Seeds and Gardens

(Greetings… I have been a spectator for a while, and I think I now may contribute a bit. This issue is incredibly interesting and in a sense unique, worthy of a deep sociological investigation by itself. There are many scholars out there trying to understand social interaction online, and the “seeds”, and Zaadz/Gaia idea altogether, may get quite a publicity if it comes to the attention of such scholars. Do you realize that you are attempting to sophisticatedly overturn one of the fundaments of online communication? Anonymity was the first to go, since the introduction of profiles and the like, but “social status”? Many forums have “points” system counting posts, fewer have ranks given by admins or based on activity, but “seeds” goes even further: a democratically decided “suit” that one gets to wear online. The “points” system is flawed, and forums where such system determines admin consideration become flood/flame bases, dominated by a few loud voices. This is different. But you know all this, so let me get to the point.)

 Some of the things I wanted to point out:

First, you haven’t presented “seeds” properly. A rough chat-like “cool” description, as far as I can see, needs to be changed first. It’s confusing and misleading. Imagine giving a presentation of a new product at a big auction to a crowd of people – would your speech be just as unsure? You need to shout out how determined you are that it will work, how ready you are to work with us to improve it in any way, how eager you are to make Zaadz the best thing ever! But what do we get when we click on “what’s this”? A very rough description with nothing certain but lots of “wow-s”. We are not kids. Make a clear description of how it works and what it’s meant to do, so we DON’T have to search trough admins’ blogs and comments and read thousands of words just to get some things clear. Make a clear link to a page that explains exactly what is going on.

Second, “seeds” is a great idea that may inspire people in ways you may not right now imagine. From the very beginning it felt like Zaadz was made to have this “seeds” system. In a few years’ time, when things may get really messy in the world, and environment will escalate in its importance, it is the “seeds” that many may turn to for things like hope, advice, inspiration. Do have this in mind. As to the idea that Michael had about “seeds to stock” or alternatively “seeds to donation”, it is worth serious consideration. A counter of how much “seeds” are used on the whole of Zaadz, for all to see on the first page, and charitable “spending” of those seeds, “seeds sown by good hearts, grown into good deeds” – isn’t this a wonderful opportunity? And Zaadz members get the final decision on where the help really goes (poll or whatever means). Only the “positive” seeds would count, thus discouraging the unnecessary “flagging”.

Third. Don’t say things like “reputation” and “trust”, as you have seen, they put people off, different people for different reasons. Use imagery, very appropriate in this case. When seeds are spent, they are planted, for beautiful flowers and useful trees to grow, for beautiful ideas and useful deeds! And zaadsters don’t get “reputation” or “trust”, they get GARDENS out of the seeds! This is the imagery you need, gardens! Make the little circle in the profile fill with greenness, make it into a hyperlink to a page where you see minimum statistics, but pictures! The more planted seeds the zaadster has, the bigger and more beautiful the garden! A garden isn’t about trust, or reputation, or rank. It’s much less likely to put people off that they have a “little garden”, unlike that girl who has a whole “national park”. They are BOTH beautiful and useful. I return to my first point above here: present the whole idea anew, again. Don’t hurry, think this through. Make Zaadz feel like home, not a capitalist marketplace for popularity.

Forth. And I hope zaadsters will see the importance of this – Zaadz needs to grow economically, and however weird this sounds, this should be in our interest. Don’t we realise that MONEY is one of the main problems and power imbalances today? How much good can be done in this world if the good people had the money to act? Charities are very limited in their monetary power, but consumers’ choice is king. Zaadz and the commercial team behind Gaiam is bringing to us the market for environmental stuff, healthy stuff, the market that especially nowadays desperately needs to grow! If we want to change the world, we must force the commercial powers of this world to change, because they are mostly responsible for the mess this world is facing! If any huge corporation producing anything from food, toys, to fuel and packaging sees, through us on zaadz and our support for better product, that better product has buyers, they will switch! They will pollute less, kill fewer animals, employ more creative staff… They will change, and this will change the world! This is what Zaadz is about, isn’t it? So let’s do this, together. It already started working. This is what conscious capitalism is about. And “seeds” can really help here.

