Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Site views or site quality?

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:25:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

Good question to ask Juggle. This site seems to be getting worse and worse ever since they've been adding all these things to attract more people.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:34:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Phantom's right.

The follies of the laissez-faire system at work...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:04:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.

To what extent do you think Juggle has an interest in quality?
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:07:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 8:04:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.

To what extent do you think Juggle has an interest in quality?

Are you referring to Juggle as a company, or to the people that work for them? Because those two entity/groups view quality to different extents.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:09:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 8:07:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:04:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.

To what extent do you think Juggle has an interest in quality?

Are you referring to Juggle as a company, or to the people that work for them? Because those two entity/groups view quality to different extents.

Well, I don't think that the two should diverge. If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle is a company is unhealthy.
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:11:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 8:09:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:07:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:04:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.

To what extent do you think Juggle has an interest in quality?

Are you referring to Juggle as a company, or to the people that work for them? Because those two entity/groups view quality to different extents.

Well, I don't think that the two should diverge. If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle is a company is unhealthy.

imperfect =/= unhealthy. Unless you wish to state that every company is unhealthy, since every company has employees that have slightly different goals, in which case the label of "unhealthy" is a worthless title.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:20:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

By 'site quality' do you mean the site's layout and features alone, or its members and discussions too?
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:37:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 8:11:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:09:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:07:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:04:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.

To what extent do you think Juggle has an interest in quality?

Are you referring to Juggle as a company, or to the people that work for them? Because those two entity/groups view quality to different extents.

Well, I don't think that the two should diverge. If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle is a company is unhealthy.

imperfect =/= unhealthy. Unless you wish to state that every company is unhealthy, since every company has employees that have slightly different goals, in which case the label of "unhealthy" is a worthless title.

Health of a company, or any organization, exists in degrees -even though those degrees are hard to numerically quantify. But pay attention to how I worded what I said...

"If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle as a company is unhealthy."

There are always going to be some people who don't get on board with the game plan. Those are people who have to be dealt with or encouraged to pursue other opportunities. But, slightly different goals aren't what we're talking about. We're talking about the pursuit of things that are almost mutual exclusives, such that to the extent that Juggle pursues views, all efforts made in pursuit of views are at the expense of site quality. Conversely, all efforts made to the end of quality will never reach the maximum number of views they can achieve.

What I was getting at was this, though... Juggle can try to put a bunch of cheap gimmicky stuff (like the research outlets, the opinions section, the polls sections, etc.) up on the site. The kind of people that nonsense draws in are not the kind of people who will be committed to the site as a community, or who will be interested in becoming a member of the site's community, and will therefore join to the detriment of the site's quality. The kind of people who join the site because they want to learn, because they value the exchange of ideas and because they are interested in meeting and learning from others are not the kind of people who have any interest in posting a brief justification of their -oft misguided or poorly reasoned- perspective on a given issue, or to vote in polls. So, the question that Juggle faces, then, is this: to what extent do we have an interest in site quality or views?

The thing is, that views don't necessarily even correlate to cash-flow, and, even if they do, the only way they do is if Juggle continues to come up with new gimmicks to attract new site views. But, that's not sustainable because the gimmicks are going to both destroy the DDO community as it exists by not letting it grow in a way that is in keeping with the community's interest in quality, and the gimmicks are eventually going to run out once every feature from CreateDebate has been "imposed" on this site.

What Juggle is doing is making the EXACT same mistake Myspace made. They're trying to do too much in the interest of short term gains at the expense of long term goals. In the long term, Juggle's real interest is in creating something that lasts, something that people are going to come back to, and something that people are going to have a personal interest in being a part of. That only happens by maintaining a quality site. Gimmicks create a culture that make people want to come at first, but then drive people away because there's nothing deeper that makes people want to stay.

