Some thoughts on the points problem, etc..... :(

from JoeUser Forums
Hmmm, seems that in the few days I’ve been gone, there has been a great deal of talk about points...that’s good...After skimming through various articles, I have to say I like (I believe it was) Phoenixboi's suggestion of rotating users articles, get every one seen. It could help with getting more newcomers noticed, and those who blog, but don't get comments....(if they desire comments...) I like feedback on things... :)

Also, I think LW is doing a good thing with trying to get whatever bugs JU has fixed, but I feel that the way she has suggested certain people for supposedly cheating is wrong, there are various things that I see wrong. 1) She is backing her claim with evidence that is not credible, she herself states that JU has bugs/problems with the point system, that information she has put forth could have been caused by the JU problems.... 2) Her approach......while I understand perfectly her concern and the 'why', I feel that to some, she is coming of a bit too aggressive....

Also, I think that there are some bloggers that don't understand LW's intentions/concerns.........


Just some thoughts......Good luck LW.....I'm with you (in that I agree we need to get the problems fixed...)......

(Note: I don't want any problems, these are just some thoughts, I really don't want to get into an argument with any one who disagrees, etc...)
misc
3,839 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

What articles and authors get mentioned is not intended to be based on any sort of subjective sense of "fairness". 

The points system exists to reward those users who have created blogs that have attracted readerships on their own for whatever reasons. 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

What articles and authors get mentioned is not intended to be based on any sort of subjective sense of "fairness". 

Write an interesting, relevant article, the kind of thing that will attract other people to JU, and it'll get featured.  It's really that simple.  The idea that everyone should get featured regardless of article quality reminds me of some 'politically correct' nonsense.  That's like letting everyone who tries out for a soccer team on the team to play regardless of their ability....that's a sure fire way to lose a match - you've got your star striker warming the bench so that Joe Schmo from down the street who can't kick a ball to save his life can get some pitch time in the name of 'fairness'.  It's silly, just like giving everyone who blogs here a 'feature' spot would be silly.

LW's doing her thing in her own way.  At least she's trying to back up her claims with evidence.....unlike some folks who make the wildest claims and who never, ever seem to have anything to back said claims up with.

Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Write an interesting, relevant article, the kind of thing that will attract other people to JU, and it'll get featured. It's really that simple. The idea that everyone should get featured regardless of article quality reminds me of some 'politically correct' nonsense. That's like letting everyone who tries out for a soccer team on the team to play regardless of their ability....that's a sure fire way to lose a match - you've got your star striker warming the bench so that Joe Schmo from down the street who can't kick a ball to save his life can get some pitch time in the name of 'fairness'. It's silly, just like giving everyone who blogs here a 'feature' spot would be silly.LW's doing her thing in her own way. At least she's trying to back up her claims with evidence.....unlike some folks who make the wildest claims and who never, ever seem to have anything to back said claims up with.


--Well, (I plan on writing an article about this) how can any one really say that what one writes is 'drivel' or not interesting, different people have different views on what is quality...The way i see it, here on JU, (as long as you are within the TOS) you should be able to post what you want...its called free speech.....and anything less would be wrong......kinda strange huh, that the US is founded on (as well as other things) Free speech, but yet here on JU, there are some that feel that certain things shouldn't be allowed/posted, but wouldn't that be violating ones free speech right...??? hmmm? Just a thought....


--And lets not go there, I've learned my lesson, I'm moving on...okay?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

how can any one really say that what one writes is 'drivel' or not interesting, different people have different views on what is quality...The way i see it, here on JU, (as long as you are within the TOS) you should be able to post what you want...its called free speech.

JU isn't a democracy.  Brad owns and runs this place, and what he considers 'quality' is what gets featured.  It's his place, and he runs it the way he sees fit.  He's VERY fair for the most part, and is very discerning.  I know that a lot of people who write here have been featured at least once, and some of us get featured regularly.  I don't write with the intention of getting featured or getting points.  I write for me...points and features are just a welcome benefit.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected thing, but you have to remember this is a private site and Brad can allow/disallow whatever he wants.  He's really good at letting people have their say, even going so far as to tolerate people calling him names and making snide/nasty comments about him......but this IS his site, and he makes the rules.  If you don't like it or think that it's unfair, I'm sure there are many, many more blog sites that you could go set up shop at.

Sure, you can write what you want, as long as it's within the TOS.  Just don't expect it to get featured.

 

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do realize brad is fair, i'm just saying, (dropping the fact that it is a private site,etc...) that strange views are highly (RH, etc....) 'dismissed' (for lack of a better term) and i'm not saying i don't like it, just that thats what i've noticed, i like it here...
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

i'm just saying, (dropping the fact that it is a private site,etc...) that strange views are highly (RH, etc....) 'dismissed' (for lack of a better term) and i'm not saying i don't like it, just that thats what i've noticed, i like it here...

What the hell are you talking about, Lucas?  I didnt understand your sentence.  Try again, this time without all the dot dot dots and the brackets (that's English for parnethesis).

RH didn't have 'strange views'.  He was simply an inflammatory idiot, a  person who talked to hear the sound of his own voice. 

I've re-read your sentence three times now and I still don't get what you're trying to say.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top


Hmmm,

What I see is that there are two types of bloggers here on JU. The ones that are able to write fairly well ( Tex, BS, etc...) These bloggers are able to get more readers, as their articles/posts are more interesting. Then there are those who casually blog (e.g. those who post tid bits, personal journals, etc....) These people are not as featured as much because they do not have the writing skills to attract readers. And its the latter that are being left in the dust, so to speak. IMO the rotating of articles will help the latter gain an audience/readers. Those here already know (perhaps) who the better bloggers are. They also know who to stay away from. (dabe, etc...) I just think that the focus of JU has shifted from debates among various people, with varied lives, backgrounds,etc... to focusing on only those who have the better writing skills. (I think thats what i was trying to say...)

Also, isn't it funny ("ha, go figure" funny) that Freedom of speech (when online) is trumped by the ownership card...(figurative...)
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another thing is; while one person may view another as an 'inflammatory idiot', another may view that same person as a 'genius', I mean take a look at such people as Galileo, Columbus, etc... (though not literally thought an idiot by modern definition, they were still considered "off-balance".) good points btw