Fifth. Things can get hot here on Zaadz. There was a lot of talk about “shadows”, but what about intentional damage? Yes some of us can occasionally get upset and shout, and that is fine, easily resolved through dialogue, proven numerous times here already. But what about intentional evil? Did Zaadz and zaadsters really think they can just decide to change the world and have a go-ahead with it without any problems? As Zaadz grows it will have exploiters as well as enemies, and those are difficult to trace. The more people come here the more difficult it will be for mods and admins. There must be some flagging system. May I suggest it be renamed “I Am Concerned…”? Just that, no specific implication of negativity, just concern. Where seeds can mean “I love this Garden, may it grow more!”, a concern would mean “I think I saw weeds in this garden…”, or something like that. Let’s discuss this further together…

Sixth. …But not vote. There is a silent majority and mostly unquestionable respect and support for the admins. Discussions are fruitful, but votes are a weak scrutiny tool in this case. In politics a democracy dilemma exists: should a vote of a drunkard down the road count as much as a professor’s vote? With “seeds” this is easily solved: those more “respected” (sic) have a bit more say. But for goodness sake avoid such language! It is very logical that one with bigger garden can collect more seeds from his/her plants and thus have a greater contribution to others’ gardens. How simple such imagery makes things appear, don’t you think?

Seventh. For some reason many seem to assume that, even with a “reputation” (sic) system in place, we will follow it blindly like sheep. On most forums the “points” one has is just a number next to a name, that’s all. Will zaadsters ignore a new member’s comment jut because of low “reputation”!? Or will administration just delete someone’s email if they see he/she is unpopular, without reading it and considering its contents? Of course not. And if we don’t use “reputation” but “gardens” or something like that, then it actually matters even less! Personally I would be extra inclined to support people with smaller gardens and would intentionally visit people with a lot of negative feedback, just to try to help in some way. And I feel like I am not alone on this one. Comments?

Eighth, finally, the counter for the total amount of seeds spent/planted should affect the maximum seeds bank of individual zaadsters to some extent. And we need to know exactly some of the details like what is our max limit of seeds, and how big our garden has grown, etc. Overall, personally I support the idea, but with a different presentation to the one currently in place. Good job guys.

Namaste.

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Zet– briefly for now - I wanted to say I really liked the energy of this… I'm almost on 'over' with the seed issue, but reading you I got a burst of energy to take another look.  Thanks.
Sandra

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Yeah, I agree totally with Sandra, and I love this idea in particular:

Zet White wrote: There must be some flagging system. May I suggest it be renamed “I Am Concerned…”? Just that, no specific implication of negativity, just concern. Where seeds can mean “I love this Garden, may it grow more!”, a concern would mean “I think I saw weeds in this garden…”, or something like that. Let’s discuss this further together…

The whole “bad seed” thing was doomed to failure purely for the name given to the things. Like, “Oh, that guy's a bad seed!” :)

And I love the garden metaphor in place of the light beacon. You get an icon that grows more and more flowery instead of a yellow/white circle that just sits there looking yellow, and you avoid having to call it something different like “reputation beacon”, which has absolutely no connection to the seeds metaphor anyway.

All in all, good stuff!

~G

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

I'm glad you liked it. I hope the admins realise this, too. The “reputation” term in real life is open to interpretation: is it good or bad, famous or infamous? Take Paris Hilton, or any “celebrity” for that matter. Perhaps they would have a high “reputation”, but what does it really mean? The problem HERE is that a “Zaadz reputation” would IMPLY a specific attitude from administration. And that's unfair, and however clear the admins' consciousness is, we are not all that awakened here, so the good intentions are difficult to prove. Something as neutral as “garden” (and I spent many a day studying which name would suit linguistically) would not imply a particular treatment from administration, and if the language of imagery is upheld, it becomes extremely simple to intuitively understand how the system works. Larger/greener garden = more seeds. More seeds = greater contribution to everyone's gardens (potentially not just virtual, by the way)!

I just wanted to rephrase this idea for the admins again, because it seems that currently the seeds are “spent” and then somehow return to a “seed bank”. This confused me in several discussioins in blogs and pods. Logically and intuitively, seeds are “planted”, and this “lost”, not to return to any seed bank. A global counter would thus count how many seeds have actually been “planted” and how big our communal “rainforest” has thus grown. New seeds are “generated” by posts/comments(fruits salvaged by the gardener from the garden?) and visitings (naturally trees just produce some seeds by themselves if someone visits to collect them). Thus Zaadz with time will have its own “renewable rainforest”. I hope the admins are strongly considering the use of seeds to “rate/appreciate” the commercial goods/services here, too. Thus, I point this out again, “seeds” are adding some value to Zaadz and are economically useful, and the Zaadz community must be awarded for using seeds.

The “awards”, I suspect, will not become shares or money payments to “gardenest” Zaadsters… :)  I suggest everyone on Zaadz decides what the wood/fruit from our communal forest/garden becomes. Donations to particular charities, or some acts to do good as well as attract publicity and further interest in Zaadz. Gifts from sponsors to zaadz-born groups that need such gifts. Anything, by public application and voting (in those cases voting would work). It's a mutually beneficial affair: Zaadz grows, Zaadsters change the world.


