How do we feel about opening new user sign-ups again? April 7, 2002 9:57 PM Subscribe
Since Matt is getting a new server, he mentioned turning new sign-ups back on. How do we feel about this?
The more the merrier I say. The incoming members should already have a good idea how MeFi works, because they have been forced to read it without participating in it for so long.
Out of the 14,000 members, I am guessing only 5,000 or so actually visit this site regularly. Of which only about a thousand odd regularly comment on threads. The problem isn't new members, it's the members who've been here a while (myself included) who sometimes forget what MeFi is all about.
posted by riffola at 10:03 PM on April 7, 2002
Out of the 14,000 members, I am guessing only 5,000 or so actually visit this site regularly. Of which only about a thousand odd regularly comment on threads. The problem isn't new members, it's the members who've been here a while (myself included) who sometimes forget what MeFi is all about.
posted by riffola at 10:03 PM on April 7, 2002
I'm with riffola, the next posting wunderkind could be out there, just waiting for Don Matteo to open the books and make him/her a made MeFiosi. Gotta open the door to new talent, cos hey we were all new once.
posted by jonmc at 10:06 PM on April 7, 2002
posted by jonmc at 10:06 PM on April 7, 2002
I'm calling my mom.
Expect lots of threads about knitting, and also lots of updates on the Chippendale calender guys.
posted by dong_resin at 10:07 PM on April 7, 2002
Expect lots of threads about knitting, and also lots of updates on the Chippendale calender guys.
posted by dong_resin at 10:07 PM on April 7, 2002
I think it'll be great, because I can stop looking over my shoulder always afraid of being tossed out, and I can laugh at the first newby with a 15,000+ user I.D.
On the other hand, remember this guy: ( . )( . ) ? If the front door is opened, get ready to deal with some level of troublemakers, flamers and basic jerks.
posted by yhbc at 10:35 PM on April 7, 2002
On the other hand, remember this guy: ( . )( . ) ? If the front door is opened, get ready to deal with some level of troublemakers, flamers and basic jerks.
posted by yhbc at 10:35 PM on April 7, 2002
Of which only about a thousand odd regularly comment on threads.
That's my point. MeFi has become a fairly popular place on the 'net and I'm afraid that reopening the door fully would flood this place beyond its capacity. We've already discussed how this site wasn't built for such a large community. Now, especially with the large number of links, this place might become too big to remain usable. I'm just thinking out loud; I could be completely off-base here.
Gotta open the door to new talent, cos hey we were all new once.
I'm not afraid of newbies. Hell, I'm a relative newbie around here. I just enjoy the idea of a community. I don't want this place to become a bustling metropolis. Just my opinion...
posted by BlueTrain at 10:35 PM on April 7, 2002
That's my point. MeFi has become a fairly popular place on the 'net and I'm afraid that reopening the door fully would flood this place beyond its capacity. We've already discussed how this site wasn't built for such a large community. Now, especially with the large number of links, this place might become too big to remain usable. I'm just thinking out loud; I could be completely off-base here.
Gotta open the door to new talent, cos hey we were all new once.
I'm not afraid of newbies. Hell, I'm a relative newbie around here. I just enjoy the idea of a community. I don't want this place to become a bustling metropolis. Just my opinion...
posted by BlueTrain at 10:35 PM on April 7, 2002
People were saying the same thing when MetaFilter was half as big as it is today. They'll be saying it again when it has 28,000 members.
What's the point at which MetaFilter is too big? The most popular answer to that question seems to be "around 3-6 months after I joined."
posted by rcade at 10:40 PM on April 7, 2002
What's the point at which MetaFilter is too big? The most popular answer to that question seems to be "around 3-6 months after I joined."
posted by rcade at 10:40 PM on April 7, 2002
A closed community (unless it is peopled solely by absolutely brilliant, totally open minded, multidimensional genius types) would eventually become predictable, stale and not much fun. Take the current generation of Israel-Palestine threads for example. I suspect most mefi members have stopped paying attention. And mostly when you look at the user names in those threads, you can predict the response and the reasonings that have been presented. This may be an extreme example. But I guess what I am trying to say is that any community constantly needs fresh blood in order to remain interesting and vibrant. That's why, IMHO, NY would be a far more interesting place to live in than Lake Wobegone and opening memberships again would result in more interesting links and discussions ....
posted by justlooking at 10:59 PM on April 7, 2002
posted by justlooking at 10:59 PM on April 7, 2002
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little apprehensive! but maybe now all these magazines and newspapers that quote us will get their own numbers and participate?
posted by mcsweetie at 10:59 PM on April 7, 2002
posted by mcsweetie at 10:59 PM on April 7, 2002
I must be blind - I don't see where he says he's going to turn sign-ups back on - was that something he said in another thread, or maybe just common knowledge?
And there are really still Chippendale dancers?
posted by iconomy at 11:03 PM on April 7, 2002
And there are really still Chippendale dancers?
posted by iconomy at 11:03 PM on April 7, 2002
I personally would not want to see signups go back to completely open. People should not be able to read something here, get all hot under the collar, and immediately go sign up and get an account just to post a flame. Maybe signups could be turned on more or less at random (e.g. a few hours a day or one day a week or something), or limited to one per hour, or something.
posted by kindall at 11:04 PM on April 7, 2002
posted by kindall at 11:04 PM on April 7, 2002
I think that this might be a bad idea.
You would say that, now that you're here. Of course, had 'we' implemented your policy when we hit the 13,000 mark (and I challenge you to demonstrate that signal-to-noise was any different then), you wouldn't be here.
And a 'screening' process? What would you suggest - an essay? Swimsuit competition? An 'how I'd make MetaFilter a better place if I were a member' speech? Screening is always a good idea when it happens to other people.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 11:06 PM on April 7, 2002
You would say that, now that you're here. Of course, had 'we' implemented your policy when we hit the 13,000 mark (and I challenge you to demonstrate that signal-to-noise was any different then), you wouldn't be here.
And a 'screening' process? What would you suggest - an essay? Swimsuit competition? An 'how I'd make MetaFilter a better place if I were a member' speech? Screening is always a good idea when it happens to other people.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 11:06 PM on April 7, 2002
I have to ask, obiwanwasabi and skallas, did you fellas actually read my posts in this thread, or do you prefer personal attacks?
posted by BlueTrain at 11:24 PM on April 7, 2002
posted by BlueTrain at 11:24 PM on April 7, 2002
kindall: There was already a seven day waiting period to post a thread, didn't it also include a few days probation on comments too?
posted by riffola at 11:26 PM on April 7, 2002
posted by riffola at 11:26 PM on April 7, 2002
MeFi needs a transfusion.*
With luck, eager donors are already making fists...
*Else how to explain the increased time I'm spending at Plastic.com?
posted by Opus Dark at 11:29 PM on April 7, 2002
With luck, eager donors are already making fists...
*Else how to explain the increased time I'm spending at Plastic.com?
posted by Opus Dark at 11:29 PM on April 7, 2002
No, I don't think it includes a waiting period for comments. Maybe it should.
posted by kindall at 11:34 PM on April 7, 2002
posted by kindall at 11:34 PM on April 7, 2002
I have to ask, obiwanwasabi and skallas, did you fellas actually read my posts in this thread, or do you prefer personal attacks?
i think it's valid for skallas and obiwan to question your credibility in this issue, BlueTrain; you haven't experienced as many passing days as they have. i've learned that metafilter's postings-per-day don't necessarily increase on a steady, upward line; it wavers positive and negative.
i think news links aren't so terribly scary. there's only so many big stories that can be posted, and whether there are 13,700 people or 14,700 people on metafilter, those stories will probably find a way onto the front page.
posted by moz at 11:39 PM on April 7, 2002
i think it's valid for skallas and obiwan to question your credibility in this issue, BlueTrain; you haven't experienced as many passing days as they have. i've learned that metafilter's postings-per-day don't necessarily increase on a steady, upward line; it wavers positive and negative.
i think news links aren't so terribly scary. there's only so many big stories that can be posted, and whether there are 13,700 people or 14,700 people on metafilter, those stories will probably find a way onto the front page.
posted by moz at 11:39 PM on April 7, 2002
No personal attacks made, BlueTrain - I simply noted that had your (rather unoriginal) policy been implemented sooner, you wouldn't be here, and that I don't think much of your 'screening' idea. If it was good enough for you to join without being subjected to a 'cut-off' or 'screening', why isn't it good enough for everybody else? If you choose to take that as a 'personal attack', there's very little I can do about it.
If you're really concerned about signal-vs-noise, and you genuinely believe that the large number of users is contributing to the 'problem', why close the doors 'now'? Why not endorse a retrospective cut back to 9,999 users*? Things were so much better before we hit five-digit userids. Or pre-9/11, to get rid of those who joined just because they couldn't get through to CNN? Or 5000 users? I remember folks complaining about the 'screaming hordes' way back then too. Just so long as the cut is made at some point just after I joined - that sounds fair, doesn't it?
*I would, of course, hand my MeFi number over to MiguelCardoso - I couldn't bare to have his splattering over a Lisboan sidewalk on my hands :).
posted by obiwanwasabi at 12:07 AM on April 8, 2002
If you're really concerned about signal-vs-noise, and you genuinely believe that the large number of users is contributing to the 'problem', why close the doors 'now'? Why not endorse a retrospective cut back to 9,999 users*? Things were so much better before we hit five-digit userids. Or pre-9/11, to get rid of those who joined just because they couldn't get through to CNN? Or 5000 users? I remember folks complaining about the 'screaming hordes' way back then too. Just so long as the cut is made at some point just after I joined - that sounds fair, doesn't it?
*I would, of course, hand my MeFi number over to MiguelCardoso - I couldn't bare to have his splattering over a Lisboan sidewalk on my hands :).
posted by obiwanwasabi at 12:07 AM on April 8, 2002
I've got several ideas how to do signups in a not-so-open way, and I'm not sure yet which combination of the following will happen. One thing is for sure, there will most definitely not be totally open sign-ups. There are already a lot of people here, and there will be some control on letting new members in. Any community has trouble with sudden influxes of new members, and I'll do my best to make sure the influxes are steady and regular.
- limit # of new users to 10 per day: starting at noon, midnight, or some random hour of the day. People that want to join basically have to scout the new user page like someone trying to be the 8th caller to win tickets to supertramp on the radio.
- force email authentication: almost 100% certain this will be happening, and most likely current members will need to authenticate their email to post at some point (don't worry, one day you just won't be able to post until you send yourself an email and click a link). This keeps some people out because it's a bit of a hassle.
- Grandfathering in system: new members don't sign up for metafilter, they apply for membership. Current members can view a random list of applicants and "sponsor" one new member per week. Once a new member has been granted entry on behalf of one older member, they both are sent email by the system letting them know who let them in and that old member will be watching them. new user can email old user questions, and if new user is booted or banned, the old user will be held liable in some way.
- hot tub system: more strictly friends-of-friends deal where current members have to suggest new members, as there is no other way to get in.
- pay for play: new members can get in freely, after coughing up a few bucks at the door, as a cover charge.
I don't know which option or group of options I'll go with, but it'll be something up there besides keeping the door closed and opening the floodgates. I think about this constantly and have played through a bunch of the scenarios in my head, but I'm not 100% sure about which direction I'll go post-upgrade, at this point in time.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:13 AM on April 8, 2002
- limit # of new users to 10 per day: starting at noon, midnight, or some random hour of the day. People that want to join basically have to scout the new user page like someone trying to be the 8th caller to win tickets to supertramp on the radio.
