Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

This is a very creative answer Arthur.

I’ll be as creative as you:

Don’t bring back the seeds!

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

After thinking about it…Why not….But we should also expose moderators of pods to some ratings, in order that the most agreed upon members become moderators.

Patrick

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Patrick: This is a very creative answer Arthur.

I’ll be as creative as you:

Don’t bring back the seeds!

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi Arthur,

I feel a lot of anger towards you, and it dates back to the I-I pod. This just came back now! We’ll have to find a place to resolve this thing and I think this is not the place to do so - maybe a pod should be created that would be called the “resolve your anger with a mediator pod” - why not?

Anyway, I could not hold back and this is certainly not the place to do so. So excuse me, but this thing will have to be resolved.

Anyway, I just did not understand your answer to my post. So if you could be clearer, that would help me.

Be well,

Patrick

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I really appreciate your honesty, Patrick.

Liz

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I hate/love you to Liz, Lol.

The same for Arthur.

Unfinshed business…always coming back at us…ah shity shadow.

Hope we’ll resolve this one day.

Be well,

Patrick

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Patrick: I feel a lot of anger towards you, and it dates back to the I-I pod. This just came back now! We’ll have to find a place to resolve this thing and I think this is not the place to do so - maybe a pod should be created that would be called the “resolve your anger with a mediator pod” - why not?

Anyway, I could not hold back and this is certainly not the place to do so. So excuse me, but this thing will have to be resolved.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hello Arthur,

You say: “Yeah, I have a negative emotional resonance with you also, though I can’t remember precisely why.”

And : “I’m sure I had a good reason to feel upset with you, Patrick, and I’m sure it had something to do with my duties as a (former) moderator of IIZaadz pod.”

For the record: I don’t think you were upset with me, but I was with you. Discontented, I decided to leave the I-I pod.

You say: “However, I feel absolutely no need to resolve it with you, particularly as I’m not a moderator on that pod anymore.”

If I’m summarizing what you say, it goes like that (my perspective):”I don’t remember, but I was certainly right. And I don’t want to talk about it.”

Ok , I got the message. I’m just thinking that this answer is a bit of a paradox after what you wrote in this thread earlier, in order to support the good/bad seed system:

You wrote: ” I have benefited from people’s “negative” feedback at least as much as from their “positive” feedback. (In my Zaadz bio, one of the first things I let people know is that “heart-centered constructive criticism is always welcome.”

I think here you just refused to work through something. One can argue my critic was not “heart-centered”, but I can assure you I can sincerely hold back my anger and become constructive.

Anyway, again, this is not the place for that kind of matters.

I have heard your answer and the fact you don’t want to discuss it, and I respect it. let’s leave it that way.

Peace,

patrick

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Apologies to all for continuing a diversion from the main topic, but I want to clarify something:

~~~

Patrick wrote:

You say: “However, I feel absolutely no need to resolve it with you, particularly as I’m not a moderator on that pod anymore.”

If I’m summarizing what you say, it goes like that (my perspective):”I don’t remember, but I was certainly right. And I don’t want to talk about it.”

Ok , I got the message. I’m just thinking that this answer is a bit of a paradox after what you wrote in this thread earlier, in order to support the good/bad seed system:

You wrote: ” I have benefited from people’s “negative” feedback at least as much as from their “positive” feedback. (In my Zaadz bio, one of the first things I let people know is that “heart-centered constructive criticism is always welcome.”

I think here you just refused to work through something. One can argue my critic was not “heart-centered”, but I can assure you I can sincerely hold back my anger and become constructive.

~~~

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Beautifully articulate as ever, Arthur. Succinct and consonant with my own view, Patrick.

In principle, this sort of rating system works well when everybody in the community has an agreed judgement on what constitutes “quality” material…since my experience of the zaadzverse is that we are a diverse community arriving from all levels of the Spiral, “quality” is a highly relative term…and I suspect that this system is therefore more geared up to measure thepopularity of stuff rather than its quality…although, true…the two may overlap…perhaps the centre of gravity is a little higher upspiral here than mostly elsewhere…but I am not convinced that I will find quality material simply by following some cyber- beacon…I am more likely to do it through the grace of my own karmic fruition…I support any system which potentiates integral development..but the seed system is not it, in my opinion….the last thing I want is the equivalent of some sort of Deepak Zaady tabloid….om nama shivaya..J x

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi all,

I'd be interested in hearing from Jake more on what he meant over in the 'A Sad Development' thread when he said,

“If I could have developed a viable system that ONLY worked with positive feedback I would have. I tried but they were too easily gamed.”

The request raised by adastra, which I agree with, that returning to being able to nod in either direction is more meaningful than yeh-saying alone, could turn on what Jake was refering to by  “…too easily gamed”.

Kerry

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I VOTE FOR BAD SEEDS. Some days I may be more interested in learning of the 'dark side of zaadz' - we can only be good so much of the time (without becoming nauseatingly sweet). The 'seedy' underbelly of life offers much to ponder and can give life to creativity.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Sorry, I just remembered that when I  am setting up new work environments, I have learned far more from others when they tell me what 'didn't work' for them. It helped me avoid pitfalls (and expensive mistakes) that I may not have seen coming. So BAD isn't always to BAD if you can learn from yours or another's experience.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Bad seeds…good seeds…ok…but then put it on all levels of the hierarchy…

Otherwise it’s just as good as we beeing gladiators!

Be well, be unwell

Patrick

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I wish to critique my good friend Adastras idea of “bringing the bad seed point system back” who has asked for critique of his work, therefore, I will be glad to provide it forthwith.

(By the way, it's good to see you outside of the catacombs of the Integral pod)

Quoting you:

One of the great features of a well-designed rating system is that quality material would (in theory) tend to become more prominent, while poorly written, less interesting, or otherwise less compelling material would become less prominent - making it easier to find great stuff.  Are we going to be able to rate individual material (blog posts, pod posts, photographs etc.) at some point?

This “great stuff” is SUBJECTIVE as the aphorism: what one man consumes, another man regurgitates, applies here.

Your intention for the “great stuff” becoming prominent I think will come forth in a positive seed arrangement just as well as what I feel, would be a primarily negative bad seed system, without the negatives, that would exist in the bad-good seed system.

Also, as I've posted elsewhere I'm very disappointed that the Z-team has, at this point, backed down on the “bad seed” side of the equation.  In any endeavor I've undertaken, I've benefited from negative as well as positive feedback.  Imagine you are trying to learn to create great blog posts, essays, speeches, videos, or whatever - and the only feedback people can give is “good”, “great”, and “fantastic!” I have benefited from people's “negative” feedback at least as much as from their “positive” feedback.  (In my Zaadz bio, one of the first things I let people know is that “heart-centered constructive criticism is always welcome.”)

Yes, but this should be voluntary, not involuntary, in other words, if you feel a need to experience “negative feedback”  others don't necessarily feel this need, and if they do, it makes sense for them to ask for it, and it not be forced on them. For them to be subject to anonymous critique that may in fact be sourced in an opposing viewpoint whose motive is self-centered, or based on malicious personal agendas is dangerous in my view.

 People may not be willing to give honest negative feedback to my face, but in an anonymous system where they can give “bad seeds” to something I've written - or to my online persona as a whole - they may be more likely to give honest feedback.  Might some people abuse such a system, giving negative feedback due to projection of their own unresolved shadow issues?  Hell, yes!  But in a community that is reasonably healthy - as I believe Zaadz is - that would tend to be counterbalanced by positive feedback.  Especially if a) the system is set up to give somewhat more weight to “good seeds” than “bad seeds” and b) people who themselves have been given a lot of “bad seeds” will have less weight given to their own rating - because if someone is going around projecting their own emotional baggage in a hostile and attacking manner, people around them will recognize that and rate their contributions accordingly.  Both of those points were features of the new system as originally implemented.

You have a lot of different point in this paragraph, I will deal with individually:

First: “People may not be willing to give honest negative feedback to my face, but in an anonymous system where they can give “bad seeds” to something I've written - or to my online persona as a whole - they may be more likely to give honest feedback”

This may be the case, BUT, our objection to this system is not its good points, but its obviously intrinsic bad points, and abuse potential, that nefarious individuals and groups could do to take advantage of it as well as the stifling of the free exchange of ideas without being burdened by this reward and punishment system.   For example, a particular cult could join Zaadz, just to arrange for their particular cultic ideas to become PROMINENT by this system, and if we detect this, and therefore attempt to rectify it - this only serves to illustrate the problematic nature of the system, because of the energy expended in doing the rectification by the community.

Second:   Might some people abuse such a system, giving negative feedback due to projection of their own unresolved shadow issues?  Hell, yes! 

But this is not about shadow issues only (which we all have, and people understand this) this is about making shadow, a part of a systematic process, or institutionalizing it, that I believe we fear most about this system. That's why zaadz calls it a” trust system”

Third:   But in a community that is reasonably healthy - as I believe Zaadz is - that would tend to be counterbalanced by positive feedback.  Especially if a) the system is set up to give somewhat more weight to “good seeds” than “bad seeds” and b) people who themselves have been given a lot of “bad seeds” will have less weight given to their own rating - because if someone is going around projecting their own emotional baggage in a hostile and attacking manner, people around them will recognize that and rate their contributions accordingly.  Both of those points were features of the new system as originally implemented.

But whose to judge. What you may perceive as emotional subjective projection, another person may see as wisdom. Are we all astute enough in psychological shadow phenomena for everyone to be given the hammer of judgment in a systematic capacity? If one wants to judge another's work, in zaadz, as far as I know, they are perfectly free to do it. And if they don't have the courage of their convictions to do it up-front, than that's their problem. I have had personally critiques of my developed system of spiritual cosmology; I illustrate on my site, and blog, and have been perfectly able, and willing to defend it.

Fourth:  But in a community that is reasonably healthy - as I believe Zaadz is - that would tend to be counterbalanced by positive feedback. 

Again it's about the systematic nature of the abuse potential, in this bad-good seed idea, and the reality of its potential of doing much more bad than good, as well as the stifling of  the free exchange of ideas- without being burdened by this reward and punishment syndrome hanging over ones head.  Also, why do you assume the community is “reasonably healthy” if it needs such a system, isn't that somewhat contradictory?

Given that Zaadz is a system being used by humans, I guarantee you that people have been positively and negatively rating each other, sharing qualitative judgments about the work or online presence of others on the system, gravitating towards certain people and away from others - none of which is intrinsically unhealthy.  What the good seed/bad seed system did is bring more power and consciousness to what was already happening.  It was a good first attempt to help the social system as a whole self-regulate in a healthy manner

But I don't agree that a subjective judgmental system (beyond the idea of correcting abuse) is healthy at all. Particularly as I mentioned above, in the fact that few are qualified to judge others on a subtle level. Therefore the system of good-bad seed, would probably indulge in superficial judgments that would hardly be “qualitative” but most likely, presumptuously judgmental. With few being able to be “qualitative” at all.

With all due respect, that is the flaw, I believe, in your ideas, they are contradictory, and filled with assumptions:  The contradictions revolve around the fact that you would support this system that seems to be a radical solution to abuse- which indicates intrinsically that the community is not as healthy as you assume. But yet, you want to trust the communities' individuals to do “qualitative” judgments of others works, and personality, in which the foundational reasons for the systems existence, contradicts all of these assumptions.

In light of this reasoning, I hope we don't go back to the bad seed system.

Zakariyya

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Yeah…I forgot to mention the bad seed system…I am not in favour of it because i think that when under pressure, we regress phylogenetically…and become simians prone to chuck simian excrement at one another for all kinds of ostensibly irreproachable reasons… but, on closer examination  there's fear hormones at core…so nyet to the BSS from me…om nama shivaya x

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I like the bad seed system too. Some stuff to work on? There always will be.

However, I thought that the implementation of that aspect was one of the most massive acts of TRUST I have ever seen or been privileged to be apart of. That is, trust that it would not be abused or used incorrectly.

As far as a regress … you know, there are always till good seeds then to make up for such things. Just like an apology in real life.

