Our growth has been steady - I think, because the more people that use the site, the better it gets.
But with growth also comes problems. While there are more quality posts, there is also more noise.
So the question becomes, how do we make it easier for our members to find the good stuff?
Well we're working on a bunch of new features to make this happen, with our recommendation engine at the heart of it all. My hope is that by giving people the power to choose their own trusted networks, we are in essence giving them a filter to isolate the opinions that they find most valuable and entertaining.
When the redesign launches (targeting April 1), I think you'll see the recommendation engine play a more prominent role on the site.
Going forward, we will look to roll in better and more sophisticated tools to facilitate introductions with folks whose opinions you might value. Stay tuned.
Posts
Not to dwell on the negative or anything, but out of curiousity, I wonder what happened in mid-2005 where there is a notable dip?
ReplyDeleteFor about 45 days, one of the major search engines "lost" RateItAll. We were making some changes to the site that I think affected their ability to spider us.
ReplyDeleteTo use a real world analogy, it was as if the highway that ran by our house suddenly shut down.
PB, what's your point? What are you trying to do?
ReplyDeleteok, glad we cleared that up. :)
ReplyDeleteno seriously... i sort of thought we had things worked out. i tried to work with you on setting things up the way you wanted for your exit. did i screw something up?
you clearly think the site is lousy. that's fine. i knew that already.
but what are you after by spending so much time pointing out how lousy it is?
why not start your own site? you seem to have a lot of good ideas.
anyway, i do read your comments as i find them interesting.
i wish you wouldn't personally attack so many people, but i'm not going to delete your comments, as i know you'll just continue to repost until I have to shut off comments. and i hate shutting off comments - it sort of goes against the whole point of the site, right?
anyway, if nothing more, i would imagine that your comments here are a great way to drive traffic to your own blog... i still think you'd feel better about it if you build something independent from RIA, but it's obviously your call.
i bet you could do it. hell, i'd be really interested by what you could come up with.
wow, that's a lot of commentary. couple of quick points:
ReplyDelete- yes, making money is important to me and this company. no apologies there, we're a business. but to call us (me) focused on the quick buck is preposterous. did you know RIA has been scraping along since 1999 and came within a phone call of having its plug pulled? i've paid a tremendous personal price to keep this business afloat (and if you don't believe me, you should check out my credit card bills). why did i do it? because i believe in RIA, and i think it can be something extraordinary. a snapshot of the opinions of the world. a publishing tool for all. that's why i work 14 hours a day, and at a fraction of the salary i was making in my last job. so save the quick buck spiel, it's a dirty lie.
- yes, we bend over backwards to take care of our regular visitors
- yes, we you and i have a major conflict of opinion regarding who should determine quality. i think the community plus some degree of editorial judgment should decide what is valuable, you think the community is idiotic, and that only i should decide.
- your arguments hinge on the premise that everyone on the site is as obsessed as helpful votes as you are. I don't think that's accurate. believe it or not, some don't take the site as seriously as you do, they just pop on to pass the time. and that's ok, i think.
- over the long haul, people creating interesting, well thought out content will earn more money via the RateItAll Economy than those creating less interesting content. i guarantee it. For example, a long, well thought out review of a travel destination will earn more traffic, more links, and more eyeballs than a three word review. and if you disagree with me, you've missed the entire infrastructure of the web. Search engines reward quality, inbound links, content - they don't reward three word blurbs.
- i believe that the RateItAll Economy is an important alternative "currency" to helpful votes. it's a real currency. you can use your eanrings through the program to buy stuff. and i'm hopeful that those folks who participate on RateItAll because of the underlying incentive system (whether it be helpful votes, dollars, trusted networks, etc.) will start being more concerned about creating content that attracts more visitors (read: quality), then optimizing their stuff to generate the most helpful votes the fastest. I know I will.
- I don't think it's fair to personally harass other reviewers on the site. I created the incentive systems that people may or may not be chasing. If you believe that the accumulation of helpful votes is the primary driver of folks' behavior on the site (which it would seem in spectacular terms that you do), then folks who optimize their behavior to attract helpful votes are acting precisely rationally. they're not evil, lazy, or whorish. they are rational. so don't blame them. blame me. don't hate the player, hate the game. and i built the game, so it's on me.
