The book industry wouldn't have disagreed with him privately, even though they weren't happy about it being said so publicly. Book sales had been going down for years. The feeling at the major book fairs over the past few years was a sense of desperation.
Declining, yes, but when SJ said that, I looked up the size of the US publishing industry, and it was still approximately the size of the movie and music industries combined.
Declining, yes, but when SJ said that, I looked up the size of the US publishing industry, and it was still approximately the size of the movie and music industries combined.
Sure, but that includes the magazine industry as well, I assume. If you take the book industry out of that, it should be much smaller. And magazine readership is declining as well. Is the newspaper industry included in that number?
The US book industry was 1% up in dollars in 2008, but down 1.5% in numbers sold. But now that includes data from areas not counted before, so I'm not sure how it directly compares to earlier years such as 5 years ago, or earlier.
These numbers also include textbooks, scientific books, etc. So it's not really in indicator of the type of books Jobs was referring to. He obviously meant books for the general public. That's down by more than the industry overall.
Sure, but that includes the magazine industry as well, I assume. If you take the book industry out of that, it should be much smaller. And magazine readership is declining as well. Is the newspaper industry included in that number?
The US book industry was 1% up in dollars in 2008, but down 1.5% in numbers sold. But now that includes data from areas not counted before, so I'm not sure how it directly compares to earlier years such as 5 years ago, or earlier.
These numbers also include textbooks, scientific books, etc. So it's not really in indicator of the type of books Jobs was referring to. He obviously meant books for the general public. That's down by more than the industry overall.
To me, narrowing it down to very specific category of publishing seems to be a bit forced, because all those segments can use an electronic reader, not just the one segment.
To me, narrowing it down to very specific category of publishing seems to be a bit forced, because all those segments can use an electronic reader, not just the one segment.
But he was specifically taking about books. Books that people in general read. Textbooks are out of that category, as they are required. Scientific books are also out for pretty much the same reason. Technical books too.
What he was referring to, though he didn't say so, was the bestseller list type of books. It's not likely he meant anything else. Otherwise, we're using a definition that I think it's pretty clear, is too broad.
But he was specifically taking about books. Books that people in general read. Textbooks are out of that category, as they are required. Scientific books are also out for pretty much the same reason. Technical books too.
What he was referring to, though he didn't say so, was the bestseller list type of books. It's not likely he meant anything else. Otherwise, we're using a definition that I think it's pretty clear, is too broad.
What about magazines and newspapers? Is that outside of the popular use of an ereader?
Of course they aren't. Those are two of the most interesting reasons for buying the device, for me.
But Jobs was talking about books specifically.
That's the thing though, that was using too narrow of framing a point to make it say what he wants, covering at best, only one of three major forms of printed consumer media, all of which had offerings on ereaders at the time.
And even going outside the general consumer market a bit, textbooks are something that 6 to 8 million US college students are going to need in a given year. To me, all this makes focusing so hard on the NYT bestsellers seem a little trite, making it a likely diversionary tactic as Solipsism suggested.
That's the thing though, that was using too narrow of framing a point to make it say what he wants, covering at best, only one of three major forms of printed consumer media, all of which had offerings on ereaders at the time.
And even going outside the general consumer market a bit, textbooks are something that 6 to 8 million US college students are going to need in a given year. To me, all this makes focusing so hard on the NYT bestsellers seem a little trite, making it a likely diversionary tactic as Solipsism suggested.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the same thing, except for the very end. I'm just referring to his statement, which was narrowly defined. The thing is that "traditional" bookreaders, from the Franklin forward, were not really useful for anything other than books, and I think he was thinking about "bookreaders" such as the Kindle, which is not good with anything other than books. Yes, the NY Times is on it, but it's just individual articles. Nothing like the newspaper. Same thing for magazines - terrible.
So there, he was right. Book reading has been declining, and bookreaders aren't much good for anything else.
Of course, he was being asked, for a while, if Apple was going to make a bookreader (those asking, no doubt thinking along the lines of a slightly more advanced Kindle). His response was this statement.
The iPad is of course, not a bookreader per se. It's far more. So he was telling the truth. Book reading is just a part of it. The surveys show that bookreading is way down on the list of interest for this device, the biggest of which is web surfing.
So Apple isn't making a bookreader, they're making a device that can read books too. Like the Mac, or the iPhone, or iPod Touch.
That's the thing though, that was using too narrow of framing a point to make it say what he wants, covering at best, only one of three major forms of printed consumer media, all of which had offerings on ereaders at the time.
