The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

[Pwolf]

EDIT - In all honestly, I think the reason these threads weren't started by the administration can clearly be seen in this one. The majority is too uneducated to know how to legitimately provide feedback to the process and the rest are vocal minority factions that have wildly differing stances on any number of issues. This doesn't help things, it's just a good place to bring up bitch-fests from threads shot down repeatedly in the site feedback forum.

The point of this thread is to identify what's wrong with the current system and keep it all in one place instead of in a million different threads. I think everyone has a valid reason for what they think is wrong. I wanted to encourage discussion, and that's what we are doing, bitch fest or not. A bitch fest in one thread about trying to come up with better solutions is a lot better then a million bitch fests in threads that are just about complaining.

[Arigatomina]

Really, your suggestion, if I'm reading it correctly, is founded on the premise that editors and non-editors are somehow fundamentally different. If anything, I'd bet that separating the viewers from the editors would only make things even worse (i.e. "Oh, you're not an editor so I don't have to take your opinion seriously").

We can sort the top 10% list by 'fan reviews' or 'creator reviews'. The two searches get you wildly different results because the two are fundamentally different when it comes to reviews. The main page separates its links according to 'fans' and 'editors'. The two groups are very different when it comes to what functions they use on this site. They're already separate and have been for a very long time. It's not "will it make things worse" but "has it made things worse." I think it has a little, as far as feedback dropping so low we had to use 5 as the max ops for a vid to hit the top 10 list. But if you blame that on the tube, then it's not the org's fault and has nothing to do with the lack of vocal viewers in this forum.

Again, I agree with your suggestion. I'd love to see the org welcome viewers into the community and let them share their 'general enjoyment of amvs' somewhere on this site. But not on this forum. As a viewer, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of inviting viewers in when you know the editors look down on them. As both a former editor and a viewer, I'm bothered by the idea of viewers swarming in here and driving the few active editors away. I just don't think the two groups get along well enough to share this forum after it's been in the editors' hands for so long. I think the mods would have to seriously curtail the more outspoken editors to make them "play nice" with the viewers, and that would ruin the crunchy appeal of this forum that keeps even inactive editors coming back here.

[8bit_samurai]

Actually, the reason why these threads weren't started by the administration was because they were going to when the code was all worked out. So it seems there were going to be bitch fests sooner or later. I mean seriously, AMVs are serious business.

[godix]

EDIT - In all honestly, I think the reason these threads weren't started by the administration can clearly be seen in this one. The majority is too uneducated to know how to legitimately provide feedback to the process and the rest are vocal minority factions that have wildly differing stances on any number of issues. This doesn't help things, it's just a good place to bring up bitch-fests from threads shot down repeatedly in the site feedback forum.

Actually, I think the problem is we get sidetracked with side issues. The redesign is just starting. At this point, really, the entire focus should be 'What is the primary goal here'. Whatever is not related to that primary goal should get shoved on the backburner. Plenty of time to deal with it later, AFTER the primary goal is satisfied. I feel the primary goal should be to allowed editors to easily upload their videos and viewers to watch them. The catalog every AMV ever idea is long since dead, it's time to just give up on it.

Which gives us the two subset of users we've been talking about. Speaking as an editor, the org doesn't really have much of a problem. Sure, it could be easier, but FTP isn't *THAT* hard to figure out. Plus most of the resources from the last 10 years are editor focused, and we'll still have all those resources available. As such, the editor subgroup shouldn't be the primary focus of the redesign.

Viewing is a different issue. Several posts have gone into detail on how finding and viewing videos is overly difficult. While I don't want us to become youtube, I don't understand why watching an AMV should be more complex than Youtube. A lot of the ideas so far such as highlighting vids on the FP and so on fall into this category.

So stuff like commenting, opt-out, and while I hate to say it even stuff like forums should all be secondary until viewing is as simple as 'click link to org, click play'. Right now making things easier for viewers is just more important than community stuff or editor focused features. That should be the primary goal of the redesign right now. The rest can be done later.