Juggle needs to figure out what it wants to be: does it want DDO to be a debate site where people come to interact, share ideas and learn OR does it want to be a site that gets a lot of traffic but will die because it's unsustainable? The way to make this happen is to put ads on the site where everyone, including members, can see them. The way to make money is by making people want to both come to the site, and stay on here. Not to get them here only for them to move on to something else later on. That's the problem with IT developers now... it's like they can only see the short term objectives, and that they can't even conceive of any long term kind of goal or higher purpose they want to aim for.

I think there are probably some people at Juggle that get this, but the people who make decisions about site developments are just fundamentally clueless. They're making the same mistakes that so many tech start ups make, and they're making them for the same reasons, and they're NEVER learning from those mistakes... and it's disappointing. It's really just disappointing to watch, because in one year, even more than now, Juggle people are going to continue to do what they call "innovate" and they'll up their traffic. But, in five years, then, when the people who are innovating get bored with a company that's just holding DDO eventually move on, and the "innovation" stops, not only will the community as it stands now be on the precipice of its demise, but any marginal revenue that DDO saw from ads will dry up and that entire investment that they made will prove to be meaningless. The people who were on board with the "innovators" will wonder what they did wrong. What they will do wrong, though, is what they've always done wrong: they've thought that gimmicks were the way to profit. Gimmicks are not the way to making money. Gimmicks are the way only to unsustainable growth. But the only reason that gimmicks were even considered was because Juggle could never figure out what its vision for DDO was, what it wanted DDO to become, other than a site designed to make ad revenue... that is if Juggle hasn't gone bankrupt in five years because it's mismanaged other projects in a similar fashion.

I really feel like Juggle needs to get in touch with an actual external consulting firm to come in and evaluate their organization. Perhaps the advice that they actually had to pay for, Juggle would listen to.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:19:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

More site views would mean more people to interact with, which would likely mean more people I want to interact with. But it would also mean a harder time finding interesting conversations if the incomer made, on average, lower-quality contributions. DDO's community is so small, however, that I don't think this would become a problem provided that the increase wasn't too large.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:28:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 8:37:42 PM, YYW wrote:

Health of a company, or any organization, exists in degrees -even though those degrees are hard to numerically quantify. But pay attention to how I worded what I said...

"If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle as a company is unhealthy."

There are always going to be some people who don't get on board with the game plan. Those are people who have to be dealt with or encouraged to pursue other opportunities. But, slightly different goals aren't what we're talking about. We're talking about the pursuit of things that are almost mutual exclusives, such that to the extent that Juggle pursues views, all efforts made in pursuit of views are at the expense of site quality. Conversely, all efforts made to the end of quality will never reach the maximum number of views they can achieve.

That is not true at all. views and quality are not mutually exclusive. People can be focused on quality while still being in pursuit of views.


What I was getting at was this, though... Juggle can try to put a bunch of cheap gimmicky stuff (like the research outlets, the opinions section, the polls sections, etc.) up on the site. The kind of people that nonsense draws in are not the kind of people who will be committed to the site as a community, or who will be interested in becoming a member of the site's community, and will therefore join to the detriment of the site's quality.

To this I would also disagree. There have been a number of members, which I pointed out previously, that started in the opinions sections and expanded to the debate section with quality debates. However, the site was already experiencing over 99% of new members not staying and becoming long term members. Heck, we use to have more members than actual debates. And that was long before the opinions or polls. We also have that most members in those other sections stay in those sections and do not bother with debates.

The kind of people who join the site because they want to learn, because they value the exchange of ideas and because they are interested in meeting and learning from others are not the kind of people who have any interest in posting a brief justification of their -oft misguided or poorly reasoned- perspective on a given issue, or to vote in polls. So, the question that Juggle faces, then, is this: to what extent do we have an interest in site quality or views?

That is a bad case of broad brushing. To say that all those that participate in opinions or polls have no intent in learning is text book ignorance.


The thing is, that views don't necessarily even correlate to cash-flow, and, even if they do, the only way they do is if Juggle continues to come up with new gimmicks to attract new site views. But, that's not sustainable because the gimmicks are going to both destroy the DDO community as it exists by not letting it grow in a way that is in keeping with the community's interest in quality, and the gimmicks are eventually going to run out once every feature from CreateDebate has been "imposed" on this site.

