Week of April 27, 2008 - May 3, 2008
Better Reader Posts
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.
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.
Advertisement
Is Hillary Behind My Brain Dysfunction?
Have you been feeling "fuzzy" lately? Blinded by passion? Addled by rage? Do you find yourself ranting about MSM unfairness and the well-known bias of certain TPM staffers? (I won't name any names but it rhymes with "Breg Bargent".) Do you hurl potted plants at your television or periodically spit on your monitor? Do you pound the "recommend" button manically when you see an anti-Hillary post, even though it only works the first time? Have your purchased five or more computers so that you can vent your anger through multiple recommendations?
You might be suffering from Hillaria. This dangerous disease has now been exposed by a brilliant expose at Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/29/75840/7712/999/505469. According to the article, in 2007, the Clinton campaign's Secret Opposition Research Division In Detroit (SORDID), developed a deadly new virus designed to blunt the wits of Obama supporters. Pretending to offer skin-whitening treatment, SORDID experimented on thousands of unsuspecting Detroiters of color, including the Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. CDC experts have blamed the virus for the reversal of Detroit's meager economic gains in recent years, as well as a number of asinine text messages that Mayor Kilpatrick sent to lover Christine Beatty.
The virus targets the amygdala, the emotional center of brain, heightening feelings of anger, while at the same time interfering with neural connections in the cerebral cortex. Hillaria victims are prone to bouts of rage, hyperventilation, and excessive application of capital leters. In advanced stages, it can lead to foaming at the mouth and melanomic changes. Victims' skins often taken on a greenish color, leading some to call Hillaria, "Troll's Disease".
For reasons unknown, the virus only targets supporters of Barack Obama, although the CDC is concerned that it could leap to supporters of John McCain should Clinton win the Democratic nomination. While the specific transfer mechanism is unknown, the disease appears to spread through Internet blogs. If so, this would be the first time that a real virus has been transmitted virtually. Among blog communities at Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos, the disease appears to have reached epidemic proportions, and the CDC may soon impement quarantines of these sites. If you suspect that you have contracted the disease, CDC advises you to turn off your computer immediately and avoid news sources for at least three weeks. Without stimulus, the virus can be destroyed by the body's natural defenses, but it may remain dormant for several months, so victims should continue to take precautions until September.
You might be suffering from Hillaria. This dangerous disease has now been exposed by a brilliant expose at Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/29/75840/7712/999/505469. According to the article, in 2007, the Clinton campaign's Secret Opposition Research Division In Detroit (SORDID), developed a deadly new virus designed to blunt the wits of Obama supporters. Pretending to offer skin-whitening treatment, SORDID experimented on thousands of unsuspecting Detroiters of color, including the Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. CDC experts have blamed the virus for the reversal of Detroit's meager economic gains in recent years, as well as a number of asinine text messages that Mayor Kilpatrick sent to lover Christine Beatty.
The virus targets the amygdala, the emotional center of brain, heightening feelings of anger, while at the same time interfering with neural connections in the cerebral cortex. Hillaria victims are prone to bouts of rage, hyperventilation, and excessive application of capital leters. In advanced stages, it can lead to foaming at the mouth and melanomic changes. Victims' skins often taken on a greenish color, leading some to call Hillaria, "Troll's Disease".
For reasons unknown, the virus only targets supporters of Barack Obama, although the CDC is concerned that it could leap to supporters of John McCain should Clinton win the Democratic nomination. While the specific transfer mechanism is unknown, the disease appears to spread through Internet blogs. If so, this would be the first time that a real virus has been transmitted virtually. Among blog communities at Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos, the disease appears to have reached epidemic proportions, and the CDC may soon impement quarantines of these sites. If you suspect that you have contracted the disease, CDC advises you to turn off your computer immediately and avoid news sources for at least three weeks. Without stimulus, the virus can be destroyed by the body's natural defenses, but it may remain dormant for several months, so victims should continue to take precautions until September.
TPM-aholics Election Fundraiser
Hi folks. Last week, many of you joined the TPM-aholics group at my.barackobama.com (mybo). We're now up to 83 members. For those of you who missed the thread, I set up the group to help TPM cafe members meet up offline and organize for the presumptive Democratic nominee.* If you haven't joined, you may do so here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/TPM-aholicsSupportGroup
* If by some freak chance, Obama concedes and Clinton becomes the nominee, we'll re-orient.
In a second thread, articleman has proposed a TPM-centered fundraiser with Q & A from a campaign representative. Here's the idea: TPM members will hold house parties in cities across the country (or the world, I suppose, where time zone appropriate). Guests would be asked to donate to the Obama campaign. A conference call or web meeting will take place in which a representive from the campaign would answer questions.
Here's what we need to figure out to make this happen:
Who? If we were able to raise enough money, we could theoretically get the man himself online. I don't think that we should plan on that, but it's something to aim for. Other possible participants include Plouffe, Axelrod, or Michelle. Another person who could be interesting would be Facebook founder Chris Hughes, who coordinates online organizing for Obama.
What? In a future thread, or on the TPM-aholics listserv, we can have a discussion about what questions to ask. I was thinking that someone from each house party could take responsibility for asking one or two questions plus follow-up.
Where? Your house. TPM members will host house parties in as many cities as possible. We can bring in a lot more people if TPM members invite their friends and neighbors to participate. If you have no friends, and your neighbors are Republicans, you can publish the event at mybo. (I met a lot of great people that way at the results-watching party I organized last week.) If you live with a pet bear in an isolated cabin in the wilds of Idaho, you can still participate, but the more participants, the better, so I hope that people will host parties when possible.