And even going outside the general consumer market a bit, textbooks are something that 6 to 8 million US college students are going to need in a given year. To me, all this makes focusing so hard on the NYT bestsellers seem a little trite, making it a likely diversionary tactic as Solipsism suggested.
I think Jobs would still stand behind those words.
The context was in regard to offering a dedicated eReader. That off-hand remark basically meant that reading alone wasn't enough to justify Apple hardware. Obviously people do read and people do buy eReaders. It isn't like he was trying to disprove such obvious facts.
So what did he mean by those remarks? It seems obvious to me. He was explaining Apple's thought process in regard to entering the eReader market. Given declining (leisure) book and magazine sales, Apple decided that they didn't want to build an eReader. People don't read (enough to justify hardware soley for that purpose).
The iPad doesn't seem to contradict this at all. It is a multi-purpose devise on which ebooks is a why-not? feature. It would still exist without ebooks yet couldn't exist solely for ebooks.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the same thing, except for the very end. I'm just referring to his statement, which was narrowly defined. The thing is that "traditional" bookreaders, from the Franklin forward, were not really useful for anything other than books, and I think he was thinking about "bookreaders" such as the Kindle, which is not good with anything other than books. Yes, the NY Times is on it, but it's just individual articles. Nothing like the newspaper. Same thing for magazines - terrible.
So there, he was right. Book reading has been declining, and bookreaders aren't much good for anything else.
Of course, he was being asked, for a while, if Apple was going to make a bookreader (those asking, no doubt thinking along the lines of a slightly more advanced Kindle). His response was this statement.
The iPad is of course, not a bookreader per se. It's far more. So he was telling the truth. Book reading is just a part of it. The surveys show that bookreading is way down on the list of interest for this device, the biggest of which is web surfing.
So Apple isn't making a bookreader, they're making a device that can read books too. Like the Mac, or the iPhone, or iPod Touch.
He didn't really say anything misleading.
Looks like we finally agree completely on something. I must have started typing my near identical reply just before you submitted your reply.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the same thing, except for the very end. I'm just referring to his statement, which was narrowly defined. The thing is that "traditional" bookreaders, from the Franklin forward, were not really useful for anything other than books, and I think he was thinking about "bookreaders" such as the Kindle, which is not good with anything other than books. Yes, the NY Times is on it, but it's just individual articles. Nothing like the newspaper. Same thing for magazines - terrible.
So there, he was right. Book reading has been declining, and bookreaders aren't much good for anything else.
Of course, he was being asked, for a while, if Apple was going to make a bookreader (those asking, no doubt thinking along the lines of a slightly more advanced Kindle). His response was this statement.
The iPad is of course, not a bookreader per se. It's far more. So he was telling the truth. Book reading is just a part of it. The surveys show that bookreading is way down on the list of interest for this device, the biggest of which is web surfing.
So Apple isn't making a bookreader, they're making a device that can read books too. Like the Mac, or the iPhone, or iPod Touch.
If you became a mod, how would you handle it? And don't answer saying that you wouldn't do it, it's just a case of curiosity.
I would be very careful in expousing opinions/positions in the forums and provide only informational or neutral comments leaning more heavily toward not participating in the forum at all in this kind of setting.
I certainly would not place myself in the position of arguing with forum members as mods here regularly do.
I would use a holistic rather than deterministic rules to determing how to mod so these are less easy to game. In other words, I would mod according to the overall health of the forum rather than just having specific rules like "no personal attacks".
No personal attacks are simply one aspect of promoting a healthy forum with mutual respect among participants. However, if you ONLY have these kinds of rules you get juvenille behavior akin to someone sticking their finger an inch from your face while declaring "I'm not touching you"..."I'm still not touching you"...etc. The intent of that kind of activity is obvious...I'm going to goad the hell out of you until you do break the rule by calling me an idiot and I'll laugh as the forum devolves further as you get banned.
A couple warnings, and then the banhammer for folks that can't stop doing that kind of asinine activitity. This is more disruptive than occasionally forum members calling each other idiots in a heated moment.
The ability to invoke the banhammer without a user revolt is dependent on being seen as neutral and clearly doing so to meet the charter of the forum.
I would be very careful in expousing opinions/positions in the forums and provide only informational or neutral comments leaning more heavily toward not participating in the forum at all in this kind of setting.
I certainly would not place myself in the position of arguing with forum members as mods here regularly do.
I would use a holistic rather than deterministic rules to determing how to mod so these are less easy to game. In other words, I would mod according to the overall health of the forum rather than just having specific rules like "no personal attacks".
