Newsvine: A discussion about adding verified user accounts.

...but it is not easy to get to the "meta-'vine"...

Please Ma'am, just a short primer on how to get there from here.

I just clipped 'er. The group is here.

I'd favor this, as long as it's algorithmically based, rather than some kind of thing you do on the user's column or something. That would be heinously abused. Maybe a point per starred comment and minus two points per collapsed comment, or something like that? I'd include deletions but I'm still unhappy with the deletion system; I'd like to see the author/seeder have to explain the reasoning behind a deletion for reviewing purposes. Maybe another point or less per article/seed vote?

Carl, as a new user you've likely not experienced what we like to call the Metagasm.

Every so often, since the Vine is growing and morphing, something controversial inevitably happens. The best example I can think of of this was when a near-universally respected user was suspended while doing exactly what he's so respected for. He got caught on the wrong end of a BanBlanket. People protest, people post gleeful articles, people respond to each other's articles with full articles (usually this is merited, too), you get the idea. Back in the Day, this meta used to completely rule the front pages, blocking the purpose of Newsvine--News. Users who don't care about the subject of the newest Metagasm have their experiences diminshed and some news that would have garnered huge notoriety can actually get lost in the meta.

Enter the Meta Policy. We now have a group dedicated to Meta, which honestly I think every new user should be informed about when they sign up, to publish Meta to. We now keep Meta off the news pages to prevent it getting spammy. People who are interested in Meta can join and/or follow MetaVine, and those who aren't can go on with their lives.

I don't think the meta system is yet perfect either, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

Many many MANY more people than are in the group sees the articles. It'll show up for anyone following any of the tags you added ("newsvine" is a hugely popular tag to follow, and I would suggest adding "meta" for those that follow meta articles through tags instead of groups), it'll also show up on anyone's comment tracker who are following anyone commenting here.

It would be REALLY nice is there was a "meta" category to publish to to simply things though. Some people (myself included) have been bugging Calvin for that for a long time...it'll happen sometime...hopefully...maybe...

I've also clipped this article to my column (though admittedly I don't get that much traffic to it, heh), and we'll discuss in on the next Vinecast...meta articles tend to be found fairly easily by anyone who wants to find them, rest assured, it'll get it's fair share of attention :)

It would be REALLY nice is there was a "meta" category to publish to to simply things though.

This and an algorithm that de-publishes the "newsvine" or "meta" tagged articles. It's manhours though...

<_<

You might delete that. "newsvine" tagged articles go to Calvin, and I can't imagine a single admin who likes multis.

If I feel naughty, I sneak over to one of the others to lob fireballs and pour hot oil down on the pagans and infidels.

Should probably stop doing that (unless it was a joke...), since using multiple accounts...especially to post CoH violating comments, is a bannable offense. And they can (and do) have methods to check for that sort of thing.

If I feel naughty, I sneak over to one of the others to lob fireballs and pour hot oil down on the pagans and infidels.

Hmm. Yeah. Please don't do that. ;) Thx. And, I'll change my welcome to "welcome back."

Also, you don't have to be a member of the group in order to follow articles published to it. You can simply watchlist the group, and as someone above pointed out, watchlist the various tags.

Nobody should ever worry about their meta stuff getting attention. It's like flies to honey. Or @!$%#. Depending on the subject.

I agree that the meta policy should be made more apparent, especially to new users.

I agree that the meta policy should be made more apparent,

I have it tattooed on my leg.

Speaking of the Vinecast (ok, so no one was talking about it but me...whatever), the recording will be starting in about 45 minutes (8pm EST) right over here, if anyone is interested in listening or joining in.

Let everybody and anybody throw their stuff up there. The good stuff will stick. Like Viki said, it becomes obvious pretty quickly who the good guys are, and we already have the ability to ignore anyone we wish to ignore.

Very true. I don't think any sort of REQUIRED verification would be a good thing. It could (and probably would) really hurt the concept of Newsvine as an open forum for anyone (anyone willing to follow a few rules about not being a complete asshat anyway).

Giving people the option to verify their account though, could be a decent method to weed out certain types of behavior from the site. Say if you could choose to only see articles/seeds from verified users if you wanted to avoid spam, or filter comments on the fly based on user verification, or it might lead to a sort of "user ranking" system of some kind, that could have benefits for particularity "good" (whatever that is deemed to mean within the system) users such as spreading out the moderation duties a bit to "trusted" users with a long history of reporting comments fairly and properly moderating their own columns in an unbiased fashion.

Not everything about the system would even require verifying who you are necessarily...maybe there could be several ways of verification and/or confirmation of willingness to play by the rules or otherwise be an upstanding member of the site. I dunno...lots of ideas floating around, in my head, and in other people's heads heh.

I'm relatively new to the Vine also (less than a year) so if you think I'm out of line or way off, feel free to enlighten me.

Honest questions are never out of line.

***Edited to remove accidental double post***

contributed intelligently and fairly I would most likely view them as a potential rising star

I guess this is the part I'm uncomfortable with. I started on newsvine because I love dialogue, I love interaction. Right now, when I'm here, it's akin to meeting a group of people in the park. You can join the discussion, splinter off and start another, just listen without contributing or simply go home.

I'm not interested in American Idol, where everybody needs a "rank" in order to be considered creditable. And who gets to make that judgement? And what if my judgement differs? What if I wish to interact with somebody who is not considered a creditable "rising star?"

Or do I have this all wrong?

Ok I think I see what you're talking about. Thanks, CarlZup, for taking the time to answer my questions. It makes more sense to me now.

When did you change your "address" to be farmer.newsvine.com? :-)

Define "clearly identifiable" ... for example, I use my real name on my NV account, but you don't and neither does Killfile (but I still love you both). (Ooops, I just realized I need to edit my bio!)

Kathy Gill, although I use Old Fogey as a Pseudonym if you will read my earliest articles they included all of my names and even home phone numbers and addresses. At the same time one Newsviner honored me with a spot on Wikipedia, see Jerry Firman, also google that name, you may be surprised. My full name is Samuel Gerald Firman but I have many legal uses of my nick which is Jerry Firman. Most Newsviners that I know, and there are quite a few, can get my phone number if they don't already have it and some have been to my home, just not my current one.

Oh, and my email is farmer@cowcorners.com. farmer.newsvine.com is my column.

I've "known" you a long time and you're on my follow list.

My question was "define identifiable" -- (you said that you believe "that Newsvine members [shold] be clearly identifiable entities.")

I wasn't clear in that post (I have the flu and my head is fuzzy).

I think "identifiable" is a real name in a person's "bio/about" page.

I don't think any less of you or Killfile because your real names don't meet my definition of "identifiable" ... but I wanted to know what *you* mean when you use the phrase.