- force email authentication: almost 100% certain this will be happening, and most likely current members will need to authenticate their email to post at some point (don't worry, one day you just won't be able to post until you send yourself an email and click a link). This keeps some people out because it's a bit of a hassle.
- Grandfathering in system: new members don't sign up for metafilter, they apply for membership. Current members can view a random list of applicants and "sponsor" one new member per week. Once a new member has been granted entry on behalf of one older member, they both are sent email by the system letting them know who let them in and that old member will be watching them. new user can email old user questions, and if new user is booted or banned, the old user will be held liable in some way.
- hot tub system: more strictly friends-of-friends deal where current members have to suggest new members, as there is no other way to get in.
- pay for play: new members can get in freely, after coughing up a few bucks at the door, as a cover charge.
I don't know which option or group of options I'll go with, but it'll be something up there besides keeping the door closed and opening the floodgates. I think about this constantly and have played through a bunch of the scenarios in my head, but I'm not 100% sure about which direction I'll go post-upgrade, at this point in time.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:13 AM on April 8, 2002
I like the idea of having the membership open up at random points. That way, you'll bring in people who visit the site often, with a few people who were in the right place at the right time. It would most likely draw the type of people who are willing to invest time into metafilter...
- Grandfathering in system: the idea is really interesting, but the punishment for the old user would have to be worked out.
Secretly, I've been waiting for membership to open up again, so one day there will be more people with numbers higher than mine, then there are people with numbers lower than mine.
posted by drezdn at 12:26 AM on April 8, 2002
- Grandfathering in system: the idea is really interesting, but the punishment for the old user would have to be worked out.
Secretly, I've been waiting for membership to open up again, so one day there will be more people with numbers higher than mine, then there are people with numbers lower than mine.
posted by drezdn at 12:26 AM on April 8, 2002
like someone trying to be the 8th caller to win tickets to supertramp on the radio
Supertramp! That has to be the most un-MetaFilter-like band ever to disgrace life on Earth. It's just not logical, Matt. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:26 AM on April 8, 2002
Supertramp! That has to be the most un-MetaFilter-like band ever to disgrace life on Earth. It's just not logical, Matt. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:26 AM on April 8, 2002
Has anyone ever won *good* concert tickets on the radio? They just give away crap, because that's what free radio ticket giveaways are for. I remember going to see Bryan Adams in the mid-90's thanks to a friend's mom ringing into some boring work music station one day (and I only went because it was free, and it still pretty much sucked).
Besides, it was rather metafilter-like for me to make a subtle simpsons reference:
"Our tenth caller will receive tickets to Supertramp"
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:45 AM on April 8, 2002
Besides, it was rather metafilter-like for me to make a subtle simpsons reference:
"Our tenth caller will receive tickets to Supertramp"
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:45 AM on April 8, 2002
I like the grandfathering system, or something like it. Seems to me that the sponsor of a banned member would lose posting priviledges for a while...what other punishment could there be?
posted by bingo at 1:14 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by bingo at 1:14 AM on April 8, 2002
Has anyone ever won *good* concert tickets on the radio?
I won Tori Amos tickets. Of course *I* think Tori Amos sucks.
posted by owillis at 2:39 AM on April 8, 2002
I won Tori Amos tickets. Of course *I* think Tori Amos sucks.
posted by owillis at 2:39 AM on April 8, 2002
Seems to me that the sponsor of a banned member would lose posting priviledges for a while...what other punishment could there be?
Honestly, for some of us that isn't that big a punishment. I'm not sure how many other people read Metafilter and almost never comment or even post front page links, but I think it's probably a fair number and what's not going to post do to hurt me? Take away my reading priviledges. That'd be a punishment. (Also impossible. Always could come back as a guest.)
posted by Apoch at 3:03 AM on April 8, 2002
Honestly, for some of us that isn't that big a punishment. I'm not sure how many other people read Metafilter and almost never comment or even post front page links, but I think it's probably a fair number and what's not going to post do to hurt me? Take away my reading priviledges. That'd be a punishment. (Also impossible. Always could come back as a guest.)
posted by Apoch at 3:03 AM on April 8, 2002
How do we feel about this?
It's the end of the world as we know it, and we feel fine.
Seriously though. I feel fine about it. A waiting period of a few days would prevent people joining on the spur of the moment.
The grandparenting system should be opt/in opt/out. Some people won't want to field emails. I know that emails are no longer shown to people who aren't on the site, but still, there's usually a way to find it out if they put their home site on their user id page. I know some people won't intend to intro people that they don't know, but there will still be people trying to email them about it, just as there are people now trying to get members to post links that they have found.
That said, I don't want to see something happen as what happened to Voyageman. He had a real interest in this site, and it would have been good had he been able to share it with his SO.
I can see the wisdom in not announcing the re-opening but I am a little concerned that people who have waited for ages to join won't know about it.
Unltimately, it's Matt who will have the work-load increased. If he institutes a payment option, I think it should be across the board, with exceptions of some kind for people who are out-of-work, on a pension, or students. Also people who visit from other countries have to pay more, usually twice as much, something that they are used to doing, but that will have some small effect on people joining from OS.
And just keep in mind that PayPal isn't ok for everyone. A lot of people have had trouble with it, it won't accept Visa cards, because they have different coding systems or something between Europe and the US, and the Asia-Pacific regions. At least, that's the way it was explained to me. I have tried to use it a couple of times.
"Seems to me that the sponsor of a banned member would lose posting priviledges for a while...what other punishment could there be?"
I'm thinking in the long-term here really but bear with me, sometimes people can become difficult to deal with or short-tempered for periods of time, just because they are going through some sort of personal trial. How can the person who introduced them be held accountable for that?
posted by lucien at 3:59 AM on April 8, 2002
It's the end of the world as we know it, and we feel fine.
Seriously though. I feel fine about it. A waiting period of a few days would prevent people joining on the spur of the moment.
The grandparenting system should be opt/in opt/out. Some people won't want to field emails. I know that emails are no longer shown to people who aren't on the site, but still, there's usually a way to find it out if they put their home site on their user id page. I know some people won't intend to intro people that they don't know, but there will still be people trying to email them about it, just as there are people now trying to get members to post links that they have found.
That said, I don't want to see something happen as what happened to Voyageman. He had a real interest in this site, and it would have been good had he been able to share it with his SO.
I can see the wisdom in not announcing the re-opening but I am a little concerned that people who have waited for ages to join won't know about it.
Unltimately, it's Matt who will have the work-load increased. If he institutes a payment option, I think it should be across the board, with exceptions of some kind for people who are out-of-work, on a pension, or students. Also people who visit from other countries have to pay more, usually twice as much, something that they are used to doing, but that will have some small effect on people joining from OS.
And just keep in mind that PayPal isn't ok for everyone. A lot of people have had trouble with it, it won't accept Visa cards, because they have different coding systems or something between Europe and the US, and the Asia-Pacific regions. At least, that's the way it was explained to me. I have tried to use it a couple of times.
"Seems to me that the sponsor of a banned member would lose posting priviledges for a while...what other punishment could there be?"
I'm thinking in the long-term here really but bear with me, sometimes people can become difficult to deal with or short-tempered for periods of time, just because they are going through some sort of personal trial. How can the person who introduced them be held accountable for that?
posted by lucien at 3:59 AM on April 8, 2002
i dont think the # of users is the real problem with signal to noise (and the bloody haiku squad :P) around here, but i do think the change in focus to 'news' based fpps since last september has a lot to do with it
if we went back to just posting interesting websites (instead of news stories and current events) on the front page, there wouldn't be too many posts, and hopefully more relevant disucssion in the threads themselves
personally, i'd love to see a 'newsfilter' spun off, and mefi itself going back to the way it was when i joined, i know its wishful thinking (and would require more hardware, unless we got the site onto unix, where it belongs :P) but thats how i'm feeling right now...
posted by sawks at 4:16 AM on April 8, 2002
if we went back to just posting interesting websites (instead of news stories and current events) on the front page, there wouldn't be too many posts, and hopefully more relevant disucssion in the threads themselves
personally, i'd love to see a 'newsfilter' spun off, and mefi itself going back to the way it was when i joined, i know its wishful thinking (and would require more hardware, unless we got the site onto unix, where it belongs :P) but thats how i'm feeling right now...
posted by sawks at 4:16 AM on April 8, 2002
What am i gonna do???
My husband wants to join. Frankly I am not sure what kind of member he would make.
Under some scenarios if he turns into a chain yanker I pay the price. but how can I say no to my own husband-especially since I have already told him there will be new signups?
My only hope is his short memory.
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
*now where is that supertramp album*
posted by bunnyfire at 4:17 AM on April 8, 2002
My husband wants to join. Frankly I am not sure what kind of member he would make.
Under some scenarios if he turns into a chain yanker I pay the price. but how can I say no to my own husband-especially since I have already told him there will be new signups?
My only hope is his short memory.
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
*now where is that supertramp album*
posted by bunnyfire at 4:17 AM on April 8, 2002
yeah, i say pay for play. let's kill two bunnies with one pancake.
posted by jcterminal at 4:23 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by jcterminal at 4:23 AM on April 8, 2002
I am guessing that Matt is concerned about the site scaling up to say 20k users (which I assume it will easily reach in a couple of months if the flood gates are open). And this is not just a community concern but a technical one as well -- Kuro5hin and Slashdot scale up to more users but with a big hit on the usability and community feel of the site. For MeFi to go up to 20k or 30k users, a good chunk of MeFi will have to change --e.g. have "sections" or sub-topics, like MeTa does or K5 or /.
I would treat MeFi as a real biological community: it has to allow new blood in to make up for people dropping out and to enhance diversity. And that new blood will have to occasionally bring in a "mutation", a different point of view in our case, to help evolution along. Grandfathering is akin to incest in that scenario. OTOH, you don't want to allow for unrestricted growth if the infrastructure, the ecosystem if you will, cannot handle it.
I think that a limited trickle of sign-ups will work best: Just allow a new user every 2-3 hours. That is 8-12 users per day, it's fair geographically (you have to forget a lot of us are very far from PST) and it will make cheating somewhat harder. Just watch out for scripting attempts and don't announce the exact time that the next window opens to help randomness along.
posted by costas at 4:25 AM on April 8, 2002
I would treat MeFi as a real biological community: it has to allow new blood in to make up for people dropping out and to enhance diversity. And that new blood will have to occasionally bring in a "mutation", a different point of view in our case, to help evolution along. Grandfathering is akin to incest in that scenario. OTOH, you don't want to allow for unrestricted growth if the infrastructure, the ecosystem if you will, cannot handle it.
I think that a limited trickle of sign-ups will work best: Just allow a new user every 2-3 hours. That is 8-12 users per day, it's fair geographically (you have to forget a lot of us are very far from PST) and it will make cheating somewhat harder. Just watch out for scripting attempts and don't announce the exact time that the next window opens to help randomness along.
posted by costas at 4:25 AM on April 8, 2002
...I remember going to see Bryan Adams in the mid-90's...
[aside]
On camera, I once told the famous and overly toothy Terry David Mulligan, of Goooood Rockin' Tonite!, the 80's Vancouver video show, that I would personally suck the weiners of each and every member of Motorhead in order to get tickets to a Bryan Adams concert, when he scurried up and asked, breathlessly : "What would you do to get tickets...".
I wasn't serious. I didn't like Bryan Adams. And I didn't actually use the word 'weiners'.
The interview didn't make the show.
