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

[Pwolf]

Hey guys, this is great and all, but what about the users who don't even visit the forums and stuff? Is someone gonna notify them about this? I'd imagine they wouldn't care as long as they can adapt to it easily and the sort. Perhaps there are even some who just might have something to say or even might be able to help with the coding and the such. I myself doubt it, but you may never know.

I myself is one of those who doesn't really care as long as I can adapt to it easily. It seems the only thing I've grown accustomed to is the Super Search with the donator perks, so as long as this feature (or something similar/better) is kept, well, good for the Org.

I talked to the staff and they were against the idea of setting up a subforum or announcing anything until "the code was worked out" which is counter productive in my opinion so I started these threads on my own to get the ball rolling. I didn't want to wait for hours and hours of work to be completed just to go back and redo parts of it or scrap others. Also I felt that if this was going to be a community effort, as stated by several of the staff, then the community should have a more active and present role. The community isn't going to have a say if all the decisions are being made by a handful of people. Maybe one of the admins will make these threads more public in the future.

[Nya-chan Production]

Now that I have time to write, I don't have a reliable connection, so I'm going to try to address what's being said.

I am not necessarily opposed to many of the ideas that have been brought up. I am, however, opposed to being forced to participate in some of those features. I am asking for a personal off switch, that's all. I don't think it's me being anti-social, it's just me having certain ideas of what I wish to use the org for, and not liking an all or nothing mentality being applied. That attitude will just run off people like me who use the main site as a database and nothing else because that's what we genuinely want.

A joke was made last night on #amv about the Org becoming OrgBook, and indeed, that is definitely an issue that concerns me. I won't begrudge those features to others, but I think it's not unreasonable to ask for a feature that disables other features. Having to wade through a front page of status updates, quick comments, star ratings, wall posts, and journal entries just to get to the super search function is really, really annoying for anyone who doesn't want to participate in those features.

I can do all of those things by using the forums and the IRC channels.

Likewise, the only commentary I wish to receive are opinions, which are private, and announcement thread responses which are public. I am against both anonymous commentary, public and private, and against public commentary which is not specifically requested. As Pwolf says, sometimes, I just want to post a video there for others to watch, but for whatever reason, may be totally uninterested in commentary, especially commentary that is limited to 140 or 250 characters, is anonymous, and is published publicly without my permission. Which is why, you can see, that quick comments and star ratings are issues. Again, others should have the right to use these features, regardless of how much I believe they hurt discourse and promote disposable content consumerism, but I shouldn't be forced to use them.

I don't have any issue with an off topic forum, and I never did. Do I think it's going to work out? I'm skeptical, but that's not opposition. Same with an introduction forum. If you want it, sure, go ahead. I may even use it.

I actually think Zarxrax's updated New Vid on the Block is nifty, and depending on the final implementation, may enthusiastically support it.

Don't box me into some ultra-conservative, reactionary view. It's unfair, and it's inaccurate.

Stated like this, it's certainly better and the admins can think about this ;x Thanks for something constructive written at last.

[Kionon]

Nya, the name of this thread is "what's wrong with the org" not "what are you willing to compromise on even though you have strong feelings on the matter." I felt, in this thread, as in the others, I was being asked for my ideal views, not necessarily what I would accept as absolutely required, nor what features I would accept but end up disliking.

I do feel that quick comments, star ratings, and the abuse of local are serious issues, and are, in my opinion "what's wrong with the org." Therefore, I followed the thread's intent as I understood it. Just because you don't like that I have strong views (regardless of whether I will realistically compromise or not) doesn't mean I should be belittled or ignored for having them.

Your "constructive at last" line is more of the same. Backhanded compliment at the least.

I'm idealogical and partisan, no doubt about it, but I am also capable of compromise and recognise that if this is really a group effort, then I must abide by majority rules. I much prefer a democratic majority opinion I disagree with than an oligarchical minority opinion I disagree with, which is what decisions made solely by the admin/staff would be.