Actually, there is a correlation to cash-flow. What you mean is that it does not equate to long term financial success. b


What Juggle is doing is making the EXACT same mistake Myspace made. They're trying to do too much in the interest of short term gains at the expense of long term goals. In the long term, Juggle's real interest is in creating something that lasts, something that people are going to come back to, and something that people are going to have a personal interest in being a part of. That only happens by maintaining a quality site. Gimmicks create a culture that make people want to come at first, but then drive people away because there's nothing deeper that makes people want to stay.

Juggle needs to figure out what it wants to be: does it want DDO to be a debate site where people come to interact, share ideas and learn OR does it want to be a site that gets a lot of traffic but will die because it's unsustainable? The way to make this happen is to put ads on the site where everyone, including members, can see them. The way to make money is by making people want to both come to the site, and stay on here. Not to get them here only for them to move on to something else later on. That's the problem with IT developers now... it's like they can only see the short term objectives, and that they can't even conceive of any long term kind of goal or higher purpose they want to aim for.

I think there are probably some people at Juggle that get this, but the people who make decisions about site developments are just fundamentally clueless. They're making the same mistakes that so many tech start ups make, and they're making them for the same reasons, and they're NEVER learning from those mistakes... and it's disappointing. It's really just disappointing to watch, because in one year, even more than now, Juggle people are going to continue to do what they call "innovate" and they'll up their traffic. But, in five years, then, when the people who are innovating get bored with a company that's just holding DDO eventually move on, and the "innovation" stops, not only will the community as it stands now be on the precipice of its demise, but any marginal revenue that DDO saw from ads will dry up and that entire investment that they made will prove to be meaningless. The people who were on board with the "innovators" will wonder what they did wrong. What they will do wrong, though, is what they've always done wrong: they've thought that gimmicks were the way to profit. Gimmicks are not the way to making money. Gimmicks are the way only to unsustainable growth.

While Juggle has been imperfect with its "innovations" and updates, the updates have set-up a foundation for the site that puts it in a perspective that is much like what most companies do with multiple brands. Though I do recommend them keeping everything linked, but under different names (like "opinions.org" or something, but still have all linked together just like they are). DDO will continue to grow and evolve and is going to be successful for a long, even though there are aspects that need improving. But it is a far cry from suggesting that Juggle has gone the wrong way.

But the only reason that gimmicks were even considered was because Juggle could never figure out what its vision for DDO was, what it wanted DDO to become, other than a site designed to make ad revenue... that is if Juggle hasn't gone bankrupt in five years because it's mismanaged other projects in a similar fashion.

I really feel like Juggle needs to get in touch with an actual external consulting firm to come in and evaluate their organization. Perhaps the advice that they actually had to pay for, Juggle would listen to.

Let us know when you are ready to come down from the mountain.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:30:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 8:37:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:11:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:09:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:07:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:04:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.

To what extent do you think Juggle has an interest in quality?

Are you referring to Juggle as a company, or to the people that work for them? Because those two entity/groups view quality to different extents.

Well, I don't think that the two should diverge. If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle is a company is unhealthy.

imperfect =/= unhealthy. Unless you wish to state that every company is unhealthy, since every company has employees that have slightly different goals, in which case the label of "unhealthy" is a worthless title.

Health of a company, or any organization, exists in degrees -even though those degrees are hard to numerically quantify. But pay attention to how I worded what I said...

"If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle as a company is unhealthy."



Do you honestly think their 'gimmicks' detract from the good aspects the site has to offer?
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:43:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 9:30:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:37:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:11:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:09:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:07:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:04:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.

To what extent do you think Juggle has an interest in quality?

Are you referring to Juggle as a company, or to the people that work for them? Because those two entity/groups view quality to different extents.

