A Proposal to Showcase Quality Content

I'm with Longcat -- and I don't like the hoops.

We have a hard enough time getting original content anyway. Adding extra steps would just cut out a lot of it, and I'm sure it would cut out a lot of good stuff.

And, as always with plans which require a panel -- your plan just leads to charges of favoritism and bias.

It always comes back to this, for me: I can't think of anything in life where the "best" automagically rises to the top. Literature? No. Music? No. Televiison? No.

In all mediums, we're expected to have the ability to discern for ourselves where the cream resides, and then we get smarter by reading the sort of things that we need to read. I simply don't have any trouble finding quality content on Newsvine. It's not handed to me, but I don't expect it to be. And, by having to look for it -- my chances of stumbling across something I'm NOT looking for increase. By a lot. That goes away when we're handed "typcial expectations" of quality.

I'm also curious how you differentiate between popular and quality? It's hard to discuss this if I have to "guess" who you think is popular and "what" you think is quality. I suspect that a lot of those who are regularly featured "do" produce quality work. I'd be pretty upset if the insinuation was made that my popularity (which I see as having earned an audience) was considered to have been automatic -- and not based on effort and consistent hard work for the past (almost) 2 years.

Those who rise to the top with fluff won't stick around long. They're always trying to find a new angle or whatever, but they get bored pretty quickly and/or begin to get cynical about the process -- and then they leave.

Oh well.

But I hope you're not trying to tell me that the only way to build an audience is by producing quality.

No, and -- I've actually just written an article about that -- and have suggested a way to cut back on some of the angry rhetoric and arguments that "seem" to pervade.

But, I'm not sure how "submitting an article to a panel along with a synopsis with no guarantee of getting front-page exposure" doesn't involve extra steps. Your method sounds like it involves A LOT of extra steps, to me.

So, if someone wants to be "featured," they need to go through the extra steps of submitting their work for review, but if they just want to jump around in the usual NV algorithm, they just publish as usual?

I'm confused now.

So, in essence -- the current "Newsvine Columnists" block would be an "actual" featured block -- but otherwise, everything else would be the same.

I suppose I could get behind that -- but I still think it could lead to even greater charges of bias than we already see. Though, we already see quite a lot of that, and I've pretty much learned to roll my eyes and mentally note the conspiracy theorist in question so that I can further disregard their contributions in the future.

But, I'm still on Viki's side about the volunteer efforts. I think that at some point, they have to consider who they count as an "employee" and who they count as a member of the community.

And, again -- I have other ways I'd prefer to see them spend their money, when it comes to hiring.

Okay, I see what you're getting at. But the fact is that the Newsvine members who consistently put out quality content get read frequently, they're on a multitude of watchlists, they participate in the discussions of their articles, etc.

Wouldn't it just be better if we actively encouraged everyone to increase the quality of their output, and encourage people to take responsibility for where they post their work?

Because if the quality writers we already have submit their work to be featured, they are going to consistently "beat" those of less quality who submit.

Couldn't this kind of thing be accomplished with a group? Create a group with exclusivity. The members are your panel of peer reviewers. People submit to the group members a link to an article they've written that they'd like reviewed for submission, and if the panel thinks it's good enough, they'll clip it to the group.

You could create an air of high-quality and exclusivity, and people would watchlist the group and read it like a magazine.

And if it takes off, then staff might be willing to look at this kind of thing as a feature.

and be left off the front page.

I disagree. The front page should have a meta category. Much of the meta content is better written than a lot of the political op-ed junk that we see -- and has done more to push Newsvine forward than said op-ed content as well.

But yeah -- I already do enough pro-bono work for Newsvine -- I think it would be asking a lot for someone to be on an official review panel -- without a salary to go along with it.

But, again -- I oppose the review panel, and would rather see Newsvine pay me someone to consistently promote quality, positive content. (Positive doesn't mean it can't be about hot-button issues.)

Whoops -- bad formatting. Feel free to delete my first one.

and be left off the front page.

I disagree. The front page should have a meta category. Much of the meta content is better written than a lot of the political op-ed junk that we see -- and has done more to push Newsvine forward than said op-ed content as well.

But yeah -- I already do enough pro-bono work for Newsvine -- I think it would be asking a lot for someone to be on an official review panel -- without a salary to go along with it.

But, again -- I oppose the review panel, and would rather see Newsvine pay me someone to consistently promote quality, positive content. (Positive doesn't mean it can't be about hot-button issues.)

Good point, Brian, and I agree with you. The front page SHOULD have a meta category, and appropriately tagged meta content should appear in that module.