[Nya-chan Production]

Okay, Kio, I went over your previous statement and I apologize - they don't seem so bad now (maybe I just cooled off or I was just tired yesterday). You'll just have to accept that some parts of it will be simply impossible for the rest of the other people to get by without - so we'll be implementing them. But I suppose you can get over that.

Rest assured that nobody is trying to make the Org a new FB - there is no such desire from our side and I think neither is from the side of (most of) the users.

Once again I apologize for my words and we'll try to take your opinions in account too.

[Kionon]

That's all I am asking for. I am not a programmer, so I have no idea how hard it may be to implement an opt-out feature. As long as the real reason that I cannot be exempted from a feature I dislike is because the coding is difficult or impossible, that won't bother me.

[Pwolf]

That's all I am asking for. I am not a programmer, so I have no idea how hard it may be to implement an opt-out feature. As long as the real reason that I cannot be exempted from a feature I dislike is because the coding is difficult or impossible, that won't bother me.

it wouldn't be that difficult...

[Zarxrax]

it wouldn't be that difficult...

Well, maybe not, but one thing I was talking to kionon about, if he wants to opt out of, say, receiving star ratings on his videos, that creates some issues because a lot of search/recommendation/rating features take the star ratings into account. Will it really be simply to get around all of that?

[Corran]

That's all I am asking for. I am not a programmer, so I have no idea how hard it may be to implement an opt-out feature. As long as the real reason that I cannot be exempted from a feature I dislike is because the coding is difficult or impossible, that won't bother me.

it wouldn't be that difficult...

If it is a matter of disabling input from being accepted and doing nothing more then I would agree, but it really depends on how you implement it.

With streaming opt-out it wasn't simple. Since we didn't want a single person dictating the streaming availability of a collaborated video we had to check if all the other editors that participated in a collaboration also had streaming disabled before those previews would disappear. If you look at the db schema, checking those kinds of things is not a matter of a simple query. Using OOP helped encapsulate the logic to a couple method calls, but the implementation of those methods, and making sure that every part of the site was respecting the opt out was annoying.

Well, maybe not, but one thing I was talking to kionon about, if he wants to opt out of, say, receiving star ratings on his videos, that creates some issues because a lot of search/recommendation/rating features take the star ratings into account. Will it really be simply to get around all of that?

With the current implementation, trying to disable star-ratings would not work without significant changes to code or db schema. In a forward-thinking, complete re-write of the site it shouldn't be a big issue as long as it is a thought out design goal.

As long as it is opt-out rather than opt-in I think it would be fine. I don't think everyone would just "abandon ship" on the system. If a user opts out and are not a donator they ought to lose the benefits of the system (i.e. unable to sort by star rating in search results, unable to view top star ratings) There needs to be some incentive to actively participate and not be a leech. This way, those that care about the system can participate and "theoretically" ratings become a more accurate representation of user opinion since there won't be as much excuse to blindly give 3's to everything.

[Pwolf]

Personally, I think a global star rating system should be in place no matter what... you can't opt out of it. Having the ability to disable comments and or streaming I really don't think would be that difficult. We aren't implementing on top of the existing code, we are rewriting the databases and the code. Although, I really think it would be as simple as adding an extra field or two in a table as a flag and then when the code to display or allow comments is run, it checks for those flags. For meps, it would be a simple check to see if all the members have the flag.

And again, another reason why starting to discuss stuff like this before coding and "finalizing" database designs, something like this opt-out option is a significant thing to consider. And a lot of the "who gets to control what happens to the video" stuff really should be worked out now rather then later. We discussed studios and how those should be handled, but what about meps?

[Zarxrax]

We discussed studios and how those should be handled, but what about meps?

One little idea that I had running around in my head for MEP entries, and maybe this is not a good idea, but its just something I thought of...
Currently, the person who enters the video info is the one who writes all of the video info and everything.
What if each contributor could write something that would be displayed in addition to that? For big projects, maybe that could start to get a little out of hand though.