Difference between revisions of "User talk:Martin"

Revision as of 21:52, 14 March 2007

Welcome to AboutUs, Martin! I saw (and responded) to your note in the SuggestionBox as well, but I wanted to say hello here to make sure you got it. Your site is ready for cultivation and editing at IBESI.org. You can look on the Help pages for references, or you can ask us for help. You can always contact me on my user pages. We're glad to have you here! Drew

welcome!

Martin,

I saw what you wrote on the community portal page, even though you took it off. Very poetic! Let me know if I can help! TedErnst

Martin, I'm responding to what you wrote on Drew's talk page. I'm afraid that the future you want is not yet here. I also want what you want. I want to be able to edit a page using the aboutus.org software and have that change show up at ibesi.org. That day is not yet here. What we have right now is a page ABOUT ibesi.org at aboutus.org/ibesi.org and that actual ibesi.org page at ibesi.org. Some others are working with this now, like http://intentionalnetworks.com. Click that link and see that it actually goes to teh IntentionalNetworks.com page. That's cool, but not exactly what you want. You want what we do not yet have the ability to do. I don't know when. Brandon knows better, I think. Hope this helps, at least with expectations. peace, TedErnst

Yes, I was guessing you had been talking with Brandon, as your desires match perfectly with what he talks about for the future, but we don't know when. He's been promising me to do a test for a few weeks now, but it hasn't happened yet. It will happen, just don't know when.

As for your questions about talk page etiquette, we ought to start a page on that, to document. In most wikis, you simply reply to a comment wherever it was left. So if I asked you a question on your page, you'd answer it there. That makes sense, right? Well, for now, we're using MediaWiki here, the Wikipedia software, and at Wikipedia, they do it differently. I'm not sure exactly why, except that there's a different kind of notification when someone leaves a message on your talk page. Of course there's a software issue and a social issue. YOU are exactly the person to bring this up because those already here before you are already familiar with Mediawiki so don't notice how wrong (not understandable for a person inexperienced in these ways) this way of doing things is. By the way, did you know that a link that is red means the page it points to doesn't exist yet? So clicking on it is actually starting the new page. Hope this helps and look forward to more dialogue.

And unfortunately, if the url is really important and you want a community process, I don't think aboutus.org will meet your needs right now. peace, TedErnst

Really helpful stuff Ted - much thanks!

So as you tell me, I reply to you here, in my own talk section.

I wonder if the computer techies could figure out a way to "mark" new people coming to aboutus, perhaps after a short query like, "do you know what a Wiki is and the relevant etiquette?" If their answer is "no" they might get a symbol next to their name. Thus more experienced users reading their postings might cut them some slack, or offer useful advice, at exactly the time they need it- when they had noticeable bad conduct or messed up. It is exactly at this time (that the new person needs the help or is frustrated) that they are most receptive to getting the help and remembering the advice given (in contrast to reading lots of text in a help section). Thus an "old timer" might say to this new person, "I see you are new here, so let me give you a tip" Maybe the Newbe symbol is even a number, so one also knows how new this person is - been here only 2 days or 30 days, etc. Ted, maybe this has already been thought of? - do you think this content should go in the suggestion section?

Hi Martin, I think everyone should be cut some slack :-) this is the one goal of AssumeGoodFaith and I like to think that folks are inexperienced (ExperiencedInteractionWithInexperience) Mark

Hi again, Martin. Your suggestions are great, AND that's exactly what Mark and all of the community team has been working on, not with a symbol, but with an attitude. We all have lots to learn! TedErnst

Thanks Mark and Ted – from my “green” perspective I note a very helpful tone at aboutus.

DesignerSearch

Hey thanks for your comments on the DesignerSearch page. It's real encouraging to see input coming from outside the office. Scott

I’m glad if any of the info can help you. A good friend of mine used to manage Nike’s prototype printing facility, and in that capacity he was very involved with their computer art talent. We also had a business going outside of Nike, routinely using this pool of “moon lighting” art talent – it is exceptional in terms of computer graphics. Also my wife and I used to own a business where the adidas (at the time their International headquarters located in Portland) was our major client, so we knew lots of the people within, including art talent. This computer graphic talent changes jobs, bouncing between entities like Nike, adidas, and at times Wieden & Kennedy – meaning lots of this art talent know each other, even though they work at different local companies – and within their own community they know who is exceptional relative to their peer perspective (if you form a relationship with one or two of these artists, they can lead you to others).

Mark's message

Not sure if you saw this, Martin, but Mark left you a message here: MartinPfahler. TedErnst

And that was a mistake:

Hi MartinPfahler , I generally leave comments on a persons talk page rather than my own! That way it alerts the person that there is a message for them. It is a bit of a disrupted conversation that way, but I personally think it works better. What way do you think it will work for you? (What, there are differing opinions at AboutUs?!!?! ;-) Best, MarkDilley

Thanks Ted!

I did not see Mark’s comment. In terms of “process” this seems to indicate that I (new guy) was given two conflicting pieces of advice from those more experienced (you and Mark).

From my perspective there is not really better advice coming from either of you – just different. It is a matter of what standards should be used – and then to make those standards easily seen by the new people. Seems to me smart folks like Brandon should be able to figure out some ways to automate the process to make it more idiot proof (me the idiot). For example even if I reply to you in my talk section, the automation is smart enough to know that you first made a comment in my section, so if I reply here, the automation automatically copies it to your talk section, or in another way notifies you where my reply can be found.

