Winning the BBS wars

[sweetheart]

Consider that DU is an early early version of the future in public argument. As with any technology, i believe this model will be leapfrogged in short order, leaving us wise dinosaurs of the dust.

I started this thread to discuss the future adaptations of BBS concepts that we can continue to lead poltiical discussion.

Firstly, what makes DU are the writers. The software is nice, but without dedicated, intelligent writers, the board is just bits on a hard disk. That said, and having recenlty perused this new board: www.americanforum.net and it has a lower quality software system, but is not really competing in that regard, rather for writers.

Beyond that, this company is linking the concept of a BBS with mobile telecoms, so that text messaging can be used, with some of the forums on public dispay on giant monitors in public places. (http://www.speakerscorner.org.uk/) However, technology is just fancy crap without writers, and i've some thoughts about writers.

I think DU should offer a way for writers to get recognition. The recognition would be like 10 best posts of the month as voted by the users... best writer of the month, best writer of the year.. that sort of thing. Most post counts this month. Inspiring new writer of the month. The idea is to have several categories for recognition and then to ringfence some of the donations. What?

Set aside say 500 dollars that is ALREADY in the DU accounts. Then with the monthly prize, "re-donate" the money in the name of the winning authors to DU. Perhaps a bumper sticker in the post with a nice congrats certificate. Also, get doners to place "bets" on writers, so that if a writer wins, the doner money goes to DU... or doners to match the winnings in donations to DU.

There would have to be a system of nomination and selection which surely can be achieved perhpas using views, a rating system, "i like this post", "i like this writer this month"... something like that... the ways to implement this in software depend on Elad and the creativity of the development org.

Over time, the result would be the natural selection of the authors who really try to put good work in to DU, (and god knows it takes many hours, as we all know)... and if that recognition paid off, the returns would attract writers and retain them.

I think this can be done tastefully, that it adds to the quality of DU. As well, new people who encounter DU, can discriminate between writers we all respect and those who may not put quite so much consideration in to things. This allows new users to better use DU modelling themselves more on the success stories. As DU gets more and more users, this is even more important, as without 100's of hours of reading, its difficult to know which posts of the many many to bother reading.

I see a time, maybe in the longer future, where DU is quite profitable, and with 500,000 active users. Then it would pay to offer cash prizes to winning authors. The results would the writers of america to the honey pot and give DU a long term advantage.

Please share your thoughts.

[sweetheart]

1. dropping like a stone

Perhaps only software developers think about things like this.

DU must develop a way to let the meritocracy of writing for freedom and liberty distinguish itself amongst the peerage of democrats who believe in the public ethos of one vote one person.

Perhaps the award for best writer should go to the preferred democratic campaign, with matching funds to the coffers of DU by preferred supporters. ..

Ideally, the writers who excel on DU come to view it as a worthwhile profession, worthy of their best work and considerate attention.... then we all win, as DU comes to beat every editorial newspaper.

There is also the betting potential... let a betting board of contributors exist on DU that promises to donate given a certain writer's success in monthly ratings.

It may sound trivial, but the marketing of winnig over hearts and minds is hardly trivial... and in a democratic society, that way MUST come to support this greater whole.

To bad, y'all have no ideas on this.

Peace,

-sweetheart

:loveya:

[sweetheart]

2. Betting on DU

Say that part of the board had threads with bids (backed up by paypal hard currency) on winning best writer of the month.
At the end of the month, all bids clear to the coffers of DU 50/50 to the democratic party as well. This would give the board both the goodwill of all democrats and as well, attract the betters amongst us who not only read the boards, but are willing to bet money on who is going to win the ideological war.... best author of the month.

I think the system of moderator warnings is a "stick" yet they have not developed yet a "carrot". Were that carrot in place, DU would be floating in a sea of dollars... come on skinner.... look at the upside. :)

Peace and massive innovative dreams to all software geniuses (read: elad)

[sweetheart]

3. kick

This thread is heavier than uranium. Oh well, IMO, its a great idea. :)

[Cheesehead]

4. Wouldn't a move like that run the risk

of turning DU from a thoughtful political discussion board into an ego game for blowhards?