Well, I don't think that the two should diverge. If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle is a company is unhealthy.

imperfect =/= unhealthy. Unless you wish to state that every company is unhealthy, since every company has employees that have slightly different goals, in which case the label of "unhealthy" is a worthless title.

Health of a company, or any organization, exists in degrees -even though those degrees are hard to numerically quantify. But pay attention to how I worded what I said...

"If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle as a company is unhealthy."



Do you honestly think their 'gimmicks' detract from the good aspects the site has to offer?

Yes.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:47:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 9:28:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:37:42 PM, YYW wrote:

Health of a company, or any organization, exists in degrees -even though those degrees are hard to numerically quantify. But pay attention to how I worded what I said...

"If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle as a company is unhealthy."

There are always going to be some people who don't get on board with the game plan. Those are people who have to be dealt with or encouraged to pursue other opportunities. But, slightly different goals aren't what we're talking about. We're talking about the pursuit of things that are almost mutual exclusives, such that to the extent that Juggle pursues views, all efforts made in pursuit of views are at the expense of site quality. Conversely, all efforts made to the end of quality will never reach the maximum number of views they can achieve.

That is not true at all. views and quality are not mutually exclusive. People can be focused on quality while still being in pursuit of views.


What I was getting at was this, though... Juggle can try to put a bunch of cheap gimmicky stuff (like the research outlets, the opinions section, the polls sections, etc.) up on the site. The kind of people that nonsense draws in are not the kind of people who will be committed to the site as a community, or who will be interested in becoming a member of the site's community, and will therefore join to the detriment of the site's quality.

To this I would also disagree. There have been a number of members, which I pointed out previously, that started in the opinions sections and expanded to the debate section with quality debates. However, the site was already experiencing over 99% of new members not staying and becoming long term members. Heck, we use to have more members than actual debates. And that was long before the opinions or polls. We also have that most members in those other sections stay in those sections and do not bother with debates.

The kind of people who join the site because they want to learn, because they value the exchange of ideas and because they are interested in meeting and learning from others are not the kind of people who have any interest in posting a brief justification of their -oft misguided or poorly reasoned- perspective on a given issue, or to vote in polls. So, the question that Juggle faces, then, is this: to what extent do we have an interest in site quality or views?

That is a bad case of broad brushing. To say that all those that participate in opinions or polls have no intent in learning is text book ignorance.

I didn't state it as broadly as you just did. I'm speaking about general trends, not absolutes. Your statement is about absolutes, and refuting only a conception of absolutes. Come on, Ore-Ele. Read more carefully.


The thing is, that views don't necessarily even correlate to cash-flow, and, even if they do, the only way they do is if Juggle continues to come up with new gimmicks to attract new site views. But, that's not sustainable because the gimmicks are going to both destroy the DDO community as it exists by not letting it grow in a way that is in keeping with the community's interest in quality, and the gimmicks are eventually going to run out once every feature from CreateDebate has been "imposed" on this site.

Actually, there is a correlation to cash-flow. What you mean is that it does not equate to long term financial success. b

Yeah, and I get to that point in a bit.


What Juggle is doing is making the EXACT same mistake Myspace made. They're trying to do too much in the interest of short term gains at the expense of long term goals. In the long term, Juggle's real interest is in creating something that lasts, something that people are going to come back to, and something that people are going to have a personal interest in being a part of. That only happens by maintaining a quality site. Gimmicks create a culture that make people want to come at first, but then drive people away because there's nothing deeper that makes people want to stay.

Juggle needs to figure out what it wants to be: does it want DDO to be a debate site where people come to interact, share ideas and learn OR does it want to be a site that gets a lot of traffic but will die because it's unsustainable? The way to make this happen is to put ads on the site where everyone, including members, can see them. The way to make money is by making people want to both come to the site, and stay on here. Not to get them here only for them to move on to something else later on. That's the problem with IT developers now... it's like they can only see the short term objectives, and that they can't even conceive of any long term kind of goal or higher purpose they want to aim for.