No personal attacks are simply one aspect of promoting a healthy forum with mutual respect among participants. However, if you ONLY have these kinds of rules you get juvenille behavior akin to someone sticking their finger an inch from your face while declaring "I'm not touching you"..."I'm still not touching you"...etc. The intent of that kind of activity is obvious...I'm going to goad the hell out of you until you do break the rule by calling me an idiot and I'll laugh as the forum devolves further as you get banned.
A couple warnings, and then the banhammer for folks that can't stop doing that kind of asinine activitity. This is more disruptive than occasionally forum members calling each other idiots in a heated moment.
The ability to invoke the banhammer without a user revolt is dependent on being seen as neutral and clearly doing so to meet the charter of the forum.
Yeah, that, and well said.
Look, I understand the reluctance to start going after Apple bashers, for fear of turning the forums into a circle jerk of boosterism, which no one finds very interesting. But I think that it's actually not that hard to identify the people here who have literally nothing to offer beyond endless taunting and provocation.
As Vinea says, it's not really about establishing, in some strict sense, if those provocations are even "accurate", since it's possible to say true things that are irrelevant or merely dickish, over and over, and have it be bad for the all over health of the forums. For instance, if I insert things like "Is that the same wonderful iPhone that can't do Flash or multitask LOL?" or the like a hundred times a thread, regardless of what's actually being discussed, and that represents pretty much the sum total of my contribution, I should be banned. Simple as that. I'm not contributing, I'm trolling.
And it really isn't going to help matters if a mod chimes in with "Well, to be fair the iPhone actually can't do Flash or multitask and a lot of people find that unacceptable", because that misses the point.
I would be very careful in expousing opinions/positions in the forums and provide only informational or neutral comments leaning more heavily toward not participating in the forum at all in this kind of setting.
I certainly would not place myself in the position of arguing with forum members as mods here regularly do.
I would use a holistic rather than deterministic rules to determing how to mod so these are less easy to game. In other words, I would mod according to the overall health of the forum rather than just having specific rules like "no personal attacks".
No personal attacks are simply one aspect of promoting a healthy forum with mutual respect among participants. However, if you ONLY have these kinds of rules you get juvenille behavior akin to someone sticking their finger an inch from your face while declaring "I'm not touching you"..."I'm still not touching you"...etc. The intent of that kind of activity is obvious...I'm going to goad the hell out of you until you do break the rule by calling me an idiot and I'll laugh as the forum devolves further as you get banned.
A couple warnings, and then the banhammer for folks that can't stop doing that kind of asinine activitity. This is more disruptive than occasionally forum members calling each other idiots in a heated moment.
The ability to invoke the banhammer without a user revolt is dependent on being seen as neutral and clearly doing so to meet the charter of the forum.
I too share this sentiment.
With that said, I don't envy the job of mods here. There are so many posters now who do nothing other than goad repeatedly on off topic subjects, people who hurt the forum by ruining every discussion they enter into.
Unfortunately, this is almost the defining characteristic of the AI forum now, as is true for a large percentage of all internet forums. Eventually this causes people interested in real discussion to switch to a different venue. That isn't a threat, just an observation. While I still frequent this board, it kind of feels like watching a show that has jumped the shark. You keep watching, always hoping to recapture whatever it was that made it good in the first place.
Not to be too harsh, I would like to offer my thanks to all the AI mods! I realize that no matter how they govern, there will always be people like us bitching and whining.
With that said, I don't envy the job of mods here. There are so many posters now who do nothing other than goad repeatedly on off topic subjects, people who hurt the forum by ruining every discussion they enter into.
Unfortunately, this is almost the defining characteristic of the AI forum now, as is true for a large percentage of all internet forums. Eventually this causes people interested in real discussion to switch to a different venue. That isn't a threat, just an observation. While I still frequent this board, it kind of feels like watching a show that has jumped the shark. You keep watching, always hoping to recapture whatever it was that made it good in the first place.
Not to be too harsh, I would like to offer my thanks to all the AI mods! I realize that no matter how they govern, there will always be people like us bitching and whining.
Yeah, this. And I do realize that being a mod is a thankless task.
I would be very careful in expousing opinions/positions in the forums and provide only informational or neutral comments leaning more heavily toward not participating in the forum at all in this kind of setting.
I certainly would not place myself in the position of arguing with forum members as mods here regularly do.
You have interesting ideas, but I don't know how you can get people to accept the position if they don't feel they can continue participating in the same way. As far as I know, it's a voluntary position in most forums, if you can't participate in the same way, I don't see why there would be much reason to accept. One of the other mods has said that he made it a condition that he didn't have to change his posting style, and they accepted the condition.