I have been in some knock down, drag out arguments with people before on some of these forums (not all at zaadz) and some even with folks on this thread -who are now some of my best friends. But regardless of that, never in anyone of those discussions would I ever have used a “bad seed” option. 

But there have also been plenty of times when I have sat and read outright abuse of folks right here at zaadz and in those cases, even not in on the discussion, I sure would have loved to have a bad seed option because that's exactly what was called for. And that is exactly what the system was designed for and had in mind: the community regulating itself. As a community member, I don't like seeing others abused.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Timelody: I have been in some knock down, drag out arguments with people before on some of these forums (not all at zaadz) and some even with folks on this thread -who are now some of my best friends. But regardless of that, never in anyone of those discussions would I ever have used a “bad seed” option.

~~~

Hmm, I can't help but wonder if you are thinking of me in that group…I know we've had some major clashes in the past, and I know you're one of my favorite people now.  :)

Timelody: But there have also been plenty of times when I have sat and read outright abuse of folks right here at zaadz and in those cases, even not in on the discussion, I sure would have loved to have a bad seed option because that's exactly what was called for. And that is exactly what the system was designed for and had in mind: the community regulating itself. As a community member, I don't like seeing others abused.

~~~

Yes!  To which I would add that the way I see it is, you are giving feedback on someone's behavior, rather than on their intrinsic worth.

Perhaps the negative feedback terminology could be changed to “hey!” “stop that!” and “WHAT THE FUCK!?”  :p

Also, although I don't have a problem with the term “bad seed” - and it goes with the whole meaning of the term “zaadz”, but maybe the term triggers some people because of it's connotation of someone being “instrinsically bad” - which is obviously not the intention behind this rating system - and that colors their perception of the new rating system.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Thank you, deeply. This is *exactly* what we were hoping the 'negative feedback' option would be used for. There's a difference between content and conduct, and I'm of the mind that the majority of the community is sharp enough to know the difference.

(To clarify, though… I'm not sure where the 'bad seed' thing came from. There are only seeds, which are neutral, and you can 'spend' them on either positive feedback or negative feedback. I'd love to bring the back the 'flag for review' and see how people end up using it; if it gets abused and used to express mere disagreement, we can always turn it off.)

You know why I like the seeds? Seeds grow into the light, but they also have roots that go down into deep dark areas that none of us have yet seen. All systems demand an awareness of shadow, but this is where growth comes, too. :)

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Sonia: I'm not sure where the 'bad seed' thing came from

Wasn't it in this article?
I mean this with no disrespect or encouragement of conspiracy, but has that message been altered from the original? I also feel like I remember it saying that folks, due to bad feedback, can/will “lose their voice.” These two items being the “hot button” issues. (Or “the big shocker” as Arthur's pic. demonstrates. Where do you find these things! LOL LOL LOL LOL Someone give me a mic. so I can do the voice over and music for that.)

I'm certain I remember the loss of voice thing, unless that was in another message. But, if there was never any official mention of “bad seeds” WOW isn't that interesting how quickly the collective psyche took to the notion? (For better or for worse.)

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

If it wasn't in that original post it perhaps stared here. It certainly took off quickly from there, at least as it looks.

I'm fascinated we may have an authentic zaadz urban legend on our hands.


(Incidentally, sorry, I just can't help it - I keep walking around the house saying “The bad seed is … the big shocker!” )

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Sorry, third post in a row!

I do have an idea for any potential negative feedback option. If the idea wasn’t there already, it is a system sequence that is used in many technology formats where the click of a button might cause you to do something either a.) potentially illegal or b.) that you might later regret.

That is, for example:

Click “negative feedback” and a box pops us asking you if you are “sure?” perhaps even reiterating the gravity of the choice. And then, if you want to go really far with that the same thing could happen again with an “are you really, really sure?” The whole point being that this is a way for a technological system to prompt you to stop and think about it, or at least think twice. At the very least it certainly dissuades user error.

Example 1: Tivo does this, to make sure you don’t change then channel when you wanted to be recordning or delete something you would have wanted to save. Also helps with kids in the house who might be playing with remote control.

Example 2. I have an old digital 8 track that does this, 2 x (sure? Really, really sure?) and then also says “obey copyrights?” for a total of three deterrents against you using the system illegally or deleting valued material forever.

Example 3. We have another movie buying system, from which you purchase movies, but you simply cannot click the same button twice to purchase. It makes you have to click a couple of buttons to perform the transaction, and this seems to be so little kids can’t be buying $10,000,000.00 worth of movies on your credit card.

I think such a format-however simple- here would indeed encourage and promote the mindful use of any negative feedback feature even while we would trust the members of the community to do so anyway. You know?

Just an idea.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I  really enjoyed this thread and the 'dark' side flaring up.

Patrick:

maybe a pod should be created that would be called the “resolve your anger with a mediator pod” - why not?

To which I would add that the way I see it is, you are giving feedback on someone's behavior, rather than on their intrinsic worth.

There's a difference between content and conduct,

Click “negative feedback” and a box pops us asking you if you are “sure?” perhaps even reiterating the gravity of the choice. And then, if you want to go really far with that the same thing could happen again with an “are you really, really sure?” The whole point being that this is a way for a technological system to prompt you to stop and think about it, or at least think twice. At the very least it certainly dissuades user error.

If someone's Reputation Score falls gets too low, all content they've posted in public areas is “folded”—hidden from users who aren't logged in, and minimized to title only unless clicked by members. Also, their profile becomes visible only to community members.

If someone's Score really gets bad, they lose the ability to post new content to public areas on the site; content posted on their blog, albums, and so on, is excluded from new/hot/search, friends' blogs and notifications. They can still edit any content they they've already created, however, and can reply to messages but not send new ones. And they'll lose your seeds available, so they cannot give feedback.

Essentially, they'll lose their voice

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I would have to vote for no “bad” seeds…….it may enable groups to gang up on you and it just sort of doesn't feel right…

I do have a question though……why is there a limit of 5 seeds I can give to one person? I've exhausted my giving with so many people and I was wondering when that would replenish, if ever…..

thanks

john

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi John,

This would be a good question for the FAQ's pod.  The main reason is to prevent frivolous skew.  You may have a few good friends that you'll always want to give Big Love to, but in order for there to be any real effect on that person's reputation score, a LOT of people need to feel the same way.  You're not allowed to artificially inflate the results.

Make Sense?
~M

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I vote, Yes, for Bad Seeds.  I want to see how many I can accumulate.

Andrew Wilcox - Up to Any Challenge

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hey there, Mr. Andrew “up for any challenge” Wilcox,

How 'bout puttin' a cork in it for a month, settle down into a little self-inquiry, and see what comes up for you?

all the best, (mean it)
Michael

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

So you're voting yes to Bad Seeds then too?  Excellent.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Matthew,

Ah, the “reputation score,”  Now I get it.  This is to be a little friendly competition where one, most honorable, reliable and get-with-it poster/blogger will be, for a time at least until they are knocked off by a more competitive do-gooder, the champion reputee.

Imo, reputation is a cover word for something which has still not been fully elaborated by the Zaadz (now Gaiam) team.  Could you please share a bit more on how explicitly unpacks this label “reputation.?”  God knows I don't want to seem obtuse or, well, just plain stupid here, but such an explanation is important to me.

In my experience, (ime) the most powerful and effective “thing” ever created here in America, besides the Jazz idiom of course, is the 12 Step Program.  It was “invented” by a bunch of drunks in the '30's who had finally realized that, by cooperating to help each other, they could be released from the horrors of active addiction through collaboration.

Ime, it is the most perfect “thing” I have yet encountered in this life besides my son's first smile.  Its Steps and Traditions will friggin' save anyone who attends to them faithfully - anyone, no matter what the addiction driver.

Its twelfth tradition states:  “Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.”  It takes years and years for the average alcoholic (not me of course as I never had any problems with addiction, heh heh) to get anywhere near the profound import of this statement, … ANONYMITY as the SPIRITUAL foundation of ALL our traditions … (maximum emphasis added)

Champion goodness, or the striving therefor, invites corruption ime.  I believe that it is exquisitely difficult to tell the difference between an extremely clever attention freak who really knows the game and someone who is bound by the rule of pure affection.  Opening to competition, however well intentioned or friendly on its face, a race or climb to “goodness,” carries with it possible consequences that cannot be seen from this vantage point.

By all means, pursue what you deem appropriate as this is your ballpark, and your game and you get to set the rules.  But proceed with caution I implore you as once fully initiated this thing may be impossible to stop without risking the best of your team.

best,
Michael

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Yeah, I agree that, at the very least, a whole lot of thought needs to go into the reputation beacon thing.  I can see the potential value in it I think, but if it becomes a competitive thing, then any value it has will be offset by the downsides.

If a person's “reputation” remains public (in the form of a beacon or whatever), then the algorithm that calculates it needs to be sophisticated enough so that it's essentially impossible for someone to make a conscious effort to actively increase their reputation quickly (so that we then all stop posting content specifically with the intention of brightening our beacon).  But it should also not take so long for the beacon to change that you need to be generating enormous amounts of traffic to get beyond the dimmest setting.

Also, do seeds “decay” over time?  In other words, when I'm given a seed does the value of that seed stay in my reputation score forever?  Or does it expire after a certain amount of time?  It seems to me there could be some value in letting seeds expire over time (maybe gradually reaching zero), so that in order to maintain a good reputation (whether public or just used for behind-the-scenes seed weighting purposes) a person needs to continue making a valuable contribution to the community. And maybe bad seeds, if they're ever reintroduced, could expire at a different rate (faster?) than good seeds, or they could expire at different rates according to the reputation of the seed sower.

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Actually, here's another growth metaphor for you:  How about we have to periodically water the seeds we sow in order to keep them growing?  So first you give some seeds to someone, then you water them now and then (with overwatering being of no value) so that they don't decay.

I guess that metaphor only works for seeds given to a person, though, and not to their content, since you won't go back and water seeds given to old content.

Metta,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Grey,

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hey Jake,

Thanks for this!

I've mentioned this before, but I don't remember in which threads, but it seems to me that equating seeds with any sort of “feedback” is a fundamentally flawed way of viewing the whole seeds system. Sure, I suppose they do VERY indirectly provide people with some sort of feedback through the brightness of their beacon, but since you're considering not even displaying that publicly, that in itself is an indication that using the word “feedback” to describe the seeds isn't accurate.

I agree that feedback, particularly negative feedback, needs to be specific, but there are all sorts of ways to provide verbal feedback already.

Jake wrote: this is an attempt to model how people get to know others in real-world interaction and measure a small part of that.

This seems to be the key to the whole seeds system to me. The seeds measure a person's interpersonal energy level and so serve the community as a whole, not the individual member attracting the seeds.

Because of this, it seems to me we need bad seeds as a way for people to indicate when they're getting bad vibe from something someone has done, if what you're trying to do is model real-world interaction.  The flag-for-review system is great for actual policy violations, but I think that should be considered separately from bad seeds.

I do agree, though, that bad seeds (if reintroduced) should probably be limited to content, not the actual person.  I mean, we are all fundamentally “good”, right?  It's just the things we do that don't always radiate positive energy.

And a question: What happens when you've “given” (or whatever verb is most appropriate) 5 seeds to a certain person?  Will you then never have to give seeds to that person again?  Or will you be able to give them seeds again after a certain amount of time has passed?

Hmmm… maybe we need another metaphor for the whole system.  Something closer to a “spread the love” idea than “giving seeds” (seeds=love? not feelin' it…).  Vibes.  Vibration.  Resonance.  Or some sort of electricity/energy/light metaphor to go with the beacon…. I'll give it some more thought.

Later!

~G

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

It doesn't make sense because I thoght there WERE no “results”…….unless the result is a whole messload of seeds! In which case, so what?

Yes, I could certainly see a TIME limit……..like, you wouldn't want to be able to hit the button ad nauseum like a video game, but given enough activity………5? That's just not enough after a while……

Thanks

jt

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I think we're much better off without the bad seeds, and I'm very thankful and grateful to the zaadz team for taking them away.
 