I think there are probably some people at Juggle that get this, but the people who make decisions about site developments are just fundamentally clueless. They're making the same mistakes that so many tech start ups make, and they're making them for the same reasons, and they're NEVER learning from those mistakes... and it's disappointing. It's really just disappointing to watch, because in one year, even more than now, Juggle people are going to continue to do what they call "innovate" and they'll up their traffic. But, in five years, then, when the people who are innovating get bored with a company that's just holding DDO eventually move on, and the "innovation" stops, not only will the community as it stands now be on the precipice of its demise, but any marginal revenue that DDO saw from ads will dry up and that entire investment that they made will prove to be meaningless. The people who were on board with the "innovators" will wonder what they did wrong. What they will do wrong, though, is what they've always done wrong: they've thought that gimmicks were the way to profit. Gimmicks are not the way to making money. Gimmicks are the way only to unsustainable growth.

While Juggle has been imperfect with its "innovations" and updates, the updates have set-up a foundation for the site that puts it in a perspective that is much like what most companies do with multiple brands. Though I do recommend them keeping everything linked, but under different names (like "opinions.org" or something, but still have all linked together just like they are).

That is actually a REALLY good idea.

DDO will continue to grow and evolve and is going to be successful for a long, even though there are aspects that need improving. But it is a far cry from suggesting that Juggle has gone the wrong way.

I think they're doing the best they can, but that their current strategy is not one which is going to be conducive to their long-term success.

But the only reason that gimmicks were even considered was because Juggle could never figure out what its vision for DDO was, what it wanted DDO to become, other than a site designed to make ad revenue... that is if Juggle hasn't gone bankrupt in five years because it's mismanaged other projects in a similar fashion.

I really feel like Juggle needs to get in touch with an actual external consulting firm to come in and evaluate their organization. Perhaps the advice that they actually had to pay for, Juggle would listen to.

Let us know when you are ready to come down from the mountain.

I've been chilling with the Oracle of Delphi. We have great talks. I meant what I said about the consulting firm, though.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:57:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 9:43:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:30:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:37:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:11:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:09:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:07:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:04:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.

To what extent do you think Juggle has an interest in quality?

Are you referring to Juggle as a company, or to the people that work for them? Because those two entity/groups view quality to different extents.

Well, I don't think that the two should diverge. If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle is a company is unhealthy.

imperfect =/= unhealthy. Unless you wish to state that every company is unhealthy, since every company has employees that have slightly different goals, in which case the label of "unhealthy" is a worthless title.

Health of a company, or any organization, exists in degrees -even though those degrees are hard to numerically quantify. But pay attention to how I worded what I said...

"If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle as a company is unhealthy."



Do you honestly think their 'gimmicks' detract from the good aspects the site has to offer?

Yes.

If the gimmick sections attract the uncommitted and transient type of member, what do we have to worry about? Their dissimilar motives and temperament leave with them. The forum and debate portions of the site haven't been affected or displaced by them in the past, why should they in the future?
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:06:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying YYW. I also want to point something out to the people who are being extremely doom and gloomy...
http://www.debate.org...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:08:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 9:57:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:43:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:30:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:37:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:11:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:09:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:07:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:04:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.

To what extent do you think Juggle has an interest in quality?

Are you referring to Juggle as a company, or to the people that work for them? Because those two entity/groups view quality to different extents.

Well, I don't think that the two should diverge. If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle is a company is unhealthy.

imperfect =/= unhealthy. Unless you wish to state that every company is unhealthy, since every company has employees that have slightly different goals, in which case the label of "unhealthy" is a worthless title.

Health of a company, or any organization, exists in degrees -even though those degrees are hard to numerically quantify. But pay attention to how I worded what I said...

"If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle as a company is unhealthy."



Do you honestly think their 'gimmicks' detract from the good aspects the site has to offer?

Yes.

If the gimmick sections attract the uncommitted and transient type of member, what do we have to worry about? Their dissimilar motives and temperament leave with them. The forum and debate portions of the site haven't been affected or displaced by them in the past, why should they in the future?

