Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Sigh
Published on August 6, 2004 By Draginol In Blogging

Frankly, I'm just astounded at some of the bickering and pettiness I see in the forums. There are hundreds of regulars but a few dozen have coalesqed into cliques.

I personally don't get into on-line cliques. But I don't think there's anything inherently bad about them. The Internet should be whatever you make of it. As long as you're not hurting anyone, knock yourself out. Meet friends, talk to them, etc.

I only worry about cliques when they start to resemble gangs. And I see a couple "rival" cliques that seem to be going after one another. I have no idea why and because clique politics holds no interest for me, I have not really paid that much attention. But it's starting to become a moderation issue. Ultimately, for any community to function, its most active participants have to set an example for others.  That's why we have the whole access hierarchy, to let people move up towards eventually being a moderator.

But even there, people who are (obviously) not familiar with how we run sites think we pick moderators based on some sort of partisan basis.  We don't.  We look for people who have all these qualifications: consistently mature, not easily rattled, not prone to trying to inciting angst in others.

It's been a tougher road than we thought because when you're getting into politics, you can get into heated exchanges.  I won't, for example, raise someone's access simply because I agree with many of their views.  There are very vocal conservatives here as well as very vocal liberals who are citizens and likely to remain that way.

So far, the list of people we've promoted has been pretty small.  I think right now there's Bakerstreet, DharmaGirl, Stevenadalous, JillUser, CS Guy, JeremyG, Greywar, Jamie Burnside and a couple others. People from across the political spectrum.  That doesn't mean that those who haven't been promoted aren't great guys. Our decisions are purely for selfish reasons - down the line, we want the community to regulate itself.  That will probably take a very long time though to happen.

I would agree with those who don't like the access group names. That's my fault for not being more involved with that.  We do need better names for them (feel free to suggest them)

I was thinking Citizen, Counselor, Advocate, Senator, Moderator or something like that. Better than words like "elite" (I REALLY hate elitism and the access title "elite" gives the wrong impression).

I think the whole point paranoia is due to the fact that many users think the system is easily manipulated. My other blog, Skinning the Frog, jumped all the way to #2 with ONE article.  THAT is how the point system works.  If you can get enough readers, and you get them the old fashioned way, earning them by writing good stuff people are interested in and hence link to them and tell others about, you'll get the real points.  The only reason comments and insightfuls by regulars make a difference is because right now most of the blogs are still so new that they don't have their own loyal band of readers.  It bears remembering that I've been blogging almost daily for 3 years, so what I write tends to get read because there are people who bookmark my page, pass it on to others, etc. 

My blog has 103,000 points, #2 has 18,000.  Users who keep at it with consistently high quality articles (or at least ones people are interested in reading about) over a period of time who also do some leg work to get others to link to them will be up there as well.  You get a couple points or something like that when someone comments on your article.  My article on PC gaming I wrote last month has 43,000 points all by itself and has 353 referrals.  It has 103 comments which isn't that significant. So of the 43,000 points it has, it has probably a couple hundred points from the comments.  So anyone complaining that the point system is subject to manipulation either doesn't understand how it works or is just crying sour grapes. 

Complaining about the point system is like a guy in Arizona who's sitting on his butt complaining about a guy in California is "Cheating" at a race in which he too is sitting but slowly inching northward due to plate tektonics.

So guys, the site is what you make of it. Worrying about how OTHERS make use of it is a waste of energy.  It's a blog site. Blog about what you're interested in and stop worrying whether User X is doing somethign that annoys you. It's supposed to be FUN. F U N...


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 06, 2004
Thanks for the insight D,
I don't really understand how points are generated nor do I eally care. I find that random clicking on links can find some interesting blogs.
on Aug 06, 2004
I have the proud distinction of being disliked by all ciques here, lol..

Good post, Brad. People need to step back and appreciate the people they swap hate with here. Without them there wouldn't be anything much to talk about. The best way to get on my own personal good side is to call me an ass, tell me I have the IQ of a thumbtack, and then joke with me on a different discussion. When people are consistantly asinine and antagonistic on every article, it makes it damn hard to separate the person from the ethos.

Cliques just make things acidic everywhere. Take a deep breath and talk about something else with people you don't like. You'll find it is easier to take the heat thereafter. The mood around here lately has made me want to aviod these people's other articles, which makes things all the more negative.


on Aug 06, 2004

An article gets a point every time someone reads it.  But it also gets a point when someone comments on it. And another few points if someone marks it as insightful.  This can add up if the other blogs have relatively few points.  But it gets washed into nothingness next to a blog that has a significant readership.  The energy one would put into trying to get their article on bird watching pumped up by getting their friends to come on and comment and give it insightful would be much better spent writing articles to attract more readers or going out and getting other blogs to read them.

on Aug 06, 2004

Let me give you a really good example of the absurdity of thinking that commenting and clique politics and what not can substantially change your rank versus a site with a lot of readers.

My recent article on gaming has 43,000 points all by itself. It has 103 comments.  By contrast, Dharmagirl's "One simple question" has 133 responses and 921 points.  That's less than 1/43rd my article even though it has more responses.  My point is: It's nto the comments that give the points. It's the # of readers.  That one article has more points that any of the top 10 blogs have total.  It's just a matter of getting readers.

Some of the blogs are growing in readership. Dharma's blog grows in readership little by little as she posts regularly. So does Stevenendalus's (whose recent blog on "our nation bleeds" has as many points as "one simple question" with only 1/5th the # of comments). The point system is ultimately, a gauge of READERS and how much they like what you write.

on Aug 06, 2004
I feel I am getting very caught up in all the "in-fighting" that has been going on recently, and have been lacking in writing proper blogs! I've been spending so much time reading all the arguments, that I haven't had time to write! I hope to correct this soon

Brad - I'm glad this is being addressed as it seems like it is beginning to get out of control.