These are human beings who need to be listened to and worked with, not dismissed with an anonymous bad seed with no name attached to it that noone has to be responsible for or explain. I cannot think of a single community in the world that has a system in which community members give bad seeds or anything like it to one another, and I think there is a reason for that: it would harm people's self-esteem without helping them grow and understand and evolve. Good, firm, engaged moderation is what we need.

David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

“Good, firm, engaged moderation is what we need.”

I agree on that one.


Patrick

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Given that seeds are planted in darkness, fertilized by well.. you know. poop… and with loving light they germinate and grow into wonderful plants yielding flowers, food and medicine..  it would be inappropriate to do anything other than to love the under developed little nuts and nurture them into the most beautiful flora in the world! 

There are no bad seeds, only developing ones who have yet to see the light.

:)

Dave

Even spikey cactus, and thorny thistles are beautiful!

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Jake said: “4) I don't see negative feedback on users returning anytime soon. It really made no sense to add it in the first place, because it gives no real information about what a person did that spurred another user to give negative feedback; on the other hand, negative feedback (flag for review) on content gives much more specific information, and does eventually effect the reputation of the poster (albeit more slowly).

Positive feedback directly on members is really a way of expressing gratitude or appreciation, and that needs no explanation. But I think negative feedback deserves an explanation from the person giving it - constructive criticism. On content these reasons are usually more evident, but on users…”

Thank you very much, Jake. I really appreciate that. That says it perfectly.



Grey said: “It seems to me we need bad seeds as a way for people to indicate when they're getting bad vibe from something someone has done, if what you're trying to do is model real-world interaction.  The flag-for-review system is great for actual policy violations, but I think that should be considered separately from bad seeds.”

When someone is acting up in some way or behaving negatively, we need to talk to that person, work with that person, as Jake said, offer some constructive criticism. Sending a bad seed off into the darkness will do nothing to help that person evolve. They will see their beacon dimming and think, “People don't like me,” or “These people are jerks.” This will just confuse them, make them more mistrustful of people, lower their self-esteem, make them angry so they act out even more or start sending out bad seeds, and it won't tell them anything about themselves that will help them change their behavior. And sometimes, of course, it will be the bad-seed givers who are really at fault, or there will be something each person needs to work on, or a misunderstanding or simply a clash of world views with nobody really at fault at all.

~David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

David wrote: Positive feedback directly on members is really a way of expressing gratitude or appreciation, and that needs no explanation. But I think negative feedback deserves an explanation from the person giving it - constructive criticism. […]
Sending a bad seed off into the darkness will do nothing to help that person evolve. They will see their beacon dimming and think, “People don't like me,” or “These people are jerks.” […] And sometimes, of course, it will be the bad-seed givers who are really at fault….

Again, I agree that feedback, especially negative feedback, requires an explanation in order to make it constructive feedback, but because of how complex the reputation algorithm is and how many seeds it takes to change one's reputation (not to mention the fact that the public beacon may even be going away), I think it's a big mistake to use the word “feedback” to describe the seeds system.

To me, bad seeds would just help balance the good seeds and make the reputation counter (public or private) more reflective of the actual interpersonal energy a person radiates. Remember that it takes a lot of seeds, good or bad, to make a visible difference in a person's beacon, so a few people abusing the system or spreading seeds to their own shadow aren't going to make much of a difference to any one individual.

I also imagine that it's possible to create some sort of automated audit system to detect abuse, like one person continually giving bad seeds to a specific person's content or giving out an unusually disproportionate number of bad seeds around the community, or to flag when one person is receiving an unusually high or disproportionate number of bad seeds.  Not to mention all of the checks and balances inherent in the system itself that limit potential abuse.

And when someone gives a seed (particularly a bad seed), a message either before or after giving the seed can remind the person that seeds do not equate with constructive criticism and can encourage them to give actual verbal feedback, as well,  in the form of comments or whatever.

A computer has no way of knowing if the verbal feedback a person is getting is positive or negative, and to me, the seeds system is essentially just a way of quantifying the type of energy a person is radiating, which should more or less mirror the positive AND negative feedback they're getting.  But the seeds system should not be equated with that feedback. It quantifies it (models it, as Jake has said), not replaces it.

Cheers,
Grey
Founding Member of the Bad Seed Advocacy Board ;-)

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I wrote: I also imagine that it's possible to create some sort of automated audit system to […] flag when one person is receiving an unusually high or disproportionate number of bad seeds.

BTW, the flag-for-review system is great for pointing out individual cases of clear policy violations, but bad seeds combined with an automated audit system will help to detect people who are continuously flirting with the limits of acceptability and who may actually be a greater threat to the community's wellbeing (without actually committing any clear individual violations) than a one-time offender.

OK, there's already the automated content-folding system (although how does that work without bad seeds?), but an advance-detection audit system would help detect and monitor people like this even before their content gets folded.


~G

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi to all of you,

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hey Patrick,

Yeah, this is something I've been wondering a lot about, too.  Span vs. depth….

The seeds system as far as I understand it is great at the span part, but the algorithm could use some sort of depth variable in it, too. That's a tricky one, though, for all sorts of reasons.

David actually had some great ideas that could serve as a sort of workaround to that problem, though. Essentially, Zaadz could add the following (for example) to our profile pages:

1) a “favorites” section, where we list Zaadz content that we like (maybe even RSS feeds to the blogs of other zaadzsters); and/or

2) a “ratings” section or page, so that you could see what content an individual (or maybe even a group of individuals) has rated highly (using a system separate from seeds, given that it wouldn't be anonymous).

That way, you're friends and other contacts within the community can help point you to content they like, which you might like, too.  There might even eventually be a way to integrate the ratings system into the seeds algorithm to add depth to span (he said in an attempt to bring his post back on topic ;-).

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi Grey,

I think you say a lot of good things, but we still disagree on those bad seeds!  :)

 

To me, bad seeds would just help balance the good seeds and make the reputation counter (public or private) more reflective of the actual interpersonal energy a person radiates.

The trouble, as Patrick pointed out with a little Wilber, is that people have a different idea of what “the good” is. People can have honest differences about it, so it needs to be discussed, negotiated; we need to gain a better mutual understanding. There will still be differences, and we will just have to live with some of them, like conservatives have to learn to live with liberals rather than trying to kill the other off. What you want to do is furnish the majority opinion with an extra tool, disadvantaging minority opinions. Some of those minority opinions will actually be more ethical than the majority opinion, so it doesn't make sense to dim their beacons.

I just don't see that we need to award actual medals, in the form of bright beacons, to people who win the popularity contest, or to empower people simply for being popular. Also, there's no way the software can guard against all the possible abuses. There's just no way it could know what was motivating the person. Maybe someday, like in three thousand years when the computer can actually tell as how we're feeling, like those mood rings, only better. I think maybe we're intuiting a potential there that the technology isn't up to yet (and also a responsibility that people aren't ready to handle yet, generally).

People are going to know who's popular and who isn't, and there's a way to find out what's hot and popular without the negative-seed giving. I think those bad seeds would decrease the popularity of the site. Many people are already not posting because they don't want to get pounced on, and bad seeds wouldn't remedy that, only moderation would remedy that. That's what we have you for, Grey! So get to work!   :)

David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hey David,

Actually, it seems to me we disagree on the usefulness of the seeds system as a whole, not just on the bad seeds.

I think it's important to consider the seeds system in light of the new Gaia interface, which organizes content by subject matter, and so presents a lot more content to the community than the current Zaadz interface does. Because of this, finding a way for a computer to separate good content from content that's generating traffic because people are bickering becomes much more important.  And I don't see how you're going to manage that without bad seeds (and good ones, of course).

Of course software won't be able to catch all of the abuse or misguided bad-seed giving, but it should be able to catch the more significant cases, and if people know that there's a way of catching abuse (and, because of this, have a clearer idea what abuse actually means in relation to the seeds system), they'll think a little bit more before doling out their bad seeds.

And you're right, as it stands now, the seeds system will favor span over depth, but it's already a big step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned, particularly if we're clear about what the seeds system can and can't do, and especially if there's a clear understanding that it's not replacing verbal feedback and discussion or any of the other means of finding quality content that may be implemented now or in the future.

Bad seeds may make shy members a little bit shier, at least at first, but if a person is shy, their beacon is going to be dim whether there are bad seeds in circulation or not. So that seems like an argument to get rid of the public beacon all together, not to keep bad seeds out of circulation.  And I'm still ambivalent as far as the public beacon is concerned.

Anyway, it seems to me that the seeds system will never do what it was intended to do, at least not nearly well enough, without bad seeds in the equation (although the whole “bad seed” metaphor may not be the best choice of words).

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hello to everyone!  I hope it's not rude of me to jump into the middle of the discussion. 

I largely agree with what Grey has said.  While it would be useful to have a system that would flag recent points of interest in the Zaadz community, a ranking system in general might negatively affect the atmosphere.  Inevitably, a major effect would be that posts would seek to maximize positive feedback, which isn't necessarily synonymous with having a positive EFFECT on the community, on the discussion, or on the individual poster.  It is my impression that what sets the Zaadz community apart is that it's primary goal is to produce a positive effect in one another, in ourselves, and in the world around us. 

Does a post rating system aid in that goal, or hinder it? 

What results have similar strategies produced in other website communities?  In my experience, it leads to rampant egoism, homogeneity of thought and an environment that is hostile and intimidating to community newcomers and inexperienced internet users.  Fierce competition eclipses concern for self-exploration and growth.  It becomes more gratifying to attack another poster, and have others in the community do likewise, than it is to make one's own contribution, which not only requires more effort but also incurs greater risk. 

Furthermore, there are some posts that are not designed to be rated, such as those seeking to reach out to a new friend, or share a part of oneself, or test out a new idea.  How can one grow if one is never allowed to be vulnerable, always fearing rejection and reprimand?  This community is founded on a  metaphor of growth and nascence.  What child flourishes in a strict, authoritarian,  punishing environment?  Embuing the parental punishing role with the capricious whims of public approval leads to an even more dysfunctional environment in which to grow. 

I think it's a wonderful idea to nominate posts for a daily points-of-interest list.  I think such a thing could easily be achieved without making every poster feel constantly evaluated and subject to social pressure. 

Hoping I added to the discussion rather than detracting from it,

Wednesday

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

As a systems engineer I have to agree with Grey.

The only way algorithmically to decide which content is approved and which content is disapproved is to have both good seeds and bad seeds.  Without bad seeds all content is neutral, and can only be listed higher on the approved list than disapproved content.

With bad seeds, the computer gains the ability to hide and censor content that is deemed inappropriate or out of line with the beliefs of the Zaadz community.

Rather than calling them “good seeds” and “bad seeds”.  It would be easier to stomach by the sensitive if it was put into the context of “thanks” and “no thanks”.  All of us say “no thanks” to things we'd rather not have, or see, or listen to, on a fairly frequent basis.

Most content will remain neutral, as most people won't take time to rate content anyway.  But for those things that really stand out, people will say “thanks” or “no thanks”.

The content should never be removed or deleted by the system, it should just be collapsed, so that those that might want to see what was said can read it, if they choose to.  What should happen is that people through their own preferences will know if they are ok with someone who's had a post collapsed.  Maybe that post is for them and no one else.

On the whole people will be able to see just the approved content much easier and quicker.
There really needs to be a rating on posts, individuals, and pods.  Thus entire pods can be collapsed and hidden as well as unsavory individuals.

You might also want to consider adding an option so that a person can turn off the collapsing of a particular pod or individual, or possibly entirely.  Say, if someone really vibes with Grey, and he's had a post collapsed, they can tell the system, please show me all posts by Grey exposed and not hidden.


Thus people don't feel totally dictated to about what they can view and can't view.

The only question that arrises is if you respond to a collapsed post, is all subsequent response collapsed?

Andrew Wilcox

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi Grey,

I don't disagree with the usefulness of the seed system; I just think the bad seeds would harm the atmosphere. I also don't think there would be a way the computer would be able to find all the best content. We need human beings to do that. A computer could make it a lot easier, find the the most active stuff, the most popular stuff, but a human being would eventually have to take a look at it. Fourteen billion years of evolution went into these bodies. We can't match that even with the most amazing computer, software, and algorithms.