Even though the particular problem-members (the ones who have no interest in genuine inquiry) come and go, that they come as a general trend and that they will continue to come more and more is the real problem.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:22:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 10:08:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:57:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:43:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:30:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:37:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:11:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:09:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:07:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:04:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.

To what extent do you think Juggle has an interest in quality?

Are you referring to Juggle as a company, or to the people that work for them? Because those two entity/groups view quality to different extents.

Well, I don't think that the two should diverge. If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle is a company is unhealthy.

imperfect =/= unhealthy. Unless you wish to state that every company is unhealthy, since every company has employees that have slightly different goals, in which case the label of "unhealthy" is a worthless title.

Health of a company, or any organization, exists in degrees -even though those degrees are hard to numerically quantify. But pay attention to how I worded what I said...

"If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle as a company is unhealthy."



Do you honestly think their 'gimmicks' detract from the good aspects the site has to offer?

Yes.

If the gimmick sections attract the uncommitted and transient type of member, what do we have to worry about? Their dissimilar motives and temperament leave with them. The forum and debate portions of the site haven't been affected or displaced by them in the past, why should they in the future?

Even though the particular problem-members (the ones who have no interest in genuine inquiry) come and go, that they come as a general trend and that they will continue to come more and more is the real problem.

The opinion and poll sections work to segregate the two populations, actually. The kind of people who enjoy shallow comments are drawn to them and ignore the forums for, as you say, their intentions don't match its objective.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:24:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 10:22:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:08:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:57:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:43:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:30:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:37:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:11:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:09:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:07:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:04:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:50:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

To me, Quality. To Juggle, views. That is because they are a business, and they have bills and employees to pay. People just like you and just like me wanting to make a living in this world and take care of their families. Advertising pays based on views, so that is what Juggle goes for. Ideally, we hope that they obtain those views by having high quality, as views are attracted to quality.

To what extent do you think Juggle has an interest in quality?

Are you referring to Juggle as a company, or to the people that work for them? Because those two entity/groups view quality to different extents.

Well, I don't think that the two should diverge. If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle is a company is unhealthy.

imperfect =/= unhealthy. Unless you wish to state that every company is unhealthy, since every company has employees that have slightly different goals, in which case the label of "unhealthy" is a worthless title.

Health of a company, or any organization, exists in degrees -even though those degrees are hard to numerically quantify. But pay attention to how I worded what I said...

"If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle as a company is unhealthy."



Do you honestly think their 'gimmicks' detract from the good aspects the site has to offer?

Yes.

If the gimmick sections attract the uncommitted and transient type of member, what do we have to worry about? Their dissimilar motives and temperament leave with them. The forum and debate portions of the site haven't been affected or displaced by them in the past, why should they in the future?

Even though the particular problem-members (the ones who have no interest in genuine inquiry) come and go, that they come as a general trend and that they will continue to come more and more is the real problem.

The opinion and poll sections work to segregate the two populations, actually. The kind of people who enjoy shallow comments are drawn to them and ignore the forums for, as you say, their intentions don't match its objective.

That kind of member has been joining the forums at a much higher rate since those "innovations" were put through.

I like Ore-Ele's idea because it would actually separate each entity without harming the community I'm actually invested in (the people who post in the forums).
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 11:58:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 9:47:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:28:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/24/2013 8:37:42 PM, YYW wrote:

Health of a company, or any organization, exists in degrees -even though those degrees are hard to numerically quantify. But pay attention to how I worded what I said...

"If what the people of Juggle wants is different than what the company wants, then that means that to the extent that those frameworks diverge, Juggle as a company is unhealthy."

There are always going to be some people who don't get on board with the game plan. Those are people who have to be dealt with or encouraged to pursue other opportunities. But, slightly different goals aren't what we're talking about. We're talking about the pursuit of things that are almost mutual exclusives, such that to the extent that Juggle pursues views, all efforts made in pursuit of views are at the expense of site quality. Conversely, all efforts made to the end of quality will never reach the maximum number of views they can achieve.

