Suggestions for Ned.com
Subsections
Actions
- Delete
- Edit
- Reply
Site Improvements
Posted to: Suggestions for Ned.com by Jim Carroll (70), Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:11:05 PDT
Feedback score: 0 +|-
Tags: brainstorm ned-2.0
Comments: 284 by 29 members
Viewed: 2955 times by 71 members
Comments page 4
By Jim Carroll (70), Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:22:51 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
topBy Mark Grimes (222), Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:37:17 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
until we get a "real" design, I was just thinking of this for a zen like placeholder for now.
<html> <head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<title>Ned :: a better world experience, social entrepreneurs, social enterprise, social purpose enterprise, npo, ngo, community based organizations</title> <style type="text/css">
<!-- .style1 {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;
} .style2 {color: #000000} -->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p class="style1"> </p>
<p class="style1" align="center"><strong><<a href="http://www.ned.com/home/" class="style2">Ned</a>><br>
</strong></p> <p class="style1" align="center"> </p> </body> </html>
By John Firth (26), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:24:31 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
By Jim Carroll (70), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:51:17 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
Hi John, One of the things that came up early in conversations between Mark and I is that we wanted to limit the number of groups to one per person. Instead of changing the code so that people could only create one group, we decided to see if the smaller starting karma banks and the cost of creating groups regulated the group proliferation by itself.
I think the idea behind it is that it's better to have fewer well-cared-for groups.
That said, during the seeding timeframe, we did reduce the cost of creating a group from 10 points to 2 points, so people can create groups while is less karma in circulation.
The seeding timeframe might be ending though, now that we're up to 99 visitors a day, and 49 members. Mark, what do you think?
By Mark Grimes (222), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:15:16 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
>>The seeding timeframe might be ending though, now that we're up to 99 visitors a day, and 49 members. Mark, what do you think?<<
Yes, I agree very much. I think that group propagation at o/net was definitely the cause of many members feeling of overwhelm. If members are limited to one group each, they will focus (and carefully moderate) the one thing that is closest and dearest to their hearts. Plus if every group within <Ned> is collaboration and action based there should be plenty of things for everyone to do.
I'm not sure of all the actions that have been already floating around, but here are three.
- Name a web site: Playful City: Atlanta
- Meet or introduce Atlas Corps Fellows to your friends in Washington DC`_
- Soap Project - Development and help Munnu Morrish work to build a successful liquid soap business in Gulu, Uganda. Something that if done properly could help provide a living wage to perhaps dozens of individuals.
BTW, with 20,000 people even one group per person is not scalable. Members need to probably "own" their categories and collaborate with other members and organizations within them. Now if someone must start/own a second group...I'm sure there will be exceptions to the rule. Action. Collaboration. Measurable results. Small failures. Trying new things in the real world. Transparent reporting (financial and operational). Sharing results and lessons learned.
By David Braden (59), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:24:47 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
I light of the foregoing comments - I have a question. I have been thinking about setting up a group for Local Organizing and the Planetary Mind as ned is exactly the type of thing each community should be discussing in regard to the question, "What can We do to make Our community a better place to live?"
I was also thinking about asking the REDI board of directors - the local organizing group I am working with in Denver - if they would like to use the ned space for asynchronous decision making.
Is that the type of group proliferation the BOA wants to avoid? - or do those fit in with groups based on action and collaboration - that I would take special care to maintain? (I know that would give me two groups).
By Mark Grimes (222), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:00:04 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
I guess we could. But let me ask you this.
Could you boot up the Local Organizing and the Planetary Mind group and initially have REDI as a thread within that group?
With FOOD CHAIN I found keeping things inside an active group was powerful. When orgs tried to "break out" of the FOOD CHAIN group too soon, they often didn't have enough traction and members to really get enough followers or support to remain active/viable. Think about the two most active "groups" on o/net. Crisis in the Sudan with the changing monthly discussion, and FOOD CHAIN with the changing monthly discussion.