[sweetheart]

5. It depends on how its done

As a software developer, it could be done very subtly, which is what i'm thinking of.

It takes a lot of time to write well and methinks the people who work quite hard to give the DU community their best work, would benefit from such a thing. If not, then perhaps the political board that DOES do such a thing will attract better writers.

I have myself put 1000's of hours in to reading and writing on DU and other boards for years. It takes time and work, unpaid work. The better a writer is, the more likely they "could" be being paid for their work, so why give it away? We use anonymous ID's, and ego blowhards don't last very long anyways. Time and truth expose the real intent of folks.

Perhaps when you've put 2000 posts in, a year from now, you'll have a greater appreciation for some of the folks who consistently put great work on this site.

We have a moderator warning system and a whole series of rules to punish bad behaviour on this board, and yet there is no positive carrot for excellent behaviour.

I am for giving people recognition for their contributions. American life is an ego game. Everyone on this board has an adgenda. Some on the board play very very fair. I'd like to see them recognized, so that newcomers can latch on to the upside of DU.

What is so wrong with recognizing outstanding work.

Perhaps the period of recognition should be quarterly with categories:

1. 10 inspiring new writers of the quarter
2. 100 outstanding posts of the quarter.. best of DU
3. 10 most prolific writers of the quarter
4. 10 inspiring and impeccable writers of the quarter
5. special recognition category, large donations, programmers, etc.

This could be on a separate page, and give those writers say a "blue" star or change the colour of their name in the list... like the moderator icon, except different.

Only people who spend more time on DU would really notice these things, and certainly it would be an option not to be recognized for people who would themselves not like such recognition.

The moderator warning system begs its opposite.

[Cheesehead]

6. I don't post often, but have been lurking for a long time

and am well aware of the quality of the "free" information I get here at DU. I also find that a lot of the reseach info that goes into the publication-quality posts comes from unpolished posters to this board who just want to make the facts public, or voice a "rough" opinion rather than massage the data for ego satisfaction or financial gain.

Will Pitt, the most public example of the wordsmiths that populate DU, freely admits to using the board for research, proofreading, fact and style checking, etc. His posting here, as a vehicle for his talent and ambition, propelled him into a full-time writing/press secretary career. There is no reason why you, and others, can't follow in those footsteps without the addition of a "juried" process.

I have no reason to pooh-pooh the effort that goes into writing well, but don't see the need for a competitive process to encourage it. Call me a Neanderthal if you like, but rough-but-concise writing is fine with me.

[sweetheart]

7. What do you propose then

as the upside for moderator warnings. We have all these "don't do's" on this board.

Will pitt is not the example i mean, actually, nor is bevharris.

Polishing the work can be as little as taking the time to run the spell checker. It can be making sentences readable. I respect rough cuts as well, but really, if i can't "READ" it, then its a moot point.

If the nomination process can be done without seeming competetive, would you think it better... perhaps rather... each quarter are nominated the "20 outstanding authors", not with a "best", rather outstanding, for all reasons.

Then those folks would get a blue star on their name... If i were doing that right now i'd give one to "TruthIsAll", "whocountsthevotes", "arendt", "TahitiNut", "bearfartinthewoods", "arwalden", "SoCalDem", "Global_Justice", "AP".... amongst others

In a strange way, DU is very much like a printed newspaper. We have very regular columists, and visiting writers. Postcount 1000+ is so common, that it does not distinguish anything but that people blather a lot.

I think postcount fails to get across the idea. Moderators are something else entirely, so that is not the point either.

Call me a Neanderthal if you like, but rough-but-concise writing is fine with me. I don't mean that writing must be perfect, i mean the ideas the cadence, the depth of truth the person gets in to their work... and i agree rough is as good as polished... and the nomination process would be like a button on a post, where each DU member had say 20 nomination votes each quarter, one button for "best post" and another for "outstanding writer"

Then at the end of a quarter, tallies are done in SQL (a very simple query), and the 20 writers get little stars. and the 100 most nominated posts get to the "best of DU" page so we can all read them and enjoy them.

[Cheesehead]

8. From this last post, I take it your motive is as much

to improve the overall quality of the wordsmanship on the board as to create a contest. I can agree with that goal much more easily.

