend judiciously, I think it would serve a good purpose, as Chino's post did this morning, but it could easily be abused. The question is whether it would establish an enlightened aristrocracy (in the ancient Greek sense of the word) or a corrupt oligarchy.

In any case, these are my thoughts. I hope that they stimulate a good discussion.