[BasharOfTheAges]

EDIT - In all honestly, I think the reason these threads weren't started by the administration can clearly be seen in this one. The majority is too uneducated to know how to legitimately provide feedback to the process and the rest are vocal minority factions that have wildly differing stances on any number of issues. This doesn't help things, it's just a good place to bring up bitch-fests from threads shot down repeatedly in the site feedback forum.

Actually, I think the problem is we get sidetracked with side issues. The redesign is just starting. At this point, really, the entire focus should be 'What is the primary goal here'. Whatever is not related to that primary goal should get shoved on the backburner. Plenty of time to deal with it later, AFTER the primary goal is satisfied. I feel the primary goal should be to allowed editors to easily upload their videos and viewers to watch them. The catalog every AMV ever idea is long since dead, it's time to just give up on it.

Which gives us the two subset of users we've been talking about. Speaking as an editor, the org doesn't really have much of a problem. Sure, it could be easier, but FTP isn't *THAT* hard to figure out. Plus most of the resources from the last 10 years are editor focused, and we'll still have all those resources available. As such, the editor subgroup shouldn't be the primary focus of the redesign.

Viewing is a different issue. Several posts have gone into detail on how finding and viewing videos is overly difficult. While I don't want us to become youtube, I don't understand why watching an AMV should be more complex than Youtube. A lot of the ideas so far such as highlighting vids on the FP and so on fall into this category.

So stuff like commenting, opt-out, and while I hate to say it even stuff like forums should all be secondary until viewing is as simple as 'click link to org, click play'. Right now making things easier for viewers is just more important than community stuff or editor focused features. That should be the primary goal of the redesign right now. The rest can be done later.

I think you're spot on with this assessment. The main page is unintuitive and cluttered and the super search is far to cumbersome and filled with needless data-mining options that don't serve the overwhelming number of people here. We also have all this recommendation code baked into the site that doesn't seem like it's used enough... It'd be really great if we could seamlessly put recommended videos (option 1 option 2 or undefined option 3) up when people logged in, at the end of other videos, in margins, etc. If we measure success by any criteria that includes traffic, encouraging people to go on wikipedia-like tangents from video to video in an unobtrusive fashion instead of making each video a discrete destination would also be desirable. Treat the pages as connected nodes, not as end points.

[Pwolf]

I think we can satisfy the original intent of the org as being a catalog while also making it more editor and viewer friendly, the original goal doesn't need to be ignored. It just isn't and can't be the all encompassing catalog it used to be.

[Qyot27]

Points about making the main site more intuitive for viewers has its merits, but I'll focus on the forum part right now:

See, I don't really perceive how 'making the forum friendlier for viewers' would really change much integrally. What sort of threads would they actually be starting or participating in?

My gut impulse is telling me that if it has to do with AMVs, like the site purpose, that goes where? General AMV - the very forum we're in right now is set aside for the discussion of the hobby itself. I see no indication that this part of the forum is meant for editing discussions and editing discussions only, because even at its most restrictive (editing theory, which is also covered by areas in the Video section) this is counter-balanced by the other threads that pop up here pertaining to reviewing videos or other audience-centric things. It's already here. If viewers want to talk about Anime or Music, those sections already exist too.

Basically, the thing about 'making the forum better for viewers' seems more like 'let's make the whole forum off-topic' or scuttle the hobby-centric areas down to the bottom of the page to give the impression we're not here to talk about the hobby, or insert alternate new forums into the mix with no real vision of where they'll go in the grand schemata. What sense does that even make?

The Beginner's area is one thing I think could be a legitimate response to my first question. But beyond that, where does the line get drawn between projecting a kindler, softer Org and completely losing the point that a rather significant portion of the sub-forums are here for pure editing discussion, and that you sort of expect that from a site intended as a hub for a specific subculture of fans. Look at Doom9 - there's a grand total of 0 areas for casual discussion there (save maybe the Linux and OS X area, which is still meant for stuff on said topics tangentially related to the rest of site's purpose), but it's still a prominent board with lots of traffic.