Grey, a flower in the circle may be even better than just filling it with green or yellow, good idea! As for “concern”… I can see two buttons next to a post or comment or whatever, one being something  like “plant a seed” or “this deserves a seed”, and the other one being “this needs weeding?..” or “this seed looks wild”, or something like that. I have seen a lot of concern with definite negativity of flagging. Some people even said they would love to try to generate bad seeds. This is worth considering, since some may see a “weedy” garden as more “natural” than a “well-groomed” one. In any case, such language simply means “concern”, so mods with their garden tools and weedkillers head straight to posts/users with lots of “wild plants”… Just as the post/comment authors do, if they care for negative feedback (which a lot of us do!). What happens then is up to mods/owners, but the base function of “flagging” is still accomplished: moderator attention drawn.

Hereby a seed is spent but not added to communal “rainforest/garden”, thus discouraging such “weeding” unless necessary. Zaadsters, after all, would be interested in planting as much seeds as possible, especially if this leads to some tangible benefits for all.

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Zet,

Welcome to this discussion.  I feel support, instruction, communion, and great curiosity invested throughout the intention evident in this post.  I resonate strongly with your concerns and suggetions in particular the use of imagery to convey and develop the utility of the seeds program.

best.
Michael

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Thanks Michael!

Just a note, I haven't given much though to the “weeding” language, perhaps native english-speakers and gardeners could help here? I am afraid some may interpret “weeding” as something to do with a (in?)famous drug… :)

And another thing. I know organisations pay for advertising here. I am also aware that in case of a discussion about how big a communal “garden” must grow before it can (or must) be convertible into some tangible benefit for all, such discussion can become heated and controversial. May I therefore suggest careful consideration of this by the administration and their dialogue with the organisation about this as well? I suggest that extra benefit be not numerically linked to the number of seeds planted. It's useless to get Zaadsters to post thoughtlessly every day, just to plant more seeds and hope for a material perk. Instead, perhaps Zaadz can offer an extra free month of advertising to a sponsor that sees sufficient revenue earned from Zaadz to motivate it to “chip in” extra or offer a gift of some sort? Such “offers” would be presented to Zaadz as they come, and zaadsters will get to choose how to use them? Perhaps an extra “free” month of advertising in exchange for a “gift” is an option worth considering? There may be other options, this is just one idea that is both charitable and rewarding for zaadsters…

Another thing. Seeds can be planted anywhere, this zaadsters should be able to “give” seeds to themselves, but again, limited by time and number, as with giving to other users. It makes perfect sense and will make little difference. I suggest automatic “planting” of several seeds a week for every active member, this meaning “time present on Zaadz” will also be represented by the “garden/seeds” system. Also, may I suggest that, in addition to being able to spend more seeds, users with large “gardens” should be generating more seeds per post, week visited, comment etc.? Those with meaningful contribution may in turn have in mind meaningful “planting” strategy, too. This being perfectly in tune with what Siona said about “quiet but meaningful voices given a metaphorical megaphone”.

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Zet White, I am very impressed with your insightful, compassionate suggestions. 

Given this opening for linguistics, I'd like to suggest that the concept of sustainability might be a useful metaphor for the seed system - beyond the notion of fruits or wood being produced.  In this way, each zaadster could be seen as having their planting of seeds and removal of competing species (weeds) as enhancing the sustainability of Zaadz rather than yielding an additional reward.  This is my own preference, as I believe that greater focus on sustainability is important in our current culture, and this is often overlooked by the human tendency to focus on maximizing growth.

Along these lines, I think that Jake, the algorythm wizard  ( :  might need to separate the technical code patterns from the metaphorical description.  As you described, Zet White, the idea of a seed bank might be the algorithmic reality - but not necessarily the metaphor used by Zaadz to describe it.  I like the image of planting seeds as well as collecting them.  I also liked the image of seeds being there, falling from the tree or blown in the wind, etc., which means they are received/collected as we walk around the garden, noticing and interacting with our environment, tending our garden (cultivating positive attitudes and discouraging weeds) and being present.

You also brought up the idea of having enhanced “reputation” portrayed in a graphic rather than numerical manner.  Newsvine.com, for example, portrays initial members as a single line/stalk.  As they participate over time, leaves emerge onto the stalk.  The image of a plain seed would be wonderful for us, newcomers, with a couple of steps involving the growth of roots and a simple stem, followed by leaves and ultimately a flower?

Peace,

Earon

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Zaadz is the garden, our commons, and we are caretakers, partners in a grand experiment to create a sustainable community on the Internet to nurture compassion, flexible thinking and a good future for all beings.