Anybody who has frequented the board for any amount of time knows who the exceptional writers are, and targets their posts as "must read." We then congratulate them in the thread for their style or content or both. I know that this feels good - it has happened to me.

Post count is a bogus measure of anything as far as I'm concerned. Casual and/or trashy posts to the Lounge count the same as a magnum opus. There are any number of frequent posters whose rationale for contributing is incomprehensible to me.

The only rationale for what I see as "competitive writing" is to ensure that well-written posts don't get lost in the clutter and fall into the archives unread. I enjoy reading a well-crafted post as much as anyone, but am primarily here at DU for information. Raw information. The craft can be found anytime at any number of sites like truthout, commondreams, tompaine, thenation, and their ilk. I see DU more as the source of the raw material for these folks and myself as well.

I realize that the mechanics of implementing a rating system in SQL are not that difficult (although I still wish that the "number of views" column that had a short and fitful life in the forum for "technical reasons" could be resurrected). A main concern is that second-tier writers might feel dissed and give up participation in what could be viewed as a populatity contest.

That's it for me on this topic. I encourage more discussion!

Cheesehead

[Cheesehead]

9. I'll kick this one more time

I think it may have merit, but needs more exposure.

:kick:

[sweetheart]

10. refined concept

I think the refined idea would be 2 buttons by each post, that would allow the reader to press.

"nominate writer for outstanding writer"
"nominate post for best of DU posts"

Each DU user would have 30 nomination points per period for nomination... if it is every 3 months, then 30 nomination votes can be made during that period.

Each DU user would have 200 nomination points per period for best post.

There would be a screen where you could see all your nominees together and "de-select" nominations if you change your mind.

At the end of the period. A page would be added to DU with the top 100 posts (THE BEST OF DU) for that period as voted by DU users. It would include 100 threads and be available for folks who want to enjoy good stuff, and as well visitors who want a quick shot at what we all enjoy about DU, without having to read through a lotta chaff.

Also at the end of the period, a little blue star would be fixed to the ID's of the 30 outstanding posters/writers as voted by DU users.

This star would get lighter the next period, and last 4 periods, with 4 shades of progressively lighter blue...

The result would be that when people used DU, they would see the name with a blue star, much similar to the moderator icon, and it would inspire folks, and as well, reward people who've put in hard time to make DU pleasant for all of us.

It would be entirely democratic, yet allow DU to promote excellence in free speech that it inspire others. As well, it would give new users role models on what works at DU.

[sweetheart]

13. plutonium kick

bump this sinker's heavy :)

[DrBB]

11. Sounds similar to Slashdot

Check out the rating systems there. Other boards do something like this as well. I suppose it may become necessary as DU grows, though I kind of liked the smallness of it when I first joined. Actually, the problem I've found is that the rapidity with which threads fall off the landing page is disconcerting, now, and doesn't do justice to some interesting pieces that can't be responded to as quickly as the abortion/religion/homosexuality threads that stay up for days.

B.t.w., when DU II was first initiated, the guys HAD incorporated a feature tracking how many views (versus how many posts) a thread had and a rating system for those posts. I believe one of the reasons the latter feature was disabled was the discovery that it was being "freeped." Figuring out how to filter out interlopers' input from the system you're describing would be crucial. Dunno how you'd do that.

[sweetheart]

12. I remember those "view" counts

It was kinda wierd, as it showed how people would read a post and not reply to it... Some Plutonium posts that sink like rocks had lotsa views.. like people read them, but were disinclined to kick them up.

I don't think the viewcount was a good feature, as it exposed the number of people active on the board, and better the illusion that all 35000 or more are there reading... it adds solidity.

TO avoid freeping, only registered users would be able to use the feature of nomination (as i described it in post 10).

On my recent experience of trying to introduce someone new to DU, i discovered how uncomfortable they felt at the speed of the board and the thousands of writers... names that are familiar to me, were all greek to her, and she did not know where to start.

I ended up making a list of writers who were consistently wise and good core supporters of plural free speech, but then she had a handwritten list, trying to see if any of those was on the page she was looking at... and the idea has been evolving from there.

How to tell a new person which way is UP on DU is quite difficult.... we all know moderator warnings are "down", but "up" is much less clear.