[/aside]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:54 AM on April 8, 2002
[aside]
On camera, I once told the famous and overly toothy Terry David Mulligan, of Goooood Rockin' Tonite!, the 80's Vancouver video show, that I would personally suck the weiners of each and every member of Motorhead in order to get tickets to a Bryan Adams concert, when he scurried up and asked, breathlessly : "What would you do to get tickets...".
I wasn't serious. I didn't like Bryan Adams. And I didn't actually use the word 'weiners'.
The interview didn't make the show.
[/aside]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:54 AM on April 8, 2002
People that want to join basically have to scout the new user page like someone trying to be the 8th caller to win tickets to supertramp on the radio.
This would mean only programmers would get in. Do we really want that?
posted by rcade at 6:11 AM on April 8, 2002
This would mean only programmers would get in. Do we really want that?
posted by rcade at 6:11 AM on April 8, 2002
Perhaps people who want to get in should go on a waiting list.
Matt's a fair guy...he could probably come up with a fair and random way to pull in a certain number in every so often.
While we are at it, just as voter registration lists are culled every so often of people who don't vote after a certain time period, I wonder if it would be possible to cull the mefi herd of members who joined and then have not used their privileges-say, in the past year. That is, assuming there is a way to even tell.
Finally, before we take on new blood, put me down as lobbying hard for a faq section. That would nip a few problems in the bud.
And remember folks, we are either growing or dying. There ARE no other alternatives.
Carry on, brother Matt, carry on.
posted by bunnyfire at 6:22 AM on April 8, 2002
Matt's a fair guy...he could probably come up with a fair and random way to pull in a certain number in every so often.
While we are at it, just as voter registration lists are culled every so often of people who don't vote after a certain time period, I wonder if it would be possible to cull the mefi herd of members who joined and then have not used their privileges-say, in the past year. That is, assuming there is a way to even tell.
Finally, before we take on new blood, put me down as lobbying hard for a faq section. That would nip a few problems in the bud.
And remember folks, we are either growing or dying. There ARE no other alternatives.
Carry on, brother Matt, carry on.
posted by bunnyfire at 6:22 AM on April 8, 2002
With respect to the gross number of members, why don't we implement a policy where you have to post x number of FPPs or comments in y time period (1 every 6 months?) This could help bring down the sheer number of members, and might make administration easier. Obviously this doesn't reduce the signal/noise problem because these individuals aren't posting anyway.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:41 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by pardonyou? at 6:41 AM on April 8, 2002
justlooking - are you implying that we're not all "absolutely brilliant, totally open minded, multidimensional genius types"? Now my feelings are hurt. ;-)
I like the trickle idea. It ensures that we have a steady supply of new members, without things getting too out of hand.
posted by tdismukes at 6:42 AM on April 8, 2002
I like the trickle idea. It ensures that we have a steady supply of new members, without things getting too out of hand.
posted by tdismukes at 6:42 AM on April 8, 2002
Hopefully it will work better than trickle down economics. I like the idea of word of mouth friends, but the grandfather thing scares me...I mean, who would want to have sponsored Settle?
posted by adampsyche at 6:45 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by adampsyche at 6:45 AM on April 8, 2002
how about limiting new membership to girls only? (just to even things out a bit)
posted by Frasermoo at 6:47 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by Frasermoo at 6:47 AM on April 8, 2002
Frasermoo, we really do have to find you a girlfriend.
posted by bunnyfire at 6:53 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by bunnyfire at 6:53 AM on April 8, 2002
the grandfather thing scares me...I mean, who would want to have sponsored Settle?
Er, doesn't this exact sentiment prove that the grandfathering is a good idea?
why don't we implement a policy where you have to post x number of FPPs or comments in y time period (1 every 6 months?)
Because lurkers like myself don't necessarily post a comment or new thread unless we really have something to say, or really feel strongly on a subject, and that isn't necessarily going to happen. Posting rate isn't necessarily a good metric of membership.
posted by cCranium at 7:08 AM on April 8, 2002
Er, doesn't this exact sentiment prove that the grandfathering is a good idea?
why don't we implement a policy where you have to post x number of FPPs or comments in y time period (1 every 6 months?)
Because lurkers like myself don't necessarily post a comment or new thread unless we really have something to say, or really feel strongly on a subject, and that isn't necessarily going to happen. Posting rate isn't necessarily a good metric of membership.
posted by cCranium at 7:08 AM on April 8, 2002
ccranium, I see your point. But I suspect there are far more members who haven't even looked at the site for a year than there are regular lurkers who might want to post at some point. For those who fit the latter category, every once in a while just write something like "pancakes" in a double post that's going to be deleted anyway (on second thought, maybe that's a bad idea).
posted by pardonyou? at 7:14 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by pardonyou? at 7:14 AM on April 8, 2002
I think that speaks volumes about points-style moderation.
I think this is the best option if there truly is a flood of new members. I spend a lot of time on MeFi as it is and I already have a hard time keeping up with everything. If things grow a lot I would appreciate categories on the FP as there are in MeTa.
I like the waiting period too, but I am not so fond of the "buddy" system or any kind of current member sponsorship.
posted by anathema at 7:15 AM on April 8, 2002
I think this is the best option if there truly is a flood of new members. I spend a lot of time on MeFi as it is and I already have a hard time keeping up with everything. If things grow a lot I would appreciate categories on the FP as there are in MeTa.
I like the waiting period too, but I am not so fond of the "buddy" system or any kind of current member sponsorship.
posted by anathema at 7:15 AM on April 8, 2002
Hey cCranium--didn't you have some sort of an unofficial MeFi-FAQ going a while back? While I think the current guidelines are clear, maybe the MeFi FAQ would be more specific when reopening the gates (regardless of the manner in which the gates are reopened). If it wasn't you cC, I apologize, but I do recall someone compiling an FAQ--maybe waxpancake?
posted by macadamiaranch at 7:19 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by macadamiaranch at 7:19 AM on April 8, 2002
Er, doesn't this exact sentiment prove that the grandfathering is a good idea?
To a degree. But then again, if you have a list of names, how do you know if the person you pick is going to be a good lil' MeFi'er or a ridiculous troll? Can you ask your sponsored member to stay after class and write "I will not post in all caps" on the blackboard? I would just want to see some guidelines for the idea, and until then, I admit skepticism. Say you grandfather someone. They seem ok, pledge to play nice, and they come in and make fun of dead reporters, say that fat people should walk everywhere, or otherwise act like a complete idiot? Can the grandfather have recourse? Could one say, suspend the person's account for a few days, or would we have to trouble Matt with misbehavior?
I am not opposed to the idea, but I would like to know what kind of details could be put in place so that the mentioned ridiculousness would not reflect on a member who unwittingly sponsors someone.
posted by adampsyche at 7:34 AM on April 8, 2002
To a degree. But then again, if you have a list of names, how do you know if the person you pick is going to be a good lil' MeFi'er or a ridiculous troll? Can you ask your sponsored member to stay after class and write "I will not post in all caps" on the blackboard? I would just want to see some guidelines for the idea, and until then, I admit skepticism. Say you grandfather someone. They seem ok, pledge to play nice, and they come in and make fun of dead reporters, say that fat people should walk everywhere, or otherwise act like a complete idiot? Can the grandfather have recourse? Could one say, suspend the person's account for a few days, or would we have to trouble Matt with misbehavior?
I am not opposed to the idea, but I would like to know what kind of details could be put in place so that the mentioned ridiculousness would not reflect on a member who unwittingly sponsors someone.
posted by adampsyche at 7:34 AM on April 8, 2002
"How do we feel about this?" There's no WE in MATT. As soon as you start paying him hourly to run this site, and buy all his equipment, then you can start calling the shots. I know Matt is open to suggestions, but Jesus Christ, it is his bloody site! If you don't like it leave. I'm sick of everyone bitching and complaining.
posted by sadie01221975 at 7:54 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by sadie01221975 at 7:54 AM on April 8, 2002
To a certain extent, I don't like the grandfather system, as it reminds me of the livejournal "codes" system, and about once a week I'd get email from a random teen panting to put their deep thoughts on their sucky lives in a public journal without having to pay for anything.... =gasp= ...and let's just say I don't want to get this crap. And I sure as hell don't want to be responsible for anybody's posts and comments. Even if my husband signed up.
I have a question -- how many members are "active" -- as in, they've posted a comment or FPP within the last, oh, year? I mean, is the overflow of FPPs and threads out-of-control due to a few people, or due to "population pressure"?
posted by meep at 7:55 AM on April 8, 2002
I have a question -- how many members are "active" -- as in, they've posted a comment or FPP within the last, oh, year? I mean, is the overflow of FPPs and threads out-of-control due to a few people, or due to "population pressure"?
posted by meep at 7:55 AM on April 8, 2002
pardonyou? - I don't think it's a good idea to require users to make a front page post (FPP) in any kind of timeframe. As many others have said before, some of the best links appear when you're not looking for them. If a posting requirement were set up, you'd have thousands of users posting just to keep their accounts alive, which would have an adverse effect on quality (e.g. just find any old link that seems semi-interesting). There are plenty of users who post comments but not FPPs.
I think the main reason of becoming a user is to be able to post comments - up to a point, if you're not posting comments then there's no point registering, even if you do make FPPs. So if you're going institute keep-alives for accounts, do it on the basis of comments, not posts.
Of course, you could make the argument that people will just make junk comments in order to keep their account alive. But what's the point of that? Presumably, if you have to make a junk comment to keep your account alive, you're not making comments in the first place - and if so, there's no reason for you to be registered.
So: make a minimum requirement for comments (maybe three every six months) and don't send out warning emails - if people haven't noticed that they aren't visiting Mefi and aren't making comments, then they won't miss having their account removed.
posted by adrianhon at 7:59 AM on April 8, 2002
I think the main reason of becoming a user is to be able to post comments - up to a point, if you're not posting comments then there's no point registering, even if you do make FPPs. So if you're going institute keep-alives for accounts, do it on the basis of comments, not posts.
Of course, you could make the argument that people will just make junk comments in order to keep their account alive. But what's the point of that? Presumably, if you have to make a junk comment to keep your account alive, you're not making comments in the first place - and if so, there's no reason for you to be registered.
So: make a minimum requirement for comments (maybe three every six months) and don't send out warning emails - if people haven't noticed that they aren't visiting Mefi and aren't making comments, then they won't miss having their account removed.
posted by adrianhon at 7:59 AM on April 8, 2002
I don't think people should be required to make new threads or comments. If I were to stop posting here for some odd reason, I would still like to be able to retain my customizations and the ability to post at any time when I feel like it. The people who aren't posting anything are quite frankly not a problem. The only reason you may want to think about shuting their accounts is to force them to increase their participation. Which would probably add to the noise.
posted by riffola at 8:10 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by riffola at 8:10 AM on April 8, 2002
Deleting inactive users isn't going to make room for new active users. A dormant account doesn't contribute to the (percieved) problems: ie: high signal to noise ratio, high total number of posts, mefi becoming newsfilter and server load problems.
I went ~1 year without posting, but I was still reading and following a good number of threads. Having a registered account allowed me to track threads (see which messages were new etc). Although I wasn't posting I was using my account.
I can't see anything to be gained by deleting any accounts (except for a small amount of harddisk space on the server).
posted by urban greeting at 8:10 AM on April 8, 2002
I went ~1 year without posting, but I was still reading and following a good number of threads. Having a registered account allowed me to track threads (see which messages were new etc). Although I wasn't posting I was using my account.