- and again, i would recommend you start your own site. you've thought enough about this stuff, and in more depth than many I know in the industry, to be able to build something powerful. why not do it? focus your energy on building a community as opposed to tearing one down. i know it's easier to sit on the sidelines and shout about all the mistakes I'm making... why not jump in the game? i'd be happy to help where i can - steer you towards developers, resources, etc. just give me the word.
Alrighty.
ReplyDeleteWhile I know this spat’s between PBeavr & RIA’s Admin, it just wouldn’t be me if I didn’t dole out any and all half-assed opinions that pop in my head, welcome or not. And this one’s probably not going to be too welcome.
Yes, since weblists came around, I’ve noticed a huge change in the climate of RIA; some say it’s good, others who have been around longer typically don’t care much for it. And yeah, I do agree with PB that the BS level has hit peaks of complete retardation (some of which I recognize that I’ve been a part of, but I’ll get to that later; and, some may argue that the “peak” is more of a plateau, depending on your personal tolerance levels). But, from what I gather in real life, “quality” is very rarely sought after nor rewarded. It’s a sad observation that the general populous goes for the lowest common denominator. Sorry if it makes me sound like a total snob; admittedly, I do laugh at cheap jokes and I’m known for making comments of a crass kind of humor (moreso in real life than on RIA), so I don’t exempt myself from this. RIA’s not exactly the bastion of intellectualism, but nor do I expect it to be.
Does “credit’ go where credit’s due? Of course not, at least not in most people’s eyes. But it really depends on what you give credit for. Why do people choose a comment or a reviewer to be “helpful” or “trustworthy”? Because it’s funny? Informative? Similar to your own ideas? Honest? Or do you just like the guy (in the real world or otherwise)? I’ve got my guidelines, everyone else has others. Does that make mine “right” and theirs “wrong”? Well, no. I might think my long-winded comment on some movie is of better “quality” than a two-word joke, but most people aren’t going to take the time to read long reviews, and will skip over anything that’s more than two sentences long. Technically, the long-winded comment can’t be too “helpful” if no one reads it, and might even give someone enough cause to click “unhelpful” just due to length. I’m not innocent of similar thinking, though: though I don’t often bother with the helpful/unhelpful buttons, I’ve probably passed over hundreds of great reviews just because I don’t give a crap about sports, much less comments about ‘em.
I’m sure most people would rank reviewers MUCH differently than displayed on the various reviewer lists. But I just don’t see the point in complaining about the “injustices” of the system in place. We all know the flaws. The list can say whatever it wants, but quality isn’t judged by where you rank. Take it with a grain of salt. If you know this is unfair, it should be enough to know that you still appreciate what matters to you regardless. It’s not like there’s a prize involved by being on top, no one’s losing out on anything here. And seriously, is anyone going to brag about their top ranking on some WEBSITE?
Accumulation of “helpful” points is basically a combination of how long you’ve been on the site, how many comments you make, where you make ‘em, and how many friends you have. I wouldn’t be anywhere near the top ten if it weren’t for the fact that I’ve been on this site for a few YEARS. And I’m not too proud to say that I’ve made some pretty shitty comments over the years that have still gotten helpfuls that it definitely shouldn’t have. Being in the top ten or twenty really doesn’t mean squat.
I’ve been skeptical about RIA’s apparent identity crisis, the Jekyll-and-Hyde of it being a Consumer Review site versus a Message Board. I’m not sure if it can be successful at playing both roles, but I’ve been wrong before (who’dve thought that something as ridiculous as Beanie Babies would’ve caught on?). If it goes into a realm that I don’t like, then I’ll go, no big deal. Things change, it happens. It sucks, but oh well.
I don’t consider this making “excuses” for the BS on the site. If that’s the way you or anyone else sees it, that’s your call, whatever. My thing is, BS exists, but I sure as hell am not going to lose any sleep over it. As long as I can weed out the bad and know a good review when I see it, that’s enough for me.
There's a lot of great points in here.
ReplyDeleteLast month about 800K different people visited the site with the option of posting. I think it's unrealistic that any one person is going to find the comments of so many different people of high quality.