I certainly didn't expect that the position was some kind of special pedestal, for some reason, I never thought of it that way beforehand. My basic mission was to help take care of spam, with exceptions (and some of those exceptions I consider to be mistakes, I've often tried to err on the side of caution on anything outside of the "mission".
As most, if not all of us were serious posters before being asked to become mods, it's now difficult to expect us to take a hands off approach to this. It would be very difficult to get mods if we were told to not post our own thoughts and feelings.
Vinea, while I can't offer you a position, after reading what you said in your post, do you really think that you would be willing to give up your own very strongly held and espoused positions if you were a mod. Would that really satisfy you? You aren't exactly a shrinking violet.
We bend over backwards to be fair to everyone, even if some aren't happy about it. It looks easier when you don't have to do it.
I certainly didn't expect that the position was some kind of special pedestal, for some reason, I never thought of it that way beforehand. My basic mission was to help take care of spam, with exceptions (and some of those exceptions I consider to be mistakes, I've often tried to err on the side of caution on anything outside of the "mission".
Mods are typically official staff of a forum...and thus you are on a special pedestal. If all you do is kill spam it's relatively easy to create a new user category called "spam killer" or something with mod privs. That's a potential middle ground.
/shrug
You are whatever the forum owner wants you to be. If he/she content with the forums then that's cool but I get the impression that the current trollfest isn't exactly what was in mind for the main forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Vinea, while I can't offer you a position, after reading what you said in your post, do you really think that you would be willing to give up your own very strongly held and espoused positions if you were a mod. Would that really satisfy you? You aren't exactly a shrinking violet.
We bend over backwards to be fair to everyone, even if some aren't happy about it. It looks easier when you don't have to do it.
Well, it would be one way to shut me up I guess.
The answer is yes I could but I would likely burn out in 6 months to a year and then resign to be a regular poster again. Most probably I would use an alias and put vinea on hiatus during that period so nothing I've written would reflect poorly on the forum. This IS my blow off/be snarky persona. Amusingly it's not even that extreme.
If you became a mod, how would you handle it? And don't answer saying that you wouldn't do it, it's just a case of curiosity.
Ultimately it comes to the tone you want for a site. I ran BBS on dialup back in the fight-o-net days and have been involved in some web forums. The best ones, the ones I enjoy the most have a clear policy about what the forum is about.
The free speech arguments are a red herring - this isn't a public resource. It's a private site and we are all guests of the site owners. Disruptive, inflammatory posters are a drain and they drive off people who would otherwise provide real content. Without meaningful conversations, sites like this eventually start to loose traffic, advertising, relevancy, etc.
So you have to decide if you are gong to listen to your userbase and take action, you don't have to just ban people right off. Trolls starve with the lack of attention - time based temporary bans are very effective and used with great success on sites like woot in their discussion forums. If people keep trolling, they effectively ban themselves. It would be a nice change instead of seeing a page with the majority of entries either ignore notifications or people quoting the entire post of folks on my ignore list
Ultimately it comes to the tone you want for a site. I ran BBS on dialup back in the fight-o-net days and have been involved in some web forums. The best ones, the ones I enjoy the most have a clear policy about what the forum is about.
The free speech arguments are a red herring - this isn't a public resource. It's a private site and we are all guests of the site owners. Disruptive, inflammatory posters are a drain and they drive off people who would otherwise provide real content. Without meaningful conversations, sites like this eventually start to loose traffic, advertising, relevancy, etc.
So you have to decide if you are gong to listen to your userbase and take action, you don't have to just ban people right off. Trolls starve with the lack of attention - time based temporary bans are very effective and used with great success on sites like woot in their discussion forums. If people keep trolling, they effectively ban themselves. It would be a nice change instead of seeing a page with the majority of entries either ignore notifications or people quoting the entire post of folks on my ignore list
Free speech is not a red herring. It's an important asset. The problem with censoring people, or banning them because you don't like reading what they say, is where do you stop? Once the "worst" are eliminated, the next "worse" become the worst, and so on. At some point, all you have is cheerleaders, because a number of people here can't bear anything negative being said, so they will always complain.
How do you know the majority of the userbase want people banned? Do we take a vote? I talk to some people privately, and often that works, but not always.
I've had people mail me because one person said that a post they made was silly, and they wanted it to be deleted. Should I do that too?
If it seems to be going too far, and if I'm at the thread, I'll tell people to stop it, often that works as well.