And I was actually under the impression that the old OT area was killed because it was getting consumed by flame wars and that was spilling out into other parts of the forum and driving a wedge between members that couldn't leave the dirty laundry there, not the extrapolated 'they don't want us making friends' train of thought. I started using the forum in what I understand was the immediate wake of the old OT forum being removed (which if memory serves, was sometime in mid-late 2003?) - I remember that the atmosphere at the time was quite bristly, although that could have just been because everyone was upset that it was removed. I think the Donator's Forum was a good compromise to that end, and haven't seen the objections coming about it that came from the older OT.

In terms of donations received, how much of an impact has the Donator's Forum proven to be in boosting funds? If it hasn't changed the amount received, then there would be no funding detriment to make a General OT come back, but if it actually is a major draw to donate over, I'd prefer to see it continue to be that way, or at least add something else of equal perceived value to balance the loss of donations that dropping the Donator's Forum and bringing back a General OT would cause.

I think we can satisfy the original intent of the org as being a catalog while also making it more editor and viewer friendly, the original goal doesn't need to be ignored. It just isn't and can't be the all encompassing catalog it used to be.

Agreed. The all encompassing catalog idea bit the dust the instant the AMV viewing community fractured with YouTube and the other big sites focused on it now. The catalog is only as good and only as comprehensive as the members who enter their videos into it make it. If the community is fractured, it being a catalog of every AMV ever made becomes even more lofty than it was 10 years ago.

But that still doesn't mean the purpose of the catalog or the focus on it is at all a bad thing or that it's not still an extremely important and integral part of the site.

[Kionon]

This site cant exist with only creators and no viewers, because creators wont even bother with it then.

Maybe that's true. As long as you understand what I mean by "viewer" being "viewer-only" then I will have to disagree. Obviously, editors watch other editors' videos, so in that way, they are viewers, but that's not what I mean when I talk about "viewers." As a creator, a creator who rarely submits to more than two or three cons a year (and never even goes to see the reaction), I "bother" for two reasons: 1) personal enjoyment 2) the reactions of other editors.

Aside from quadir, no, I really don't care about what a "viewer" has to say.

It seems to me that Kionon and Bashar are operating under the assumption that viewers are secondary to editors, which I think is a bad one. It's one that the Org seems to uphold right now, and I'd argue it's one that's landed us where we are now.

I'm not assuming it. I am explicitly asserting it. However, what I am explicitly asserting is my own personal views, I am not saying that should be Org policy. Viewers' opinions ARE secondary to me. However, just because I believe they are secondary to me, doesn't mean you have to believe that.

And again, I have yet to understand complaints against "where we are now." Just what do we want? What is our goal? Who are we? If "where we are now" means that we don't have enough of a userbase, then we need to ask why we feel we don't have enough. If "where we are now" means that it is too difficult to find and view videos, we need to ask why we feel it's too difficult.

I do not concur with the former, but I can concur with the latter. We should make videos easier to find and watch, and easier to upload and download. I have heard no good argument, however, why we must increase membership. Must. Not "oh, it would be nice" or "well, it could possibly, maybe, sometime in the future make us more diverse and interesting." Rather something like, "Even if every currently active member of the org donated, we would still die in two years. We must bring people in to increase donations to save the org."

I'm not against bringing new membership in. I just want to know why we feel we have to do it.

[Nya-chan Production]

I'm not against bringing new membership in. I just want to know why we feel we have to do it.

My guess is because people (talking both viewers and creators here) are getting either old and uninterested in the hobby or change the Org for other pages - and we (admins and users, though not all of them) feel (we might be wrong here!) that in a few years this might lead to a death of the Org (in both members count AND financial problems way).

[JaddziaDax]

I think a lot of people think more members here = more feedback here.