Hmmmm. Maybe starting new groups even isn't so much about more points to get them started, but 2-5 points a person...and many more people needed to start one. Just thinking out loud.
By John Firth (26), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:16:22 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
Some immediate thoughts and questions:
Why is it necessary to have group 'OWNERS' in the big capital letter ownership sense that I think is being referred to here ?
Isn't there a better distinction to be made between 'Founders' who set up and seed the group (or groups) and the more democratic sense of ownership vested in the participants in the group or the threads created under the umbrella of the group ?
Isn't the understandable tendency to organise possibly at odds with the desirable objective of building a self regulating community ? Or has that ideal been shelved ?
Is there an assumption at work here that groups are tablets of stone intended to stand the test of time ? Aren't more fluid structures equally valid and workable ?
Is the drive to archive The Other Place also tempting <Ned> to set out its stall with one eye on history and future archives rather than accept that ideas flow, discussions start and stop and groups fold through inactivity ?
Why can't groups be started and folded - into an archive if necessary - when they run out of steam ?
If we're being very tidy with stuff, shouldn't we also be tidy with people ? Isn't it logical - if we can leave a group with one click - to also provide for members to leave <Ned> with one click from their profile page ?
Doubtless more to come but that's enough for now. ;)
By David Braden (59), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:25:19 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
Mark said:
Could you boot up the Local Organizing and the Planetary Mind group and initially have REDI as a thread within that group?
That's an interesting view of "nested groups" that has got me thinking . . .
One of the projects of LOPM is the Community Portal software that would allow REDI exposure, transparency in decision making and transparency in accounting within its locality, as a part of the local organizing effort. I see that project as having potential value to David Bale's WWC and all the local ned organizations - as well as supporting the open source community. How do those groups nest? Perhaps there is an even better way to do it. I'll think about it some more since I am in no particular hurry.
By Jim Carroll (70), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:42:26 PDT
Comment feedback score: 3 (* * *) +|-
- John Firth said:
- Is there an assumption at work here that groups are tablets of stone intended to stand the test of time ? Aren't more fluid structures equally valid and workable ?
There's some infrastructure involved in groups... In the real world, it's probably analogous to building (or leasing) a meeting / working space. So I wouldn't say set in stone, but I would associate groups with a committed group of people.
Is the drive to archive The Other Place also tempting <Ned> to set out its stall with one eye on history and future archives rather than accept that ideas flow, discussions start and stop and groups fold through inactivity ?
Folding groups through inactivity is a good idea. Right now there's no good way to do that with the current software. So right now, we want to avoid creating groups that don't already have some real-world traction with a group of people.
Your other ideas all look good and reasonable too.
By John Firth (26), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:20:09 PDT
Edited: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:21:26 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
OK Jim, so it seems there's two things at work here:
First, the activity of forming, expanding, disbanding or forming new groups. All processes that could still happen in the same or adjacent meeting rooms in one building.
Second, the signposts that enable us to find our way to the building and then to the right meeting room.
Maybe recognising these differences simplifies matters.
In other words, am I talking about groups as living things and part of the process of interaction on <Ned> whilst you are talking about groups for perfectly legitimate organisational and navigational reasons ?
If so, maybe we need to define our terms. If we're thinking only about navigation and filing then maybe it's simpler to think of 'categories' and not groups.
We can all recognise broad navigational categories (e.g. politics, religion, health & welfare etc) and some groups (activities) will fall under more than one category.
But this shouldn't matter - groups can be under more than one category. The important thing is that people can easily find their areas of interest quite quickly.
I do appreciate the need for navigation.... try navigating on Razoo (even in their early days) and it's already a mess.... so I suspect that we're not really disagreeing just placing different meanings on the notion of groups.
But then I guess you'll quickly correct me if I'm wrong. :)
By Dominique Beyens (19), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:19:01 PDT
Edited: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:21:26 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
How can i start a group?
I still am running the Diplomacy Chess game, and while it probably is a niche kinda thing at present, i'd like to spread the tablecloth out and show what's been cooking.