Comments
The book industry wouldn't have disagreed with him privately, even though they weren't happy about it being said so publicly. Book sales had been going down for years. The feeling at the major book fairs over the past few years was a sense of desperation.
Declining, yes, but when SJ said that, I looked up the size of the US publishing industry, and it was still approximately the size of the movie and music industries combined.
Declining, yes, but when SJ said that, I looked up the size of the US publishing industry, and it was still approximately the size of the movie and music industries combined.
Sure, but that includes the magazine industry as well, I assume. If you take the book industry out of that, it should be much smaller. And magazine readership is declining as well. Is the newspaper industry included in that number?
The US book industry was 1% up in dollars in 2008, but down 1.5% in numbers sold. But now that includes data from areas not counted before, so I'm not sure how it directly compares to earlier years such as 5 years ago, or earlier.
These numbers also include textbooks, scientific books, etc. So it's not really in indicator of the type of books Jobs was referring to. He obviously meant books for the general public. That's down by more than the industry overall.
http://www.the-infoshop.com/report/b...ublishing.html
Sure, but that includes the magazine industry as well, I assume. If you take the book industry out of that, it should be much smaller. And magazine readership is declining as well. Is the newspaper industry included in that number?
The US book industry was 1% up in dollars in 2008, but down 1.5% in numbers sold. But now that includes data from areas not counted before, so I'm not sure how it directly compares to earlier years such as 5 years ago, or earlier.
These numbers also include textbooks, scientific books, etc. So it's not really in indicator of the type of books Jobs was referring to. He obviously meant books for the general public. That's down by more than the industry overall.
http://www.the-infoshop.com/report/b...ublishing.html
To me, narrowing it down to very specific category of publishing seems to be a bit forced, because all those segments can use an electronic reader, not just the one segment.
To me, narrowing it down to very specific category of publishing seems to be a bit forced, because all those segments can use an electronic reader, not just the one segment.
But he was specifically taking about books. Books that people in general read. Textbooks are out of that category, as they are required. Scientific books are also out for pretty much the same reason. Technical books too.
What he was referring to, though he didn't say so, was the bestseller list type of books. It's not likely he meant anything else. Otherwise, we're using a definition that I think it's pretty clear, is too broad.
But he was specifically taking about books. Books that people in general read. Textbooks are out of that category, as they are required. Scientific books are also out for pretty much the same reason. Technical books too.
What he was referring to, though he didn't say so, was the bestseller list type of books. It's not likely he meant anything else. Otherwise, we're using a definition that I think it's pretty clear, is too broad.
What about magazines and newspapers? Is that outside of the popular use of an ereader?
What about magazines and newspapers? Is that outside of the popular use of an ereader?
Of course they aren't. Those are two of the most interesting reasons for buying the device, for me.
But Jobs was talking about books specifically.
Of course they aren't. Those are two of the most interesting reasons for buying the device, for me.
But Jobs was talking about books specifically.
That's the thing though, that was using too narrow of framing a point to make it say what he wants, covering at best, only one of three major forms of printed consumer media, all of which had offerings on ereaders at the time.
And even going outside the general consumer market a bit, textbooks are something that 6 to 8 million US college students are going to need in a given year. To me, all this makes focusing so hard on the NYT bestsellers seem a little trite, making it a likely diversionary tactic as Solipsism suggested.
That's the thing though, that was using too narrow of framing a point to make it say what he wants, covering at best, only one of three major forms of printed consumer media, all of which had offerings on ereaders at the time.
And even going outside the general consumer market a bit, textbooks are something that 6 to 8 million US college students are going to need in a given year. To me, all this makes focusing so hard on the NYT bestsellers seem a little trite, making it a likely diversionary tactic as Solipsism suggested.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the same thing, except for the very end. I'm just referring to his statement, which was narrowly defined. The thing is that "traditional" bookreaders, from the Franklin forward, were not really useful for anything other than books, and I think he was thinking about "bookreaders" such as the Kindle, which is not good with anything other than books. Yes, the NY Times is on it, but it's just individual articles. Nothing like the newspaper. Same thing for magazines - terrible.
So there, he was right. Book reading has been declining, and bookreaders aren't much good for anything else.
Of course, he was being asked, for a while, if Apple was going to make a bookreader (those asking, no doubt thinking along the lines of a slightly more advanced Kindle). His response was this statement.
The iPad is of course, not a bookreader per se. It's far more. So he was telling the truth. Book reading is just a part of it. The surveys show that bookreading is way down on the list of interest for this device, the biggest of which is web surfing.