I can't see anything to be gained by deleting any accounts (except for a small amount of harddisk space on the server).
posted by urban greeting at 8:10 AM on April 8, 2002
err...... i mean what riffola said
posted by urban greeting at 8:12 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by urban greeting at 8:12 AM on April 8, 2002
adrianhon, I agree. My first comment said: "...why don't we implement a policy where you have to post x number of FPPs or comments in y time period." You're right that comments would be far more useful than FPPs (I for one don't want people to feel compelled to put something on the front page just to satisfy a requirement).
posted by pardonyou? at 8:14 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by pardonyou? at 8:14 AM on April 8, 2002
It'd be nice to have some new blood around here. I'm sick of all you people ...
posted by feelinglistless at 8:18 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by feelinglistless at 8:18 AM on April 8, 2002
I think minimum comment requirements would be just silly. So if I went off to work on an oil rig for a year, I'd lose my MeFi membership? Great.
Also, everyone's hesitancy to endorse the 'grandfather' system is making me think it's a good idea. If you're not sure that someone could handle MeFi, don't sponsor them. Less members, and the ones that do get in - it's because someone is confident they'll make a contribution.
Presumably the penalties to the grandfather member could vanish after the new member has been around for a certain length of time, but that's a minor detail.
posted by D at 8:23 AM on April 8, 2002
Also, everyone's hesitancy to endorse the 'grandfather' system is making me think it's a good idea. If you're not sure that someone could handle MeFi, don't sponsor them. Less members, and the ones that do get in - it's because someone is confident they'll make a contribution.
Presumably the penalties to the grandfather member could vanish after the new member has been around for a certain length of time, but that's a minor detail.
posted by D at 8:23 AM on April 8, 2002
Ok, to be honest, I first saw this post and was very annoyed by what some people said. I know that I have been, and still am a newbie. I have done my share of wrong things (un-knowingly wrong, but wrong) and gotten called for it. Bunnyfire made a comment about having a faq. I agree that mefi needs one of these. Why? Because even though the new sign up page is clear on most issues, it isn't clear on all.
Matt has some good and bad ideas (IMO) on how to handle new user sign ups. The first two of limiting the number of users and email verifications are a great idea. The grandfathering in, and hot tub system I personally think are totally bogus. Seriously, first off, who gets to pick? Old members? How old. Then what criteria do we use to be their sponsor? DO they have to have a weblog that we can read and disect who they are. This would kind of suck. But then what if I sponsored someone who then just went in and sponsored like 50 people with out caring... See the point.
WHat ever Matt desides to do with the sign ups, I think it should be done to all users. It is not fair to require that someone else go through one set of rules to get in and then someone else to go through another.
I think that mefi should open up the doors and see what happens. If you place restrictions on the sign ups, who can and cannot, it makes mefi less of a community and more of an elitist group of people.
One last concern I have is when I signed up to be a member, the sign ups were turned off, yet I found a way in. Since then there have been roughly 530 new member sign ups all the same way that I signed up. Will this back door method have the same restrictions as the front door? IE if you have to pay to be a member through the front, what about through the back?
posted by thebwit at 8:27 AM on April 8, 2002
Matt has some good and bad ideas (IMO) on how to handle new user sign ups. The first two of limiting the number of users and email verifications are a great idea. The grandfathering in, and hot tub system I personally think are totally bogus. Seriously, first off, who gets to pick? Old members? How old. Then what criteria do we use to be their sponsor? DO they have to have a weblog that we can read and disect who they are. This would kind of suck. But then what if I sponsored someone who then just went in and sponsored like 50 people with out caring... See the point.
WHat ever Matt desides to do with the sign ups, I think it should be done to all users. It is not fair to require that someone else go through one set of rules to get in and then someone else to go through another.
I think that mefi should open up the doors and see what happens. If you place restrictions on the sign ups, who can and cannot, it makes mefi less of a community and more of an elitist group of people.
One last concern I have is when I signed up to be a member, the sign ups were turned off, yet I found a way in. Since then there have been roughly 530 new member sign ups all the same way that I signed up. Will this back door method have the same restrictions as the front door? IE if you have to pay to be a member through the front, what about through the back?
posted by thebwit at 8:27 AM on April 8, 2002
Whether by accident or design, MetaFilter currently has a pattern of punctuated equilibrium in new member growth. This is a very good thing. It allows for the injection of new people into the community, but it keeps the culture from being overwhelmed, two very important things I hope to see preserved.
Regarding how to punctuate the equilibrium, there's lots of room for ideas, but I have to heartily disagree with D because grandfathering favors continual narrowing of the views represented, which is unhealthy.
posted by NortonDC at 8:46 AM on April 8, 2002
Regarding how to punctuate the equilibrium, there's lots of room for ideas, but I have to heartily disagree with D because grandfathering favors continual narrowing of the views represented, which is unhealthy.
posted by NortonDC at 8:46 AM on April 8, 2002
because grandfathering favors continual narrowing of the views represented
Exactly: me and my warblogging buddies are using a bounty hunter named Jango Fett to create a clonearmy . . .
I'm opposed to anything that even remotely smacks of cliquishness: no one should be prevented from signing up simply because they don't know anyone already here. It's about what you post, not who you know. On the other hand, I'm all for e-mail authentication; I even think that displaying an e-mail on your profile page ought to be a requirement, especially now that such information is now hidden from those not logged in.
posted by mcwetboy at 9:14 AM on April 8, 2002
Exactly: me and my warblogging buddies are using a bounty hunter named Jango Fett to create a clone
I'm opposed to anything that even remotely smacks of cliquishness: no one should be prevented from signing up simply because they don't know anyone already here. It's about what you post, not who you know. On the other hand, I'm all for e-mail authentication; I even think that displaying an e-mail on your profile page ought to be a requirement, especially now that such information is now hidden from those not logged in.
posted by mcwetboy at 9:14 AM on April 8, 2002
So: make a minimum requirement for comments (maybe three every six months) and don't send out warning emails - if people haven't noticed that they aren't visiting Mefi and aren't making comments, then they won't miss having their account removed.
Forcing people to comment is a bad idea (as is forcing them to do front page posts)... I like my account, but I don't post all that much. I read Metafilter roughly everyday, but try to only contribute if I have something to say. If I had to post to hang onto my account, I'm likely to add comments just to add comments and not to contribute.
posted by drezdn at 9:25 AM on April 8, 2002
Forcing people to comment is a bad idea (as is forcing them to do front page posts)... I like my account, but I don't post all that much. I read Metafilter roughly everyday, but try to only contribute if I have something to say. If I had to post to hang onto my account, I'm likely to add comments just to add comments and not to contribute.
posted by drezdn at 9:25 AM on April 8, 2002
The new internet paradigm:
1) Open sign-ups to everyone. Everyone get customization, thread tracking, profile page, etc.
2) Want to post a link? You now have to pay. Like $0.25 per post. Volume discounts available. Buy Gift certificates for your friends. This will definitely cut down on the noise. Are you sure you want to post that?
Double posters will now be fined... double.
well, that's what I would do. Matt should get something for his trouble.
posted by FreezBoy at 9:36 AM on April 8, 2002
1) Open sign-ups to everyone. Everyone get customization, thread tracking, profile page, etc.
2) Want to post a link? You now have to pay. Like $0.25 per post. Volume discounts available. Buy Gift certificates for your friends. This will definitely cut down on the noise. Are you sure you want to post that?
Double posters will now be fined... double.
well, that's what I would do. Matt should get something for his trouble.
posted by FreezBoy at 9:36 AM on April 8, 2002
Can we please stop the stupid Settle-bashing?
You won't hear any more out of me. The posts speak for themselves.
posted by adampsyche at 9:37 AM on April 8, 2002
You won't hear any more out of me. The posts speak for themselves.
posted by adampsyche at 9:37 AM on April 8, 2002
"How do we feel about this?" There's no WE in MATT. As soon as you start paying him hourly to run this site, and buy all his equipment, then you can start calling the shots. I know Matt is open to suggestions, but Jesus Christ, it is his bloody site! If you don't like it leave. I'm sick of everyone bitching and complaining.
Oh, for crying out loud. This kind of 'you are powerless, shut the hell up' talk makes me ill. No one here is calling any shots. We're making our voices heard, which you would think would be a good thing. Yeah, in the end, Haughey is free to ignore us as he will; the man isn't omniscient, however, he's not a god, and there are quite possibly angles to the problems we face that he hasn't thought of. Yelling 'SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP' every time a discussion starts would keep these from ever being brought up.
posted by darukaru at 9:56 AM on April 8, 2002
Oh, for crying out loud. This kind of 'you are powerless, shut the hell up' talk makes me ill. No one here is calling any shots. We're making our voices heard, which you would think would be a good thing. Yeah, in the end, Haughey is free to ignore us as he will; the man isn't omniscient, however, he's not a god, and there are quite possibly angles to the problems we face that he hasn't thought of. Yelling 'SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP' every time a discussion starts would keep these from ever being brought up.
posted by darukaru at 9:56 AM on April 8, 2002
Matt is right to be concerned with the size of MeFi. Discourse among 50 people, among 2000 people, and among 30,000 people are vastly different propositions, as are the spaces that those people need to effectively communicate. No size is necessarily better than any other as they each have their advantages and disadvantages (although we all have our preferences), and it's up to Matt to choose what size community he wants to deal with, as much as that's in his power to do.
Also related, Clay Shirky's Communities, Audiences, and Scale (italics mine):
"As group size grows past any individual's ability to maintain connections to all members of a group, the density shrinks, and as the group grows very large (>10,000) the number of actual connections drops to less than 1% of the potential connections, even if each member of the group knows dozens of other members. Thus growth in size is enough to alter the fabric of connection that makes a community work. (Anyone who has seen a discussion group or mailing list grow quickly is familiar with this phenomenon.)"
Mini discussion of it here.
posted by jkottke at 9:58 AM on April 8, 2002
Also related, Clay Shirky's Communities, Audiences, and Scale (italics mine):
"As group size grows past any individual's ability to maintain connections to all members of a group, the density shrinks, and as the group grows very large (>10,000) the number of actual connections drops to less than 1% of the potential connections, even if each member of the group knows dozens of other members. Thus growth in size is enough to alter the fabric of connection that makes a community work. (Anyone who has seen a discussion group or mailing list grow quickly is familiar with this phenomenon.)"
Mini discussion of it here.
posted by jkottke at 9:58 AM on April 8, 2002
I think that mefi should open up the doors and see what happens. If you place restrictions on the sign ups, who can and cannot, it makes mefi less of a community and more of an elitist group of people.
thebwit, if you've ever participated in any completely open internet communities, I'm sure you'd change your tune. I've been online for over 7 years now, I've been on dozens of mailing lists, and participated in many communities. The more open communities always seems to suffer in the end, and that's why I no longer read slashdot, and why I unsubscribed from one mailing list after another. As soon as they popular, random people come in with no sense of the community and disrupt the place. There's only one list I've been on for four years and it's because the list admin boots anyone that doesn't follow the rules and he personally approves the incoming applicants. Is that elitist? Yes it is. Is that bad? No, if it makes for a manageable load and a community that doesn't collapse onto itself.
One last concern I have is when I signed up to be a member, the sign ups were turned off, yet I found a way in. Since then there have been roughly 530 new member sign ups all the same way that I signed up. Will this back door method have the same restrictions as the front door? IE if you have to pay to be a member through the front, what about through the back?
That hole is currently shut, and in the future, signing up through one space won't give instant access to the other spaces.
Regarding the idle members, there's no reason why I would ever want more members to post links or comments, there are already plenty. A lurking member is pretty light on resources and a member that has abandoned their account uses no resources. Replacing either with a new, enthusiastic member isn't going to even anything out, it would consume resources.
