I am on many other boards and other than blogs by famous people, this blog holds some of the finest posters around. I think the key to getting more traffic on this site is content. I have often thought of starting a blog and just inviting a few of the left and right posters here that post quality pieces to participate by having a debate over certain topics. I think Dave should consider having some of us become writers for his site and rather than have the pieces be part of a long list of threads, make them articles and start getting this site linked into the more famous sites like DK, Digby, Daily Caller, Daily Beast and so on. I can tell you that while most of the stuff written here is pure drivel, an awful lot of it is superb and should be shared with a larger audience.
When Slate was created, it was a forum for outstanding writers to publish pieces that attracted high caliber readers. This led to The Fray being created to give the readers a chance to debate or explain the articles. It led to the creation of many different forums and attracted some of the best minds in the world to comment upon them. While it did descend into chaos at the end, the effect of having articles published gave it much needed exposure. I think it is an idea worth considering. Links to this site from other left and right sites could expand this board beyond the current group. It's just an idea but it could work if the moderators kept the riff raff at bay.
First off, I'm very much in favor of just about anything that can help raise the signal to noise ratio – here and elsewhere. I also think it makes sense, in general, to highlight, showcase, and help propagate posts that are particularly interesting, insightful, profound, and/or simply well-written and entertaining. So the question is, how best to do that? In principle having “articles” posted here is one good way to help accomplish that goal. I like it.
That said, I'll echo and perhaps amplify what some other folks have already said. Along with NightSwimmer, I see two ways to go with this:
One: a panel of select “article writers” could be established and given a forum (or more than one, if the goal was to separate articles according to topic) in which only they have the ability to top post. The chief advantage to this scheme is that relatively little editorial input is required in the selection of articles. It's probably also somewhat easier to maintain a particular focus among the various articles with this setup. The chief disadvantage is that right from the get-go an elite has been established. How will they be selected? By whom? When and how will new members be added or old members dropped?
However it's done, this scheme is almost certain to alienate a few people and, to the degree it draws new people in, it's likely to draw more readers than long-term contributors. It's “news magazine lite”, for better and for worse. Will the “article board” become a slowly (or not-so-slowly) fossilizing gilded ghetto? That is what happened to the “premium boards” set up on the old-site-that-must-not-be-named, after all. Not saying that's bound to happen; I'm just saying it's a danger...
Two: An editor or editorial panel could select articles to be posted in a special forum or forums. This could be handled either by having members submit articles to the editor(s) for consideration – such submissions could be open or by request – or by having the editor(s) select articles from among the top posts normally posted in PJ's various regular forums.
The main disadvantage to this scheme is that it would require a relatively large amount of editorial effort. Who's going to be willing to put in the time to do that on a volunteer basis? If the editorial panel is a group of more-or-less self-selected regular posters, it'll be difficult to avoid perceptions of favoritism and hurt feelings. We've certainly seen our share of that with the poster-moderator setup we have now. It'll be doubly difficult to avoid those conflicts if authors are required to submit potential articles specifically for review and consideration.
The main advantage to this scheme is that anyone can author an article – there's no selected “gold star” club and, assuming submissions are not by invitation only, even a random visitor could potentially contribute a “front page” article. That's bound to be more attractive to potential new members than a closed stable of regular authors, I would think.
In case it's not already obvious, I favor option two structured in this way: Put together an editor or editorial panel that chooses top-notch top posts and moves them to one or more “article boards” where they're highlighted and remain indefinitely. Allow anyone to comment on any article, of course, but structure the forum(s) such that articles are not re-arranged based on when the latest comment is posted. Maybe that requires moving comments to a separate forum/thread, I don't know.
If the editor(s) want to invite specific posters to author a post on this or that specific topic, that could still happen with this system. Similarly, if the editor(s) want to select a series of “back and forth” posts between two or among several posters and turn that into an “article”, that could be done as well. Lots of options...
Those of you with good memories may recall that I suggested something similar at the old place during that long period of time when there was much official hand wringing and gnashing of teeth (at least for show) about the value and fate of the old discussion boards. Much good that did, but I still agree with Woolley that there ought to be some way to capitalize on the resource that we as a group of posters represent.
Now, the above recommendation assumes that it is in fact realistically possible to assemble a functional, active editorial panel. If that turns out not to be the case, then I think option one is actually the better choice, despite it's potential drawbacks. Trying to implement option two with a dysfunctional or minimally-active editorial group would be the kiss of death, I reckon.
My two cents...
Cheers!