Aria
on Aug 06, 2004
Well hopefully users will be able to police themselves. Otherwise, we'll have to take action that users may not like.  Ther'es no GOOD solution we can impose. The best solution is for people to try to get along with each other.
on Aug 06, 2004

I find that we all (including myself) get so caught up in the intricacies of the 'he said, she said' scenario that we fail to see the bigger picture.  It's just a freakin' blog, composed of words.  Words.  That's all. 

In addition, I find that when someone particularly irks me with their words, it helps to remind myself that diversity is what attracted me to JU in the first place...and what keeps me here. To be honest, I could care less about points anymore.  I did care, once upon a time....but there are so many stellar writers and debaters here that I've been happy to relinquish my #2 spot for someone who I consider to be better than me.

Now all I have to do is be able to separate the person from the argument put forth...consistently, anyway.  That's the sticking point. I can do it quite easily before the animosity seeps in, thereafter it's more difficult.

on Aug 06, 2004

Frankly, I'm just astounded at some of the bickering and pettiness I see in the forums

Therein lies the problem.  JoeUser has become a little too much like a forum, and not enough like a group of blogs. Cliques and power struggles are inherient to the forum-medium of internet communication.  If you added a chat room, the clique factor would grow exponentially.

I personally don't like at all how the forums are merged in with the blogs.  Why should a blog post have the option of "add to forums"?   Is it a blog or is it a forum post?  Which is it?   You should have to chose.  I think that:

  • "Recent Forum Posts" should have it's named changed to "Recent Blog Comments".
  • Forums should be an isolated section of JoeUser (though still contributing to "user points")
  • A BLOG should not be able to be cross posted as a forum message.  Why should a blog gain merit just because a few people are chattering in their thread amoung themselves?

These are the reasons I enforced the artificial blog rules on my blog. 

on Aug 06, 2004

I tend to prefer to give bloggers the option to decide those things for themselves.

I see our job as having as many features as we can to let users pick and choose from.

on Aug 07, 2004
I think what many people see as weaknesses and bad points of JoeUser (including those calling it Site X) are actually JoeUser's strengths. The points, the community atmosphere, the forum, the "auto-syndication" of the sidebar -- brilliant. I'm even looking for ways to adapt some of these things to my personal site. The solution to not having those things is simple -- blog elsewhere. Negatives instantly eliminated. If you want the positives of them, blog here -- the greatest blog site ever!

on Aug 07, 2004

the greatest blog site ever!
that goes double for me, even though I sometimes complain about the idiocy of some of the twist and turn comments that have nothing to do with the original blog. Still, it is far better than most of the other blog sites that lack interaction completely. I'd rather be pissed than have no reaction at all.

Draginol, informative article; but I stlll can't follow the rationale of points, such as my puny 15 or so comments versus Dharma's incredible 133 replies.

on Aug 07, 2004

Stevendedalus: Your articles may not get as many comments but you have a LOT of readers.  That's why your blogs get so many points.  Because you have kept putting out good stuff for months on end, peopel from around the net have (apparently) bookmarked your blog and read it.  That's what the point system gauges - readership.

That said, quantity of articles does help.  If Blog A has 100 regular readers but has 10 articles it's going to get 1000 points.  If Blob B has 200 regular readers but only 3 articles then it'll get 600 points. 

Now, someone might say that you can get massive points just by writing tons of crummy articles. But it doesn't work taht way in my experience.  Someone who writes lots of uninteresting articles will ultimately lose readers. So those who want to make it to the top have to maximize quantity and quality.

But for most people, I don't think the points matter. They just want to write articles either for themselves or for others (or both).

on Aug 08, 2004

I myself have alleged there was cliquishness on JU but I was referring to snide and overly friendly cuteness that seems unending. However. as you put it, your friendly and unfriendly choices do not measure up to the term clique; rather it is legitimate collegiality. [] And yes, Bakerstreet is a delightful, but powerful dissenting sourpuss. So is Madine.[] []

Draginol, I never knew you could keep track of readership without commentary--you're a genius. [

on Aug 08, 2004
I feel I am getting very caught up in all the "in-fighting" that has been going on recently, and have been lacking in writing proper blogs! I've been spending so much time reading all the arguments, that I haven't had time to write! I hope to correct this soon


i need to come clean here and eat some humble-pie too. i got so upset by an offensive article that i let my head run away with me and tried to 'fix' it (which of course didn't work. in fact, all i achieved was that i upset sabrina and i feel like a major fool now).

Now all I have to do is be able to separate the person from the argument put forth...consistently, anyway. That's the sticking point. I can do it quite easily before the animosity seeps in, thereafter it's more difficult.


i'm very glad i read this comment, karen. a serious argument occured between people i respect in my blog recently reagrding something i had no knowledge of, and it upset me enough to make me want to stop blogging that people could be so hate filled over words on a screen. that's actually why i came in to read this article.

So guys, the site is what you make of it. Worrying about how OTHERS make use of it is a waste of energy. It's a blog site. Blog about what you're interested in and stop worrying whether User X is doing somethign that annoys you. It's supposed to be FUN. F U N...


thankyou brad for publishing this. it has come in a timely way for me and i appreciate it.

vanessa.
on Aug 09, 2004
This article was part of the reason I actually started my blog because it demystified a lot of things about the community for me.
2 Pages1 2