The bigger RIA gets, the more noise there is going to be.
My personal feeling is that we need to vastly improve filters that allow people to find the stuff they like - stuff like the Recommendation Engine that lets each of us filter the RIA database by the network of reviewers who we "trust." And if you want to use the trust network as a popularity contest (ie trust everybody in the hopes that they trust you back,) that's perfectly acceptable. It just means that your filter won't work very well.
But for those that want to actually zero in on stuff that they have a higher probability of appreciating, they can do that too.
Other stuff in the pipeline is tools to facilite the introductions of likeminded reviewers. Like Kamy, are you interested in movies and animals, but not so much in sports? Well here's 1000 other people that share those general preferences. Maybe you'd like to include some of them in your filter, to increase the chances of an enjoyable experience on RIA.
So separating the signal from the noise is a monumental challenge.
If the presence of noise frustrates you, you might be better off staying away from community Web sites where ANYBODY can publish. The WSJ or NYT are of notoriously good quality throughout, and might be good options if you find yourself obsessing about what you consider low quality media on community sites.
And if you've noticed problems with the helpful vote system, join the freaking club. I've written exhaustively on the subject, as have many others. Fortunately, most folks I know don't define themselves (or the site), based on how many helpful votes a given person has.
"Wisdom of the Crowd" type sites are surging right now folks. Some say they're going to be the savior of the Web, others say they will result in a dumbing down of all media. My personal take is that it's going to be somewhere in between, but things like filters and customization tools will be key in allowing each consumer of media/information to find exactly what they like.
So lets take the extreme example of PB. He doesn't like the posts of the vast majority of RIA reviewers with the exception of a few folks like Castlebee. Using the tools available on the site, he could build a trusted network of just Castlebee, and filter out all the other stuff so it doesn't bug him so much. In this way he'd only see quality posts (as determined by PB), and wouldn't be set off by short, chatty comments. In this perfect world, maybe everyone would be a little more productive :)
Anyway, thanks for all the great feedback and comments. It's interesting times on the Web right now, and I think RIA is a microcosm of a lot of the growing pains that are happening as more and more sites move towards giving publish power to their members.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete*reposted due to half-asleep typo
ReplyDeleteTo Pbeavr:
Much of what your commentary is about is assuming that my entire focus is complaining about you; actually, fact of the matter is, it’s not just about YOUR criticisms. While it was spurred on by your comment that I have “made excuses for the BS” on RIA (your opinion, but I happen to disagree) the piece is about RIA & any fallacies that I see that surround it in general, and why I don’t really see any real reason to raise a fuss about it. I’m writing about why I do what I do. I’m not telling anyone what to think, I’m telling you where I stand. I’ve received a few personal messages from various folks who complained about my attitude as a RIA “Moderator” and this half-assed code of conduct they assume comes with it. And what they think I ought to do about it. And on and on. Yeah. This one’s for them, too. So before you think I’m putting “words in your mouth”, consider that there is more than one mouth that this one’s coming from.
Where you and I clearly diverge is the root of the problem; you feel that it’s in RIA Admin’s handling of the quality, I feel that it’s in the raters themselves and how it affects the system. If site Admin wants to change it, they’ll do it. I don’t fault RIA for what raters find to be “interesting” or “important”.
There is one actual RIA-system issue that I find to be a real issue, but mind-bogglingly this was missed. What part of the “consumer site vs. message board” issue coming from me is NEWS? Seriously, I have mentioned this up and down and beaten this horse dead on every single applicable list item/whatever I’ve come across. I know that a lot of my reviews are boring, but come on, this is something that should be fairly obvious! I really don’t know what could be any more clear!