Best,

David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I've read most of the last few posts and find myself 'agreeing' with each one (I'd good seed each comment if the function was there…).

Great post re centre of gravity, Patrick.

Sending a bad seed off into the darkness will do nothing to help that person evolve.
Oh…I think I have to use this in a novel, David, it's such a fabulous line. (and yes to what you write btw.)

Re specific suggestions, I liked Grey's:

1) a “favorites” section, where we list Zaadz content that we like (maybe even RSS feeds to the blogs of other zaadzsters); and/or

2) a “ratings” section or page, so that you could see what content an individual (or maybe even a group of individuals) has rated highly (using a system separate from seeds, given that it wouldn't be anonymous).

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I have a skeletal idea for a moderated seed system which follows on from Patricks most recent post and which I outlined in a comment to his blog of Dec 1st…

The existing seed system seems too monovalent to me; I like it/ I don't…this is emblematic of an either/or system which will create popularity by mass consensus rather than provide an indicator of altitude/quality…

My suggestion is to create a set of value-vectors which could be rated on a 5 point scale….suggestions for categories would include; clear…informative…inspirational…witty…groundbreaking….many others, I am sure…

Negative ratings; zero to minus five…to replace bad seeds…offering some consensus as to why the negative rating was given.

One could then search for material which scored highly in one or more of these categories which could be clustered under various headings; integral, yoga, buddhism etc…

Those souls with more integrally-encompassing worldviews would be able to scan for quality material through adopting a set of criteria that may be hidden from those whose less expansive worldviews live through them…they in turn would evolve their own scanning criteria…the polyvalent system embraces everybody's  choice.

A polyvalent rating scale may be helpful in deconstructing the either/or system… which I wager is too crude for a domain which purports to be domain-changing, replacing it with a both/and paradigm…

Additionally it may engender an expansion of the collective zaadz centre of gravity/ worldview towards pluralistic relativism (Spiral Dynamicists would see this as an upspiral movement from Orange to Green and beyond)…by folk discussing their search criteria in a public domain like this one…so we potentially have a tool for engendering upSpiral migration without the meditation…oops sorrry trying not to get too jargonated here…

Anyway, what do folk think?

 

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Thank you, Sandra.

Wednessday, I really appreciated your post–you made many deeply insightful comments, including this:

  What results have similar strategies produced in other website communities?  In my experience, it leads to rampant egoism, homogeneity of thought and an environment that is hostile and intimidating to community newcomers and inexperienced internet users.  Fierce competition eclipses concern for self-exploration and growth. 

That says it as well as it's been said. And this is a great suggestion:

  I think it's a wonderful idea to nominate posts for a daily points-of-interest list.  I think such a thing could easily be achieved without making every poster feel constantly evaluated and subject to social pressure. 

The computer is not going to be able to moderate or sift out the good content. No amount of seeds and algorithms would be able to do that. Only a human mind and heart could do a comptent job of those things. We can automate a lot of things, but not everything. To make it simple, the zaadz team could find some people it trusts, who have a variety of interests, and ask them to tip them off to the good content. Or it could be something everyone gets to vote on, and that might be fun and encourage a sense of community and togetherness throughout the different pods.

~David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

David: The computer is not going to be able to moderate or sift out the good content. No amount of seeds and algorithms would be able to do that. Only a human mind and heart could do a comptent job of those things.

But that's exactly my point.  The seeds are sown by actual human minds and hearts in a way that can help the computer sift through the content and separate the good stuff from the polemical and controversial stuff (not that polemical and controversial is “bad”, but you know what I mean…).

BTW, in case some of you haven't noticed it yet, some excellent, fresh ideas are being kicked around over in this thread.

P&L
~G

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Thank you, Sandra.

Wednessday, I really appreciated your post–you made many deeply insightful comments, including this:

  What results have similar strategies produced in other website communities?  In my experience, it leads to rampant egoism, homogeneity of thought and an environment that is hostile and intimidating to community newcomers and inexperienced internet users.  Fierce competition eclipses concern for self-exploration and growth. 

That says it as well as it's been said. And this is a great suggestion:

  I think it's a wonderful idea to nominate posts for a daily points-of-interest list.  I think such a thing could easily be achieved without making every poster feel constantly evaluated and subject to social pressure. 

The computer is not going to be able to moderate or sift out the good content. No amount of seeds and algorithms would be able to do that. Only a human mind and heart could do a comptent job of those things. We can automate a lot of things, but not everything. To make it simple, the zaadz team could find some people it trusts, who have a variety of interests, and ask them to tip them off to the good content. Or it could be something everyone gets to vote on, and that might be fun and encourage a sense of community and togetherness throughout the different pods.

~David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi David, much as I'd like appreciation, I believe you are referring to Wednesday's great post!

Tantricksta: My suggestion is to create a set of value-vectors which could be rated on a 5 point scale….suggestions for categories would include; clear…informative…inspirational…witty…groundbreaking….many others, I am sure…

Negative ratings; zero to minus five…to replace bad seeds…offering some consensus as to why the negative rating was given.

I like this idea a lot - particularly the 'postive' value vectors. Not sure how one could apply similar categories to 'negative' values, but your suggestion to me certainly feels like a door opening to something wider.

Love,
Sandra

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi Grey,

I still think that a human being will have to look at it at the end of the day–the computer would throw all sorts of things out there that wouldn't have the desired effect, that wouldn't be appropriate for one reason or another–but the larger question to me is what impact the bad seeds would have on the atmosphere of the place, especially if people's beacons glowed brighter or dimmer depending on their popularity and such. This will just promote egoism and competition between people, which is not the way the spiral (human development) is headed.

Also, you've never answered these questions: What other community, ashram, school, etc. has a bad-seed function like this? If not, why not? I ask because it seems to me that most communities have recognized that this sort of thing would pull people apart rather than pull them together. I understand why the idea arose in the first place–it might have been useful for finding good content and such–but many people feel it would make the atmosphere less pleasant and evolutionary. I have received many zmails thanking me for writing against it, including from several who have chosen not to respond in a thread.

Best,

David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

David: Also, you've never answered these questions: What other community, ashram, school, etc. has a bad-seed function like this?

I haven't answered this question directly, but I feel that I have addressed the question by explaining my position in detail.  Anyway, it pretty much boils down to this question I have for you: Why is it OK, in your view, to give constructive criticism, but not OK to implement a way for a computer to distinguish between agreement and criticism?

I'm not suggesting we rely solely on a computer's interpretation of what's acceptable and what's not, but I see no reason not to use technology to help out with the administration of a community as large and widespread as Zaadz.  And it seems to me that the only way for the seeds system to be effective is to have a way to quantify “concern” (moving away from the whole bad seed metaphor), not just approval.

Cheers,

~G

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi Grey,

Why is it OK, in your view, to give constructive criticism, but not OK to implement a way for a computer to distinguish between agreement and criticism?

This isn't what you've been advocating. You've been advocating a system in which seeds would affect a person's “reputation” and the brightness of their “beacon” and in which the people with the brightest beacons and reputations would also have the most power to hurt and dim other people's reputations and beacons. There's also been the idea that, even if the beacons weren't visible to the public, they would be visible in private and could be held against a person down the road. This isn't acceptable for a number of reasons, particularly because the software could never take into account the massive complexity of even one single situation (shadow, types, moods, levels, lines, etc.). All it would amount to is a popularity contest, which would priviledge majority views over minority views and certain types of people over other types of people.

Also, what's wrong with a couple of the other ideas I proposed: 1) having a group of volunteers help the zaadz team find the best content; 2) having everyone who wants to vote on the best content?

This is much better: human beings would be looking at the content directly, and we would skip all the hurt feelings, ill will, and discouragement of novel and minority opinions that we would see with the negative seeds.

Best,

David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Excellent post. I really want to hear what the admins have to say.

As for “1) having a group of volunteers help the zaadz team find the best content; 2) having everyone who wants to vote on the best content” - that’s exactly what seeds are meant to achieve.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

David: You've been advocating a system in which seeds would affect a person's “reputation” and the brightness of their “beacon” and in which the people with the brightest beacons and reputations would also have the most power to hurt and dim other people's reputations and beacons.

No, these are the aspects you've chosen to focus on, and your concern essentially assumes that someone with malevolent intent could also likely have a bright beacon or flourishing garden.  I suppose that could happen, and there will certainly be cases where a person without malevolent intent but with a high-level icon (of whichever variety) could make a few poor decisions in sowing seeds.

Either way, though, I still don't think that one person, even with a high-level icon, could have much impact on another individual's icon.  I suppose it's theoretically possible for one person with a bright beacon to launch an attack on the entirety of another person's content, which could then put a visible dent in that person's beacon (if they've got a lot of content), but again, this is a situation that the auditing system I've proposed would be able to detect and flag for a real person to review.

Although we also need to keep in mind that concern would only be expressed on content, and seeds of any variety given to content are weighted less than seeds sown for the actual person, so there would already be certain checks and balances built into the system to reduce the potential for any one individual to do much harm.

David: what's wrong with a couple of the other ideas I proposed: 1) having a group of volunteers help the zaadz team find the best content

Nothing.  I think it's a very good idea, which, of course, needs further development, as I've mentioned in the “Seeds and gardens” thread here. I just don't think it has to be (and indeed shouldn't be) an either/or question.  I think a better solution would be to have both an effective seeds system (which I think requires the concern side of the equation, as I've said on a number of occasions) and volunteers.

David: 2) having everyone who wants to vote on the best content?

Maybe you've fleshed this idea out somewhere else, but I don't remember seeing it.  Anyway, how is a voting system any better than the seeds system with both encouragement and concern ratings?  If anything, it seems far inferior to me, because all you could vote would be “yes” or “no”.  And if you're suggesting we just be able to vote “yes”, that seems essentially what we already have with the current seeds system (without the concern side of the equation).

Could you explain this idea further or point me to where you've already explained it? 

Or are you maybe referring to your idea of a ratings page, which I've already said I think is a good idea (although I wouldn't call it a “voting” system)?  If so, again, I don't think it needs to be an either/or issue.  Enabling people to publicly give, say, a certain number of stars to content they like (and then to see what any individual or group of individuals likes) is a good idea, but is different from enabling people to assess the value content has in promoting a sustainable community in a manner that a computer can help administer. 

In part because I'm assuming these ratings you've proposed would only be positive, and I think that, to bring in the garden/Gaia metaphor from the “Seeds and gardens” thread, in order for a garden as vast as Zaadz/Gaia to flourish, there needs to be a way for everyone to pitch in to spot the weeds.  But, extending the metaphor, not everyone can always tell the difference between a weed and a flower, so there also needs to be a way for admins (and/or volunteers helping the admins) to step in and decide when certain plants (i.e. content) are weeds and when they're flowers.

Anyway, this is why I think the private, anonymous (to the community at large) seeds system needs both appreciation and concern elements, but a public ratings system should only be positive (for all the reasons you've mentioned in arguing against “bad seeds”).

David: This is much better: human beings would be looking at the content directly, and we would skip all the hurt feelings, ill will, and discouragement of novel and minority opinions that we would see with the negative seeds.

I don't know how else to address your concerns about “negative” seeds or help you to see them more as concern than negativity, but I wanted to point out, again, that the seeds system involves human beings, too.  Human beings are looking at the content and sowing the seeds, and an auditing system would help real people to intervene in situations when necessary.  All the seeds and computer are doing is helping to identify these situations and helping to point out valuable content.

Why are you so set against enabling technology to help us sift through the vast amount of content that a community as large as Zaadz generates, as well as to help admins to administrate and community volunteers to fulfill their purpose?

Metta,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi Grey,

Please don't take any of this personally. I just think you're not appreciating my basic arguements, one of which is that the software couldn't take into account different value spheres, shadow, types, and the everyday angst and suffering that people experience, which often compels them to express dislike of things, themselves, and other people.

Another trouble is the effect different-level icons, reputations, and discussionless negative feedback would have on the atmosphere and freedom of discourse. It would turn it into a competition and discourage people from saying things that people might disagree with. There is something profoundly anti-evolutionary about that.