Remember, it's only when people have tasted (experienced) that they tend to interact. We're at the moment at deserts and will give you a full menu when the restaurant feels it's got the proper menu, cutlery, staff and all other kindsa things.
By David Frayne (25), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:11:20 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
I never understood what "groups" meant in o/net. I was always wishing I could find topics by browsing the group taxonomy (for a few months I went and posted a thoughtful comment in every single discussion I was interested in -- they were all dormant). I learned to use "What's New" and users' "Recent Discussions" to find the conversations.
If a group really is supposed to be a group of people who want to collaborate on something, that is a much higher bar than getting 5 people to sponsor with 5 points.
By Mark Grimes (222), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:32:11 PDT
Comment feedback score: 1 (*) +|-
Dominique, if it's a niche kinda thing for now I would skip starting a group honestly, I'm afraid it would get lost there.
I would say start it in a thread at <Ned> Front Porch (for now) and that way as it pops up every active member at ned.com will actually see it and you'll stand a much better chance at engaging people. Strong great single threads, like Ray and Jackie's Unbelievable Donation had great readership and participation.
David, I think we need some kind of hand built index system (ala WiserEarth, but starting with less than 44 areas of focus). And I would agree that setting the bar higher to start a group could be a great idea. I could also see (after we get all te o/net people here on board), having new members wait 30-60 days prior to starting a group...just so they have time to get the lay of the land.
By Dominique Beyens (19), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:54:00 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
Mark Grimes said:
Dominique, if it's a niche kinda thing for now I would skip starting a group honestly, I'm afraid it would get lost there.
I would say start it in a thread at <Ned> Front Porch (for now) and that way as it pops up every active member at ned.com will actually see it and you'll stand a much better chance at engaging people. Strong great single threads, like Ray and Jackie's Unbelievable Donation had great readership and participation.
Mark, totaly agree.
Maybe it's a good idea of creating a proper workspace.
I just don't know how its done here.
Ps. Is there still a friday call?
By Dominique Beyens (19), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:00:15 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
Sorry,
Foot in mouth.
Couldn't make a group (or so i think it was)
By Dominique Beyens (19), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:25:13 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
By Mark Grimes (222), Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:31:51 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
By David Braden (59), Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:07:02 PDT
Edited: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:11:27 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
Just remembered my frustration starting at O.net that led to A Brief Tour of Omidyar.net and later efforts to document the rules for negative feedback that led to Tips for Avoiding Negative Feedback. I am the principle drafter of both of those - though I never considered that I owned them. For what it is worth, you have my permission to use both of those here - or modify them as seems appropriate.
I can't figure out why those links don't work. Let me try Small Pond Welcoming Space.
Ok, that works and the links to the workspaces are there.
By Mark Grimes (222), Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:20:20 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
Thnx David, that will be helpful.
One thing that is being looked at very strongly too is making all point giving at ned.com pos/neg 100% transparent.
By Evvy Bryning (130), Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:31:40 PDT
Comment feedback score: 1 (*) +|-
Mark Grimes said:
Thnx David, that will be helpful.
One thing that is being looked at very strongly too is making all point giving at ned.com pos/neg 100% transparent.
Now that makes sense. If I am going to be responsible and give a negative point to a comment then I am willing and want to be transparent about it. I don't want to have to give 5 negs to have my name show or necessarily close a post down. I think too that if negs were totally transparent, users will really think about giving them instead of playing the old 'neg and hide' game that seems to cause so much disruption.
By Mark Grimes (222), Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:39:36 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
By John Firth (26), Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:37:07 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
- Mark Grimes said:
- One thing that is being looked at very strongly too is making all point giving at ned.com pos/neg 100% transparent.
I'd certainly give a 1000% welcome to that !
By Jim Carroll (70), Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:53:17 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
Comments page 4
Sign in or Join now to add your own comment.
By Dominique Beyens (19), Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:15:16 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-
Also a more textbased homepage with clearly stated goals and objectives would be good.
The youtube video could be put at the bottom of the page. (That'll make people see the text while the video is loading in the background--->>> good for people with low connections)