Also I currently see at about us sections, “concerns” and “suggestions” but the existing content at these pages does not seem to reflect a lot of process content, meaning where people discuss certain process issues that are problematic, and then suggestions on how they can be improved – seems a more easily found “bulls eye” for this topic might help if closer to the homepage. When a web site is in Beta mode, doesn’t it seem such process content should be easy for new people to find – so they can share their experiences?

In such regard (as new guy) I also find the general Wiki mode too difficult to find prior stuff. For example I read something on the aboutus home page today, but make no comment (so it is not in my tracking box). Then a week from now I remember this information, and want to access it again – but then too hard to find. In such cases I have tried the “search” box, and to often the search results come back with nothing, or being irrelevant. This is one area I think more traditional web site formats have an advantage, simply easier to find “prior stuff”.

It might also be that I have trouble with this “finding process” because I do not know how to use existing Wiki tools. If that is the case, then again as a “new guy” I can say (one guy’s opinion), where these finding tools are, and how to use them, is currently not easy to find.

Martin, I'm not sure what you mean about "traditional website." The web has only been around 12 or 13 years or so. It's all beta, really. As for search, well, this place is huge. Search is hard. Smaller websites are likely easier to search. Search is a huge weakness of the web in general still, and this place as well. Hopefully the technology will improve at some point.

As for Mark and I giving different advice, could you say more about that? He and I sometimes bump heads, but we're both interested in learning and getting better and both being in the wiki and teaching others to be in the wiki. Maybe you can help us?

As for process content, from my point of view, AboutUS could really use more of that, for sure. Maybe you can help it get created? You can make a page, name it anything you like, and just start writing. Martin's Suggestions About Process, for example. You can drop a link to your new page at Community Portal so others know it's there. There are people talking about this stuff, but we need to find a way to make it more clear where that conversation is going on. In the meantime, keep it coming!

TedErnst

"Martin, I'm not sure what you mean about 'traditional website.'"

Bad term on my part Ted. Maybe I should have said, “web sites that are not currently aware of or using Wiki modes”. For example I hang out at lots of science related web sites, and there, when I want to find some prior “stuff”, it is not hard (and they are admittedly not interactive like the Wiki mode).

"As for Mark and I giving different advice, could you say more about that?"

You are making too much of this comment Ted – its simply a technical issue. You told me, “Martin reply to my comment in your own talk section”, Mark told me, “Martin reply to my comment in my talk section”. Two modes cause confusion. Some entity (not me) needs to decide on the standard, then just tell me (new guy) what it is.

"As for process content, from my point of view, AboutUS could really use more of that, for sure. Maybe you can help it get created? You can make a page, name it anything you like, and just start writing. Martin's Suggestions About Process, for example."

Ted, I just went to omidyar.net to read your threads at about us, and noted one person saying, “long ago I gave a suggestion but got no response" – you replying, the aboutus folks are currently overloaded. If that is the case (I suspect it is, because I wrote to Brandon recently and have still to hear a reply), then adding even more suggestions just creates a bigger backlog. We all have limited time, and heading up a new section to add even more “backlog” at this time, doesn’t seem to be a good use of my mine. Currently I try to contribute where I can, meaning where others already seem to be heading up a page, for example on the "Logo" and "Design pages".

I have previously spent my time to put content on Wiki pages (prior to the existance of aboutus.org) that end up “dead” and being used or read by few if any – thus really a waste of my time. Martin, I'm not sure what you mean about "traditional website."

Bad term on my part Ted. Maybe I should have said, “web sites that are not currently aware of or using Wiki modes”. For example I hang out at lots of science related web sites, and there, when I want to find some prior “stuff”, it is not hard (and they are admittedly not interactive like the Wiki mode).

As for Mark and I giving different advice, could you say more about that?

You are making too much of this comment Ted – its simply a technical issue. You told me, “Martin reply to my comment in your own talk section”, Mark told me, “Martin reply to my comment in my talk section”. Two modes cause confusion. Some entity (not me) needs to decide on the standard, then just tell me (new guy) what it is.

As for process content, from my point of view, AboutUS could really use more of that, for sure. Maybe you can help it get created? You can make a page, name it anything you like, and just start writing. Martin's Suggestions About Process, for example.

Ted, I just went to omidyar.net to read your aboutus thread, and noted one person saying, “long ago I gave a suggestion but got no response" – you saying the aboutus folks are currently overloaded. If that is the case (I suspect it is, because I wrote to Brandon recently and have still to hear a reply), then adding even more suggestions just creates a bigger backlog. We all have limited time. Heading up a new section to add even more aboutus “backlog” at this time, doesn’t seem to be a good use of my own time.

Currently I try to contribute where I can, meaning where others already seem to be heading up a page, for example on the "Logo" and "Design" pages.

I have previously spent my time to put content on Wiki pages that ended up “dead” and being used or read by few if any (this raises the question, "for the R&D community and related work Martin is involved with on a daily basis, is the Wiki mode “currently” the most effective way for Martin to communicate and make progress in his community?). Aboutus managment understand the mentioned Wiki “silo problem". My tiny pea brain is still not sure if the aboutus folks have the solution to this problem, its a very tough one - meaning do they have a solution that many others in the populace will accept in a big way (if that does not happen, in effect there is just another silo being built) – so I must factor this "unknown" dynamic into my own “time available” equation.

Does this mean I won’t offer process suggestions in the future? Not at all, I hope to do more of it in the future. For me it’s really a matter of timing (plus Brandon already knows some of my process suggestions, so perhaps no need to clutter up Wiki space with “stuff” he already knows).