Under the system you are proposing, people would accumulate “concerns,” and no one would know why or how they got there. A moderator would eventually step in and say, “Excuse me, sir, you've accumulated 32 'concerns.' What do you have to say about that? Why don't you cut it out?” And what could the person say? There would be no evidence there, no data, no content, no record of what actually transpired, just the “concerns,” the expressions of disapproval, and they would be held against him. This is blatantly unfair and clearly not integrating modern ideas of fairness and justice (innocent until proven guilty by established evidence etc.).

For egregious violations there is flagging, and for people who cause continual low-level trouble, there is discussion, the sharing of love, information, insights, constructive criticism, and if that fails, people can speak to a moderator and present the evidence. In terms of finding good content, we can have the rating page, people voting on it, popularity in terms of views, and positive feedback.

Best,

David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

David: the software couldn't take into account different value spheres, shadow, types, and the everyday angst and suffering that people experience, which often compels them to express dislike of things, themselves, and other people.

I do appreciate this basic argument of yours, David, but, as I've tried to explain on a number of occasions, I don't expect the software to even try to take these things into account.  It's the people sowing seeds and the administrators monitoring the system that will worry about that. The software just provides a way for real people to track all the seed sowing.

Let's use a different metaphor for a second, just for the sake of simplicity. Let's equate the community with a living organism, say, a person.  In the holarchy of the human body (molecules to cells to organs and on up through increasing levels of complexity), every part of every level of the body plays a part in the self-regulatory process.  The seeds system and related software could be seen as the body's nervous system, gathering and routing all of the signals from all of the various parts of the body (at all levels of the holarchy) to the brain and from the brain back out to the whole body. In order for a system like this to work, the signals need to be of both encouragement and warning (or concern), so that the brain has all the data it needs in order to assess the situation and initiate the appropriate action. But if the nervous system is only routing signals of encouragement to the brain, it may not know about problem situations until it's too late.

David: Under the system you are proposing, people would accumulate “concerns,” and no one would know why or how they got there.

No, you continue to assume that people will sow seeds without giving verbal feedback as well.  Of course, some will just sow a seed in response to a given situation, but surely someone will have made a pertinent comment as well if the situation truly merits attention.

But either way, even if enough people have indicated concern for a given situation without giving any verbal feedback, the system can flag this accumulation of concern, and a real person can take a look at who's expressed concern and what they've expressed concern for, and then decide if the concern is warranted or not.

David: Another trouble is the effect different-level icons, reputations, and discussionless negative feedback would have on the atmosphere and freedom of discourse. It would turn it into a competition and discourage people from saying things that people might disagree with.

Well, I've already addressed the “discussionless negative feedback” a number of times, but I think we need to wait and see what effect the icons will have on the community and its discourse.

But really, all a flourishing icon says about a person is that they have contributed a lot to the community over time without causing a disproportionate amount of controversy (not no controversy, though).  A less flourishing icon, conversely, will generally mean that a person is either new to Gaia or doesn't contribute much.  So from this point of view, the icon should encourage more participation, not discourage it.

Cases where a person has a less-than-flourishing icon because of a relatively high level of concern ratings, on the other hand, will be situations that are easily flagged by the seeds auditing system for real people to evaluate.

One thing that occurs to me thinking about this, though, is that it might be a good idea for a person's icon to grow based in some way on their ability to contribute to the community over time without attracting concern, not just for their ability to attract encouragement.  That way, someone who contributes a lot but hasn't gained a great deal of visibility yet can still see their icon begin to flourish, thereby also helping them to gain visibility.  I think Zet White has made some suggestions in this direction, too, either here or in the ”Seeds and gardens” thread, including being able to sow seeds in our own gardens, for example.

All the best,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

David: the software couldn't take into account different value spheres, shadow, types, and the everyday angst and suffering that people experience, which often compels them to express dislike of things, themselves, and other people.

I do appreciate this basic argument of yours, David, but, as I've tried to explain on a number of occasions, I don't expect the software to even try to take these things into account.  It's the people sowing seeds and the administrators monitoring the system that will worry about that. The software just provides a way for real people to track all the seed sowing.

Let's use a different metaphor for a second, just for the sake of simplicity. Let's equate the community with a living organism, say, a person.  In the holarchy of the human body (molecules to cells to organs and on up through increasing levels of complexity), every part of every level of the body plays a part in the self-regulatory process.  The seeds system and related software could be seen as the body's nervous system, gathering and routing all of the signals from all of the various parts of the body (at all levels of the holarchy) to the brain and from the brain back out to the whole body. In order for a system like this to work, the signals need to be of both encouragement and warning (or concern), so that the brain has all the data it needs in order to assess the situation and initiate the appropriate action. But if the nervous system is only routing signals of encouragement to the brain, it may not know about problem situations until it's too late.

David: Under the system you are proposing, people would accumulate “concerns,” and no one would know why or how they got there.

No, you continue to assume that people will sow seeds without giving verbal feedback as well.  Of course, some will just sow a seed in response to a given situation, but surely someone will have made a pertinent comment as well if the situation truly merits attention.

But either way, even if enough people have indicated concern for a given situation without giving any verbal feedback, the system can flag this accumulation of concern, and a real person can take a look at who's expressed concern and what they've expressed concern for, and then decide if the concern is warranted or not.

David: Another trouble is the effect different-level icons, reputations, and discussionless negative feedback would have on the atmosphere and freedom of discourse. It would turn it into a competition and discourage people from saying things that people might disagree with.

Well, I've already addressed the “discussionless negative feedback” a number of times, but I think we need to wait and see what effect the icons will have on the community and its discourse.

But really, all a flourishing icon says about a person is that they have contributed a lot to the community over time without causing a disproportionate amount of controversy (not no controversy, though).  A less flourishing icon, conversely, will generally mean that a person is either new to Gaia or doesn't contribute much.  So from this point of view, the icon should encourage more participation, not discourage it.

Cases where a person has a less-than-flourishing icon because of a relatively high level of concern ratings, on the other hand, will be situations that are easily flagged by the seeds auditing system for real people to evaluate.

One thing that occurs to me thinking about this, though, is that it might be a good idea for a person's icon to grow based in some way on their ability to contribute to the community over time without attracting concern, not just for their ability to attract encouragement.  That way, someone who contributes a lot but hasn't gained a great deal of visibility yet can still see their icon begin to flourish, thereby also helping them to gain visibility.  I think Zet White has made some suggestions in this direction, too, either here or in the ”Seeds and gardens” thread, including being able to sow seeds in our own gardens, for example.

All the best,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Dear Ones,

Following this discussion about the relative values of the seeds program, I first would like to draw attention to the careful and respectful pace of the dialogue between David and Grey.  I see that there is a “something” that might help further focus the interplay.  While David's interests and concerns are closely aligned with mine as regards the general intention of this new idea, I find that Grey's reasoning and pragmatic approach is also attractive.  There seems to be a difference here not so much of opinion but of individual focus.  On the one hand, David's concerns are more fundamental, and Grey seems focused on the procedural, having accepted the program as a fait accompli.  Rather than this being a “bad” thing, I see it as functional for David's interests must surely echo that of many Zaadsters who are still perhaps grieving for the frontier days when the mods ran like open range cowboys among us wild buffalo.  Gaia, the new sheriff in town, looks to be parceling out the range with a few fences while rounding up the stock for a tiered branding program. 

Of course, it (being the seeds program) is far less odious than actual branding, it does represent an attempt to install some range management on this enterprise.  Two things remain to be seen:  one, whether the pure earth origins from which arose the beauty we all seek to protect and enjoy will be transcended or trans-cluded, and two, whether Jake can manifest the necessary coding required to produce an algorythm that truly captures this evolving intention.

best to all,
Michael

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

btw, not to push this “garden” metaphor too far, but, before there was the open “rangeland” there was the prairie and out upon that god-blessed space there were no “weeds” at all.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Ahem,

Again, just bumping the metaphor a bit further:  as cultivators, we may choose to weed-the-garden so as to improve its beauty and nutritional providence, but weed-control per se, can have some unintended consequences as “weeds,” seen from a more wholistic perspective, are known to contain medicinal properties that, though bitter upon the tongue, do exert a check and balance system on the primordial garden as a whole, helping to keep in check the opportunistic parasites that seem to thrive in a setting where “production” is the sole concern.

I think that is about as far as I can go with this one.  (heh heh)

loving me loving you,
Michael

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi Michael,

Loving your input as usual!

I think this Gaia/garden metaphor has a lot of potential to help define an effective seeds/self-regulation system, but I think we need to be careful how exactly we look at the metaphor. Actually, it reminds me of the whole environmentalism debate, and global warming in particular, and how so many people are framing the issue in terms of needing to “save the world (i.e. Gaia)”, but when, really, Gaia is loving global warming.  It's just us humans (and some of the other more highly evolved animals) that need to worry.

My point being that, yes, all plants (whether we'd call them weeds or flowers or whatever) have a very basic purpose in the ecosystem, but if certain species of plants or other organisms (e.g. viruses) are allowed to run amok, it could be really bad for organisms higher up the evolutionary ladder.  So, in other words, we can't just take a laissez-faire approach to community management and assume that, as the community grows and evolves (as ~C4Chaos has pointed out, too), it will continue to self-regulate as effectively as it has so far without coming up with systems like the seeds.

Anyway, this is why it seems to me that the seeds system needs a “concern” side to the equation, not just the encouragement side, because if we just have encouragement for growth, without some balance, there's a risk of letting some of the weeds grow out of control.

If all we needed to do was to let the community grow naturally without any innovative systems of self-regulation, then places like MySpace and Facebook would already be great places for all of us Zaadzsters to hang out and there would be no need for Zaadz. But clearly that's not the case.

And actually, the fact that we've self-regulated so far tells me that there's a good chance that we'll be able to use a more “balanced” (from my own point of view, of course) seeds system responsibly, without all the potential problems David and others are afraid of.

Metta,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Good point… Yes, originally there were no weeds, until humans became farmers and cultivators. I agree that weeds/controversy has medicinal purposes.

Problems with this negative-feedback notion: 1. author possibly offended, and 2. author’s ‘status’ unreasonably affected.

To get around this: 1. Replace offensive ‘bad/negative-rating’ seeds with simply ‘give no seeds’ option. 2. Flag for review (report to moderator) button to not have a hit count or linked to seeds or author status, but simply trigger a short message sent directly to moderators. Problem solved?

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Zet, Grey, David, et al,

Grey, with “self-regulation” you bring up what I see as the critical point that sufficiently validates the seeds program as a necessary evolutionary step in the unfoldment of what it is that Gaia seems to be striving towards.

For the organism to maintain and develop awareness of itself at the highest possible level re:  state, stage, and line - feedback is required.  After initially reacting to what seemed a divisive and unilateral imposition, I chose to back up and, reviewing the triggering point within, hung out with the idea as a contemplation while eventually moving forward again in response mode. 

I take my consideration/contemplation/response/reaction “equipment” as typical and not eccentric.  This leads me to feel community with most Zaadsters as I suspect that most of us went through a similar process around this new “thing.”

You know how I feel about feedback.  My only remaining concern is that such feedback, in particular any form of “negative” feedback, be centered in the truth of the feedbacker's story and not the projected “truth” of the one who drew the feedback in the first place - ever reminding us to avoid judgment and criticism as these modes of expression tend to obscure the potential for fallibility in the feedbacker while assuming it in the feedbackee.


lovin' them weeds,
Michael

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Michael, Grey, Zet, David.. oh wishing this thread and Zet's thread Seeds and Gardens could be merged! And personally, I love wild gardens and even find the scent of a 'weed' that is called 'stink weed' in South Africa to be delightful… ;-)

Michael: I take my consideration/contemplation/response/reaction “equipment” as typical and not eccentric.  This leads me to feel community with most Zaadsters as I suspect that most of us went through a similar process around this new “thing.”

The process you describe mirrors mine exactly. I have also mentioned on the above thread that I fully believe this is a moveable feast, that the garden of the 'seed system' is a work in progress, a garden that is 'growing' and developing – because of all this cultivating and feeding right here.

