I'm relatively new to this community, but I've thought for a while that the problem with any points-based system is the inherent competitive nature. One of the interesting things I've learned in improv classes is the "Yes, and..." structure that performers use to build on each others performances to create something bigger and better.[1] Structurally this may be as simple as implementing a mandatory "Yes, and..." string to the beginning of each comment. Maybe it is only displayed as the user is writing comments, but it could be a simple, effective nudge to be more constructive used in conjunction with the existing points system.
You're right, this is strictly an attempt at prevention, not a cure. But it might be interesting to attack a problem like this on multiple fronts. Right now, however, most of the focus seems to be on the "cure" side of things.
What I'm curious about is what sort of data is available on these negative comments. If we were to identify (and agree) on a large enough sample population (n>30, probably) can we start seeing any trends in terms of downvotes, account age, posting frequency, etc? Do any of those correlate with a sample population of comments we identify as positive?
Other half-formed ideas I have that may be interesting:
- mandatory cooling off period (one to two weeks) before account activation
- analyzing downvotes by user and, once a threshold has been reached, putting them in a "time out."
- being able to block certain users from appearing in stories once you've logged in
This is a logical, well-thought out argument that I largely agree with. The one thing I wonder is if, as brand advertising is increasingly transferred to the internet and those dollars are spent on sites like Facebook, we see overall spending drop and an increase in spender (and consumer) surplus to the detriment of the middlemen. The analogous example is Craigslist -- a site that destroyed millions (billions?) of advertising revenue and that will likely never be recovered but was overall a net gain for consumers and advertisers both in a way that is hard to quantify.
I'm not a coder/hacker/tech person and largely ignorant of the issues that are being discussed in this post. But, I'm curious: is some of this similar to the (mostly light-hearted) tension I've seen in my personal life between physicists and engineers?
I don't think it's meant in that way. I think the author fears that young computer scientists are being coddled - instead of encouraging them to learn how to solve hard problems, they are rewarded for producing work with little substance but lots of polish.
I don't know what OS you're using, but I believe this is possible with Fluid, an SSB app generator for Mac OS X that uses Webkit. I quit FB a while ago, but use it for other sites in a similar fashion.
I'd like to highly recommend the Rhodia Meeting Book[1]. The front side of each page is broken up asymmetrically into three sections: a general date/description field, a notes section and an actions section. The back side of each page just has the notes and actions section. The books also come in two sizes: 9"x11.75" and a more svelte 6.5"x8.25" which I personally prefer.
I've found the simple division into notes and actions is enough and I can jump back and forth very quickly and clearly between the two of them. In addition, if you think of questions as actions, which 99% of the time they usually are (What types of tchotchkes will my boss appreciate a suitably subtle distance from bonus time?), than you're good to go. The remaining 1% of questions are usually more notes anyway (Am I ever going to be pretty?).
Like many preprinted notebooks, it's something that you could easily design yourself. But then people would think you're weird, or worse, poor. And I do find them quite fetching, especially the orange ones. Combined with a nice pen (I'm digging the new Sharpie "pens" that don't bleed through pages[2]) that clips handily into the spiral you have everything you could possibly want to build an empire. At least, that's what it feels like.
They're aren't available on Amazon with Prime or free shipping so I actually had to leave my cave and go to a Dick Blick art supply store to get them instead of dealing with some semi-anonymous online retailer.
What I find interesting is how this is going to change the types of YC companies that will be funded, especially in the short term. One of the things I've noticed about past YC companies is how diverse they've been in terms of the markets/industries they're going after. This will largely change the focus of certain companies already funded as well as the types of applicants. Presumably YC has an upper limit of companies they can fund due to human capital restrictions, and if this means that they fund or focus more on companies focused on "transformative social experiences" this will mean that other incubators and angels that don't have the brand of YC may be able to market themselves/differentiate themselves from YC better.
Why would it change what's accepted? I could simply provide more access to those social applications that are already accepted/would have been accepted anyway.
It's not just more access. This is a case where FB has, for some reason, signalled that they want to work with YC companies, and specifically YC companies. As some people pointed out already, maybe this is them outsourcing R&D. So let's accept that for a second, that this is a way to get them to outsource R&D b/c the FBfund isn't working. If that's the case, that means that they're looking to acquire companies. And not just any company, though that's always the case with any company anywhere with sufficient resources and an eye on growth, but specifically YC companies.
If we presume that the odds of an exit of a YC company before this interview were even across all industries (i.e., that no matter whether they were into working in travel or B2B or whatever a company's odds of being acquired/going public where the same) that is certainly not the case anymore. The odds of an exit for a YC/FB company probably just went up dramatically. In actuality, it seems like it went up dramatically; it's too early to tell if it actually did. And maybe not just b/c the YC company is not going to get acquired by FB, but b/c the YC company can get revenue quicker with preferential access to FB's revenue making methods.
But here's what the cynic in me thinks: based on the RFS[1], this seems really like a way for a cheap and easy way for FB, which has has major credibility issues with Connect, etc. to get good publicity for Facebook Instant Personalization. Since YC is super, super hot right now and just came off their demo day, the tech news was all about them. I don't know if money switched hands -- after all, if YC took a million (cheap for this buzz) that would be enough for them to invest in 66 companies at $15K a pop but with absolutely no risk to them since it's other people's money. If so, it probably wasn't enough.
In addition, YC's other RFS have been generic and in fields that have been buzzworthy enough that they didn't need YC entrants to attack the problem. In other ways, "The Future of Journalism," "Things Built on Twitter," and "iPad applications," -- these are not solving obscure but lucrative problems[2]. It's simply a way for YC to signal their interest in a hot space and that they want to work with the best of the breed in this space. Now, I presume, they're getting paid for it.
Snow Crash and In the Beginning was the Command Line by Neal Stephenson both introduced me to tech culture in different ways with the same result: it got me more excited about tech than anything else and made me realize that I had to work in tech, and also filled me with respect for what hackers do and regret that I was never going to be a good hacker.
1) The intro video is amateurish and uncompelling -- nobody wants to see a deck poorly animated with black bars on the side.
2) The web design needs some work. I'd recommend hiring someone with more modern sensibilities/tastes to redesign the front page. There are little things: the first signup button isn't centered, the bottom one is way too small and laid out wrong.
3) "Wait, does Facebook do that?" Answer this question, clearly.
4) Show your product. I should be able to see it, get a taste of it without signing up for it (this matters more in the beginning/without network effects which is where you're at).
5) What are your USPs? What is Facebook not doing? The major two problems are context collapse, which you're addressing, and privacy. Think about addressing that as well. That was the major reason for the fundraising success of Diaspora. Their home page is closer to how a landing page should look in 2010 as well: http://www.joindiaspora.com/
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvisational_theatre