So Apple isn't making a bookreader, they're making a device that can read books too. Like the Mac, or the iPhone, or iPod Touch.
He didn't really say anything misleading.
That's the thing though, that was using too narrow of framing a point to make it say what he wants, covering at best, only one of three major forms of printed consumer media, all of which had offerings on ereaders at the time.
And even going outside the general consumer market a bit, textbooks are something that 6 to 8 million US college students are going to need in a given year. To me, all this makes focusing so hard on the NYT bestsellers seem a little trite, making it a likely diversionary tactic as Solipsism suggested.
I think Jobs would still stand behind those words.
The context was in regard to offering a dedicated eReader. That off-hand remark basically meant that reading alone wasn't enough to justify Apple hardware. Obviously people do read and people do buy eReaders. It isn't like he was trying to disprove such obvious facts.
So what did he mean by those remarks? It seems obvious to me. He was explaining Apple's thought process in regard to entering the eReader market. Given declining (leisure) book and magazine sales, Apple decided that they didn't want to build an eReader. People don't read (enough to justify hardware soley for that purpose).
The iPad doesn't seem to contradict this at all. It is a multi-purpose devise on which ebooks is a why-not? feature. It would still exist without ebooks yet couldn't exist solely for ebooks.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the same thing, except for the very end. I'm just referring to his statement, which was narrowly defined. The thing is that "traditional" bookreaders, from the Franklin forward, were not really useful for anything other than books, and I think he was thinking about "bookreaders" such as the Kindle, which is not good with anything other than books. Yes, the NY Times is on it, but it's just individual articles. Nothing like the newspaper. Same thing for magazines - terrible.
So there, he was right. Book reading has been declining, and bookreaders aren't much good for anything else.
Of course, he was being asked, for a while, if Apple was going to make a bookreader (those asking, no doubt thinking along the lines of a slightly more advanced Kindle). His response was this statement.
The iPad is of course, not a bookreader per se. It's far more. So he was telling the truth. Book reading is just a part of it. The surveys show that bookreading is way down on the list of interest for this device, the biggest of which is web surfing.
So Apple isn't making a bookreader, they're making a device that can read books too. Like the Mac, or the iPhone, or iPod Touch.
He didn't really say anything misleading.
Looks like we finally agree completely on something.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the same thing, except for the very end. I'm just referring to his statement, which was narrowly defined. The thing is that "traditional" bookreaders, from the Franklin forward, were not really useful for anything other than books, and I think he was thinking about "bookreaders" such as the Kindle, which is not good with anything other than books. Yes, the NY Times is on it, but it's just individual articles. Nothing like the newspaper. Same thing for magazines - terrible.
So there, he was right. Book reading has been declining, and bookreaders aren't much good for anything else.
Of course, he was being asked, for a while, if Apple was going to make a bookreader (those asking, no doubt thinking along the lines of a slightly more advanced Kindle). His response was this statement.
The iPad is of course, not a bookreader per se. It's far more. So he was telling the truth. Book reading is just a part of it. The surveys show that bookreading is way down on the list of interest for this device, the biggest of which is web surfing.
So Apple isn't making a bookreader, they're making a device that can read books too. Like the Mac, or the iPhone, or iPod Touch.
He didn't really say anything misleading.
OK, I see what you mean.
If you became a mod, how would you handle it? And don't answer saying that you wouldn't do it, it's just a case of curiosity.
I would be very careful in expousing opinions/positions in the forums and provide only informational or neutral comments leaning more heavily toward not participating in the forum at all in this kind of setting.
I certainly would not place myself in the position of arguing with forum members as mods here regularly do.
I would use a holistic rather than deterministic rules to determing how to mod so these are less easy to game. In other words, I would mod according to the overall health of the forum rather than just having specific rules like "no personal attacks".
No personal attacks are simply one aspect of promoting a healthy forum with mutual respect among participants. However, if you ONLY have these kinds of rules you get juvenille behavior akin to someone sticking their finger an inch from your face while declaring "I'm not touching you"..."I'm still not touching you"...etc. The intent of that kind of activity is obvious...I'm going to goad the hell out of you until you do break the rule by calling me an idiot and I'll laugh as the forum devolves further as you get banned.
A couple warnings, and then the banhammer for folks that can't stop doing that kind of asinine activitity. This is more disruptive than occasionally forum members calling each other idiots in a heated moment.
The ability to invoke the banhammer without a user revolt is dependent on being seen as neutral and clearly doing so to meet the charter of the forum.