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi Earon! What a wonderful paragraph you just wrote… I vote to put that on the Zaadz mission page and throw the “conscious capitalism”… in the footnote! Oh, oh… Now look what you've done! You inspired me to write even more! :-)

“Given this opening for linguistics, I'd like to suggest that the concept of sustainability might be a useful metaphor for the seed system”

Absolutely, this is the sort of thing I had in mind. I don't know what is the strategy of Gaiam, whether it's more New-Age spirituality or “green” stuff and environmentalism/sustainability, so it will need some clarification… But I feel like, with gaia.com on the rise, it will be all of those combined, and sustainability will be implied by the imagery… I think it's better to leave it up to users to inerpret the meaning behind “seeds”. Perhaps some will see it more as sowing spiritual seeds, hope in people's hearts, and, together, raising the spirit of humanity…

“Along these lines, I think that Jake, the algorythm wizard  ( :  might need to separate the technical code patterns from the metaphorical description.”

Jake has had a hard time with a heated response to the new system… *sigh* I hope this little rethinnking here will reignite his passion about this code (if it needs reignighting). The code needs not be linked with imagery, obviously, the code is all numbers - no flowers in the maths (unless Jake puts in a fibonacci line into the algorithm…). The presentation will be up to the webmasters and is easily changed/improved, it's just a matter of what images to use etc.

“Newsvine.com, for example, portrays initial members as a single line/stalk.  As they participate over time, leaves emerge onto the stalk.”

Great one! I'd love a nice flower in the profile, I love flowers! :) Something tells me, though, that to stay in-tune with the general current design of Zaadz the “circe” will be kept... There is a potential to, later, integrate the “circle” into the users' avatar throughout the site, I suppose admins considered that. But so far, the best “visual” improvement (imho) would be a link to a personal “garden” page.

And it seems best that the circle should show change number-based at first, starting with (e.g.) twenty “planted” seeds, then sixty, then 120 seeds planted, and therefrom go on reflecting the “proportionality” to everyone else's garden/seed count. It will be a pity for people with hundreds of seeds planted to have an empty circle later on, just because compared to others, 100 is not that much…

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi Zet,

I think you add some really nice ideas here. I just want to say that voicing opposition to one part of the seed system (the bad seeds) does not amount to disrespect of any kind. It just means that many of us–including several who have zmailed me voicing support but who have not responded openly in a thread–feel it would not be good for the atmosphere to have people sending bad seeds to one another, especially if this would affect their reputations or the brighteness of their beacons. I think the zaadz team has obviously done a great job with this place, and this is why we are voicing our opposition to the bad seeds–because we appreciate all that they have done and like it here. Great ideas, except that I don't think a change of language would change anyone's opinion about the negative feedback. I think, by whatever name we give it, negative feedback functions would make the place seem less friendly and inhibit open inquiry.

Best,

David

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Yes, I follow that line of thought from the other threads, too. I agree to this argument. And there surely is unvoiced protest to this. I had a similar feeling about “bad seeds”. Admins removed it rightly.

To start with, “bad seeds” sounds horrible. To people in tune with vibrations of words, this may be as bad as “thrown-out-baby”. We wouldn't want to give energy to such thoughtforms here on Zaaddz would we? Considering what many of us know about the power of words and visualisation… But that's only half the trouble.

Even if we consider that the concept is renamed, and all we see is a little “needs weeding?” button that can be described simply with an exclamation/question mark, “concern”… Can you list the problems this still leaves, please? So we can look at them one-by-be? For example, maybe it's necessary that the “rank” is minimally affected by “concern”, and no “concern” count is ever visible to anyone or nonexistant completely? A little exclamation mark icon next to posts and comments is hardly an ill omen, don't you think? It's rather very natural on forums of considerable size. Could you summarise your thoughts here again?..

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi Zet,

There have been so many important insights from so many different people, I couldn't just reduce it to a few of my own. Those insights can be found in this thread in particular and a few in this thread. 

A few important ones that come to mind are 1) People can have honest differences, and there are different types of people. For example, there are conservatives and liberals, believers and athiests, communists and capitalists–these warring tribes would simply attach negative tags to eachother's posts. And there are many, many different tribes like this, different “value spheres,” different ways of seeing the world. To allow people to attach a negative tag to people's posts as you suggest would not be kind to anyone, especially those with minority views, which might attract a great many even if they are better than the majority view. 2) People would get angry and send negative seeds for no good reason at all or because of a misunderstanding; 3) It's better to talk it out, explain, discuss, create better mutual understanding, etc. 4) It could hurt people's self-esteem; 5) It could diminish people's desire to participate, particularly those with minority views.

I've said what I've have to say on this subject, at least for now. Thanks to the zaadz team for being so open and listening to everyone.

Best,

David

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi David,

Let me try one more time to address some of these concerns of yours.

You wrote: 1) People can have honest differences, and there are different types of people. […] To allow people to attach a negative tag to people's posts as you suggest would not be kind to anyone, especially those with minority views….