Love,
Sandra

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Michael, Grey, Zet, David.. oh wishing this thread and Zet's thread Seeds and Gardens could be merged! And personally, I love wild gardens and even find the scent of a 'weed' that is called 'stink weed' in South Africa to be delightful… ;-)

Michael: I take my consideration/contemplation/response/reaction “equipment” as typical and not eccentric.  This leads me to feel community with most Zaadsters as I suspect that most of us went through a similar process around this new “thing.”

The process you describe mirrors mine exactly. I have also mentioned on the above thread that I fully believe this is a moveable feast, that the garden of the 'seed system' is a work in progress, a garden that is 'growing' and developing – because of all this cultivating and feeding right here.

Love,
Sandra

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

 
Grey : One thing that occurs to me thinking about this, though, is that it might be a good idea for a person's icon to grow based in some way on their ability to contribute to the community over time without attracting concern, not just for their ability to attract encouragement. 

Grey, what value sphere do you think this is coming from? I am really concerned about this. I mean, people could send concerns for so many reasons, including shadow, bad moods, value sphere differences. And just as importantly, every new emergence is met not only with concern by the status quo but with downright hostility. You don't have to look further than Ken Wilber's experience with critics to know this. Someone mentioned Socrates in this thread, how it would have been easier to shut him up if they had such a system. There's also Galileo, Teilhard de Chardin, Martin Luther King, Lincoln, Jesus, thousands of others, all sorts of Sufis, civil rights activists around the world in every decade and year–just go look at the news and you'll see protests all over the world being put down by the prevailing powers. Just look at how Republicans react to Democrats, how fundamentalists react to abortion clinics–the list just goes on and on.

Have you heard Ken Wilber say: “The Pioneer is the guy with the arrows in his back”?

WILBER: I know! You know that politically incorrect joke that I use, which is, “The pioneer is the guy with all the arrows in his back.”

This is one of the things that has concerned me from the beginning, that we will be so concerned about political correctness that we will create an atmosphere in which open discussion is repressed, and I don't see enough other people integrating this concern. When you talk about people not only facing punishment for attracting concerns but being rewarded for not attracting concerns I get very concerned indeed!

David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

David,

I have thought and thought and thought about this and I could not agree with you more.  I see any form of institionalized “negative” or otherwise niggling and anonymous “feedback” as retrograde and problematic.  Who, after all is going to review all this button-stabbing?  Is this going to be one of the volunteer functions of the Mediation Group?  Is management going to hire a somebody or a bunch of somebodies to do it?  Why not just stand up for yourself if triggered and just reply to the friggin' post?  Ahem and while I am at it, I forgive myself for the somewhat strident tone here and ask for forgiveness from those so triggered as well.

Sheesh!
Michael

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Dear Ones,

Bumping again, I say lets run the numbers on this bad-seeds/flagging option:

As there are 130,000 members:  if half of them are ghosts, and half of the rest are day-trippers in the meat market, and half of the rest are mildly serious but hardly post at all, and half of the rest are “into it” but only half of them hit the flagging button only once a month, well then there will be (by my potentially fallacious figerin') 1000 hits a month on the flog (oops, “flag”) button to summon to the bench for adjudication.  What process, I ask, will handle this potential gripe fest?

presumably yours, Mr. Smartypants,
Michael

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi Michael,

Yeah, this is an interesting line of inquiry, but I think, first of all, we need to be clear about the difference between the flag for review system and the potential… hmmm… “challenging emotion” seeds (trying a new term on for size). 

The flags for review are for actual policy violations, which I'm assuming will be few and far between, and so these can and should be looked into as soon as possible.

The “CE” seeds… or “CEeds” for short (?? ;-) ), would not, as I envision them, be for policy violations at all and would only require the intervention of a real person in cases where they have accumulated to some sort of threshold (and, actually, I would imagine that several different types of thresholds could be thought up: accumulation over time across an individual's collection of content; accumulation for one specific piece of content, etc.).  One CEed for one post wouldn't warrant anyone's attention, but multiple CEeds in a certain pattern would at least warrant observation if not necessarily actual intervention, which, again, might actually focus more on the CEed sowers in some cases than on the person pushing their buttons.

(Hmmm… CEeds could even be used to actually help promote challenging, thought-provoking content, not just the warm and fuzzy stuff, with one maybe being in an “inspiring” category of content and the other being in a separate “challenging” category…. But the challenging stuff would, I think, need to be monitored more closely than the inspiring stuff in order to prevent the system from promoting content that's generating strong emotion for the wrong reasons.)

With this in mind, it would still be very interesting to see, along your line of reasoning here, how many CEeds might be sown and how many situations might require actual admin/moderator observation or intervention.

And has the flag for review function been used at all since it was implemented, btw?

Cheers (in all meanings of the term),
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Michael: I see any form of institionalized “negative” or otherwise niggling and anonymous “feedback” as retrograde and problematic.  Who, after all is going to review all this button-stabbing?  Why not just stand up for yourself if triggered and just reply to the friggin' post?

I agree that it's “problematic” (in the sense that it needs to be given a lot of thought in order to deal with the potential problems) and that a poorly implemented seeds system with window-dressed, willy-nilly negative seed sowing would be retrograde, but it seems to me that people who already tend to give verbal feedback when triggered will continue to do so, and the people who are shier about that sort of thing will both have an anonymous way of expressing their concern and receive encouragement and guidance in expressing their concern verbally, both through the wording of the concern seeds and, at least potentially, through a confirmation message and links to sources of information and guidance.

Again, concern seeds shouldn't be seen as a replacement for verbal feedback, but as a way of modeling feedback and, potentially, a way of encouraging and guiding that feedback.

As for who's going to review all the button-stabbing, it seems to me that the system can (and already does) have enough checks and balances in place that only the more problematic cases will require any human intervention, and an automated seed auditing system could help to flag these.  Occasional shadow boxing shouldn't really affect anyone enough to have to worry about it most of the time.  Especially if the shadow boxers are being reminded each time they sow a concern seed that there are other ways of dealing with the situation, as well.

And there's always the option of eliminating the garden or beacon icon if that proves to be more of a problem than it's worth.  I still don't have a clear opinion one way or the other on that one.

yer pal,  (thought I'd use that one this time since you didn't, Michael ;-)
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Grey,

You know how I feel about you and I want to go on record here by saying that I feel a fine gentlemanliness coming from you at all times and honor your devotion to the “Word.”  In respect for such honor, I am going to go to bed now while thinking only of what you have just written while promising to consider it deeply tomorrow while I am attending to the little beavers in my own beaver pond before disembarking the wilds of Alaska and back to my weeklong appt. with my favorite phlebotomist in Portland. 

Ta Da! and here's a hoist to humor!  May its providence ever reign!

yer pluperfect pal,
Michael

P.S.  and no, I am not stoned or otherwise under any other salacious influence.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Hi David,

It's difficult to discuss these issues without slipping into too much Integral theory and jargon, but I think it's important to point out that your examples here refer to the entire population and so to the related span and depth of the entire population, with the higher levels of depth being vastly outnumbered by all of the lower levels.

As you've said, Zaadz has been a largely self-regulating community so far, so what do you think that says about the center of gravity of the community as a whole?  Based on the arguments you've been making, I think you'd agree that the center of gravity of the Zaadz community is pluralistic/relativistic (i.e. Green), right?  So it seems to me that what you're mainly worried about is a pluralistic worldview (which already has a great deal of depth it's important to remember) suppressing a more integral worldview. Is that a fair assessment?

I'm just trying to properly frame the discussion here, because I don't think it's accurate to compare the Zaadz community to any of the other global theoreticals you've mentioned here. Sure, there are some things we can learn from contemplating those examples, but let's not imply that we have to worry all that much about worldviews below pluralistic/relativistic.  I'm sure we've got some of those here (either through shadow or specific intelligences or even actual individual centers of gravity), but I don't think that span vs. depth applies at those levels to the Zaadz community.

Anyway, what I see a well-designed seeds system as being able to do (not entirely on its own, but with the guidance of real people) is to promote healthy pluralism first of all, and if it's really well designed, it could even help promote growth to higher levels of depth. Not to mention the fact that, by promoting healthy pluralism, we will be providing a drive towards growth for any of the lower levels of development that are found in the community.

It seems to me the potential for the seeds system is huge, but only if we're willing to also include the less “desirable” emotions that content can bring up in us, not just the warm and fuzzies.  Think of sowing seeds not as punishing or rewarding the “sowee”, but as a way of modeling the feelings of the sower.

David wrote: When you talk about people not only facing punishment for attracting concerns but being rewarded for not attracting concerns I get very concerned indeed!

I think I've partially addressed this above, but I thought I should clarify that my suggestion was intended as a possible way of responding to the idea that seed sowing is a form of reward or punishment through the way in which it affects one's garden or beacon icon.  My suggestion of rewarding one's contribution to the community (through the icon) regardless of whether they're getting seeds of encouragement yet was simply that, a possible way of rewarding and recognizing contribution to the community, which is what I understand to be the (main?) purpose of the icon.

So attracting seed sowing can affect one's icon to a certain extent, but it wouldn't be the only (or even the main?) way that one's icon would grow.  If nothing else, it would lessen the direct impact of any concern seeds (although the more I think about this, the more I see that even “concern” is perhaps too outwardly directed) that one's content attracts.

But maybe you could explain better why this suggestion concerns you so much?  Because maybe I'm not seeing the problem.

All the best,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Michael: I have thought and thought and thought about this and I could not agree with you more.  I see any form of institionalized “negative” or otherwise niggling and anonymous “feedback” as retrograde and problematic.  Who, after all is going to review all this button-stabbing?

Right, it will just inhibit free speech and novelty. It's not in the interests of evolution but the status quo.

Michael:   What process, I ask, will handle this potential gripe fest?

Yes, it will just encourage a big gripe fest, which isn't good in and of itself, but it would also put more of a burden on the zaadz team, not less of a burden. Leave it to people to work it out among themselves, as they have been doing, and turn to pod moderators if need be.

Grey:  The people who are shier about that sort of thing will … have an anonymous way of expressing their concern.

Grey: Anyway, what I see a well-designed seeds system as being able to do (not entirely on its own, but with the guidance of real people) is to promote healthy pluralism first of all.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

David: If people are shy and concerned, they should be encouraged to speak to a moderator, or a friend who will express it for them, or a therapist, or some combination of these things. We wouldn't be helping them by encouraging such shyness.

Maybe you missed it, David, but I've said (more than once) that when someone sows a “challenging emotion” seed, they could be encouraged, as part of the confirmation process, to do all sorts of things in addition to sowing a seed.  So rather than a less outspoken person just staying in the background unseen by anyone and never expressing their views in any way, the seeds system would provide a way of reaching out to these people and encouraging them to do more than just lurking.

David: I think shadow is a pretty substantial problem, and an anonymous negative-seed function would not help to bring shadow to light. It would keep it in the darkness.

Again, no. See above.  I agree that shadow is an important issue to be dealt with by an individual, and the seeds system would provide a way to reach out to people and encourage them to reflect on things like these.  I'm just saying that occasional individual expressions of shadow through seeds won't do anything to affect another person's icon.

David: Why promote healthy pluralism, first of all, if pluralism is already the COG?

Because healthy pluralism is better than pluralitis.  You can't just jump from rational materialism to an integrated worldview, and it's much more likely that someone will make the transition to an integrated worldview from healthy pluralism than from pluralitis.  Baby steps….

David: It's looking like you're saying all these emotions are worthy of expression. This is quite the opposite of the I-I Road Rules, which has us transmuting these base impulses into wisdom and care.

No, I'm saying it's important to pay attention to them and give them careful consideration.  As things stand now, when someone gets really angry at another member, they essentially have three options: vent their anger on the person they see as being the cause of that anger; shut up and stew; or work through it on their own and deal with the feelings more responsibly (which many, if not most, people probably won't manage to do).  With the seeds system I'd like to see, they'd have a fourth option: consider their feelings more carefully as they're selecting the seed that feels right, which would then, ideally based on the specific seed they choose, give them some links to sources of guidance on how to deal with that emotion (and the situation) in a more healthy manner for all concerned.