For Everyone:
And, since my Blog somehow comes into question, trust me, as half-assed as RIA can get on whatever, generally it’s a rather boring and mindless type of inanity that, well, is just isn’t anything worth writing about. When it does strike me as stupid enough to write about (and, RIA comments have been parts of my rants; generally, the most ridiculous comments on RIA are about race), trust me, I’ll hit it (and, trust me, I’ve made my rants QUITE public on RIA, but my Blog contains very elongated versions) But, there are more “refined” sources of stupidity all over the net (yes, ladies and gentlemen, I do look at other websites once in a while . . . . and there’s a reason that I keep coming back). I haven’t found a worse place (yet) than the Netscape Message Boards. And I hardly think that making fun of some idiot on a message board is “taking an active role” in anything; I’m not going to Netscape and telling them to remove the guy, I’m just thoroughly entertaining myself, much in the way of taking clippings from a newspaper for the laughs of a stupid blurb on it. Is it mean-spirited or anything? That’s up to you. The Blog I have is set up for my entertainment.
I might find the Netscape boards to be painfully stupid for the most part (there are some decent postings, I’ll give it that, it’s just severely outweighed by the rather extreme characters on their site. And if you think RIA’s characters are extreme, you really have no idea how completely nutty it can be elsewhere. RIA’s no where close to being the scary-crazy kind site; at worst, it’s still the giggly-high-schooly kind of bad.), but the quality of Netscape is theirs to control. As for RIA, it’s up to them to decide what kind of site they want to run. If it gets to the point where I don’t like it anymore, I can go elsewhere (as I have with Netscape. That was a rather brief run in, I might add.)
And being a “moderator” shouldn’t make a difference in what I do or say as a reviewer, nor does it mean that I have any stock in how RIA is run. As a moderator, I was only put on so that I could add stuff myself; there’s nothing in the “job description”, as far as I know, about monitoring comments, or even monitoring my own. Some have noted that I don’t take “RIA seriously”. Yeah, I’m on RIA a lot, but why would I have to take it “seriously”? Why would I have to change it? Lawrence doesn’t know me, why would he have to take any of my suggestions any differently than anyone else’s? I shouldn’t, he shouldn’t, and RIA shouldn’t. Yeah, he’s a good guy, it’ll be nice to see the site succeed, but it doesn’t have to succeed the way I envision it. Nor do I feel a need to take an “active role” in changing anything about RIA. I don’t find it “hypocritical” to not want to change RIA; RIA’s not the problem I see, the problems lie in what individual raters post. To PBeavr, you may feel that RIA can get rid of that issue; I don’t see how RIA can enforce that.
And, finally, for those who do find themselves sensitive about placement on whatever lists (and, yeah, go ahead, send me the mail): Many have posted already that they really don’t care about where they are on that list. Maybe this is mean, but it’s gotta be said: if you KNOW that these rankings are meaningless, why let it get to you? Why should someone else’s opinion matter if you know, in your heart, what you’re made of? It’s about WHAT you write, not what others think about it. Most people who write great stuff on the site don’t have tags that say “top whatever”. You know what you’re made of. The people that read your stuff know, too. That’s all that should matter.
Wow PB, you are so wrong about this stuff I don't even know where to begin.
ReplyDeleteSo you think I want to trick Weblist authors into making lists that generate less money? Do you understand the concept of a revenue share? The more money that Weblisters make, the more money that RateItAll makes.
As a rule, forums and "chatty" web sites don't make any money on the Web. Niche and targeted sites covering things where people actually buy stuff - photography, travel, electronics, make big money.
RateItAll makes the vast majority of its money from Products, Travel, and Cameras. Weblists make very little. Why? Because advertisers don't spend money advertising on lists like "What's the best spot for a tatoo" or "Songs I play on Guitar."
Doesn't that make sense?
You should do a little research before you spout on about this stuff... you have it almost completely backwards.
< hell, some wonder why I continue.
ReplyDeleteI think you say it all right there, PB.
And with that, I bid this discussion a fond adieu.
If you want to read up on Internet economics, I recommend:
www.webmasterworld.com
You may also want to learn a little bit about google/adwords and google/adsense, as those programs are very important for understanding how content/media sites pay their bills.
That should set you a little straighter on how sites make money on the Internet (hint: a "hit" does not equal money)
Sadly, i think you've become what you loathe. You make some good points, but they're all so buried in the spite, and anger, and misconceptions, and nonsense, that it's tough to find the good stuff now.
In the absence of a PB filter that might allow me to ignore all the rantings, I am going to excercise my right as a reader of your posts to no longer read them, as the signal to noise ratio has gotten so low.