That is not true at all. views and quality are not mutually exclusive. People can be focused on quality while still being in pursuit of views.


What I was getting at was this, though... Juggle can try to put a bunch of cheap gimmicky stuff (like the research outlets, the opinions section, the polls sections, etc.) up on the site. The kind of people that nonsense draws in are not the kind of people who will be committed to the site as a community, or who will be interested in becoming a member of the site's community, and will therefore join to the detriment of the site's quality.

To this I would also disagree. There have been a number of members, which I pointed out previously, that started in the opinions sections and expanded to the debate section with quality debates. However, the site was already experiencing over 99% of new members not staying and becoming long term members. Heck, we use to have more members than actual debates. And that was long before the opinions or polls. We also have that most members in those other sections stay in those sections and do not bother with debates.

The kind of people who join the site because they want to learn, because they value the exchange of ideas and because they are interested in meeting and learning from others are not the kind of people who have any interest in posting a brief justification of their -oft misguided or poorly reasoned- perspective on a given issue, or to vote in polls. So, the question that Juggle faces, then, is this: to what extent do we have an interest in site quality or views?

That is a bad case of broad brushing. To say that all those that participate in opinions or polls have no intent in learning is text book ignorance.

I didn't state it as broadly as you just did. I'm speaking about general trends, not absolutes. Your statement is about absolutes, and refuting only a conception of absolutes. Come on, Ore-Ele. Read more carefully.

When speaking in generalities, you generally want to say "generally." Like "people who want to learn, generally don't go to the polls and opinions."



The thing is, that views don't necessarily even correlate to cash-flow, and, even if they do, the only way they do is if Juggle continues to come up with new gimmicks to attract new site views. But, that's not sustainable because the gimmicks are going to both destroy the DDO community as it exists by not letting it grow in a way that is in keeping with the community's interest in quality, and the gimmicks are eventually going to run out once every feature from CreateDebate has been "imposed" on this site.

Actually, there is a correlation to cash-flow. What you mean is that it does not equate to long term financial success. b

Yeah, and I get to that point in a bit.


What Juggle is doing is making the EXACT same mistake Myspace made. They're trying to do too much in the interest of short term gains at the expense of long term goals. In the long term, Juggle's real interest is in creating something that lasts, something that people are going to come back to, and something that people are going to have a personal interest in being a part of. That only happens by maintaining a quality site. Gimmicks create a culture that make people want to come at first, but then drive people away because there's nothing deeper that makes people want to stay.

Juggle needs to figure out what it wants to be: does it want DDO to be a debate site where people come to interact, share ideas and learn OR does it want to be a site that gets a lot of traffic but will die because it's unsustainable? The way to make this happen is to put ads on the site where everyone, including members, can see them. The way to make money is by making people want to both come to the site, and stay on here. Not to get them here only for them to move on to something else later on. That's the problem with IT developers now... it's like they can only see the short term objectives, and that they can't even conceive of any long term kind of goal or higher purpose they want to aim for.

I think there are probably some people at Juggle that get this, but the people who make decisions about site developments are just fundamentally clueless. They're making the same mistakes that so many tech start ups make, and they're making them for the same reasons, and they're NEVER learning from those mistakes... and it's disappointing. It's really just disappointing to watch, because in one year, even more than now, Juggle people are going to continue to do what they call "innovate" and they'll up their traffic. But, in five years, then, when the people who are innovating get bored with a company that's just holding DDO eventually move on, and the "innovation" stops, not only will the community as it stands now be on the precipice of its demise, but any marginal revenue that DDO saw from ads will dry up and that entire investment that they made will prove to be meaningless. The people who were on board with the "innovators" will wonder what they did wrong. What they will do wrong, though, is what they've always done wrong: they've thought that gimmicks were the way to profit. Gimmicks are not the way to making money. Gimmicks are the way only to unsustainable growth.