Ken Wilber (quoted by David): “Transcend can mean negate. In other words, when you transcend something, you're leaving something behind; you're excluding something in a certain sense.”

Of course, but anger isn't something you can negate. It's not like belief in a mythic God with a long white beard living in the clouds. That's something you leave behind as you develop more evolved ways of understanding God (by whatever name you prefer to use).  Anger is an emotion you learn to deal with in healthier ways, not something you can all of a sudden leave behind when you achieve a more integral worldview.

David: [Negative seeds] would just make it more difficult for people to express these emotions you say are important and to say something that others disagree with, that might assert some truth, that might marginalize some other perspective, which integral will always do.

Could you explain this a little bit more, David?  It sounds like you're saying that people should be encouraged to express their anger in order to marginalize some other perspective, but surely I'm misunderstanding you (also because in the paragraph before this you seem to be suggesting that anger should be repressed to a certain extent).  Some of the things you say also make it sound like you're trying to marginalize pluralism rather than help people transcend and include it.

You can't force someone to evolve by cramming an integral worldview down their throats. You can only set a good example and clear the way as much as possible (and set up the occasional unobtrusive signpost along the way) for them to grow on their own, while allowing them to express themselves in the healthiest way possible for where they're currently at.  It seems to me that “challenging emotion” seeds are an opportunity to do just that.

Metta,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

 Grey: I agree that shadow is an important issue to be dealt with by an individual, and the seeds system would provide a way to reach out to people and encourage them to reflect on things like these.  I'm just saying that occasional individual expressions of shadow through seeds won't do anything to affect another person's icon.

In what way is sending an anonymous bad seed “reaching out” and “encouraging them to reflect”? It's just saying, “I don't like you” or “I don't like what you said” or “I am offended.” How is that encouraing people to relate and interact?

What's really less than integral is the idea that these anonymous negative seeds would affect the brightness of a person's icon and reputation. From an integral perspective, that's totally indefensible, and would clearly be a reflection of pluralistic thinking. It clearly doesn't recognize that the bad seed givers themselves would be at fault half the time, at least, and that it could be a worldview conflict, a type conflict, shadow, scapegoating, etc. Now if you made it so it was the bad-seed giver's icon that dimmed every time he sent out a bad seed, the idea might start making some sense.

 

David: Why promote healthy pluralism, first of all, if pluralism is already the COG?

Grey: Because healthy pluralism is better than pluralitis. 

Of course it is. Who would dispute that? But that doesn't answer my question. Why would you want to promote the value sphere that's already the center of gravity of the community rather than promote the next emergence? Sure we want to promote healthy pluralism, but the way to do that is integral, not more pluralism. More pluralism will only make pluralitis worse. Integral is what cures it.

 

Grey: As things stand now, when someone gets really angry at another member, they essentially have three options… . With the seeds system I'd like to see, they'd have a fourth option: consider their feelings more carefully as they're selecting the seed that feels right, which would then, ideally based on the specific seed they choose, give them some links to sources of guidance on how to deal with that emotion (and the situation) in a more healthy manner for all concerned.

Well, that's great, a little anger therapy, but you're also saying that someone else should bear the weight of that anger, which likely as not is something the bad seed giver should own himself. Not only that, you have been saying that the person on the recieving end of the anonymous bad seed should pay a price–with a dimmer icon, a lesser reputation–and from an integral perspective that is downright bizzare. Bizzarre because it could be a worldview disagreement, a clique or bullying or scapegoating dynamic, shadow, emotional troubles. Really amazing that you think one person's anger about something should translate into the dimming of the other person's icon and reputation just because someone felt like sending a bad seed. 
 

Grey: Anger is an emotion you learn to deal with in healthier ways, not something you can all of a sudden leave behind when you achieve a more integral worldview.

Right, but you're saying people should deal with their anger by sending out a negative seed to someone. That is anything but evolved or enlightened. You deal with anger in various ways–discussing it, talking to someone about it, taking a homeopathic remedy, doing some yoga, getting some exerise, letting it be,  transmuting it into clarity (Buddhist) etc.–but sending an anonymous negative seed to someone is not one of them, not from any kind of an integral or superintegral perspective. Sending out an anonymous bad seed to someone as a method of dealing with anger would only create karma, to the say the least. It would not promote anyone's development, and it would inhibit people from expressing themselves freely because people wouldn't want their reputations dimmed. Really, if the politically correct police were to dream up a system, they would dream up just the one you're envisioning.

David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

WARNING: Looooong post follows! Sorry, folks. I got kinda carried away, but I think there's some good stuff here, particularly at the end.  ;-)

David: In what way is sending an anonymous bad seed “reaching out” and “encouraging them to reflect”? It's just saying, “I don't like you” or “I don't like what you said” or “I am offended.” How is that encouraing people to relate and interact?

I think I've already said all that I can say in all the different ways I can figure out to say it on this issue.  I'll give it some more thought, but right now I really don't understand why you can't make an effort to take, for a moment, my perspective that I'm not talking about “bad seeds”. 

I mean, let's forget the idea ever started with “bad seeds”, and let's even forget about the seeds system all together for a minute.  How does saying to yourself “I'm feeling angry” or “I'm feeling uncomfortable” equate with saying to someone's face “I don't like you”? Or how about this: Is it better to punch someone in the face when you're angry, or go into another room and punch a pillow to get it out of your system?

Because that's really what we're talking about here.  But actually it's even better, because when we go into that other room to punch a pillow, we would also find some sources of guidance on how else we can deal with the emotions we're feeling. And people who are lashing out and going to punch that pillow would at least be presented with options that might make them think twice about how they've reacted so far.

It should already be clear by now, based on the effect good seeds are having on a person's beacon right now, that one person sowing one seed does nothing to visibly change a person's icon.  But let's consider a situation in which a whole bunch of people are being triggered by something someone has posted, so many people that it has had a meaningful impact on that person's icon (either actually reducing it or keeping it from growing in some significant manner).  Let's also assume that the seeds system is designed to detect situations exactly like this one, which means that it comes to the attention of the admins/moderators.  Now real people who, let's also assume, are able to take multiple perspectives in situations like these are looking at the situation.  So what can happen?

Well, basically, one of three things can happen: the moderators feel that (1) the contributor of the content could be made more aware of how their content is affecting people; (2) the people being triggered could be made more aware of the value of the content; or perhaps the more likely (3) both the contributor of the content and the people being triggered could learn (or maybe even already have learned) something from the situation.

So what does this mean in terms of the icon?  Well, in the first case, we might decide that a slowing in the growth of the person's icon is warranted because they have work to do in order to become a more responsible/sustainable contributor to the community. In the second, we might decide that it's best to reset the person's icon to where it would have been without the “challenging emotion” seeds because the moderators appreciate the value of the content in supporting a sustainable community. In the third case, maybe some intermediate adjustment could be made to the person's icon in recognition of the value of all of the various points of view.  Not to mention the fact that the algorithm could be tweaked further based on this experience in order to help deal with situations like these more effectively in the future.

This is an overly simplistic scenario, but I think it might show a bit of my thinking on how human intervention could make the icons more meaningful and keep them from being a popularity contest or a means of reward or punishment.

In practice, the admins and moderators would need to run some statistics on how many of what types of seeds (across the whole spectrum) different types of content (from “hot” contributors on down to the less visible ones) might attract in order to have a better idea how to integrate “challenging emotion” seeds into the algorithm in a manner that finds the right balance between the need for their intervention and the effect unmonitored seed sowing has on a person's icon.

For example, different types of emotion could have different effects on the icon (or even no effect at all, and some forms of “challenging emotions” could even act on a person's icon and weighting in the same way as “good seeds”). Maybe challenging emotion seeds could have no effect at all (i.e. absolutely none) until a certain number of seeds (both inspirational and challenging) have been sown in order to provide some sort of statistical validity to the seeds. Maybe specific individuals with a proven track record of being good contributors to the community can have their icons made more resilient to “attack” in some way.  Maybe, as I've suggested before, a person's icon can also grow simply for posting content, thereby lessening the impact of seeds and the view that the seeds “reward” or “punish” a person for contributing to the community.

There's a virtually infinite number of ways in which the algorithm might be tweaked in order to optimize the need for human intervention in the moderating process and to keep the icon from being seen as either a popularity contest or a system of reward and punishment.  But if it turns out that that's not possible for whatever reason (even simply human nature), the icon can always be removed and the underlying weighting it represents can only be used by the seed system, the admins and moderators.  That wouldn't affect how the seeds system would be able to help us find certain types of content throughout the community.

But let's go back to what's wrong with a seeds system with just “good seeds”. It's already a step in the right direction, because without this system, all we can tell from the statistics is how much traffic and generic attention content is generating. With the seeds we have now, we know that certain content generates traffic and that a certain number of people viewing the content also “like” it, but we have no idea why they like it.  And we still know virtually nothing about the people who are viewing the content but not sowing any seeds.  Are they not sowing seeds because they just don't feel like it or don't think to do it?  Are they not sowing seeds because they actually don't like the content or are triggered by it? And people who are triggered by content are essentially left to their own devices in dealing with those emotions.

Also, the way the system is implemented now, it very much is a popularity contest, since your beacon only brightens if you're attracting a lot of seed sowing.  So it seems to me that that promotes pluralism (and not necessarily healthy pluralism) much more than a more “complete” seeds system would. And with such a limited range of qualitative information being put into the system, there really isn't a lot that can be done to make the beacon anything but a popularity contest.

And no seeds system at all?  Well, OK, there are still things that can be done to help people find content, but there's no way, without a whole lot of user intervention, for the new Gaia system to automatically categorize high-quality content as much as it's going to want to do.

There are also other things that can be done to help people to deal with conflict and with being triggered by content, but unless someone actually reports a situation to a moderator or admin (or if a moderator or admin just happens to notice a situation as it's developing), we have no way of reaching out to specific individuals when they are being faced with specific challenging situations.

So given all these potential upsides to a well-designed seeds system, can't we, if even for the sake of argument, assume for a minute that it can be made to work and talk about ideas for making it work, rather than debating purely whether it can or can't work? After all, a system is already in place, so let's talk about making it better, rather than talking about doing away with it. If after a process of discussion, trial and error, we still find that it does more harm than good, then OK, there's still time to get rid of it.

David: it would inhibit people from expressing themselves freely because people wouldn't want their reputations dimmed.

I don't know. To me, free speech is overrated. ;-)

Seriously though, what's wrong with having a system in place that encourages people to think a bit more about things like right speech and skillful means?  I mean, assuming it's a good system that has a way of handling unfounded or isolated “attacks” on otherwise valuable content.  If a person is blogging to the entire Zaadz community, then that person should give some thought to how exactly is best to address that community.  In so doing, they should still be able to say what they want to say (free speech), but they'll say it in a way that will get across to the target audience much more effectively.  And if you're always coming out all guns blazing, provoking your audience with every post, then it seems to me it's you, the blogger, who's creating more bad karma than the people reacting to you.

But let's say you only intend for your blog to be read by a specific subset of the Zaadz community.  If you're only addressing, say, the Integral community within Zaadz, and if you go about managing your blog appropriately, then most likely the very nature of your blog will limit your readership pretty much to that community or people with a propensity to become a part of that community.  Sure, you might get a few Integral-bashers come around and lash out at you now and then, but most people probably won't attract enough of that kind of attention for that to make any difference in their icon or beacon (or whatever).

But if the things you write about, and the way you write about them, do attract a lot of attention from a wider audience, then it only makes sense to either try and reach that wider audience more effectively or adjust your blog so that you limit your audience to those you really want to target. (And btw, if you're intentionally limiting your target audience in this way, you're not going to give a hoot about how highly ranked your content is within the broader Zaadz community or how bright your beacon is.)

