While I read DailyKos almost everyday, I must say I'm disappointed at some tendencies I've noticed here, mostly in the community aspects. Ever since I decided to (casually) contribute to the site and participate in discussions, I feel like I've had better discussions on Wikipedia and Slashdot.
Follow me before the fold, unless you're browsing through diaries, where I fully expect you to keep browsing, as this is a meta diary, not by a featured contributor, and is not about Gonzalesgate or current issue, which is by definition 3 strikes and out.
- Titles
If I had truly wanted to assign a title to this diary, it'd be called "Constructive Criticisms" or "Suggestions for Improving the DKOS Community", but let's be honest: about 90% of those reading this diary now would have skipped over in a heartbeat. The same sensationalism we decry in our mainstream media have just manifested itself through every "BREAKING", "MUST READ", and other titles that are designed to grab attention. It sucks.
- Moderation System
Being a frequent contributor to Wikipedia and Slashdot, I've had far more enriching experiences debating politics on those forums than I do here. There are far too many redundant posts voicing only their agreement on the matter, or follow a pattern of not really responding to the posters points but calling into the question the mainstream media (always phrased as MSM), a Republican official, or Bush. Now it's not that these figures might not deserve it.
If I could put my finger on why I'm dissatisfied with DailyKos discussions, it's because I feel the signal-to-noise ratio is much lower here than Slashdot or Wikipedia, or another way to put it, a lack of advancing the discussion that the diarist initiates.
When I read a discussion on Slashdot with default settings, the heavily moderated system, the ability to rate by "Insightful"/"Informative"/"Redundant", and the */5 rating system rather than aggregate comment recommendations (30+ of which will go to an asinine comment if it's posted near the top of a rec'd diary), it's like I'm reading a discussion where every subsequent post is guaranteed to introduce a new idea or new concept (especially since the "Redundant" rating exists). I'll find myself sucked into the comment section on even a topic that I wouldn't normally care about, and am actually disappointed when I get to the bottom. Here, it takes work to find a comment out of the hundreds that isn't simply idle chatter but furthers the actual discussion or points brought up by the diarist (not to say that these comments don't exist, they are just rarer and harder to find than I'd like).
On Wikipedia, since the purpose is not simply to talk about a subject but how best to represent that subject in a neutral and factually based way, I actually have the best discussions. Posts generally will advance the discussion by pointing out something factually or editorially incorrect with the current version, and a discussion will then ensue. The best are when factual debates occur, and the law of the land is to include a cite with every subsequent post, or else your suggestion will be ignored. Idle chatter is almost always ignored. Once again, I'm not saying this doesn't happen here, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
I'd like to see a moderation system similar to Slashdot implemented here, in that it'd be out of a maximum number (*/5, */10) rather than just aggregate points that anybody can spend) and that the comment can be better classified by trusted users as either "Informative", "Insightful", "Redundant", "Trolling", "Kudos" (posts that are along the lines of "Great Job! Rec'd!" or "I like what you're saying" and that's it), and "Dissent" (the opposite of "Kudos"). That way, people could still chatter about or praise/decry a diary, but they could also use a search filter to display comments they want to see and advance the discussion.
- Recommendation System
Before you go all "bitter grapes" on me, let me just first say that I can honestly say that I've never written a diary that deserved to make the rec list. That being said, I'm not a fan of the system as it exists today. Yes, any snapshot of the rec list will include authors who have never posted before. But I can't tell you how many times I've read a diary from a non-frontpage but still prominent and frequent contributor where I said "What? This got recommended?" It's the same feeling that I get when I listen to new songs by bands on their 7th or 8th album: yeah they're ok, but there's no way they'd be signed if that was their first try.
If it's writing ability we truly praise, then why not hide the author unless the viewer recommends the diary? That way, there'd be no knee-jerk recommendations to big-names, and the viewer would only have the writing ability of the soon-to-be-revealed author to judge whether or not to recommend.
- Diary Classification
Can we please use some top-level classifications to the diaries above and beyond the tag system we use today? What if we had top-level, malleable tabs such as "GonzalesGate" ("Insert current Bush Scandal Here"), "Iraq", "Congress", "Media", "White House" or "Bush", and "Other".
Either that, or use administrator-sanctioned tags only. The volunteer and ad-hoc nature of the tag system now makes it somewhat inefficient to search through diaries. This isn't a huge point, but to be able to sign on and click on an "Gonzales" tab at the top to acquaint myself on the subject would be much better than searching through user-created tags that could be either "GonzalesGate", "US Attorney Scandal", "Alberto Gonzales", and a myriad of other possibilities.
- Meta
What the fuck is this about not talking about meta? Self-criticism and suggestions on how to keep this community healthy are vital, and shouldn't be sneered at/dismissed on face value. If you don't personally like meta discussions, don't read the diary. Which brings me to my next point...
- STFU if you're tired of hearing a subject
I can't tell you how many times I've read a diary that is interesting, substantial, and original, but is the 10th diary on a breaking or current issue, and someone posts:
"Oh great, another ___ diary. I'm so sick of talking about ___ "
Then why'd you click on the diary in the first place, dumbfuck? Unless the diary title was ambiguous, why'd you click on a diary on a subject that you're already sick of, and then go out of your way to tell people how sick of the subject you're talking about? At best, not productive, at worst, trolling. If you're sick of a subject, skip the diary and don't bring down those who are still interested.
- Rethuglicans and other "clever" puns
Please. If I see another "Rethug" or "Repugnican" or "BushCo", "__ is a whore", "___ is a stupid dumbshit goddamn motherfucker", "__ is a dirty slut", or any other attempt at clever ad homimems, I'm going to puke. It makes you look immature, infantile, and even worse: like Ann Coulter. Make your point without resorting to personal attacks or verbal puns that you think is clever (though nobody else does).
- Conclusion
Please understand that I do not write this as a GBCW or "Delete my Fucking Diary Kos" diary, and I do not write the above out of malice or intense frustration or of a desire to leave and never come back or even to stop posting. I just feel that there are several things that deter me from taking a more involved role in this site, and that the experience could be better. The quality of the front-pagers or the real-world impact of DKos on the 2006 Election and other issues cannot be questioned: I'm very glad DKos exists.
But there is much room for improvement.