Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Turning the jerk dial down
Like most communities, both online and off HoL has a few moments of tension and some grumpiness. That's life. However, it doesn't mean that we can't improve on things.
A few people have told me that they know someone who's been put off from contributing or even visiting HoL because of some of the behaviour on the site...and that's a shame. Liz and I work hard to try and make the overall tone positive and the environment safe. Our visitor statistics show that HoL is getting more and more popular. We're growing the number of unique daily visitors every month and according to figures provided by the Hornsey Journal, we get twice the number of visitors as their sites, but could we do more to make HoL and even better place to visit?
The other day I was reading social media guru Clay Shirky writing on dealing with bad behaviour in online forums:
That provides some options for turning the jerk dial down. One is to make identity valuable........... Another approach is to partition public platforms, thus reducing the incentive to publicly act out.
Both points resonate with me when thinking about forums in general and left me with two questions:
- Do we have a need to turn the jerk dial down on HoL?
- If so, how should we put Shirky's insights into practice?
On partitioning the platform, the obvious answer is to do away with, or make less central, the latest activity feature. I've tried that before and was met with a storm of protest. It remains an option.
Any thoughts on the general issues and HoL responses most welcome.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Hugh, in all conscience isn't your choice of title for this discussion a symptom of the real malaise? Yes, I know it's a handy quote from the Sacred Scriptures of the divine Shirky - but it has the effect of predicting and steering this 'discussion' in a preordained direction, viz where you want it to go.
This ensures that you don't really engage with the gentler admonitions of caution: e.g. James on avoiding sanitising the site; John D doubting if there is a problem (other than an apparent anti-crouchendism) and warning against the anodyne; Steve, Danzigger and (yes!) Anette favouring the bit of cut and thrust of real discussion without constantly being self-conscious of how non-participants might be silently reacting or worrying about why they're not participating; Vernon wondering in jest who you're calling a jerk, and some other idiot trying to suggest in code that maybe we can discuss possible improvements to our main page without reverting to imported locker room or shock jock slang.
No wonder that John feels maybe it's time to express himself a little more than somewhat pissed off.
Maybe it would be better to publicly identify the half-dozen or dozen holjerks, ban us for a year and see if the remaining 4,500 flood in with their posts, blogs, comments and ever so supportive and life-enhancing positivity.
Meanwhile, with Alan holding the balance in that thoughtful manner that few of us can fault, you do seem to have found those suggestions from Angela, Mr Growbag, Pip and the silent anonymous ones more or less what you had in mind ab origine. Q.E.D.
No?
Eddie Finnegan
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Great idea OAE... a HOL 'sin-bin' for instance, three strikes and you're out... ! Oh dear, I think I'm in it already..
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
@Stephen, we can be in it together, I'll make some rules up, you can break them, and I'll beat you up for it. We'll have fun.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thanks for your comments Eddie. My choice of title just took a catchy phrase coined by Shirky in an article about how to discourage immoderate contributions to forums. It's not the first time I've attempted to choose a catchy title to attract attention and it won't be the last. I'm clear on why I chose it. It seems, however, that I didn't give sufficient thought to how some people would react to it. I apologise to those people who've taken offence. Really, it was just a shiny new phrase Shirky used. I'm interested in particular behaviours not particular people.
Look at any discussion forum for people who run sites like this or publications about moderating forums and you'll see that getting the tone of contributions appropriate for the user-base is an area of common concern. There's nothing at all unusual in my focus on this. I'm actually genuinely interested in people's views on the subject. I know what the books say. I want to know what Harringay says.
You're suggesting that my interactions have been one sided on this thread. I'm not sure that's a fair characterisation, Eddie. My choice to respond or not respond to individual posts doesn't imply anything about my degree of agreement or otherwise. After the initial few posts, I've tried my best to engage as little as possible on this thread because I'm keen to hear and learn from the views of others.
I've just had a quick look back through my contributions and if you look back they've been:
- thanking people for contrubutions (Alan, John & Angela)
- thanking people for suggestions (Mr GB & Pip).
- offering my view following criticism
- checking understanding
- adding additional explanation and context
I haven't directly responded to everyone's comments on this conversation any more that I would on any other conversation I take part in on HoL. For example, I didn't respond to John D directly because the issue of whether there's a problem being in question is, I thought, explicit in the original post. In one of my responses, I also added some data which, as John D noted, suggests the absence of a problem.
Insofar as making HoL an anodyne space is concerned, I'm not clear where the idea comes from that toning down rudeness should automatically lead to the site being anodyne. Surely you can have engaging, informative content without posts that are insulting, intentionally or not.
My interest is in dealing with stuff that people find insulting. I'd make the exact same challenge to bad behaviour in the pub, but I probably wouldn't have to very much because most people who are occasionally insulting on a forum are sweetness and light socially.
-
-
Hugh - since this discussion is all about why some people don't contribute much / at all to HoL, I have to say that from my perspective I think Eddie may be onto something.
I think it's brilliant that we have HoL, and much thanks to your efforts. I enjoy 'lurking' (as someone called it) from time-to-time, but IMO it IS a wee bit cliquey. It's also too academic at times (and we're not all academics) - thus not accessible to all by any means. But the biggest barrier for me is (how to say this)... the sense that you're ALWAYS lurking! What I mean is - having such a regular moderator as yourself is a bit off-putting to me. I sense that if I post something a bit off the wall or controversial I'll be "put right" by yourself or others, which has indeed happened. Hope this isn't hurtful, but you could try taking a back seat a bit more and just letting the discussions flow from all-comers.
To finish on a positive, though, HoL is a great thing indeed and you should be v. proud of having set it up. Although I don't post much I've found some really useful information on the site, and found some new homes for quite a few unwanted household items. Keep up the good work!
-
-
Thanks for your comments, Paul and for the nice things you say about HoL.
I can see why you'd say it's cliquey. It's what our research suggested too. Finding a way to avoid that sort of thing is why I start discussions like this. I think a couple of the irregulars have pointed it up too.
I'm sorry if the tone of the site is sometimes too academic [though it would be a rare occasion for that observation to be levelled at me! So I assume you're referring to others' contributions. :0) ]
As to my role, some perspective from me:
- I have to admit to being online a lot less than you probably imagine. For example I'm writing this from the Jubilee Line (and finishing it during a grabbed moment in a cafe in EC1) and will post it next time I connect. Unfortunately I just don't have the same time as I used to to be online.
- my thoughts are that since there's a code of conduct, you probably need someone available to help keep things on course. In this case you either have site admins available for moderation or you don't. (I should probably point out that our site terms and conditions make clear that the site is not actively moderated). I don't think I'd agree with ditching our code of conduct.
- the amount of moderation carried out by either Liz or I is thankfully very low. We don't actively moderate. We do so if we happen to notice something or if it's brought to out attention. We try to intervene as little as possible and probably only do so once or twice a month.
- the only occasions we moderate are when the site's code of conduct is contravened. Let me know if there's anything you disagree with there.
Having said all that I'm open to listen to views about this that differ from my own.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
This is a familiar conversation ...
I'd also like to give Pip's suggestion a go - ie having the newest posts list appearing above the current activity, for all the reasons that people have outlined. I think the tendency for one discussion (and perhaps a few names, lovely people though they all are, of course) to appear over and over again it can make the site look too 'clubby'. And if you're not part of the club it can be hard to dive in.
I think there is a confidence thing about posting on something like this, and we all ought to be aware of that. I don't mean not saying what you mean or disagreeing when you do. But I wonder whether some replies might benefit from a bit more thought before hitting the 'add reply' button.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
