NightSwimmer
Senator
A conversation between two posters is not an "article". It is a closed, private forum... In a fishbowl.
As requested from LOC....Getting more visibility for PJ
- Thread starter Woolleybugger
- Start date
Woolleybugger
Mayor
Ever read articles pitting one against the other? Happens in the real world all the time. On Fox? Not so much.
Woolleybugger
Mayor
The greatest of all time was Colonel Bull Kurtz. ATTENTION! That guy could have written a book with his top posts. What a character.
NightSwimmer
Senator
Sure. They have such back and forth discussions between writers on Slate now, but they don't call them "articles". An article is a written work that stands on it's own. Discussion of the article could certainly follow. Whether that discussion should be open to all members or closed to select commentators is an issue unto itself.
I don't think I understand what it is that you desire.
Woolleybugger
Mayor
Just an idea, it might work. Can't hurt to try it.
degsme
Council Member
So I don't quite know all the mechanics of your site software "vBulletin", but if you did something along the lines of what Slate still kinda tries to do (but its comment software sucks) where each article in the "Blog" area gets one or more sub-threads, you might have something.I might be open to making a blog section on here if people want to volunteer. If you have interest in this please post in here or send Minotaur a PM. Thanks for the ideas woolley, I even stopped reading a lot of the crap around here TBH lol.
I know that opening a new forum for each Blog Entry is kinda cumbersome, but otherwise you end up with the kind of mishmash and cross threads you see in Slate and Redstate.com etc. One possible thought woould be to start three sub-threads "LOC Only", "ROC Only" and "Joined Debate". And have an LOC and ROC moderator keep the two partisan threads pure and the debate thread civil.
And frankly Dave, since its your site and you are the one wanting to attract traffic - and since you yourself have an idea which posters are worth reading and which ones are not, you might issue invites to the Blog Entries yourself.
One of the things The Utne Reader does in its print pubs, is to collect and/or invite LOC/ROC writers to cover a particular subject from various partisan sides but independently. And then posts all the pieces at once as a compare and contrast.
So for example you could pick a subject like "How to read the current economic results" and ask say Angel of Dearth, Woooley and Days to write a blog post, each from their own perspectives. Or on religion Gigi, GG and Queen Titiana etc.
P
PACE
Guest
This is an outstanding idea Wooley, imagine the integral thinking that could be finally used!, a forum of debate, no sucker punches allowed, but if an individual writer can create a subtle landscape of opinion, historical, and humor, that would be a winning combination!
Regards
Pace
Regards
Pace
Queen Titania
Senator
Queen Titania !!!!! You made me spit coffee all over the place ! lol
lol .....on religion ! .......lol !!!! lol Oh dear ....now I've really got the giggles ;-)
lol .....on religion ! .......lol !!!! lol Oh dear ....now I've really got the giggles ;-)
degsme
Council Member
They do. But less so than overt racism. A brand that associates itself with racism or homophobia gets damaged in the marketplace
http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/27/12971573-chick-fil-a-out-of-the-fryer-into-the-fire?lite
Again political opinions, well formed, attract advertisers. See HuffPo and Redstate. But ones that have racist and homophobic content do not
Minotaur
Governor
Any interest from you on developing that concept? Some hands on that we can leave dynamic as you formulate the needs and/or babysitting it to get it off the ground? Any aspect?
I still would like a board for article submissions but this part we'd have to rely on minds like your own to develop and dig up a plan from. Your ideas sound like a real possibility. PM me on some of this as well if you'd want to be a part of the development. Think about it.
I still would like a board for article submissions but this part we'd have to rely on minds like your own to develop and dig up a plan from. Your ideas sound like a real possibility. PM me on some of this as well if you'd want to be a part of the development. Think about it.
degsme
Council Member
Depends on what you mean by "develop".... I don't have the source code to vBulletin (and have other code projects that are more interesting, including something I'm trying to turn into a startup). but if you want me to suggest some Blog authors and some subjects and/or contribute, I'd be happy to do that.
For starters on Constitutional issues, TrapDoor is as good an ROC commentator as there is. if you want a VERY conservative and Tea Party aligned commentator, I'd go to Dino.
