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)
Posts
My 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.
Well said, James . . .
ReplyDelete