I would be very careful in expousing opinions/positions in the forums and provide only informational or neutral comments leaning more heavily toward not participating in the forum at all in this kind of setting.
I certainly would not place myself in the position of arguing with forum members as mods here regularly do.
I would use a holistic rather than deterministic rules to determing how to mod so these are less easy to game. In other words, I would mod according to the overall health of the forum rather than just having specific rules like "no personal attacks".
No personal attacks are simply one aspect of promoting a healthy forum with mutual respect among participants. However, if you ONLY have these kinds of rules you get juvenille behavior akin to someone sticking their finger an inch from your face while declaring "I'm not touching you"..."I'm still not touching you"...etc. The intent of that kind of activity is obvious...I'm going to goad the hell out of you until you do break the rule by calling me an idiot and I'll laugh as the forum devolves further as you get banned.
A couple warnings, and then the banhammer for folks that can't stop doing that kind of asinine activitity. This is more disruptive than occasionally forum members calling each other idiots in a heated moment.
The ability to invoke the banhammer without a user revolt is dependent on being seen as neutral and clearly doing so to meet the charter of the forum.
Yeah, that, and well said.
Look, I understand the reluctance to start going after Apple bashers, for fear of turning the forums into a circle jerk of boosterism, which no one finds very interesting. But I think that it's actually not that hard to identify the people here who have literally nothing to offer beyond endless taunting and provocation.
As Vinea says, it's not really about establishing, in some strict sense, if those provocations are even "accurate", since it's possible to say true things that are irrelevant or merely dickish, over and over, and have it be bad for the all over health of the forums. For instance, if I insert things like "Is that the same wonderful iPhone that can't do Flash or multitask LOL?" or the like a hundred times a thread, regardless of what's actually being discussed, and that represents pretty much the sum total of my contribution, I should be banned. Simple as that. I'm not contributing, I'm trolling.
And it really isn't going to help matters if a mod chimes in with "Well, to be fair the iPhone actually can't do Flash or multitask and a lot of people find that unacceptable", because that misses the point.
I would be very careful in expousing opinions/positions in the forums and provide only informational or neutral comments leaning more heavily toward not participating in the forum at all in this kind of setting.
I certainly would not place myself in the position of arguing with forum members as mods here regularly do.
I would use a holistic rather than deterministic rules to determing how to mod so these are less easy to game. In other words, I would mod according to the overall health of the forum rather than just having specific rules like "no personal attacks".
No personal attacks are simply one aspect of promoting a healthy forum with mutual respect among participants. However, if you ONLY have these kinds of rules you get juvenille behavior akin to someone sticking their finger an inch from your face while declaring "I'm not touching you"..."I'm still not touching you"...etc. The intent of that kind of activity is obvious...I'm going to goad the hell out of you until you do break the rule by calling me an idiot and I'll laugh as the forum devolves further as you get banned.
A couple warnings, and then the banhammer for folks that can't stop doing that kind of asinine activitity. This is more disruptive than occasionally forum members calling each other idiots in a heated moment.
The ability to invoke the banhammer without a user revolt is dependent on being seen as neutral and clearly doing so to meet the charter of the forum.
I too share this sentiment.
With that said, I don't envy the job of mods here. There are so many posters now who do nothing other than goad repeatedly on off topic subjects, people who hurt the forum by ruining every discussion they enter into.
Unfortunately, this is almost the defining characteristic of the AI forum now, as is true for a large percentage of all internet forums. Eventually this causes people interested in real discussion to switch to a different venue. That isn't a threat, just an observation. While I still frequent this board, it kind of feels like watching a show that has jumped the shark. You keep watching, always hoping to recapture whatever it was that made it good in the first place.
Not to be too harsh, I would like to offer my thanks to all the AI mods! I realize that no matter how they govern, there will always be people like us bitching and whining.
I too share this sentiment.
With that said, I don't envy the job of mods here. There are so many posters now who do nothing other than goad repeatedly on off topic subjects, people who hurt the forum by ruining every discussion they enter into.
Unfortunately, this is almost the defining characteristic of the AI forum now, as is true for a large percentage of all internet forums. Eventually this causes people interested in real discussion to switch to a different venue. That isn't a threat, just an observation. While I still frequent this board, it kind of feels like watching a show that has jumped the shark. You keep watching, always hoping to recapture whatever it was that made it good in the first place.
Not to be too harsh, I would like to offer my thanks to all the AI mods! I realize that no matter how they govern, there will always be people like us bitching and whining.
Yeah, this. And I do realize that being a mod is a thankless task.