While Juggle has been imperfect with its "innovations" and updates, the updates have set-up a foundation for the site that puts it in a perspective that is much like what most companies do with multiple brands. Though I do recommend them keeping everything linked, but under different names (like "opinions.org" or something, but still have all linked together just like they are).

That is actually a REALLY good idea.

It is one that I think still needs to hold the links between the sites. Not total segregation. We don't (at least I don't, and I believe that a number of members support it too) want to make it so that we are isolated, get bored, and leave. That is the best way to kill of the site. We HAVE to have new members that come in and present new ideas, new ways of looking at things, new social aspects, etc for the site to grow and adapt. The opinions and polls can be like a farm, like our own AAA and AA leagues for the majors that is debates.

In the last six weeks, debates are up about 50%. You can argue that most or all of the increase is in non-meaningful debates. However, it depends entirely on how you choose to look at these debates and members. If you choose to look at them as some lesser member, not worthy of our time, then yes, their presence is a negative. But if you choose to look at them as members that can improve and get better and eventually become contributing members, then they are all important.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 12:00:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, if you want to place blame, you can place it on me, rather than Juggle. I was the one that pushed them to include the "challenge to a debate" in the opinions that desegregated the lines between the two.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 12:01:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:04:44 PM, YYW wrote:
Which is more important to you? Why?

Views always matter the most, at least to juggle.

More views = bigger payout. However the amount of people joining must be gained while not compromising the integrity of the sight. That means keep the site with good quality debates and people, while also juggling the views with it. It can be done, they just have to learn how.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 12:25:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 12:00:38 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Also, if you want to place blame, you can place it on me, rather than Juggle. I was the one that pushed them to include the "challenge to a debate" in the opinions that desegregated the lines between the two.

If you want to have a good debate with a new person. You can go to the opinions and find a topic that you like. Within that, find someone that at least seems to have a solid grasp of their opinion and challenge them to a debate.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 12:32:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 12:25:26 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:00:38 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Also, if you want to place blame, you can place it on me, rather than Juggle. I was the one that pushed them to include the "challenge to a debate" in the opinions that desegregated the lines between the two.

If you want to have a good debate with a new person. You can go to the opinions and find a topic that you like. Within that, find someone that at least seems to have a solid grasp of their opinion and challenge them to a debate.

For example, I may be challenging some of these members from this opinion...

http://www.debate.org...

Or this one...

http://www.debate.org...

Or this one...

http://www.debate.org...

At the very least, it can be viewed like speed dating for finding debate topics and opponents.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 6:15:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 12:00:38 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Also, if you want to place blame, you can place it on me, rather than Juggle. I was the one that pushed them to include the "challenge to a debate" in the opinions that desegregated the lines between the two.

You weren't the one who came up with the idea for the opinion section, or the polls section. So, you're not the one who deserves the blame for the negative impact both have had.
Tsar of DDO
Mysterious_Stranger
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 10:43:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If one would listen to the opinion of a insignificant stranger, the polls section should be heavily modded or just removed altogether. It has attracted the wrong kind of people, people who seem to accomplish nothing more than degrading the site.
Turn around, go back.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 10:44:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the question assumes that views and quality are mutually exclusive, when it's a much safer assumption that quality yields proportional views.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 7:40:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 10:43:38 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
If one would listen to the opinion of a insignificant stranger, the polls section should be heavily modded or just removed altogether. It has attracted the wrong kind of people, people who seem to accomplish nothing more than degrading the site.

can you point to them?

There are currently 26 open debate challenges. Only 4 of them are from members that are active only in the Polls and/or Opinions and are sliding into the Debate section. 11 of them are from new members with no history in any section. 4 are from those that are only active in the Debates and/or Forums, and 7 are from members active in all categories.

So only like 17% is squeezing in from this new evil section, while Debates are up 50% in the last 6 weeks (and up several fold from where they were like a year ago).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 7:50:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sorry guys I have to agree with Ore Ele here. I will make a post explaining my stance in more detail later. It is iimportant to remember that different aspects of site quality vary on opinion.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227