I dug through this website and think it's what it claims it to be, a Democratic space for the online public to write about what they care about in politics.I also was impressed with this Electoral Scoreboard. But it took awhile to dig through to find it.
Here's what I don't like about it:
1. There's so much going on in the design that it's hard to focus on one blog entry.
2. The FAQ section is a wiki-based page. Does that mean everyone and anyone can update/alter the descriptions?
3. I'm not clear how any one blog gets to be the "top posting" on the website. Is it driven by the most recently added post? Or is there some other sort of method to it?
I like your observations about the site. When you mentioned how any one post gets to be the "top posting" it got me thinking about transparency. What risks and rewards would sites face if they looked into the kind of transparency you discuss?
ReplyDeleteHi Carlos!
ReplyDeleteI think the more transparent the site is, the more respect I'd give the site. Even if I don't agree with their policy, as to how they make the determination, it's good to know their decision-making process. If this is a truly "democratic" political blog site for the people, it's important that everyone does have a fair chance to be the top post.
I guess the risk for this policy is that no "writer" is special. They have hired writers on this blog too. So...how do you appreciate/highlight these writers for the blog if the policy says every gets a fair chance?
The novelty of getting published on this blog goes away...it's no longer "special" to be on this blog if it is completely by timing.
I guess it's a Catch 22.
The Internet capability for the users themselves to review and grade things individually on a line-item basis is having a huge effect on the media.
ReplyDeleteTraditionally, people depended on "editors' picks" and other panel type reviews to judge things from books to movies to cars to restaurants and on-and-on. This was true from the media side. (Word-of-mouth has always trumped everything else).
But now, with sites like DIGG, masses of users rate content and articles. People follow what other users see or think.
Amazon was one of the first places this started with user-generated book reviews. Many shopping sites allow users to rate products now. It is phenomenal. My family recently chose a day care based on user reviews.
What about "expert" rating - and the value of the editors' knowledge? Well, some sites I have seen also allow an editors' rating. Download.com, one of the oldest sites on the net (Cnet) has both user ratings and editor ratings on much of the freeware and shareware they have presented. It has been an interesting race over the years to see the two groups compete for an audience in their levels of "expetise."
I believe a ual-review model like that would be VERY viable for news media. But editors would have to be willing to enter the race with users who are very savvy, and, in a wisdom-of-crowds way, often more accurate in the aggregate. They have to lay their egos aside.
Hi Alan! Yeah...I think the EGO is a barrier to making journalism more inclusive lol! I think the internet has made things more egalitarian. BUT...only for those who have access to internet and who are..as you say..savvy about navigating the world wide web.
ReplyDelete