As I've said before, I think this issue of warring factions can be kept under control with a well-designed seed auditing system.  Whenever any one person is getting a lot of “concern” notices (or whatever we decide to call them) over a short period of time, for example, the system can flag it for a real person to look into.  And I'm sure a creative programmer can come up with all sorts of patterns to look for in order to keep organized attacks under control.

And: 2) People would get angry and send negative seeds for no good reason at all or because of a misunderstanding;

OK, so?  One person submitting one concern notice isn't going to do anything to anyone, and the person being flagged in this way will never know about it.  So where's the harm?

Next point: 3) It's better to talk it out, explain, discuss, create better mutual understanding, etc.

Yes, and as I've said before, seeds are not replacing verbal feedback. They're simply providing a way to model the feedback in a manner that a computer can understand.

And finally: 4) It could hurt people's self-esteem; 5) It could diminish people's desire to participate, particularly those with minority views.

And how will essentially invisible notices of concern hurt someone's self-esteem or diminish their desire to participate?  (Remember, too, that there are already lots of checks and balances in place to prevent any one person from doing much harm with seeds.)  It seems to me that words have much more potential for doing that than the seeds system does.  People who would give concern notices out of anger or prejudice are most likely also going to express themselves verbally, as well.  If anything, giving a concern notice together with words of anger or prejudice (or whatever) will help the administrators to be aware of a person who has a tendency of venting on others in the community.

I also disagree that changing the language and metaphors will do nothing to improve things. Sure, if it's just window dressing, then I can agree with you.  But reframing the concept can do a whole lot towards finding a more evolved way of implementing the system and of using it.

Not to mention my view that equating the seeds system with “feedback” is the wrong way of looking at it.  I think we need to be very clear about the distinction between modeling feedback and the actual feedback itself. If the seeds system is presented as being a system of feedback, then it will likely be misused a lot more than if people understand that seeds don't replace feedback.

BTW, it also seems to me that if there's a way of anonymously supporting someone else's constructive criticism, it would, in many cases, be better than either a bunch of people essentially saying “me too” in comments or other posts or not doing anything at all out of concern of hurting someone's self-esteem or whatever. If someone else has already said pretty much all you could say on an issue, and one or two others have already supported it and maybe added their own slightly different perspectives (so that the person receiving the feedback knows it not just one person's opinion), then adding your support to this criticism through an anonymous, invisible concern notice might be the best course of action.

Metta,
Grey

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

- just a couple of things I wanted to add to this thread.

The Garden metaphor seems particularly appropriate given that zaadz is transforming into Gaia.
 
I also wanted to copy Tantriksta's suggestion from this thread:

My suggestion is to create a set of value-vectors which could be rated on a 5 point scale….suggestions for categories would include; clear…informative…inspirational…witty…groundbreaking….many others, I am sure…

Negative ratings; zero to minus five…to replace bad seeds…offering some consensus as to why the negative rating was given.

One could then search for material which scored highly in one or more of these categories which could be clustered under various headings; integral, yoga, buddhism etc…

Those souls with more integrally-encompassing worldviews would be able to scan for quality material through adopting a set of criteria that may be hidden from those whose less expansive worldviews live through them…they in turn would evolve their own scanning criteria…the polyvalent system embraces everybody's  choice.

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Yep! (to all of the above… or below, depending on how you all are reading the thread ;-)

Also, I wanted to point out that the polyvalent system shouldn't be used to quantify and qualify philosophical or theoretical agreement or disagreement with what a person is saying or doing, but to express the type of energy (life force for the growth of our garden) you feel that they're contributing to the community.


~G

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Yep! (to all of the above… or below, depending on how you all are reading the thread ;-)

Also, I wanted to point out that the polyvalent system shouldn't be used to quantify and qualify philosophical or theoretical agreement or disagreement with what a person is saying or doing, but to express the type of energy (life force for the growth of our garden) you feel that they're contributing to the community.


~G

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Oh, wow.

I'm almost speechless, and that's saying something. :)

I just updated the description here—before seeing this conversation—but I think the latest explanation addresses at least some of what you've brought up. I'll reread and tweak if necessary, but I'm hopeful even now that it'll help.

And yes, it's longish. I sometimes wish the system wasn't quite so complicated (it is hard to explain…) but there's a genuine reason why it's not a simple little 'points' system, and we're still hopeful and excited and curious to see what might unfold.

Alright. I need to pop over to the Team blog and make sure people see the latest, but thank you thank you thank you again.

Thank you.