Community loads aren't liquids that only fit in certain containers, taking some people out and letting others in isn't the only way to manage a community. The biggest problem thus far has been educating new influxes of members. The slow signup system that only allows for people to come in at a regular rate would be the best deterrent against 500 new members one day. So would increasing the amount of education, though I can't guarantee anyone will ever read anything put in front of them.
I'm still weighing the options, and there very well may be categories and ratings someday, but something will be put on top of unfettered entry into metafilter. The reduction in admin time since memberships have been closed is reason enough to want a manageable community to continue, but I'm also aware of the problems with stagnation.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:04 AM on April 8, 2002
thebwit, if you've ever participated in any completely open internet communities, I'm sure you'd change your tune. I've been online for over 7 years now, I've been on dozens of mailing lists, and participated in many communities. The more open communities always seems to suffer in the end, and that's why I no longer read slashdot, and why I unsubscribed from one mailing list after another. As soon as they popular, random people come in with no sense of the community and disrupt the place. There's only one list I've been on for four years and it's because the list admin boots anyone that doesn't follow the rules and he personally approves the incoming applicants. Is that elitist? Yes it is. Is that bad? No, if it makes for a manageable load and a community that doesn't collapse onto itself.
One last concern I have is when I signed up to be a member, the sign ups were turned off, yet I found a way in. Since then there have been roughly 530 new member sign ups all the same way that I signed up. Will this back door method have the same restrictions as the front door? IE if you have to pay to be a member through the front, what about through the back?
That hole is currently shut, and in the future, signing up through one space won't give instant access to the other spaces.
Regarding the idle members, there's no reason why I would ever want more members to post links or comments, there are already plenty. A lurking member is pretty light on resources and a member that has abandoned their account uses no resources. Replacing either with a new, enthusiastic member isn't going to even anything out, it would consume resources.
Community loads aren't liquids that only fit in certain containers, taking some people out and letting others in isn't the only way to manage a community. The biggest problem thus far has been educating new influxes of members. The slow signup system that only allows for people to come in at a regular rate would be the best deterrent against 500 new members one day. So would increasing the amount of education, though I can't guarantee anyone will ever read anything put in front of them.
I'm still weighing the options, and there very well may be categories and ratings someday, but something will be put on top of unfettered entry into metafilter. The reduction in admin time since memberships have been closed is reason enough to want a manageable community to continue, but I'm also aware of the problems with stagnation.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:04 AM on April 8, 2002
I'm having trouble distinguishing between the grandfathering system and the hot tub system. who would sponsor a random applicant if they could be held responsible for their behavior later on? and do we really want people to invite only their friends?
posted by rebeccablood at 10:04 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by rebeccablood at 10:04 AM on April 8, 2002
Just an idea:
How about probationary memberships?
Anyone can join. As soon as they join, there username is added to a list of probationary members, and is displayed on MeFi proper with a symbol of some sort signifying such. The list of probationary members has a mechanism allowing MeFi members to vote for or against the probies.
In order for a probationary member to become a full member, he/she must get ~10 net positive votes (or whatever -- it'd have to be tweaked).
Until such time, his posting and commenting abilities are restricted in an appropriate manner.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:10 AM on April 8, 2002
How about probationary memberships?
Anyone can join. As soon as they join, there username is added to a list of probationary members, and is displayed on MeFi proper with a symbol of some sort signifying such. The list of probationary members has a mechanism allowing MeFi members to vote for or against the probies.
In order for a probationary member to become a full member, he/she must get ~10 net positive votes (or whatever -- it'd have to be tweaked).
Until such time, his posting and commenting abilities are restricted in an appropriate manner.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:10 AM on April 8, 2002
I think a small fee for new members is a good idea, not in that it would discourage new members, but that it would give Matt some dough.
Have you donated to your overworked Haughey today?
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:12 AM on April 8, 2002
Have you donated to your overworked Haughey today?
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:12 AM on April 8, 2002
I think a small fee for new members is a good idea, not in that it would discourage new members, but that it would give Matt some dough.
Have you donated to your overworked Haughey today?
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:13 AM on April 8, 2002
Have you donated to your overworked Haughey today?
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:13 AM on April 8, 2002
I think the fee for memberships idea is good, too. I wouldn't even grumble about a retroactive fee, and would be happy to sponsor a few members with slim means, provided the cost isn't prohibitive.
posted by jennyb at 10:19 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by jennyb at 10:19 AM on April 8, 2002
Well, so much for any conservative members making it if that happens :-)
However, the idea of probationary membership is a good idea. But why not let Matt pick a Mefi Board -made up of people he knows to be fair - to make the judgement. the Board could be made up of people from across the political spectrum, and that way no one could say they were excluded because they were demublican or republicrat or a follower of Ayn Raynd or Lyndon Larouche (sp?) or whatever.
The Metafilter Supremes. (TM)
Gotta love it.......
posted by bunnyfire at 10:21 AM on April 8, 2002
However, the idea of probationary membership is a good idea. But why not let Matt pick a Mefi Board -made up of people he knows to be fair - to make the judgement. the Board could be made up of people from across the political spectrum, and that way no one could say they were excluded because they were demublican or republicrat or a follower of Ayn Raynd or Lyndon Larouche (sp?) or whatever.
The Metafilter Supremes. (TM)
Gotta love it.......
posted by bunnyfire at 10:21 AM on April 8, 2002
There's no WE in MATT.
But there is a WIE in MATHOWIE!
posted by iceberg273 at 10:33 AM on April 8, 2002
But there is a WIE in MATHOWIE!
posted by iceberg273 at 10:33 AM on April 8, 2002
<offtopic> Best response ever to "There is no 'I' in 'team'." is "Yeah, well there's a 'U' in 'dumbass'..." </offtopic>
Personally, I feel that the combination of "e-mail verification, membership fee, waiting period" offers the best deterrent for spastic behavior. In an open membership system, the e-mail verification prevents people from creating dozens of bogus accounts, provided they don't have dozens of valid e-mail addresses. The membership fee (albeit reasonable) ensures that people won't register simply to flame others. And, even if they do, the waiting period will likely deter said flaming, as most reactionary behavior will have dwindled (and the post will likely have scrolled off the front page) by the time they can post.
The only caveat I can see to a pay-for-play membership is that some people simply don't have the method (credit card) or the means (financially) to afford paid membership, and I'd hate to exclude someone for monetary reasons.
Mr. Haughey could always, of course, set up some sort of sponsorship program whereby existing members could volunteer to pay a new member's fee. Sort of a personal grandfathering system, without being hardcoded into the MeFi codex.
posted by Danelope at 10:54 AM on April 8, 2002
Personally, I feel that the combination of "e-mail verification, membership fee, waiting period" offers the best deterrent for spastic behavior. In an open membership system, the e-mail verification prevents people from creating dozens of bogus accounts, provided they don't have dozens of valid e-mail addresses. The membership fee (albeit reasonable) ensures that people won't register simply to flame others. And, even if they do, the waiting period will likely deter said flaming, as most reactionary behavior will have dwindled (and the post will likely have scrolled off the front page) by the time they can post.
The only caveat I can see to a pay-for-play membership is that some people simply don't have the method (credit card) or the means (financially) to afford paid membership, and I'd hate to exclude someone for monetary reasons.
Mr. Haughey could always, of course, set up some sort of sponsorship program whereby existing members could volunteer to pay a new member's fee. Sort of a personal grandfathering system, without being hardcoded into the MeFi codex.
posted by Danelope at 10:54 AM on April 8, 2002
whee!
posted by acridrabbit at 11:03 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by acridrabbit at 11:03 AM on April 8, 2002
There's only one list I've been on for four years and it's because the list admin boots anyone that doesn't follow the rules and he personally approves the incoming applicants. Is that elitist? Yes it is. Is that bad? No, if it makes for a manageable load and a community that doesn't collapse onto itself.
I still think anyone should be allowed in - but as this admin of your list does, booting and banning people for not following the rules is a good idea.
Which then brings up another point of making a faq with which rules are not breakable (thus you get banned) and those that will only piss off the community and you sort of just go away for a while.
posted by thebwit at 11:18 AM on April 8, 2002
I still think anyone should be allowed in - but as this admin of your list does, booting and banning people for not following the rules is a good idea.
Which then brings up another point of making a faq with which rules are not breakable (thus you get banned) and those that will only piss off the community and you sort of just go away for a while.
posted by thebwit at 11:18 AM on April 8, 2002
rcb: and do we really want people to invite only their friends?
I was thinking the same. I can think of an instance or two lately where people that know each other IRL ganged up on an unsuspecting person that disagreed with something one of them said. The pile ons were done with humor, but that might not always be the case, and I would hate for that kind of thing to become commonplace.
Grandfathering isn't a bad idea if each member gets to sponsor one person, and one person only. It cuts down on the nepotism and forces you to be discriminating. Think how selective you'd be if you had the privilege of only inviting one person to join MetaFilter. Who would you pick, and why? Then after a period of time predetermined by Matt, the new member gets to invite someone. And so on and so on and so on and so on. Like a Herbal Essence shampoo commerical.
I love making up the rules for MetaFilter and MetaTalk. It gives me such a sense of power. Funny, I've yet to see any of my rules actually implemented yet. I'm sure Matt's working on it, though.
posted by iconomy at 11:19 AM on April 8, 2002
I was thinking the same. I can think of an instance or two lately where people that know each other IRL ganged up on an unsuspecting person that disagreed with something one of them said. The pile ons were done with humor, but that might not always be the case, and I would hate for that kind of thing to become commonplace.
Grandfathering isn't a bad idea if each member gets to sponsor one person, and one person only. It cuts down on the nepotism and forces you to be discriminating. Think how selective you'd be if you had the privilege of only inviting one person to join MetaFilter. Who would you pick, and why? Then after a period of time predetermined by Matt, the new member gets to invite someone. And so on and so on and so on and so on. Like a Herbal Essence shampoo commerical.
I love making up the rules for MetaFilter and MetaTalk. It gives me such a sense of power. Funny, I've yet to see any of my rules actually implemented yet. I'm sure Matt's working on it, though.
posted by iconomy at 11:19 AM on April 8, 2002
here's another vote for a faq, if only to reduce the number of "what constitutes a double post" threads.
posted by Dean King at 11:52 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by Dean King at 11:52 AM on April 8, 2002
There will always be double post threads. They are as ubiquitous as pancakes and bunnies. Just not quite as tasty.(as the pancakes. Get away from me with that skillet!)
posted by bunnyfire at 11:57 AM on April 8, 2002
posted by bunnyfire at 11:57 AM on April 8, 2002
Here's something off the top of my head (dusts off shoulders) in regard to fees.
Something like a "cuss jar" could be set up rather than a "tip jar." Or like a penalty box where you have to sit until you pay your fine (buy your way back in, that is). Again, this is just thinking out loud, but maybe there could be a "karma vote" like in Greymatter and a sliding scale so users could be charged according to how many posts they make which draw an overall negative karma rating.
What I'm saying is, if a user is taking up a lot of community bandwidth but the community doesn't feel their posts are really adding value to the community, maybe they should be charged for it accordingly.
And just possibly less bandwidth would be used by MeTa threads complaining about posts, if users could just click a minus sign or something to vote negative karma.
(and wow, I'd forgotten all about (.) (.))
posted by StOne at 1:05 PM on April 8, 2002
Something like a "cuss jar" could be set up rather than a "tip jar." Or like a penalty box where you have to sit until you pay your fine (buy your way back in, that is). Again, this is just thinking out loud, but maybe there could be a "karma vote" like in Greymatter and a sliding scale so users could be charged according to how many posts they make which draw an overall negative karma rating.