Sure, there are exceptions to this, like if you get to be as famous as someone like Ken Wilber (who targets a specific audience with skill but attracts a lot of broader attention anyway), then there's not a lot you can do as a content writer to prevent attacks.  But in cases like those, the admins or moderators can step in to protect you from them.  Kinda like how all the Zaadz team's beacons are already as bright as they're gonna get and you can't sow seeds for them. The same kind of thing could be done, maybe to varying degrees, for particular people that merit it.

Hmmm… for someone who said at the beginning that he thought he'd said all he could say, I sure ended up writing a lot. ;-)

All the best,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Here's a text posted by Bill a few eons ago. might be interesting, as Michael was making some figures about active members and flagging.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Patrick:

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

<sigh> long message got chewed up by Firefox.
will try to be briefer (!)

Grey, David – I really appreciate the two of you hanging in here with this. I feel like I'm getting somewhere! (and there have been times it felt like I was eavesdropping on a private conversation). So many great points, again, I feel resonance to both 'sides'. Perhaps they are not so far apart as they sometimes seem?

David - did Grey ever say he was 'for' “anonymous bad seeds” ? I guess he must have but somehow that isn't my impression. Personally I feel all seeds should not be anonymous. In anycase, I presume they are not to the z/g team. I do agree that sending off a 'bad' seed willy nilly doesn't seem to be useful, but I don't think this is what Grey is suggesting?

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Grey, I've just put aside a monstrous “Introducing Research Methods” textbook and came here to relax and unwind my flow of ideas, and here you are - talking about quantifiable data on people's contributions, beacons, attitudes and so on. Ahh… :)

You know, this made me think of another button to replace CE or concern: “Incomprehensible”. :) No no, I'm not saying your text is, it's my mind too filled up with “research”.. It's just that, sometimes I open someone's blog, or scroll down a pod, and see this long piece of text, without paragraphs and sometimes even without punctuation. Or written in an incomprehensible language, daht si miply impossiiibel ta undasanding. Or it's a non-stop poem. The problem is, it takes me twice as long to read and understand it. Thus I suggest a button “Incomprehensible” or, to make it milder, ”Hard to Read”, that is plainly visible to the author. I'm sure their text is enlightening in a way, but if it's hard to read… Perhaps it should lower that text's popularity, but not the author's. And it will make the author consider the opinion of his readers. And I think this should be anonymous.

You said it yourself: ”right speech, skillful means…”. As far as the “negative feedback” is concerned, I'm undecided. I tried to change the wording (“weeds”, “concern”) but whether to have this system or not - I don't know. This discussion here is full of insight, but I'm trying to think more in terms of function, practice, how it can be done. If not the “bad seeds”, then what? What can work both from Grey's position and David's? Instead of this what I see so far is Grey trying to convince David who is in turn trying to convince Grey. Something tells me this is the case where we'll just have to agree to disagree, and try to find a compromise.

Siona hinted in response to the “garden imagery” that they were thinking more in terms of “resonance”. For now, we only have “I like it” and “Flag for review” buttons. How about, instead of “I like it”, go for a trio of ”I resonate”, ”I DON'T resonate”, and ”I CAN'T resonate”? :-)

Personally, I think it may be useful to have ”negative” rating of content, but not authors. Even better would be the option of having “zero-seeds-given” instead of actually “negative” feedback, as I've described earlier. It does sound stupid, especially considering the current name for positive author feedback. “Give Thanks!”. What would there be instead? ”Give Sh*t!”? And options of ”Big loathing!”, ”Disgusting stuff!” and ”Get a life!!” !? Because, simply, if by rating a user's blog negatively we lower his/her seedcount, how is it different to having a “Give Sh*t” option on their profile? I can give you one seed of appreciation in your profile, and then take away one in your blog. It beats the whole point of giving thanks, because this is a quantifiable thanks that can be taken away. Real thanks can't be taken away.

But this can also be debated. Everything is relative. :)

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Zet White: Personally, I think it may be useful to have ”negative” rating of content, but not authors. Even better would be the option of having “zero-seeds-given” instead of actually “negative” feedback…. I can give you one seed of appreciation in your profile, and then take away one in your blog. It beats the whole point of giving thanks, because this is a quantifiable thanks that can be taken away.

Yeah, it's important to reiterate that I've always been talking about non-resonation seeds for content only, not for the actual Zaadz member. 

And having “NR” seeds with zero value would already be a huge improvement over only positive seeds. At least we'd have more information to work with.  But I think it's also important to realize that there could very well be cases where you'd want to send “Big Love” to someone, but then say, “But there's this post over here that I'm not resonating with.”  And since “Big Love” is worth 3 seeds and an NR seed for content would be worth (much?) less than one seed, it might actually make some sense to be essentially sowing a net of 2.xxx seeds.

Big Love,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Patrick, it's not about computerised control IMHO, it's about meaningful rating of information.
To add to your calculations, in case someone missed this… Siona said here:

“So far (or as of last night (5th Dec.)) , the community as a whole has doled out a total of 29236 seeds. Of those, 29099 seeds were used to either give thanks or to bestow positive feedback, and 137 were used to flag content. (Nearly 30,000 little blessings? I get a big grin on my face just thinking of the intention each of those represents. Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you.)

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Cool.  I'd missed those stats.  I'd be curious to know, though, how many of those flags for review were valid concerns (i.e. in response to actual policy violations or near violations) and how many were just shadow boxing or other overreactions. 

'Cause it seems to me that 137 possible policy violations in such a short period of time is actually pretty high.  Has the Zaadz team even had time to check them all out?  Would having “non-resonation” seeds (trying out another term here…) help people to use the policy-violation flags more responsibly?

Cheers,

~G

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

I suggest this thread be locked and we go to a new one, it's just gone too long. (I really think Zaadz should introduce “pages” system for long pods, so only 20-25 show on one page, not 125. Like it is with viewing friends' blogs.)

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Zet: I knew there was something I meant to say last night: Re David & Grey:

Something tells me this is the case where we'll just have to agree to disagree, and try to find a compromise.

Yes!

I think it may be useful to have ”negative” rating of content, but not authors. Even better would be the option of having “zero-seeds-given” instead of actually “negative” feedback, as I've described earlier.

Yes!

And yes I also feel this thread has gone on too long. I'm wondering if some fine mind can summarize the essence of this thread and start a new one which includes this essence & widens the landscape?

Sandra

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Sandra: And yes I also feel this thread has gone on too long. I'm wondering if some fine mind can summarize the essence of this thread and start a new one which includes this essence & widens the landscape?

I'm not a big fan of the whole concept of “agree to disagree” because it seems like such an inferior solution, and “compromise” isn't exactly the word I'd use either (I like “consensus” better), but yeah, I'm ready to close this particular thread now, too.

I'd love to see the conversation just continue in the Seeds and Gardens thread (rather than starting a new one), since there seems to be a much more productive energy there and a lot less focus on “bad seeds”.

With love,
Grey

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Grey:  A good seeds system would put more of the control over community moderation in the hands of the community.  If it's implemented and promoted properly, that actually sounds like fun to me.

It sounds like mob rule to me, always favoring the majority and the cliques over minorities and individuals.


  Grey: Yeah, it's important to reiterate that I've always been talking about non-resonation seeds for content only, not for the actual Zaadz member. 

You've been promoting the idea of negative seeds having the power to dim people's “beacons.” That's not directed at content; that's directed at the person. But at any rate, you can't really separate the two. People identify with their ideas, their art, their expression, etc.

Grey: As people have also pointed out, it's self-regulating now, but why should we expect it to continue self-regulating as the community grows without getting creative with something like this seeds system?

Let's wait 'till it's broke before we fix it. It's working fine now and should continue to work fine since more members will mean more moderators and more people who will step up to self-regulate.

All the best,

David

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Yeah!!! I agree, we can shut the thread off….

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

No, Patrick, I disagree with you. Many things said here are definitely taken into consideration. The wording of the seeds system is changed, and some statistics have been given to us. Siona told me in an email that the team is considering all the feedback from the thinktank about the seeds, and that many of the things said here were mirrorred during some team's discussions. I think we owe them some patience? Gaia.com has just been out and a lot of time and energy is being put into it. I think we need to ask specific questions and be more persistent and patient. Imagine yourself in the shoes of one of the admins here. Honestly, how would you feel if you are working hard to evolve and develop the site of your dream, your passion (which is what Zaadz is for them all), and someone comes up and accuses you of being a brat who couldn't care less about the users of the site? They're all human, it hurts them you know.

I'm not being a pro-admins preacher here, I just see a normal human perspective. It's hasn't even been a whole month since the thead was started, and the thread did cause changes! And it's some ten days since Jake replied here, and only a few since an amendment to the seeds desciption. And you say we are ignored? For the admins of a site in devevlopment it always takes long to reply AND make adjustments to the system in development. And in the eyes of a programmer, the best reply is in action, not words. Do you want C4 to come here and say “Hey guys, I'm taking your points into consideration while working on the code today. Love, C4.”? Maybe I do too, but I fear it would make me shut up and wait for a couple of weeks till changes are implemented. And anyway, he did say just that in his own words in a parallel thread just four days ago: ~C4Chaos said (Dec.7th): “…the Seed System as it is right now is an early implementation. we'll continue to refine the system…”  Moreover…

Patrick: “Don't give energy and valuable ideas…”

I think the admins are putting much more energy and thought-power into all this than most of us here. Coding, discussing, checking emails with complaints, questions, accusations, solving those issues, doing more coding, more discussions, eating at least twice a day, having some time away from the computer at least once a week… Yes, I also don't like “being ignored” when I am so inspired with my own voice. Well, after a few days of waiting I emailed Siona asking politely to check out the new thread. Next day she did, commented, and some valuable action followed. C4 gave some more info very recently in the Seeds and Gardens thread, this doesn't mean this thread is ignored, imagine his post is here instead. Because it is, for them the two topics aren't separate. So we aren't ignored.

And for God's sake it shouldn't be closed, it's my personal issue with long threads! They use bandwith to display 40+ messages that I don't need to see! And it takes time and many kilobytes to download that every time. I don't have broadband, and my only issue is with the length. If it was split into pages like lists of friends' blogs, I wouldn't mind talking here forever, if it's only the last ten posts I have to download. No offence to the discussion here, sorry if me bringing this up upset you.

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Zet White,

exactly! even if we (admins) don't specifically reply, many things are taken into consideration. having said that, it doesn't mean that we'll implement everything that was suggested (coz that's gonna be chaos :)).

btw, Jake did reply to this thread way back. so we haven''t ignored it.

when all things are said and done, the decision of what to implement (or what not to implement) will be coming from the us admins (and management) on what we think is best. however, the value of discussion threads like this is that we (admins) are able to reflect and consider our decisions (and make changes accordingly) instead of just imposing everything without getting feedback.

since the implementation of the Seed System, we've made some changes based on feedback we received. we changed some features, we even changed the wordings, and more improvements are coming soon. so hold on to your patience and understanding, coz we're not the type who ignore people (especially those who have constructive things to say).

in the meantime, check out my reply on another thread.

“the Seed System is a voting system, trust system, reputation system, community self-regulating system, all rolled into one. now let's focus on the positive aspect of the Seed System.”

thanks!

~C

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

Alright, come on now…….what are you doing?? I mean really, what are you all doing?? Do you even go back and read your own stuff? This is just ridiculous. Look at the waste of precious time and energy to spend day after day talking about the seeds thing! I've never seen anything like this! Day after day I get this in my email because I've “joined” this overall thread, and people……..peeps…….come on now…….it's a goofy little sort of fun system that appears to be absolutely meaningless. Why on earth are you all spending all of this time and getting so darn “deep” over something like this…….it's just mind boggling. Why don't you all just either play with the seeds thing or don't and move on to something that would be much less………..and dare I say it because I will……….anal……..than this??

Thank you!

John

Re: Ratings on Individual Material? + BRING BACK BAD SEEDS!

hi everyone,

i think some people made an excellent point about locking thread.

for the record, we're not locking it because we're closing our doors to the discussion. it's just that the thread is getting too long and takes a long time to load (we hear you Zet White :)).

so i'm locking the thread for now. feel free to continue the discussion on another thread.

thank you very much for all your feedback.

~C