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

No, thank you! The new description is an improvement for sure, might just be enough to stick to the original code. But I really hope you consider some things said here, just because this can be so much more exciting! But the issue with flagging remains, and I think I see another important aspect of it that I failed to notice, that was also criticised… Folding, and why it's needed. I keep bumping into rough language on some threads, and keep wondering what can be done about this. Folding may be a good idea, especially if you allow the authors of posts to fold their own text. That raises other issues, of course, like will such folding authorise more rough language use…

Siona will negative feedback stay off for a while or will it be re-enabled once the seed infrastructure is updated? I'm sure it's not just my question..

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi Siona,

Yeah, the new description is better, but I think it overemphasizes any feedback function the seeds may (or may not) have.

I think from an admin point of view, they definitely can be said to provide feedback, but feedback given to you admins, not to the individuals for whom the seeds are sown. Sure, there's a certain amount of indirect feedback in the form of the garden or beacon icon, but it takes so long for that to change, that any individual seeds sown lose almost all of their feedback value for that given individual.

Maybe the icon algorithm needs to be tweaked a bit to make the icon change more quickly, but I imagine that it'll never change so quickly that we could start to equate individual seeds with feedback to members of the community, especially not for specific things that they've done or written.

Either way, though, it seems to me that equating seeds with feedback to community members encourages seed-giving in place of giving actual verbal feedback, or at best creates confusion as to how best to give a person feedback.  So for all of these reasons (and one or two others that I haven't mentioned in this post, but have elsewhere I believe), I'd look for a way of describing the seeds system to the community that minimizes the use of the word feedback as much as possible.

With love and tons of appreciation,
Grey

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

Hi everyone! I just noticed a few things in previous discussions/blogs and wanted to point them out again.

It seems to me there is confusion about why this innovation is taking place. Some people keep saying “why bother with those seeds?”, others don't see the point of “negative feedback”. One argument being - “can't the admins just do their job?”, “everything works fine, why bother?” etc. If anyone remembers from fome old WIE threads, I am keen on re-defining/identifying points of disagreement and misunderstanding, as they are often hidden beneath the surface language.

The change, the new system, is meant to:
 1.  -  make things much easier for admins/moderators
 2.  -  make content on Zaadz rate-able     
(list incomplete but thore seem to be the main points)

So let's help our beloved admins, shan't we? They have proven their conscience and friendliness and love for zaadz and us here numerous times already. Interpreting the points above…
1. - …they just may not be able to keep doing such a good job as there are more of us here! I've said earlier here: zaadz will have exploiters and enemies as it grows! That's why some NEW reporting system is needed. Anything. David, read Siona's plea, open “cryout” for our suggestions on the “flagging” system in the discussion you linked to! And admins weren't called fascist there because of hatred but because of plain misunderstanding of why this was offered. Anyway, away with the old “bad seeds”, the admins themselves saw it was bad, so bad seeds are dumped. Period.

In above posts I was mostly concentrating on the positive feedback (seeds) and its use/potential/implementation. Thanks for listing some points here about this David, I think I'll try to summarise the main “opposition” points, too, and then see what system may take all those concerns into consideration and still help admins keep Zaadz safe and enjoyable.

2. - Let me further interpret what admins roughly said already. Seeds can be given to users and to posted material. Give to users as a form of gratitude and potential benefit to Zaadz and beyond, if my suggestion about “communal garden” is considered. Give seeds to posted material so that is appears on the main page. Currently a “most popular” thread may be a long chat between two people about the digestion system of night butterflies that goes for ages. It may have a very high post rate but be of no interest to anyone but those two people! The seeds allow us through a simple click on a little button near someone's post to inform the rest of the community that this stuff is interesting. The seed grows and becomes a green plant that attracts attention… Thus a pod with three-four entries with extreme importance will not be lost to topics long but boring, but will be seen as “most nourished”, or “most liked”, or simply “one of the greenest”. We must realize that gaia.com is becoming an INFORMATION-source site, where people will come to for news, for our news. And instead of browsing through the entire Zaadz looking spending precious hours of their life and deciding for us what is hot/interesting/useful, admins will actually be guided by us, democratically. Later on we would be able to come up to them and ask directly “why didn't you put the post about how this famous person is a liar/this “sponsor” is a scam onto gaia.com if we all voted it extremely important?”. Do we understand that power is now being given into our hands? And furthermore, if the “charitable donation from seeds used” idea is considered, then perhaps each seed we plant may be equal to a little 1c donation? Aren't those two reasons, charity and democracy, enough to make us like, or at least support, seeds?