LOC I'd go with Arkady and myself
On Econ, ROC bloggers could be AoD, Lukey, and LOC would be Wooley, IRP and myself. And Days for a "conspiratorial" view.
On Political Polling and the Horse Race, ROC would be perhaps Barbella, BRU (too bad Cicero is gone) and PhilFish, LOC you could use Julie and GG. I'd be interested on commenting about Demographics
On Religion, Jen and Gigi as conservative Christian True Believers, Ennin as an Islamic true believer. Various liberal believers, including Night. QT could do her views
On race, DrumCollie from the Tea Party view, and perhaps again Trapdoor and BB. with myself and Pace on the LOC side
As to the mechanics, I think that would depend on what the system can do. and you'd have to check that with Dave
For starters on Constitutional issues, TrapDoor is as good an ROC commentator as there is. if you want a VERY conservative and Tea Party aligned commentator, I'd go to Dino.
LOC I'd go with Arkady and myself
On Econ, ROC bloggers could be AoD, Lukey, and LOC would be Wooley, IRP and myself. And Days for a "conspiratorial" view.
On Political Polling and the Horse Race, ROC would be perhaps Barbella, BRU (too bad Cicero is gone) and PhilFish, LOC you could use Julie and GG. I'd be interested on commenting about Demographics
On Religion, Jen and Gigi as conservative Christian True Believers, Ennin as an Islamic true believer. Various liberal believers, including Night. QT could do her views
On race, DrumCollie from the Tea Party view, and perhaps again Trapdoor and BB. with myself and Pace on the LOC side
As to the mechanics, I think that would depend on what the system can do. and you'd have to check that with Dave
NightSwimmer
Senator
I think that it would be a great idea to have featured articles written for PJ. There are times when I come in here and look at the recent posts and find little of interest to discuss. Of course, that varies with the narrative that happens to be playing out in the broader news media at any given time. A well written article could function as a focal point for promoting debate and discussion during those times when there is not a central theme driving top post submissions on the existing fora.
The problem here, as I see it, is in defining exactly what the format of such a new addition to the site would take. I am operating under the assumption that any such new feature would be required to fit within the framework of the current website configuration.
As to definitions:
PJ is not a "blog". A blog is a personal weblog. It can be as simple as a website titled "Suzie's Diary" with Suzie posting what she had for breakfast this morning, or which shoes she's wearing to work today. At the other extreme, a professional blog typically features a celebrity writer making top posts that that are more along the lines of a classic article that would be written for a newspaper or magazine. Either of these two examples would also feature the ability for ordinary web-surfers to post comments in response to the blogger's main entries.
PJ, on the other hand, is more along the lines of a traditional forum, although it is actually an aggregator of multiple fora classified under a variety of topics. The primary differentiator is the fact that a forum does not feature an exclusive writer driving the conversation, but relies upon the general readership to make top-posts to which the other users may respond with commentary.
As I see it, if our goal is to add a "User Blog" section, then it would appear on PJ as simply another new forum (or, alternately, multiple new fora) on the main forum page. The significant difference would be that the general membership of PJ would not be allowed to make top-posts in this new forum. Top-posts would be restricted to an elite group of posters selected either by the site administrator or by a committee. It is my assumption that, aside from exclusive top-posting privileges, this new forum would function in the same manner as do the existing fora. The general membership of PJ would be allowed to comment freely on the blog entries just as if they were ordinary top-posts in an existing forum.
The other possible model that I envision is a new forum for "User Submitted Articles". The difference between this model and the "User Blog" model is that the writers would not be a fixed, exclusive group. Instead, articles could be written and submitted to the site administrator or editorial committee by anyone and those that are chosen for publication would become the new top-posts within the forum.
Either of these two models would introduce a significant change over PJ's current format, due to the fact that all top-posts within the new forum would require editorial approval, either by selecting a fixed group of writers (the User Blog model), or by selecting which submitted articles are allowed to be posted.
There are a plethora of details that could be discussed regarding other differences that such a new forum might feature. There is the question of whether moderation of commentary should vary from that currently in place on the existing fora. There is the possibility of limiting commentary, rather than allowing the general membership to comment freely as they now do within the current fora. I see these sorts of issues as secondary details compared to coming to agreement as to the general format that would be pursued in adding any new, "premium" forum to PJ. I don't doubt that the site owners can facilitate our wishes, but we must first define exactly what it is that we wish for them to provide.