What I'm saying is, if a user is taking up a lot of community bandwidth but the community doesn't feel their posts are really adding value to the community, maybe they should be charged for it accordingly.
And just possibly less bandwidth would be used by MeTa threads complaining about posts, if users could just click a minus sign or something to vote negative karma.
(and wow, I'd forgotten all about (.) (.))
posted by StOne at 1:05 PM on April 8, 2002
We need more threads with references to pancakes and bunnies. That's what made MetaFilter such a great site. Also, but how can I say no to my own husband...? Well, you can't. Read Ephesians.
posted by anildash at 1:11 PM on April 8, 2002
posted by anildash at 1:11 PM on April 8, 2002
The problem with Karma systems are how often will they be abused to silence people who just don't agree? There is no system that's immune to abuse.
posted by Apoch at 1:24 PM on April 8, 2002
posted by Apoch at 1:24 PM on April 8, 2002
Also, but how can I say no to my own husband...? Well, you can't. Read Ephesians.
Ha! Karma vote +++++++
posted by jennyb at 1:45 PM on April 8, 2002
Ha! Karma vote +++++++
posted by jennyb at 1:45 PM on April 8, 2002
Anildash, you have captured my dilemma exactly.
DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO SPONSOR HIM I BEG YOU !
he makes aaron look like a liberal...and don't tell him I said that.
posted by bunnyfire at 1:47 PM on April 8, 2002
DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO SPONSOR HIM I BEG YOU !
he makes aaron look like a liberal...and don't tell him I said that.
posted by bunnyfire at 1:47 PM on April 8, 2002
I agree that user education is the most important thing here (more later) to me the keep-alive account is still at least mildly appealing. People make quite a lot of the fact that there are 13k+ metafilter users here, but we don't know what proportion of them are active. I know that my brother, who signed up before I did, hasn't logged in for at least a year. This sort of attrition will fluctuate and probably increase with time, so when a cap is put on numbers, what does that actually translate to in terms of active members. My point is - if you go and sign up 100 new members, what proportion of them will even make a single post or comment (i.e. simply using the 'new posts/comments' facilities)?
Anyway, keep-alive accounts are obviously not the perfect solution, as a few people have pointed out.
About user education - I'm on a mailing list which has survived at least three years without a single flame war and has traffic of maybe 100 emails per day, with several dozen active users. The list is on open subscription. The reason we've managed to keep it so consistently civil is because every single user has been practically evangelical in 'educating' every new listee. If they are insulting, or make a faux pas, or say something inappropriate, they are dealt with in the most patient manner (for readers of Iain M Banks novels, we're like the Elench). If they persist in being annoying, we just outlast them and eventually they get tired of receiving 3000+ emails per month and just unsubscribe.
Can this work for Mefi? Probably not, because there are vasty more users involved. But to me it does show that it is possible to have a mailing list that is full of sweetness and light, and yet also discusses all sorts of interesting things and has presidential economics advisers and Indian novelists on it.
posted by adrianhon at 2:01 PM on April 8, 2002
Anyway, keep-alive accounts are obviously not the perfect solution, as a few people have pointed out.
About user education - I'm on a mailing list which has survived at least three years without a single flame war and has traffic of maybe 100 emails per day, with several dozen active users. The list is on open subscription. The reason we've managed to keep it so consistently civil is because every single user has been practically evangelical in 'educating' every new listee. If they are insulting, or make a faux pas, or say something inappropriate, they are dealt with in the most patient manner (for readers of Iain M Banks novels, we're like the Elench). If they persist in being annoying, we just outlast them and eventually they get tired of receiving 3000+ emails per month and just unsubscribe.
Can this work for Mefi? Probably not, because there are vasty more users involved. But to me it does show that it is possible to have a mailing list that is full of sweetness and light, and yet also discusses all sorts of interesting things and has presidential economics advisers and Indian novelists on it.
posted by adrianhon at 2:01 PM on April 8, 2002
I'll have to grandfather in my better half mainly to prove that she does, in fact, exist. Although she'd probably show up in some thread and say,
"Any of you seen jonmc? There's a pickle jar I need opened."
BTW, Matt, I won Kinks tickets on the radio once, so there goes that theory.
posted by jonmc at 2:36 PM on April 8, 2002
"Any of you seen jonmc? There's a pickle jar I need opened."
BTW, Matt, I won Kinks tickets on the radio once, so there goes that theory.
posted by jonmc at 2:36 PM on April 8, 2002
I joined last year (almost to the day actually) although I don't remember joining. It was only a few months ago that I heard about MeFi through some other blogs and started following it daily. I didn't know when the new memberships would be allowed, so I dutifully checked the new member page each day to see if it had been updated to allow memberships.
I was searching Altavista for my site to see who had links to me and lo and behold there was my profile on MeFi. So, having just recently been one who was waiting to get in, I like the idea of paying. The grandfather idea seems like a decent alternative to payment, to cover people that don't have money but have friends. If someone doesn't have money or friends, they would just have to make one or the other. It would limit the number of new incoming users as well as verifying their interest in MeFi.
posted by jaden at 3:46 PM on April 8, 2002
I was searching Altavista for my site to see who had links to me and lo and behold there was my profile on MeFi. So, having just recently been one who was waiting to get in, I like the idea of paying. The grandfather idea seems like a decent alternative to payment, to cover people that don't have money but have friends. If someone doesn't have money or friends, they would just have to make one or the other. It would limit the number of new incoming users as well as verifying their interest in MeFi.
posted by jaden at 3:46 PM on April 8, 2002
I'm most likely not going to do the grandfather system, but I'm surprised that everyone took it to mean some sort of friends deal. Here are more specifics I had in mind, but that I didn't describe fully:
- you would get a *random* list of people applying, and you'd be limited to allowing one per week in. You wouldn't see your friends, you'd see five random people. You could not reload until your friend's name pops up.
- applying for membership might include writing a paragraph of why you want to get in, and people could read this when considering the five random people they let in. Better writers have better chances of getting in (this is a good thing).
- I don't see how it would narrow viewpoints or lead to nepotism if you are constantly meeting and greeting strangers. Think of this as the bigger brother-little sister program at college. Your first week, some random senior class member tours around the campus with you, showing you where everything is and what's what. From that point on, you have a new friend, and you might interact with them more in the future. This is one thing I hoped would occur; random people would be forced to interact with each other and possibly forge new friendships.
- The punishment on the admitting member was just a thought and not something I would do anything drastic for. I was just looking for a way to spread the admin duties. I basically have to watch everything, and watch everyone. If you let some new guy in, and you're watching him, it'd be nice if you could email him and say it's not cool to sign your posts with your name and email instead of me having to do that.
- Once someone was in, they could start admitting one person a week themselves, probably after being a member for a month or two. Every old member would get to admit others.
I thought of this option specifically so the site could grow with unconnected strangers, and not just be a friends-of-friends deal. It would also create relationships with random new people and random older members that could possibly outlast the site participation. I thought it was a vast improvement over a simple hot-tub option.
I still don't know how I'm going to do a metered entry system. I don't want people to program perl scripts to randomly check and announce when it opens. I don't necessarily want everyone to pummel that page. Perhaps people could apply for a membership and get on a waiting list, with ten new people being added each day, on a first come, first served basis, with a possible "pay $2-3 to get in now" option, to mimic the way jail works in monopoly. You can try rolling doubles three times or pay to get out and get on with your turn.
The bottom line is managed growth is the only way growth will be occuring here in the future.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:26 PM on April 8, 2002
- you would get a *random* list of people applying, and you'd be limited to allowing one per week in. You wouldn't see your friends, you'd see five random people. You could not reload until your friend's name pops up.
- applying for membership might include writing a paragraph of why you want to get in, and people could read this when considering the five random people they let in. Better writers have better chances of getting in (this is a good thing).
- I don't see how it would narrow viewpoints or lead to nepotism if you are constantly meeting and greeting strangers. Think of this as the bigger brother-little sister program at college. Your first week, some random senior class member tours around the campus with you, showing you where everything is and what's what. From that point on, you have a new friend, and you might interact with them more in the future. This is one thing I hoped would occur; random people would be forced to interact with each other and possibly forge new friendships.
- The punishment on the admitting member was just a thought and not something I would do anything drastic for. I was just looking for a way to spread the admin duties. I basically have to watch everything, and watch everyone. If you let some new guy in, and you're watching him, it'd be nice if you could email him and say it's not cool to sign your posts with your name and email instead of me having to do that.
- Once someone was in, they could start admitting one person a week themselves, probably after being a member for a month or two. Every old member would get to admit others.
I thought of this option specifically so the site could grow with unconnected strangers, and not just be a friends-of-friends deal. It would also create relationships with random new people and random older members that could possibly outlast the site participation. I thought it was a vast improvement over a simple hot-tub option.
I still don't know how I'm going to do a metered entry system. I don't want people to program perl scripts to randomly check and announce when it opens. I don't necessarily want everyone to pummel that page. Perhaps people could apply for a membership and get on a waiting list, with ten new people being added each day, on a first come, first served basis, with a possible "pay $2-3 to get in now" option, to mimic the way jail works in monopoly. You can try rolling doubles three times or pay to get out and get on with your turn.
The bottom line is managed growth is the only way growth will be occuring here in the future.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:26 PM on April 8, 2002
The bottom line is managed growth is the only way growth will be occuring here in the future.
Which was precisely the point of my post. I want growth, but I didn't want the free flow that happened after your vacation in August or during the 9/11 period. Thanks.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:35 PM on April 8, 2002
Which was precisely the point of my post. I want growth, but I didn't want the free flow that happened after your vacation in August or during the 9/11 period. Thanks.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:35 PM on April 8, 2002
I really like the idea of grandparenting. Mat throw out the suggestion of one a week. What about ten ever? Just some limited that really made you think really hard before sponsoring someone.
posted by RobertLoch at 4:49 PM on April 8, 2002
posted by RobertLoch at 4:49 PM on April 8, 2002
I want growth, but I didn't want the free flow that happened after your vacation in August or during the 9/11 period.
Perhaps from now on, BlueTrain, it would be more polite to say "I'd like growth", instead of "I want growth" and "I wouldn't have liked the free flow" instead of "I didn't want the free flow".
If you study Matt's style even more closely you'll find he himself is quite frugal with the use of the verb to want. Otherwise, people will think that, despite having joined us long after the events you referred to, you own the place or something. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:03 PM on April 8, 2002
Perhaps from now on, BlueTrain, it would be more polite to say "I'd like growth", instead of "I want growth" and "I wouldn't have liked the free flow" instead of "I didn't want the free flow".
If you study Matt's style even more closely you'll find he himself is quite frugal with the use of the verb to want. Otherwise, people will think that, despite having joined us long after the events you referred to, you own the place or something. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:03 PM on April 8, 2002
Nice idea RobertLoch. Or maybe like 10 per year, one a month, etc.