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

I still haven’t fathomed how the seed system is working and I am not sure if it is a popularity system to see who can attract the most seeds, or if indeed those most generous with donating/ planting seeds attracts glow points? It all seems to have very little to do with what people actually post and I see very little reason as to why some glow and some don’t. When I gave several friends 5 points I expected to see a glow on each but not all were glowing, some who I think contribute a lot are still not glowing. LOL I am a dismal failure too - no glow yet, but it doesn’t affect the wonderful interactions and comments that I receive so I’m not unhappy ! Some announce their gift of seeds to the recipients, and others like me do it anonymously, I wonder if that makes a difference, personaly I didn’t want friends to feel obliged to reciprocate, and I think I preferred the level playing field for all, though I was prepared to approach seeds with an open mind. I really would like to feel I understand how it works in a fair and equitable way.

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

I know I said I was finished, but you got me, Grey.  :)

  As I've said before, I think this issue of warring factions can be kept under control with a well-designed seed auditing system.  Whenever any one person is getting a lot of “concern” notices (or whatever we decide to call them) over a short period of time, for example, the system can flag it for a real person to look into.  And I'm sure a creative programmer can come up with all sorts of patterns to look for in order to keep organized attacks under control.

There is no way the computer could be programmed to determine what sort of value sphere the poster is coming from and whether the “concern” is simply over a value-sphere conflict (a worldview conflict, such as those between liberals and conservatives, athiests and believers, etc). Some of those worldview conflicts involve the flavor of discourse itself. For example, relativists tend to be quite communal; they do not value debate; they do not value “truth” and open inquiry. They value being together. So if someone writes a post contradicting their view, they think, “Hey! That's not right. I'm going to send that person a negative seed.” Egocentrics will react the same way. But others value getting to the truth of the matter, inquiring into places we haven't gone before, discussing controversial subjects in a serious manner, and speaking the truth of their own hearts and minds.  We need to strike the right balance between these things, but do you see how the bad seeds would favor the relativistic perspective, which is already in the majority?

The negative seeds, by whatever name we give them, would just allow people to throw negativity at one another without discussing it in a way that will create better understanding. And in addition to value-sphere conflicts, there is also shadow, angry moments, etc., which the computer would never be able to detect.  It would make it an less friendly place and, most importantly, discourage unpopular and minority opinions. 

Another trouble with it is that people could send these things without having their names attached to them. They wouldn't have to answer to them. Anytime they felt irked they could just send one off. If everyone could know who sent them and when; if there would be a record of it, the idea would improve; there would be some social price for sending them, but it would still just make it easier for people to say something negative rather than engaging in a constructive way.


And: 2) People would get angry and send negative seeds for no good reason at all or because of a misunderstanding;

OK, so?  One person submitting one concern notice isn't going to do anything to anyone, and the person being flagged in this way will never know about it.  So where's the harm?

I'm amazed that you would say this, Grey (“OK, so?”). These seeds would feel hurful to people; it would feel like someone said “You're stupid” or “Shut up” or “I don't like you.” And that's how people would feel if their beacon dimmed.

Let's have the flags for egregious malefactions and let moderators do the rest. What's the matter with that? In addition people could start a thread in the Think Tank or contact a member of the zaadz team if they think there has been abuse. The “concerns” would just encourage people to cause trouble for eachother over little things, undermine the trust that's already there, and create sameness–it would discourage minority or unpopular views.

   

And finally: 4) It could hurt people's self-esteem; 5) It could diminish people's desire to participate, particularly those with minority views.

And how will essentially invisible notices of concern hurt someone's self-esteem or diminish their desire to participate? 

Because they wouldn't be invisible; they would be visible–they would be reflected in a person's repution or beacon. No one would know why they had been sent; the person would never be able to argue their case or explain themselves, but they would nevertheless affect their “reputation.”
 

BTW, it also seems to me that if there's a way of anonymously supporting someone else's constructive criticism, it would, in many cases, be better than either a bunch of people essentially saying “me too” in comments or other posts or not doing anything at all out of concern of hurting someone's self-esteem or whatever.

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens

David: There is no way the computer could be programmed to determine what sort of value sphere the poster is coming from and whether the “concern” is simply over a value-sphere conflict….

No, that's true, at least not based on seeds alone, but I'm not suggesting that it should try.  All I'm saying is that the computer can detect patterns and high levels of seed-giving and then flag those situations for a real person to look into and take any necessary action on, which could include manually adjusting a person's garden icon (or beacon or whatever) and engaging with the people involved in the conflict in order to seek to resolve it.

David: The negative seeds, by whatever name we give them, would just allow people to throw negativity at one another without discussing it in a way that will create better understanding.

Well, first, I disagree with the “by whatever name we give them” idea, because it seems to me that if the “concern” side of the equation is worded properly, it will give negativity-throwers less satisfaction than giving actual “bad seeds”, as well as encouraging them to think a bit more before deciding which concern rating to assign. But apart from that, I've also said that people should be encouraged, when giving concern ratings, to provide verbal feedback, as well. Some won't, some will, but that's true even without a seeds system. At least the seeds system provides another opportunity to encourage verbal feedback.