When? Articleman suggested, and I agree, that we should wait until after the craziness has ebbed. We might even be able to bring in a few of Clinton supporters for some TPM unity. I suggest June 14th. Obviously, we're not going to be able to accommodate everyone, but if you would like to host a party and can't do the 14th, please speak up. If enough people can't do it, we can select a different day.
Why? To raise money for the Democratic nominee in the general election, to build connections within the TPM community, to satisfy our insatiable curiosities.
How? I suggest a skype call because it's free, doesn't depend on speaker phones, and allows us to see the representative on video. (Some setup required.) MrDeadeye2U, you wrote on articleman's thread that the campaign can do net-meeting style meetings. Is skype an option? If not, what would you recommend?
What else? I think the story of an online community like ours organizing for Obama could be press-worthy. That would good for Obama and good for TPM. If you have any press connections, please let us know
What now? Hosts. We need hosts. If wish to do it, please send me a message at mybo. My profile is http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gGnyqX. You can also find me by searching for Genghis at mybo or at the TPM-aholics group home page. In your message, please include how many guests that you think you can get and how much you think they would be willing to donate. This will give us a sense of how big this thing will be. We'll follow up with instructions on how to set up the party and also send you bumper stickers and buttons and such. Depending on the response, I may be pretty busy, so I apologize if I'm unable to respond personally. In addition to articleman, California Paige has offered to help coordinate, so you may hear from her.
Other stuff...
Please recommend so that this thread stays makes the recommended list. I apologize for taking up a spot on the list and promise not to inundate the threads with TPM-aholics organizational work. It's just a good place to get the word out and have a discussion. If you wish to be involved in the planning, please bookmark this thread and check back regularly, as we will continue to communicate here after it comes off the recommended list.The main fundraising page can be found at http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/maingroup/TPMaholics. I'll also set up an email list for party hosts so that we can exchange ideas and coordinate.
By the way, we still need to choose an official logo for TPM-aholics. Please vote in our logo-off.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/genghis/gGCVQ7/commentary
Thanks to everyone for your enthusiasm and for making this possible,
Genghis
This event is not supported or endorsed by Talking Points Memo.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/TPM-aholicsSupportGroup
* If by some freak chance, Obama concedes and Clinton becomes the nominee, we'll re-orient.
In a second thread, articleman has proposed a TPM-centered fundraiser with Q & A from a campaign representative. Here's the idea: TPM members will hold house parties in cities across the country (or the world, I suppose, where time zone appropriate). Guests would be asked to donate to the Obama campaign. A conference call or web meeting will take place in which a representive from the campaign would answer questions.
Here's what we need to figure out to make this happen:
Who? If we were able to raise enough money, we could theoretically get the man himself online. I don't think that we should plan on that, but it's something to aim for. Other possible participants include Plouffe, Axelrod, or Michelle. Another person who could be interesting would be Facebook founder Chris Hughes, who coordinates online organizing for Obama.
What? In a future thread, or on the TPM-aholics listserv, we can have a discussion about what questions to ask. I was thinking that someone from each house party could take responsibility for asking one or two questions plus follow-up.
Where? Your house. TPM members will host house parties in as many cities as possible. We can bring in a lot more people if TPM members invite their friends and neighbors to participate. If you have no friends, and your neighbors are Republicans, you can publish the event at mybo. (I met a lot of great people that way at the results-watching party I organized last week.) If you live with a pet bear in an isolated cabin in the wilds of Idaho, you can still participate, but the more participants, the better, so I hope that people will host parties when possible.
When? Articleman suggested, and I agree, that we should wait until after the craziness has ebbed. We might even be able to bring in a few of Clinton supporters for some TPM unity. I suggest June 14th. Obviously, we're not going to be able to accommodate everyone, but if you would like to host a party and can't do the 14th, please speak up. If enough people can't do it, we can select a different day.
Why? To raise money for the Democratic nominee in the general election, to build connections within the TPM community, to satisfy our insatiable curiosities.
How? I suggest a skype call because it's free, doesn't depend on speaker phones, and allows us to see the representative on video. (Some setup required.) MrDeadeye2U, you wrote on articleman's thread that the campaign can do net-meeting style meetings. Is skype an option? If not, what would you recommend?
What else? I think the story of an online community like ours organizing for Obama could be press-worthy. That would good for Obama and good for TPM. If you have any press connections, please let us know
What now? Hosts. We need hosts. If wish to do it, please send me a message at mybo. My profile is http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gGnyqX. You can also find me by searching for Genghis at mybo or at the TPM-aholics group home page. In your message, please include how many guests that you think you can get and how much you think they would be willing to donate. This will give us a sense of how big this thing will be. We'll follow up with instructions on how to set up the party and also send you bumper stickers and buttons and such. Depending on the response, I may be pretty busy, so I apologize if I'm unable to respond personally. In addition to articleman, California Paige has offered to help coordinate, so you may hear from her.
Other stuff...
Please recommend so that this thread stays makes the recommended list. I apologize for taking up a spot on the list and promise not to inundate the threads with TPM-aholics organizational work. It's just a good place to get the word out and have a discussion. If you wish to be involved in the planning, please bookmark this thread and check back regularly, as we will continue to communicate here after it comes off the recommended list.The main fundraising page can be found at http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/maingroup/TPMaholics. I'll also set up an email list for party hosts so that we can exchange ideas and coordinate.
By the way, we still need to choose an official logo for TPM-aholics. Please vote in our logo-off.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/genghis/gGCVQ7/commentary
Thanks to everyone for your enthusiasm and for making this possible,
Genghis
This event is not supported or endorsed by Talking Points Memo.