*stating the obvious -- the key here is to get everyone involved in the grandparenting, though, so we don't get an influx of pro-this or anti-that or x vs y or whatever. Balance is a good thing. So, we need people from both sides to participate in this, should it happen.
posted by Ufez Jones at 5:17 PM on April 8, 2002
*stating the obvious -- the key here is to get everyone involved in the grandparenting, though, so we don't get an influx of pro-this or anti-that or x vs y or whatever. Balance is a good thing. So, we need people from both sides to participate in this, should it happen.
posted by Ufez Jones at 5:17 PM on April 8, 2002
Otherwise, people will think that, despite having joined us long after the events you referred to, you own the place or something. ;)
Ha! Funny Miguel...I misstated, though. When I said thanks, I meant: I appreciate the response, Matt. As for you, Miguel, certainly a man of your stature and class here is better than to take cheap shots at me. If you aren't the man behind MiguelFilter, however, I will be glad to spar with you.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:22 PM on April 8, 2002
Ha! Funny Miguel...I misstated, though. When I said thanks, I meant: I appreciate the response, Matt. As for you, Miguel, certainly a man of your stature and class here is better than to take cheap shots at me. If you aren't the man behind MiguelFilter, however, I will be glad to spar with you.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:22 PM on April 8, 2002
I still don't know how I'm going to do a metered entry system.
Maybe hide some required daily code or the actual link to a custom sign in page as an easter egg in random threads. That way, people would have to actively read/participate in the site in order to find the way in. That way you would limit the number of signups to people who actively read the site or who are really committed to jumping through hoops to become members.
So that you don't have to actually insert the code each day, maybe you could have somebody that knows perl code up something that automatically inserts it into the bottom of some randomly chosen user's comment each day.
posted by willnot at 6:08 PM on April 8, 2002
Maybe hide some required daily code or the actual link to a custom sign in page as an easter egg in random threads. That way, people would have to actively read/participate in the site in order to find the way in. That way you would limit the number of signups to people who actively read the site or who are really committed to jumping through hoops to become members.
So that you don't have to actually insert the code each day, maybe you could have somebody that knows perl code up something that automatically inserts it into the bottom of some randomly chosen user's comment each day.
posted by willnot at 6:08 PM on April 8, 2002
I was just looking for a way to spread the admin duties.
And so deserved. If some system could be worked out in greater detail, such as you described, I think that it could work. Anything that can manage growth and spread admin duties is something that should be taken seriously. I voice
posted by adampsyche at 7:12 PM on April 8, 2002
And so deserved. If some system could be worked out in greater detail, such as you described, I think that it could work. Anything that can manage growth and spread admin duties is something that should be taken seriously. I voice
posted by adampsyche at 7:12 PM on April 8, 2002
*oops*
I voiced skepticism, and am glad that it was explained a little further.
posted by adampsyche at 7:12 PM on April 8, 2002
I voiced skepticism, and am glad that it was explained a little further.
posted by adampsyche at 7:12 PM on April 8, 2002
Trust everyone, but cut the cards...
posted by Mack Twain at 7:43 PM on April 8, 2002
posted by Mack Twain at 7:43 PM on April 8, 2002
It sounds like you have a good handle on it, Matt (speaking strictly of the social-communal end -- wouldn't presume to have an opinion about the technical side). I just want to note that it feels to me not that we need "new blood" so much as there is (among many) a collective desire to have a sense of openness about the community -- particularly as none of us (to my knowledge) were invited. We just wandered into the party Matt was good enough to host. So it feels weird to say "close the door now, please" -- even if we know the party's getting very large and weird and it's hard to find the beer for all the dancing drunkards.
I am all for helping spread the admin load -- but I admit to having trouble with the idea that deciding who gets entry and who doesn't will be something we're all ready for (for example, say somebody like jonmc shows up, one's likely to be justifiably skeptical and...kidding! I'm kidding! Jon, put down that pickle jar!).
It's one thing to know the rules and help enforce them. It's another to evaluate someone's odds of being a good citizen -- to say nothing of the fact that different "big brothers/sisters" may have very different ideas about how to educate their sponsorees. That could make for some acrimonious MeTa threads ("Don't You Talk about Little BT Jr. that way!"). There'd be a whole new level of Metetiquette for us to agonize endlessly over...
My vote in the end would be for (modest) pay for play and email verification: those who value the community will come or will stay, and those mild barriers will help check unlimited growth without asking us to take on the more complex social responsibilities of sponsorship. But Matt, if you want to make a go of that more (to my mind) ambitious method, you'll have no shortage of help trying to make it work out.
posted by BT at 8:00 PM on April 8, 2002
I am all for helping spread the admin load -- but I admit to having trouble with the idea that deciding who gets entry and who doesn't will be something we're all ready for (for example, say somebody like jonmc shows up, one's likely to be justifiably skeptical and...kidding! I'm kidding! Jon, put down that pickle jar!).
It's one thing to know the rules and help enforce them. It's another to evaluate someone's odds of being a good citizen -- to say nothing of the fact that different "big brothers/sisters" may have very different ideas about how to educate their sponsorees. That could make for some acrimonious MeTa threads ("Don't You Talk about Little BT Jr. that way!"). There'd be a whole new level of Metetiquette for us to agonize endlessly over...
My vote in the end would be for (modest) pay for play and email verification: those who value the community will come or will stay, and those mild barriers will help check unlimited growth without asking us to take on the more complex social responsibilities of sponsorship. But Matt, if you want to make a go of that more (to my mind) ambitious method, you'll have no shortage of help trying to make it work out.
posted by BT at 8:00 PM on April 8, 2002
What about weekly nominations and elections for a limited number of new members? Too fancy?
posted by D at 8:17 PM on April 8, 2002
posted by D at 8:17 PM on April 8, 2002
I personally would like to avoid any system that discourage the minority voice from coming in. I like the way Matt is thinking of setting it up. I distrust votes. No butterfly ballots please! Seriously though, I don't trust diversity to be spread by a popular vote.
posted by Apoch at 8:49 PM on April 8, 2002
posted by Apoch at 8:49 PM on April 8, 2002
Hey stavros! I just got an email from Lemmy just emailed me, says he wants you to come over, said something about knee-pads....*shrugs*
posted by jonmc at 9:12 PM on April 8, 2002
posted by jonmc at 9:12 PM on April 8, 2002
There'd be a whole new level of Metetiquette for us to agonize endlessly over...
well, isn't that the real goal? ;)
I've been online for over 7 years now
oh god, my worldview is falling apart, i got on irc at a much too early age i think...
Anyway, i just want to put in my 2¢, a few people have talked about a moderation system of some kind, and while i used to think that was a good idea, i'm now very opposed. if it's decided that we need something to cut down on noise then down-modding things would be ok. up-modding, while it seems nicer, i think completely ruins the community. instead of posting things based on your views and ideas people only post what they think will be modded up; it becomes a game. and in the case of scoop and slashcode it's a game with rewards, you get to see the submission queue, or the elusive 0 rating, or all your comments start +1 etc. you end up writing comments that will get moderated up, and not that reflect what you actually think. in a perfect world a well thought comment should be moderated up, and the writer shouldn't have to think of that. in actuality, however, knowing a community it is far easier to use a synthetic formulaic comment that has been designed to be moderated up by the community you're familiar with.
i'm not saying this as someone who is always down moderated in other online communities, i'm saying it as someone who can't resist playing the game. metafilter is unique in that people can say what they want without the goal of being rewarded in some way. i do not think that down-modding people would have a similar cultural effect, no one would have to alter their comments in order to get rewarded, but bad comments would still be punished. if people are concerned about misuse of this system perhaps a meta-moderation (like slashdot now) would work. i'm thinking something like 3 strikes the comment is hidden...
of course this would take a lot of effort, and i don't think it's that important, i just wouldn't want to see mefi go to some current moderation system, if it's decided we need one, i think a new one should be devised.
posted by rhyax at 9:27 PM on April 8, 2002
well, isn't that the real goal? ;)
I've been online for over 7 years now
oh god, my worldview is falling apart, i got on irc at a much too early age i think...
Anyway, i just want to put in my 2¢, a few people have talked about a moderation system of some kind, and while i used to think that was a good idea, i'm now very opposed. if it's decided that we need something to cut down on noise then down-modding things would be ok. up-modding, while it seems nicer, i think completely ruins the community. instead of posting things based on your views and ideas people only post what they think will be modded up; it becomes a game. and in the case of scoop and slashcode it's a game with rewards, you get to see the submission queue, or the elusive 0 rating, or all your comments start +1 etc. you end up writing comments that will get moderated up, and not that reflect what you actually think. in a perfect world a well thought comment should be moderated up, and the writer shouldn't have to think of that. in actuality, however, knowing a community it is far easier to use a synthetic formulaic comment that has been designed to be moderated up by the community you're familiar with.
i'm not saying this as someone who is always down moderated in other online communities, i'm saying it as someone who can't resist playing the game. metafilter is unique in that people can say what they want without the goal of being rewarded in some way. i do not think that down-modding people would have a similar cultural effect, no one would have to alter their comments in order to get rewarded, but bad comments would still be punished. if people are concerned about misuse of this system perhaps a meta-moderation (like slashdot now) would work. i'm thinking something like 3 strikes the comment is hidden...
of course this would take a lot of effort, and i don't think it's that important, i just wouldn't want to see mefi go to some current moderation system, if it's decided we need one, i think a new one should be devised.
posted by rhyax at 9:27 PM on April 8, 2002
Public nominations, probationary periods, grandfathering, and bunnyfire's cabal all sound like terrible ideas to me -- why should new users be forced to run a gauntlet that the rest of us were spared? It'd be creepy if users felt like they had to suck up to whoever voted them in, for fear of getting kicked back out again.
A randomly-selected quota sounds fairest to me: let anybody who wants to join fill in the new member form, and matt runs a script once a day that chooses n of them at random. That keeps the perl scripters from having an unfair advantage, and also might help cut down on the number of users who are signing up only to say one Very Important Thing (since there's a built-in delay between signing up and actually getting to post anything).
posted by ook at 9:30 PM on April 8, 2002
A randomly-selected quota sounds fairest to me: let anybody who wants to join fill in the new member form, and matt runs a script once a day that chooses n of them at random. That keeps the perl scripters from having an unfair advantage, and also might help cut down on the number of users who are signing up only to say one Very Important Thing (since there's a built-in delay between signing up and actually getting to post anything).
posted by ook at 9:30 PM on April 8, 2002
The grandfather system sounds like a round of blind dates, rather like some of those hideous reality shows on recently. Horrible. I can think of only a few members who would cheerfully enter into such a situation and do it thoroughly, and I'm not sure MeFi can handle a population indoctrinated by Mig.. ahem :), any of them. I like the idea of the signup page being a randomly occuring Easter egg where Matt could raise or lower the occurance as necessary. Just my opinion.
I lurked for several months and only finally signed up when Matt threatened to turn it all off last summer. Somebody mentioned starting another site and only letting in people that they knew. That scared me -- I didn't want to be left out of the In Crowd. I think there is value to forcing people to lurk before posting, so a delay before posting comments would be good. I also think there is great value in diversity, so the hot tub thing, while a good name, would have kept me out for example, because I don't know any of you. So I ditto all that has been said about randomly based controls.
posted by dness2 at 12:05 AM on April 9, 2002
I lurked for several months and only finally signed up when Matt threatened to turn it all off last summer. Somebody mentioned starting another site and only letting in people that they knew. That scared me -- I didn't want to be left out of the In Crowd. I think there is value to forcing people to lurk before posting, so a delay before posting comments would be good. I also think there is great value in diversity, so the hot tub thing, while a good name, would have kept me out for example, because I don't know any of you. So I ditto all that has been said about randomly based controls.
posted by dness2 at 12:05 AM on April 9, 2002
What makes the most sense to me is for Matt to come up with some number that he thinks is the maximum sustainable number of participants. Then figure out how many more participants there are than there are now and divide that difference by fifteen (or another number) and then admit that many new members for fifteen (or another number of) weeks.