David: Another trouble with it is that people could send these things without having their names attached to them. They wouldn't have to answer to them.

Well, I'm assuming that the information system and the admins will have access to who's giving seeds to whom, precisely so that there will be some accountability.  What's the point of having the auditing system I've suggested without having names attached to seeds?

David: I'm amazed that you would say this, Grey (“OK, so?”). These seeds would feel hurful to people; it would feel like someone said “You're stupid” or “Shut up” or “I don't like you.” And that's how people would feel if their beacon dimmed.

Again, how in the world does one person giving a concern rating equate to saying “Shut up” or “You're stupid”?  I mean, I've given 5 seeds to an individual plus “I like” ratings to that person's content, and their beacon didn't budge.  And good seeds were theoretically to be weighted more than the “bad seeds” or flags-for-review.

A lot of people are going to have to be giving a person concern ratings for that to have any visible impact on a person's garden or beacon, and if a lot of people are doing that, then there's either good reason for it or it's some sort of unified attack (either naturally arising or explicitly organized), but either way, it should be something the system can flag for a real person to look into.

David: Let's have the flags for egregious malefactions and let moderators do the rest. What's the matter with that? In addition people could start a thread in the Think Tank or contact a member of the zaadz team if they think there has been abuse.

The problem with that is that it only focuses on actual policy abuse and does nothing to help bring quality content to the fore or to flag situations where a person may be consistently walking the line between actual abuse and just being an ongoing nuisance to the community.  Sure, the Think Tank or other admin-related pods can help, but not everyone participates in the Think Tank, and the seeds system can help provide a lot more data for admins to look at when deciding what action needs to be taken.

David: The “concerns” would just encourage people to cause trouble for eachother over little things, undermine the trust that's already there, and create sameness–it would discourage minority or unpopular views.

Here it seems to me that you're still just seeing the “concern” language as just window dressing for “bad seeds”, rather than an actual… well, paradigm shift, as well as also giving the individual concern ratings way more power than they would actually have.  It seems to me that a well-implemented seeds system would actually do just the opposite of what you're suggesting, as I've already said.  The seeds system should actually help bring valuable minority views to the fore and downplay the less valuable, but highly active content, which would also help the more valuable, less active content stand out.

David: Grey, I'd like to help you do all the things you want to do, but please try to hear the perspective of the many people who have objected to this one method. There are many ways to accomplish the things you want to accomplish. Why not just work a little harder and come up with something everybody is comfortable with?

I am hearing your perspective, David, but you seem to want to equate “hearing” with taking your position that concern ratings can never work.  And I realize there are many ways of accomplishing these things, and I've acknowledged ideas of yours that I think are quite good.  I just don't think that it has to be an either/or issue.  A well-implemented seeds system, with both encouragement and concern sides to the equation, will, in my opinion and in the opinion of others here as far as I can tell, go a long way towards complementing all of the other features of the social network and shouldn't be rejected just out of fear of negativity.

And I object to your “work a little harder” comment, because I'm putting about as much effort into the development of the community as I have time for, and suggesting that I work harder is, to be honest, just a little bit offensive.  Not to mention the fact that your idea that we can come up with a system that ”everybody is comfortable with” is diametrically opposed to your valid concerns about depth vs. span.

You've mentioned in another thread that you'd like to see a group of volunteers helping the Zaadz team to find good content, and I think this is a good idea to be developed further, but many of the claims your making against the seeds system would apply equally to this team of volunteers. How do we decide who gets to be such a volunteer? If it's just a random sampling of the Zaadz community (or selected by democratic vote), how is that any better, statistically speaking, than the entire community flagging content they like or are concerned about?

And if it's a select few, chosen for their more evolved worldviews (which I think it probably should be, btw), how is that going to be something “everybody is comfortable with”?  And how exactly do we decide who's got a more evolved worldview?  Sounds like there's quite a bit of potential for cronyism and turning things into an even more blatant popularity contest. And even if the volunteers are well selected, others will certainly see the system as a popularity contest, especially if they don't see themselves as having a say in the whole process – something that the seeds system together with a system of volunteers could help a great deal with.

And how many volunteers would we need in order to provide sufficient coverage for the content of the entire community?  Too many, I suspect.  So again, a seeds system together with volunteers seems to be the way to go to me.

Let's enable technology to help a small group of people manage such a large and growing community, rather than assuming just a few people alone can handle everything.  And a well-designed seeds system should go a long way towards helping involve the entire community in expressing appreciation and concern in a manner than can be collated by a computer and presented to real people to manage in whatever manner necessary.

Metta,
Grey

     permalink

Re: Seeds and Gardens