The problem here, as I see it, is in defining exactly what the format of such a new addition to the site would take. I am operating under the assumption that any such new feature would be required to fit within the framework of the current website configuration.
As to definitions:
PJ is not a "blog". A blog is a personal weblog. It can be as simple as a website titled "Suzie's Diary" with Suzie posting what she had for breakfast this morning, or which shoes she's wearing to work today. At the other extreme, a professional blog typically features a celebrity writer making top posts that that are more along the lines of a classic article that would be written for a newspaper or magazine. Either of these two examples would also feature the ability for ordinary web-surfers to post comments in response to the blogger's main entries.
PJ, on the other hand, is more along the lines of a traditional forum, although it is actually an aggregator of multiple fora classified under a variety of topics. The primary differentiator is the fact that a forum does not feature an exclusive writer driving the conversation, but relies upon the general readership to make top-posts to which the other users may respond with commentary.
As I see it, if our goal is to add a "User Blog" section, then it would appear on PJ as simply another new forum (or, alternately, multiple new fora) on the main forum page. The significant difference would be that the general membership of PJ would not be allowed to make top-posts in this new forum. Top-posts would be restricted to an elite group of posters selected either by the site administrator or by a committee. It is my assumption that, aside from exclusive top-posting privileges, this new forum would function in the same manner as do the existing fora. The general membership of PJ would be allowed to comment freely on the blog entries just as if they were ordinary top-posts in an existing forum.
The other possible model that I envision is a new forum for "User Submitted Articles". The difference between this model and the "User Blog" model is that the writers would not be a fixed, exclusive group. Instead, articles could be written and submitted to the site administrator or editorial committee by anyone and those that are chosen for publication would become the new top-posts within the forum.
Either of these two models would introduce a significant change over PJ's current format, due to the fact that all top-posts within the new forum would require editorial approval, either by selecting a fixed group of writers (the User Blog model), or by selecting which submitted articles are allowed to be posted.
There are a plethora of details that could be discussed regarding other differences that such a new forum might feature. There is the question of whether moderation of commentary should vary from that currently in place on the existing fora. There is the possibility of limiting commentary, rather than allowing the general membership to comment freely as they now do within the current fora. I see these sorts of issues as secondary details compared to coming to agreement as to the general format that would be pursued in adding any new, "premium" forum to PJ. I don't doubt that the site owners can facilitate our wishes, but we must first define exactly what it is that we wish for them to provide.
Minotaur
Governor
I am thinking more in terms of consulting with Dave one on one on the concept you laid out if it proves possible, but also having you as part of the volunteer panel for quality control (I'm thinking no matter what concept is used actually). Sneaky? Yes - I have no pride!
Everything is just vague right now so no commitments can be made on something we don't have answers to or have not settled on but IF all this does come about it would be good to have some basic idea of who is interested in being any degree of hands on in some areas to help where their knowledge can be a real asset - in whatever area they wish to contribute initially.
Everything is just vague right now so no commitments can be made on something we don't have answers to or have not settled on but IF all this does come about it would be good to have some basic idea of who is interested in being any degree of hands on in some areas to help where their knowledge can be a real asset - in whatever area they wish to contribute initially.
NightSwimmer
Senator
You're more than welcome, Minotaur. I hope that this endeavor comes to fruition in some form. I do believe that it would be an enhancement to the PJ website.
Queen Titania
Senator
Ok Knight ....throw a topic at us
NightSwimmer
Senator
A topic? I'm not campaigning to be one of the exclusive PJ writers. I'm more of a commenter myself. I actually prefer dialog over debate and I don't consider myself to be a particularly profound penman of prose. I'm here for the community aspect of the forum, for the most part.Ok Knight ....throw a topic at us
Queen Titania
Senator
I wasn't asking you to write a piece Just throw out an interesting topic ................... I would if I could think of one ........thinker is sleeping ;-)
Just throw out an interesting topic ................... I would if I could think of one ........thinker is sleeping ;-)