I would suggest having people submit a short application (verifiable e-mail address and/or some other way of knowing that each person is only applying once) and then having a random selection whenever new memberships are open. I think grandfathering's a good idea, but it seems very clunky to administer. Besides, it's not really feasible to let every member let ten new people in, is it? Growth by a factor of ten is not much different from unlimited growth. It seems to me more likely that you'd allow something more like one new member for every five existing members, and you can see how that would get messy.
Over time, there's bound to be some attrition, and when enough of that happens, new enrollment periods could be opened.
I also think charging a modest admission fee is a good idea, but that consideration seems independent of other considerations. I also think a more extended probationary period is a good idea, but that also seems like an independent consideration.
posted by anapestic at 6:13 AM on April 9, 2002
I would suggest having people submit a short application (verifiable e-mail address and/or some other way of knowing that each person is only applying once) and then having a random selection whenever new memberships are open. I think grandfathering's a good idea, but it seems very clunky to administer. Besides, it's not really feasible to let every member let ten new people in, is it? Growth by a factor of ten is not much different from unlimited growth. It seems to me more likely that you'd allow something more like one new member for every five existing members, and you can see how that would get messy.
Over time, there's bound to be some attrition, and when enough of that happens, new enrollment periods could be opened.
I also think charging a modest admission fee is a good idea, but that consideration seems independent of other considerations. I also think a more extended probationary period is a good idea, but that also seems like an independent consideration.
posted by anapestic at 6:13 AM on April 9, 2002
Iconomy: I must be blind - I don't see where he says he's going to turn sign-ups back on
It was mentioned on the sidebar of MetaTalk:
I'm finally upgrading the server, and new user signups should be back on once that takes place.
posted by jaden at 10:01 AM on April 9, 2002
It was mentioned on the sidebar of MetaTalk:
I'm finally upgrading the server, and new user signups should be back on once that takes place.
posted by jaden at 10:01 AM on April 9, 2002
I am encouraged (but not surprised) that Matt has given the matter such thoughtful consideration; however while understanding all of the concerns, I, myself, remain committed to the idea of an open membership. MeFi has become stale of late, and I believe this is directly attributable to the closed membership (aside from the "loophole," which I have always found elitist and profoundly unfair). More contribution is what is needed, not more control. Anything which makes the site more cliquish and clubby makes it less useful and more of a noisy pancake factory and support group for lonely geeks. And that's just not interesting.
posted by rushmc at 10:07 AM on April 9, 2002
posted by rushmc at 10:07 AM on April 9, 2002
To chime in with my point of view, as a lurker just starting to emerge and post comments:
Limiting the number of new members per day (with a built-in delay and a script that chooses randomly after requests are made -- not something programmers can exploit) sounds like a good idea. [I agree entirely with ook's post above.]
User education is also a good idea. Possibly make the guidelines more prominent. Re-reading them today was pretty instructive for me. What if they popped up every 50th/100th/?th time a member posts, or were emailed to members every X number of months? Less intrusively, perhaps they could be emphasized more, in an ad-like fashion.
A FAQ might be good simply because people are used to looking for a "FAQ". It could even essentially echo the guidelines without being redundant, since different people use different navigational paths to access the same info.
The grandfather/application idea sounds a little bit... problematic. I personally wouldn't want to be responsible for the membership of someone I didn't know. I guess if people wanted to get into the practice of sponsoring, it wouldn't bother me, but I wouldn't like to have to do it to keep my membership. (Though I don't think that's been suggested, has it?)
Also, my personal taste is to avoid sites that use karma. I'd rather see membership limited than karma implemented. That's one reason I visit this site (other than that the links are generally interesting and the discussion is of MUCH higher quality than, well, much of the rest of the web).
It sounds like Matt is against forcing people to post every so often to keep their memberships, which makes me happy.
I also like the idea of a NewsFilter a lot. I would probably visit that side of things about 1/5 as much as I would MetaFilter proper.
Pay for play sounds fine to me -- I'd gladly pay and could also subsidize others -- but there are probably some people that would otherwise be great contributors that would be barred because of a requirement to pay. Perhaps there could be some kind of ratio of members to contributions that would need to be upheld.
Or maybe the idea of "pay or delay" could be implemented somehow. (i.e. you can become a member immediately if you contribute X dollars, or you can sign up now and either become a probationary member or wait for random admission.)
Totally opening up membership would make two things more likely:
posted by gohlkus at 1:14 PM on April 9, 2002
Limiting the number of new members per day (with a built-in delay and a script that chooses randomly after requests are made -- not something programmers can exploit) sounds like a good idea. [I agree entirely with ook's post above.]
User education is also a good idea. Possibly make the guidelines more prominent. Re-reading them today was pretty instructive for me. What if they popped up every 50th/100th/?th time a member posts, or were emailed to members every X number of months? Less intrusively, perhaps they could be emphasized more, in an ad-like fashion.
A FAQ might be good simply because people are used to looking for a "FAQ". It could even essentially echo the guidelines without being redundant, since different people use different navigational paths to access the same info.
The grandfather/application idea sounds a little bit... problematic. I personally wouldn't want to be responsible for the membership of someone I didn't know. I guess if people wanted to get into the practice of sponsoring, it wouldn't bother me, but I wouldn't like to have to do it to keep my membership. (Though I don't think that's been suggested, has it?)
Also, my personal taste is to avoid sites that use karma. I'd rather see membership limited than karma implemented. That's one reason I visit this site (other than that the links are generally interesting and the discussion is of MUCH higher quality than, well, much of the rest of the web).
It sounds like Matt is against forcing people to post every so often to keep their memberships, which makes me happy.
I also like the idea of a NewsFilter a lot. I would probably visit that side of things about 1/5 as much as I would MetaFilter proper.
Pay for play sounds fine to me -- I'd gladly pay and could also subsidize others -- but there are probably some people that would otherwise be great contributors that would be barred because of a requirement to pay. Perhaps there could be some kind of ratio of members to contributions that would need to be upheld.
Or maybe the idea of "pay or delay" could be implemented somehow. (i.e. you can become a member immediately if you contribute X dollars, or you can sign up now and either become a probationary member or wait for random admission.)
Totally opening up membership would make two things more likely:
- Everyone who wants to become a member and contribute positively to the community would be able to join.
- People who flame, troll, and post inane junk and ads -- for whatever reason -- would gradually (or quickly) decrease the signal to noise ratio, to the detriment of MetaFilter.
posted by gohlkus at 1:14 PM on April 9, 2002
[Of course, if the site becomes less interesting, I might get more work done....]
posted by gohlkus at 1:28 PM on April 9, 2002
posted by gohlkus at 1:28 PM on April 9, 2002
Well, gohlkus: allow me to say I agree entirely. With everything. With bells on. Thanks.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:11 PM on April 9, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:11 PM on April 9, 2002
Would it be unworkable to have wannabes audition for membership? I'm thinking of some system where they bring us a link (no news links, for starters) and describe why they found the link interesting. That will give a sample of their communication skills as well as their ability to find interesting links. The applicant is only able to do an FPP -- no comments (those are reserved for members). If they don't make it the first time, try again.
I'm not sure how to score their efforts. A vote seems too clinical and blackballing is too harsh. Maybe it could be based on the quantity/quality of the reaction to their application.
Drawbacks: This would probably require a service separate from MeFi or MeTa (MeNu?) and would therefore increase the admin workload. Danger of becoming elitist.
Advantages: Another source of FPPS. A chance to check out the newcomer without opening the door all the way.
posted by joaquim at 3:48 PM on April 10, 2002
I'm not sure how to score their efforts. A vote seems too clinical and blackballing is too harsh. Maybe it could be based on the quantity/quality of the reaction to their application.
Drawbacks: This would probably require a service separate from MeFi or MeTa (MeNu?) and would therefore increase the admin workload. Danger of becoming elitist.
Advantages: Another source of FPPS. A chance to check out the newcomer without opening the door all the way.
posted by joaquim at 3:48 PM on April 10, 2002
Something to consider.....a high user ID does not necessarily indicate that a person is new to MetaFilter. My guess is that in a lot of cases (like myself) it's just that they didn't get around to registering earlier.
posted by jedro at 10:08 AM on April 11, 2002
posted by jedro at 10:08 AM on April 11, 2002
What clav said - there are a lot of unused ID's in the low ranges, and elsewhere...and the auction that OneBallJay (formerly known as AccountingBoy, if I remember correctly) won several months ago indicates the potetial revenues from selling off all those dead usernumbers might be substantial. If the user hasn't logged in in 6 months, or a year, off to the auction block!
I can see Matt perhaps not wanting to set too much of a monetary precedent there, but with the donations and the textads already in place, I reckon why not?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:58 PM on April 11, 2002
I can see Matt perhaps not wanting to set too much of a monetary precedent there, but with the donations and the textads already in place, I reckon why not?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:58 PM on April 11, 2002
User numbers don't mean much anymore - it's the 'member since' date that counts. 'Sure, you're only four-digits, but you're like, so totally post-911, lamer.' Or 'Oh yeah? Well, I was here last millennium.'
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:21 PM on April 11, 2002
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:21 PM on April 11, 2002
Finally someone speaks up for the oppressed! My user number, which is just under 11000, is in fact a mistake caused by the fact that I joined via the back-door in 1978, long before MetaFilter became official. I am, in fact, number 11. The great digital makeover of 1982, when Matt was nine, added the extra three zeros.
I should add, at this pont, that obiwanwasabi has promised me his number when he dies and that's feckin' good enough for me.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:48 PM on April 11, 2002
I should add, at this pont, that obiwanwasabi has promised me his number when he dies and that's feckin' good enough for me.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:48 PM on April 11, 2002
This is a pont, right?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:49 PM on April 11, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:49 PM on April 11, 2002
Miguel I'd give you my shiny 800 block number, the rent is slightly high, but you do get a fabulous view of the ocean. Hmm then I'd be numberless, and I ain't gonna live in the 10000s, that part of town is just not for me. No way am I commuting this far each day in crappy public transport buses.
posted by riffola at 9:59 PM on April 11, 2002
posted by riffola at 9:59 PM on April 11, 2002
Gee Riffola, thanks. So I can email Matt and ask him to add quotation marks to my user number and bracket your enviable three digits? The way I see it, it would look like this: "10947(really 814)". Meaning: they may look like five digits - but they're really three. Respect! You Brahmins - you may be considered snobs of the worst order, but you sure are generous. :)
I mean, that obiwanwasabi, for instance - he's a sweet-talker alright, a good friend and a delightful writer - but has he died and left me his number? Hell no! So I'll accept your offer, unreservedly. Cheers for that, old buddy! [You were the first person I ever requested to connect to me on ICQ - remember?]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:42 PM on April 11, 2002
I mean, that obiwanwasabi, for instance - he's a sweet-talker alright, a good friend and a delightful writer - but has he died and left me his number? Hell no! So I'll accept your offer, unreservedly. Cheers for that, old buddy! [You were the first person I ever requested to connect to me on ICQ - remember?]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:42 PM on April 11, 2002
If you really want it, we can ask Matt if he would be willing to do a swicheroo.
Speaking of user numbers, 666 hasn't been idling for over two years. That would make a really fun eBay auction.
Yeah I remember the ICQ thing, I still have you on my contact list. :)
posted by riffola at 12:12 AM on April 12, 2002
Speaking of user numbers, 666 hasn't been idling for over two years. That would make a really fun eBay auction.
Yeah I remember the ICQ thing, I still have you on my contact list. :)
posted by riffola at 12:12 AM on April 12, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by BlueTrain at 9:57 PM on April 7, 2002