I'd wish you luck, but you've said some really nasty, hateful, untrue stuff about me today. So I'll pass on that high road, and leave it at that.
To PBeavr:
ReplyDeleteI’m still completely baffled at how you could POSSIBLY take me showcasing stupid posters, on my OWN Blog, as somehow taking an “active role” against the guy. Please. Taking an “active role” would involve me sending e-mails or actual letters TO THE COMPANY to complain about their stupid users. To paraphrase what I have told the reviewer to accused me of being “chickenshit” for “removing his review” (which is, again, something that is not a moderator ability): As far as I’m concerned, I’d much rather someone’s half-assed comment stay up, no matter how offensive and asinine it may be, and I’ll go so far as to stand up for their right to believe in their semi-retarded little worldview. But don’t be surprised if I call them on it for being an ass.
I’m not going to blame Netscape for the comments that are posted on their site, no matter how insanely ridiculous it may be; nor will I blame RIA for the actions of a handful of posters.
Here is where we again diverge: you think that Lawrence’s role is that of a farmer taking care of his hogs. If that were the case, then Lawrence would be poking pitchforks into our sides and herding us around. And, frankly, that seems pretty crappy to me. Here’s how I see it: As far as I’m concerned, RIA belongs to Lawrence. If the guy wants or doesn’t want to put whatever rules or controls in place, it’s up to him. Reviewers come on voluntarily to leave their two cents; if they don’t like the game, and the game rules don’t change, then go to another playground. RIA has no obligation to me, or you. If reviewers want to go off in a corner and play “Spin the bottle” with each other, then fine, I can say “you guys are lame” and go play kickball. Does the playground have rules? Well, yeah. “No running, no yelling, no fighting”. But the rules aren’t like “you can’t play spin the bottle”.
And, yeah, I post stuff like “I’m not sure if I like the idea of the site turning into a message board”, and the reason I don’t choose to go all out over it is because IT’S NOT ALL THAT BIG OF A DEAL. In the scheme of things, in my life, if RIA implodes into a gooey pile of lovey-dovey sludge, I can just shrug and say “Well, that sucks”, and move on. And you’re damn right that I’ll go apeshit over someone who thinks it’s okay that my parents’ property is vandalized by the color of their skin because “they make us feel uncomfortable”. While this set of priorities may seem a little bizarre to you, “Race issues” in my book easily top “the focus of some website”. Simply put, there are way more important things to get upset about than some website. If you don’t have to defend your heritage from every douchebag that thinks he owns the Earth, and the focus of a random website is one of your top concerns, then seriously “good for you”. (While I’m on it, since this one clearly doesn’t go through many reviewer’s heads: People wonder why I don’t get too riled up over whatever issue they think is important; maybe because I’ve got a different set of priorities, and it’s not gonna match yours. Sorry if it’s not “entertaining” for everyone. Good thing I’m not here to entertain anyone. I understand that people have a different idea of what’s important, but I don’t think that they’re, as PBeavr puts it, “benign and murmured” because of it).
You think I “make no sense”. Quite frankly, I don’t think it makes sense to constantly complain about some guy’s website, either. I understand bringing it up a few times, I understand ditching a site that you don’t like, hell, I understand making fun of it, but I don’t understand the constant barrage of “this site sucks”. But clearly your brand of logic is far different than mine.
Fair enough, then: to clarify, you don't say "this site sucks".
ReplyDeleteYou'll complain, at length, about the "lack of quality", about how the site is run, about people not being active about changing it.
You don't understand why I simply don't find a good enough reason to give the kind of attention to the quality of a website that I would, say, pretty much ANYTHING. And I don't understand why you feel a need to complain about that same website to this extent, even long after you've left it. (And yeah, I thought it sucked when you left, but I figured at least you wouldn't be so frustrated about stuff like this, and maybe it'd be good for you. But it only increased your complaints.)
And it's not like it's an occasional barb now and then, which at least would be understandable. Or a snide remark about different aspects of it, which at least would be something new and thus also understandable. It's just the same argument.
For this, we're at an impasse. I won't understand your fixation on this any more than you will understand my apathy. That's all there is to it.