I've recently been engaged in a fairly intense discussion with RIA heavyweight Pbeavr about my lack of enforcement of the Weblist guidelines. Because the conversation is an interesting one and PB raises some good points, I thought I might share the gist of it.
The Weblist in question is: "A Completely Random List of Questions."
According to the guidelines, Weblists should have a "Focused Theme" and follow a "Ratings Format" (ie, allow a rational case for a 1-5 rating).
So is this Weblist in violation of the Weblist guideines? Yes. Is it still on the site? Yes.
Here's why. I'm currently trying to figure out how to handle Weblists going forward. Is any RIA intervention at all appropriate as these are lists supposedly managed by users? Is a no repeat policy really feasible given the growth of the site? Should I really be telling a user that a Weblist is without value when it is attracting plenty of comments?
I don't know the answer to these questions yet, and as such, I've been intentionally lax in enforcing the Weblist guidelines, especially when the Weblists in question seem to be generating interest. That's not to say I won't quickly delete Weblists (and posts) that are in violation of the RateItAll site rules (more discussion of site rules here) - but I've been letting some of the more harmless Weblist violations go.
I don't know how this all is going to play out yet, but I would say this - posting in a Weblist that is in clear violation of the guidelines could result in your post being removed at some point should the Weblist ever be taken down. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
So, currently the Weblist section admittedly feels a bit like the wild west. Keep flagging Weblists that are incomplete or offensive or duplicates, as I continue to remove them. There will most likely be changes forthcoming at some point in how these are managed, but I can't give a timetable.
But the general Site Rules still remain very much in effect across the site - things like no multiple ID's, no harassing other users, no reposting the same comment over and over, and no posting comments that have nothing to do with the item being rated.
6/27/05
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Apture
Posts
Yes, even if a Ratings list gets lots of comments it should be removed. The "lots of comments" excuse won't work. Value should come from the list and its items. The RATINGS and comments should only serve to enhance that value. Perhaps to gauge which item HAS real value. That can't be done if there is nothing to actually rate and it is just a jumble of incoherent nonsense. The fact regulars like it is completely meaningless. Regulars and others might like a list on Best way to kick PBeavrs ass. That would actually contain a REAL ratings format. It would also receive plenty of comments. The bottom line is that any topic of almost any extreme nature can be posted and may become VERY popular. That doesn't alter the value. A list of the twenty best "styles" to masturbate may gain an enormous response but do all those comments make it worthwhile? How about a list called "Believers In God Who Should Be Assassinated"? That too would be an actual ratings format list. But the content and nonsense of the list and its items won't increase in value even of each item receives 20 comments.
ReplyDeleteMy two cents: This one is a tough one (and one that I'm glad I don't have to make any decisions on, that's for sure). I imagine it's hard to gauge what kinds of lists would be 'valuable' or not; though obvious extremes are easy to judge, quality is subjective and hard to separate from personal bias. I do agree with PBeavr's note that popularity should not be a factor (as quality should override quantity), though I do see how that would be difficult when trying to maintain the site's popularity. The weblists did bring on a whole new dimension to RIA, but with it comes the good, the bad, and the ugly (all of which we've seen in abundance). It's a hell of a dilemma, and one I'm glad I don't have to wrestle with.
ReplyDeleteGreat points by everyone.
ReplyDeleteThere are two issues here:1) enforcing the existing Weblist Guidelines; and 2) How to handle, for lack of a better word, lousy Weblists that meet the guidelines. I've already written at length about the first issue, and I will reiterate my warning that posting in Weblists that clearly don't meet the guidelines could very realistically result in your comments being removed when that Weblist is removed.
As to the second point, those of you who have known me for a while know that I feel VERY strongly about not making value judgments on content. One man's feast is another man's famine. So, if you're looking for a site that will serve as a filter to delete, edit, and otherwise protect its viewers from "low quality" content, then you've come to the wrong place. As long as I'm here, RateItAll will not be deleting content based on whether it is worthy or not, or high quality or not. It's just not the purpose of the site, and in my view, is a slippery slope approach that would rob RIA of much of what makes it special. I'm not sure if I can be any clearer on this matter :)
One more point on this: I think that most people have taken the very reasonable approach of if they come across a Weblist they don't like, they don't get stressed about it.
ReplyDeleteThey just move on to one that they do like.
I think this is a good approach.
At the end of the day, it's my job and my job only to enforce the Weblist guidelines.
And one more point still. PBeavr, you say:
ReplyDelete"Value should come from the list and its items"
That's fine, but value for who? For you? For everybody? For just some people? And who should decide what's valuable for everyone? Doesn't the fact that a Weblist is generating interest and comments mean it has some value? Who should decide what has value for some subset of the community? How should I figure out if something will be of value to someone who has not even found the site yet?
Tough questions, and things I struggle with. My conclusion from all this is that RIA, as it's not an editorial site, should stay away from making value judgments.
"A Random List of Questions" has no value. Real or imagined. The comments made on those questions may allow users to "share" information and that is seen as valuable but the list itself and all the items have no value. Is that my personal view? Sure, but perhaps someone who thinks it has value as a list can explain it to me. I realize the "everything has value to someone" argument may be convenient but it is just an excuse. Cow crap has "value" to farmers and many others. But it is still crap. Almost anyone with sense realizes that. And that is what it boils down to on the issue... Using common sense. Common sense would tell anyone that a random list of questions has no value as a RATINGS list. Rating. That is the key word.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to all opinions, this is nothing to get your underwear in a bunch over. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a fun list to play with for awhile. Lists like that will probably get a lot of traffic early on as people are looking for something different, but after awhile interest will drop off and the list could be deleted. Is there "value" in a list like this? Well, I suppose for a brief period of time it has entertainment value, but at the end of the day it probably doesn't mean much. I can't think of a reason much value would be assigned to knowing Mad Hatter had a Dr. Pepper with breakfast on June 30th, or that LanceRoxas really enjoys farting, but it was still interesting to read. Then again, how much value is there in going to the political section and seeing the same people give the same opinions on the same subjects using the same facts (or "facts", as it might be). How many different ways is there to say you don't like President Bush or that Howard Dean is nuts? I think Lawrence has given the best advice yet: If you don't like a list, just move on. If you see a list as pointless, nobody is forcing you to participate. If you don't need the cow crap, leave it for the farmers, right? It's just entertainment. A possible moment of levity, perhaps in between serious discussion. Maybe there was no value in reading this post, but I'll bet you smiled at least once.
ReplyDeleteWell said, James . . .
ReplyDelete