I would be very careful in expousing opinions/positions in the forums and provide only informational or neutral comments leaning more heavily toward not participating in the forum at all in this kind of setting.
I certainly would not place myself in the position of arguing with forum members as mods here regularly do.
You have interesting ideas, but I don't know how you can get people to accept the position if they don't feel they can continue participating in the same way. As far as I know, it's a voluntary position in most forums, if you can't participate in the same way, I don't see why there would be much reason to accept. One of the other mods has said that he made it a condition that he didn't have to change his posting style, and they accepted the condition.
I certainly didn't expect that the position was some kind of special pedestal, for some reason, I never thought of it that way beforehand. My basic mission was to help take care of spam, with exceptions (and some of those exceptions I consider to be mistakes, I've often tried to err on the side of caution on anything outside of the "mission".
Vinea, while I can't offer you a position, after reading what you said in your post, do you really think that you would be willing to give up your own very strongly held and espoused positions if you were a mod. Would that really satisfy you? You aren't exactly a shrinking violet.
We bend over backwards to be fair to everyone, even if some aren't happy about it. It looks easier when you don't have to do it.
I certainly didn't expect that the position was some kind of special pedestal, for some reason, I never thought of it that way beforehand. My basic mission was to help take care of spam, with exceptions (and some of those exceptions I consider to be mistakes, I've often tried to err on the side of caution on anything outside of the "mission".
Mods are typically official staff of a forum...and thus you are on a special pedestal. If all you do is kill spam it's relatively easy to create a new user category called "spam killer" or something with mod privs. That's a potential middle ground.
/shrug
You are whatever the forum owner wants you to be. If he/she content with the forums then that's cool but I get the impression that the current trollfest isn't exactly what was in mind for the main forums.
Vinea, while I can't offer you a position, after reading what you said in your post, do you really think that you would be willing to give up your own very strongly held and espoused positions if you were a mod. Would that really satisfy you? You aren't exactly a shrinking violet.
We bend over backwards to be fair to everyone, even if some aren't happy about it. It looks easier when you don't have to do it.
Well, it would be one way to shut me up I guess.
The answer is yes I could but I would likely burn out in 6 months to a year and then resign to be a regular poster again. Most probably I would use an alias and put vinea on hiatus during that period so nothing I've written would reflect poorly on the forum. This IS my blow off/be snarky persona. Amusingly it's not even that extreme.
If you became a mod, how would you handle it? And don't answer saying that you wouldn't do it, it's just a case of curiosity.
Ultimately it comes to the tone you want for a site. I ran BBS on dialup back in the fight-o-net
The free speech arguments are a red herring - this isn't a public resource. It's a private site and we are all guests of the site owners. Disruptive, inflammatory posters are a drain and they drive off people who would otherwise provide real content. Without meaningful conversations, sites like this eventually start to loose traffic, advertising, relevancy, etc.
So you have to decide if you are gong to listen to your userbase and take action, you don't have to just ban people right off. Trolls starve with the lack of attention - time based temporary bans are very effective and used with great success on sites like woot in their discussion forums. If people keep trolling, they effectively ban themselves. It would be a nice change instead of seeing a page with the majority of entries either ignore notifications or people quoting the entire post of folks on my ignore list
Ultimately it comes to the tone you want for a site. I ran BBS on dialup back in the fight-o-net
The free speech arguments are a red herring - this isn't a public resource. It's a private site and we are all guests of the site owners. Disruptive, inflammatory posters are a drain and they drive off people who would otherwise provide real content. Without meaningful conversations, sites like this eventually start to loose traffic, advertising, relevancy, etc.
So you have to decide if you are gong to listen to your userbase and take action, you don't have to just ban people right off. Trolls starve with the lack of attention - time based temporary bans are very effective and used with great success on sites like woot in their discussion forums. If people keep trolling, they effectively ban themselves. It would be a nice change instead of seeing a page with the majority of entries either ignore notifications or people quoting the entire post of folks on my ignore list
Free speech is not a red herring. It's an important asset. The problem with censoring people, or banning them because you don't like reading what they say, is where do you stop? Once the "worst" are eliminated, the next "worse" become the worst, and so on. At some point, all you have is cheerleaders, because a number of people here can't bear anything negative being said, so they will always complain.
How do you know the majority of the userbase want people banned? Do we take a vote? I talk to some people privately, and often that works, but not always.
I've had people mail me because one person said that a post they made was silly, and they wanted it to be deleted. Should I do that too?
If it seems to be going too far, and if I'm at the thread, I'll tell people to stop it, often that works as well.