Sustain’d is Born!
Posted by Connor on August 31st, 2006
Two days ago, I started creating Sustain’d. It’s already come a long way (thanks to some long nights and an otherwise-occupied girlfriend) and hopefully should launch soon.
I’m really excited for this project and hope it will take off. Soon to be gone are the days of moderated aggregators and blogrolls. Now, the bloggernacle will be able to vote on what stuff they like the best. You control the content. You decide.
Do you have any suggestions or ideas for features to be included in the release of Sustain’d? Please comment over at the blog and let me know what you’d like to see. Thanks!
I am a little clueless about this stuff. I will probably have to try it a few times before I have much relevant to say about it.
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on August 31st, 2006
Eric - have you used digg.com before? If you haven’t, head over there and poke around a bit. It’ll be somewhat the same - users are able to submit whatever link they want, and then other users vote on it.. the more votes it gets, the better chance it has of making it to the front page for all to see. Basically, it lets the users decide what content is posted, rather than site administrators.
Comment # 2 left by Connor Boyack on August 31st, 2006
Wait a minute. Is this not a dangerous idea? Anything can be posted and voted on. So what, if anything, stops this from becoming an anti-mormon dominated site? Some anti gets wind of it, submits his stuff, gathers all his friends to sustain it like mad, and dominates the site.
Or worse yet, what if someone were to submit some triple X rated child porn post with pictures, submits it, and gets all kinds of internet perverts to sustain it? Does anything prevent this from happening?
Comment # 3 left by Eric Nielson on August 31st, 2006
Eric, I will include in the “terms of service” for the site the mandate that all content be constructive, LDS-related material. I will reserve the right to delete anything that is offensive, pornographic, defamatory, or blatantly “anti”. This will not be a site for people to post critical, “anti” garbage, or vent their frustrations with the church.
The great thing about letting the users be in control is that if you come across something offensive or not in line with what “should” be on Sustain’d, you can “bury” the article (as you can on digg), and hence remove it from display.
Take, for example, the wikipedia page on mormonism. Sure, every once in a while you get somebody who tries to post something “anti” or false, but then there are people who will come along and correct it. We will be able to do the same thing on this site - bury the trash, promote the good stuff.
I’ll be curious to see the response to and use of the site…
Comment # 4 left by Connor Boyack on August 31st, 2006
Though I’ve had no interest in Mormon Digg and been perfectly happy to have a the Archipelago guys find good blog content for me, I must say I love the metaphor of “sustained.” Too cute.
Comment # 5 left by Johnna Cornett on September 1st, 2006
Connor,
I’m very excited to sit around like a lazy farm animal while you, Sustain’d’s little red hen—err, rooster— creates this wonderful tool. I just don’t have the tech know-how.
I do have a few concerns about how you plan to monitor the site. If the point is to have this end “the days of moderated aggregators and blogrolls,” then having you moderate it is no good:
“I will include in the “terms of service” for the site the mandate that all content be constructive, LDS-related material.”
Who will define “constructive”?
“I will reserve the right to delete anything that is offensive, pornographic, defamatory, or blatantly “anti”.” This will not be a site for people to post critical, “anti” garbage, or vent their frustrations with the church.
Who defines “offensive”? “blatantly anti” versus obliquely anti? “garbage”? Why not let people vent their frustrations? I read a post from someone complaining about having to help unprepared people move. Would this be classified as “venting frustrations”? Some bloggers think that a belief in evolution is blasphemous and anti-God; will this be a banned topic?
Rather than plan on moderating, I suggest:
1) Leave it alone. Trust in the Wikipedia model (that you cite above).
2) If that doesn’t work, implement a “Flag as Inappropriate” function like YouTube uses.
3) If inappropriate content still slips through, put submitters on a trial basis—initially, their submissions go through moderation until they have shown a good track record.
4) If you have to resort to moderation, don’t do it yourself. Get a committee together (I’m taking a page out of Jethro’s book).
5) Don’t pick the committee yourself. Pick two people, have them pick two people, who each will pick two people, for a total of 14 people on the committee (15, if you chose to include yourself). Hopefully, that way you would get a diversity of viewpoints.
Comment # 6 left by BrianJ on September 1st, 2006
I have the exact same concerns as Brian.
Comment # 7 left by Wade on September 2nd, 2006
BrianJ, thank you for your input. You have some great ideas. I will take them into consideration - I don’t have any time to respond because I have a long day ahead of me. Have a good weekend everyone.
Comment # 8 left by Connor Boyack on September 2nd, 2006
I think this is worth a try, I hope it works out good. But I do think there would need to be some moderation by somebody - this only seems logical. In a way I am hoping this will help out the ‘little guy’ who has talent, and will to some extent break down the cliques (sp?) that I sometimes see on the ‘nacle.
Comment # 9 left by Eric Nielson on September 2nd, 2006
Another minor concern (for you): Is there a problem using an icon that is so similar to Digg’s? Is that a trademark violation? (my sister is a patent attorney, so I think about things like this. I’ll have to ask her…)
Comment # 10 left by BrianJ on September 9th, 2006