But the meme-y type stuff? No. The comment-generating stuff? No. But that's just my opinion, which is basically why any kind of review panel would not work. Who is to decide what is quality content and what is not, what belongs on the front page and what doesn't?

But the meme-y type stuff? No. The comment-generating stuff?

I'm certainly not defending the "merit" of the meme stuff, and will even agree that it may have pushed away some other, better content.

But, I think memes "could" be done right. And, I think it was worth it to see the memes and all of the anger about them -- because we've yet to see that opposition try to create a forum for that sort of content which would help keep it away from the featured section -- or a way to improve upon the meme format to actually CREATE some quality content that "pays it forward." I still think that too many people find it easy to say: This content should go away or be kept out of sight but don't want to do the unglamorous work of using the tools we have to help solve the problem.

And, I'm not sure who thinkingrocks is referring to when he says someone told him to "do something about it" -- but it sounds like something I'd say, so -- if it was me:

I don't think that suggesting new features that we can't be sure the staff will ever create, or techniques that aren't even possible to be doing something about it. I think we have tools to START addressing the problems, and people don't want to use them. Would it be great if the staff came out with some better categories? Of course. But, asking for those categories isn't "doing" something. It's stalling and waiting for someone else to do something. Newsvine Survivor was an attempt to DO something. Inverse Universe was an attempt to DO something.

because we've yet to see that opposition try to create a forum for that sort of content which would help keep it away from the featured section -- or a way to improve upon the meme format to actually CREATE some quality content that "pays it forward." I still think that too many people find it easy to say: This content should go away or be kept out of sight but don't want to do the unglamorous work of using the tools we have to help solve the problem.

If they're uninterested enough to wish it weren't anywhere near the front page, or even on Newsvine at all, then they're probably going to be totally uninterested in creating a forum for it.

The 8-things meme did have a group, and to my mind, all responses to it should have been published only to the group and not to the front page. The group was formed by someone who enjoyed tagging people and enjoyed reading the various 8 things articles written by other members.

I'm here saying that the material should be categorized and policed by those who enjoy that kind of content and material. Not by those who loathe it.

And Brian, I totally agree that rather than suggest staff make changes to the site in order to serve different views and ideas for how the site should work, we should use the tools in place. You've said it many times, and I am in complete agreement--if we use the tools we have in different ways in order to achieve something different or unexpected, and use these tools consistently, THEN staff might do what they can to make it easier for us to do what we're trying to do.

All we can do is practice what we ourselves preach and hope that others follow suit.

I disagree. It would be foolish to avoid suggesting ideas for new features.

Well, I don't disagree with that. But, when I look to some of the biggest features that have been rolled out -- it's been AFTER the community has improvised a rigged method of doing so. (Real polls came after we made polls out of our comment threads. Groups came after we improvised groups. Etc.)

My comment was more to clarify what I mean by "do something about it."

Good suggestion.

I use meta to define anything having to do with Newsvine itself--how it works, how the community works, how we can make it work better, etc.

Some lump into the meta category community-based articles like memes and articles that ask the reader to contribute an answer (i.e. "What was your most favorite concert ever?"). Myself, I'd rather not categorize those kinds of things as "meta" but rather as "community-based," or something along those lines.

Hmmm. Sounds like a good article to whip out on this stormy morning... Hope you don't mind that I take that suggestion and run with it, Scott.

Well, anything that can be construed as "about newsine by Newsviner's" I consider to be meta. With the exception of seeds from other outlets about Newsvine.

I consider interviews about people to be meta -- memes are memes, though I newvsine themed meme would be a meta meme.

Articles about "your favorite this or that (band, whatever) are about the band -- and as such aren't memes so much as they are chatty blog-style entries.

All of the above (in my view) should be able to make it to the front page, but (as has been argued by many) we simply need better categories.

Until then, we just have to make do with what we have and try and promote tools to make Newsine the way we want it to be.

If they're uninterested enough to wish it weren't anywhere near the front page, or even on Newsvine at all, then they're probably going to be totally uninterested in creating a forum for it.

I'd slant that a little differently: They have a particular view of what "they" want Newsvine to be. If they're not interested enough in taking 10 minutes to create a group that will help facilitate that -- then have an open call for a few people to moderate the group -- I'm not sure they're interested enough in their ideal. Besides, the idea Steve came up with wasn't a method to push the traditional meme -- it was a way to take the idea of the meme and use it to push quality on Newsvine. And, that's my thought: If you don't liek something -- you take it, and replace it with something better that you DO like.

Can we discuss it here: What is Meta?