Calendar
Network
Feeds
Is De-Sphinn Inherently De-Structive?
If I may be permitted, I would like for one final time to discuss a somewhat tangential idea. It comes to mind after seeing the thread that Lyndon has started entitled, Saddle Up Boys and Girls, Sphinn Needs a Posse. If you work your way down the comments you will see one by Bill Slawski that expresses his dislike of the De-Sphinn process. I do not often disagree with Bill but on this occasion, I do. He suggests that rather than having a De-Sphinn button, you should indicate your opposition to a topic by not Sphinning and commenting. That was similar to Danny Sullivan's earlier advice to sit on your hands if you disagreed only slightly with a topic. Let me explain why I disagree with that approach.
First we should be clear on the nature of Sphinn. This is not a Forum. This is one of those messy social media. It's like a turbulent river. Many people will only have time to see the New or Hot Topics that float along the surface of the river. Few will have the time to jump in and check out the comments that lurk below the surface. Many will use the number of Sphinns to determine which topics they might explore a little in their frenzied day. That is really the only quick measure you have to help you choose.
In practice Sphinn is a series of bandwagons. Some gain momentum for whatever reason and many jump on. Others are lost in the crowd and soon disappear. Given that there are SEO implications attached to Hot Topics, this bandwagon effect caused some to be concerned. This eventually has culminated in the appearance of the De-Sphinn Button. The mechanism is set up to help deflate the scores for bandwagons that do not deserve their visibility.
My take on all this is that the process is intended to be an adversarial system. The presumption is that most spins are well intentioned and we only need a posse because there are a few bad apples that should be stopped in their tracks. (Apologies for the mixed metaphors.) De-Sphinns are now much more weighty than Sphinns. Reasons must be given. It is not easy however to determine how many De-Sphinns any given topic has received. If there are a great number, then they could even bury a Hot Topic. However only the algorithm will know the number of negative votes
It did not need to be this way. I personally was pushing for a Ho-Hum Button. I am not hung up about the actual name. It could even be called the De-Sphinn Button. The differences with the present mechanism would be as follows.
1. There would be clear visibility of both numbers for any topic: in other words the number of Sphinns and the number of De-Sphinns.
2. The two numbers would never be differenced. The number of Sphinns alone would determine whether topics go Hot.
3. A single set of comments would include all those from the De-Sphinners as well.
This avoids the adversarial approach. It's no longer a question of choosing sides. Honest differences of opinion can be expressed
I should make it clear that I'm not expecting these changes to be accepted, since there was long debate before the present system was set up. However given the Lyndon topic and discussion, I wanted to give it one last whirl.
Using the De-Sphinn process as a friendly way of showing differences of opinions is much to be preferred, IMHO. Does anyone else agree?
2 Comments
Comments
Can I suggest you add everything above to the other thread? I really think it belongs as part of the conversation there, plus it will keep people from feeling they have to split off into two different pages?
I thought long before not adding it to the other thread, Danny, and starting this. I think it's very much on a different track from that discussion. I suggest we just let this die a natural death.