Sustain'd Blog

I think that’s awesome. Good job.

Left by Bryant on September 26th, 2006

I put this comment somewhere else, but I’ll say it again - if a sustain’d user posts a link to his own post, that post should be deleted automatically.

Left by danithew on September 26th, 2006

i think some clarity needs to be made about the purpose of the opposing. i thought the purpose of the opposing/burying was to get rid of spam/porn/anti-mormon posts or posts that just don’t add anything to the discussion.

it seems like people are using the oppose function to show that they disagree with the content or thesis of a post.

if everyone starts sustaining/opposing a post solely to show their agreement/disagreement with it, then a post that is highly interesting to many people may end up with relatively view votes.

for example: people tend to be very divisive when it comes to same-sex marriage. a post on ssm may generate many responses and have plenty of readings. however if 30 people sustain it because they agree with the content of the post and 26 people oppose it because they disagree with the content of the post, then the post may only register 4 sustainings - even though 40 people may have found the discussion interesting.

i say this becaue a quick perusal of the spy function seems to show that certain users are simply going through and sustaining certain posts and opposing others simply by the position implied in the title and summary.

if users like jmaxwilson continue this sort of opposing and sustaining, then the number will hardly be indicitive of what the majority of users actually think of the content of the post.

Left by the narrator on September 26th, 2006

buried:

How do you suggest getting people to vote according to the criteria of interest over opinion?

as many have suggested, providing some sort of drop box so that people have to pick a reason for opposing it, and don’t give a ‘i just disagree with this’ option.

And why do you reject the idea that not agreeing with a post also mean not finding it interesting?

you can disagree with something and still find the discourse interesting. for example, i disagree with most of connor’s ideas. i however still find what he says interesting and contributing to the broader discussion. even though i disagree, it can still have much to say and i can recognize that others might find it interesting for discussion. on the other hand, i don’t find a news article about a mormon child dying of e. coli either interesting or thought provoking for anyone. the same goes with a news brief on a new temple. we can all join hands and be happy about it, but in all honesty, i don’t think that there is anything really relevant it can bring to a discussion.

i guess what i am saying is that because i can disagree with it, it necessarily does provoke an opinion and a possibility for discussion. whereas things that i can neither agree nor disagree with (child dying of e.coli/new temple) really has nothing to discuss - of course i could be wrong about that. i’m sure some people in finland and maybe some return missionaries may find something of interest in the latter.

Left by the narrator on September 26th, 2006

here is a perfect example about how the opposing option is getting abused.

between 8:58 and 9:00 pm Hhhhhh buried four posts (’Singing the Song of Songs,’ ‘Women, Priesthood,’ ‘How Will the Church React When Polygamy Becomes Legal?,’ and ‘Another One Bites The Dust’). What do these have in common? They are (in reverse-order) the last four posts that I have submitted. Hhhhh isn’t reading the posts. He is going through and opposing posts solely on the criteria that I submitted them. I’m guessing that he just used the the list of my submissions from my profile.

This all goes back to my original question I posed when Sustain’d opened up. Could critical/progressive voices survive on Sustain’d? When ignorant persons like Hhhhh go through and oppose posts solely because of the person submitting the post, the answer will be a certain No.

Left by the narrator on September 26th, 2006

The Narrator said:
“if users like jmaxwilson continue this sort of opposing and sustaining, then the number will hardly be indicitive of what the majority of users actually think of the content of the post.”

My, doesn’t the Narrator play the role of squeaky wheel well?

I am only responding here because I was accused by name.

For the record, I have never looked at the name of the submitter to determine what I should oppose or sustain. And I have never opposed any article or video without reading or watching it entirely.

Of course the narrator feels that the content he has submitted is “interesting.” That is why he submitted it. But let’s not mince words. The Narrator wants “interestingness” to be the main measure of content on Sustain’d, not because he genuinely wants to promote all “interesting” content, but because doing so will create a safe-haven environment for his “progressive” views. This is clear from his previous call for others to submit as much “progressive” LDS content as possible on Sustain’d. He didn’t tell them to promote “interesting” content of all stripes.

The Narrator keeps throwing around democratic concepts like “majority” but the fact is that the kind of content the Narrator wants promoted is the minority view within the LDS population as a whole. He wants Sustain’d to be a safe haven where such minority views can be promoted beyond the democratic appeal they would be given by a real cross-section of LDS members. He isn’t interested in true democracy (minorities rarely are) but a platform for his progressive minority viewpoint. He hopes that if only the viewpoints he sustains can gain a greater audience, the majority view, upon being exposed to this greater “light” and “knowledge” will be transformed.

As a general measurement, “interestingness” is utterly meaningless. Am I supposed to find yet another iteration of the same-old church-critical tropes in yet another progressive post by yet another self-styled LDS intellectual,or LDS dissident, or borderlander, interesting every time I see it regurgitated in a new hue and texture? Piffle!

Clever, edgy, and intellectually stimulating are pretty useless unless they are combined with true and edifying.

I will sustain that which I find to be true and edifying, virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy. I will oppose that which I believe to be incorrect, false, misguided and not edifying. I will refrain from voting on that which I find neither or simply uninteresting.

Everyone else, including the Narrator, is free to do the same–or not. But let’s not pretend that we don’t each have an agenda. Of course we do.

Cheers,

Left by jmaxwilson on September 27th, 2006

“or reading them and sustaining/opposing them in bulk later”

Yup. Some things I like to muse over and let settle before I voting. Others I happened to read or see previously, even before Sustain’d was launched.

Left by jmaxwilson on September 27th, 2006

Perhaps I have spoken to soon and need to wait and see what happens as more people join. With enough people, those who go on sustaining/opposing sprees should be weeded out by a larger number who sustain/oppose based on the content of the post.

I still see a problem with the ambiguity of what it means to oppose a post, as some may find a post interesting and worthy of discussion but oppose (disagree) with the thesis of the content, while other may oppose it because they believe it is spam/poor writing/ really uninteresting etc. Both of these get lumped together and appear to be claiming the latter.

Oh well. We’ll see how things turn out.

Left by the narrator on September 27th, 2006

The anonymous sustaining/opposing was disabled the day after the launch of Sustain’d. Some of the older posts might have different numbers that reflect this, but the recent and future ones will not.

Left by Connor Boyack on September 28th, 2006

Interesting conversation…here are my 2 cents:
One of the reasons I like this site is that it’s a bit of a social experiment because it’s designed to feature content that pleases the community. Essentially, if you’re a “regular” to the site, you’re seeing stuff you like on the front page which fuels your continued participation. The flip side is that, if you don’t fit the demographic of the majority then the site’s content annoys you and frustrates you (and makes you post whiny comments :P) and ultimately drives you to ditch the site in favor of sites with content that does please you.I’m very curious to see where the “temperature” of the site’s content ends up over time. Right now my impression is that, overall, it’s pretty conservative and doesn’t show any signs of change, notwithstanding the very vocal minority.

Left by Nick on September 28th, 2006

I’m hoping that maybe the top stories can eventually get stored into loose categories, so it’ll be easier to find stuff I’m interested in.

Left by sootica on September 30th, 2006

“the fact is that certain issues get hammered away again and again and again and again on the bloggernacle.”

sounds like every sunday meeting for the last 6 years.

Left by the narrator on October 8th, 2006

That’s not the problem, Bored in Vernal. The problem is there aren’t enough users yet to vote articles to the front page and there aren’t enough articles for people to vote on.

Left by Kim Siever on October 10th, 2006

Would it be possible to put a recent comments feature on the main page?

Et Voila!

Left by Connor Boyack on October 12th, 2006