DygiScape

Open Suggestion to Netscape: Navigators, Karma, Anchor Notes

I have a suggestion for Netscape concerning a few observations on their Netscape Anchors and Navigators; which are essentially moderators and paid contributors. In light of reading C.K.’s informational news about how Navigators will have the ability to kill off duplicate articles raises my concern about the quality. In addition, C.K. highlights the new trackers to track Anchor activity/comments.

I want to explain why I have a concern about the quality on Netscape. I’ve seen numerous (hundreds) of articles that have been posted by a regular user, get overruled by a Navigator posting their syndicated article and essentially shutting out the lil’ guy. I won’t name off specific Navigators, but rather the group as a whole needs to seriously focus on quality over quantity. Over 40% of my duplicate post reports are of the Navigators themselves. Now, if I place myself in the visionary’s shoes, paid contributors must post quality, unique, rare articles. I would not waste my time, nor their time to repost stuff someone already did for free. Essentially; my argument is Navigators need not worry about their post count, and focus on the novelty of hot articles that let people become interested. As added clarification, and equality, C.K. has elaborated on this, in the commentary:

“…we’ve discussed the dupe closing policy with the Navs and it is very clear cut. Whichever story came later gets closed. Even if it is a Navigator story. The only exception to this rule is when the linked to story by the original source is a broken link / a site trying to break the middleman rule by quoting heavily and not linking to the original story.

That being said, I should also note that the Navigators are not employees of Netscape, but freelance contractors working on a work for hire basis. Yes, they should be held to a higher level of editorial and moderator quality, but the Anchors are the definitive editorial presence on the site, so if you notice any issues feel free to contact any of the Anchors, myself, or Jason. That’s the feedback methodology for Netscape. We are open to messages. We read them. Contact us with your issues and we will do our best to look into them and resolve them.“

(Note, I didn’t necessarily imply the Navigators worked FOR Netscape, but they are getting paid, therefore supplemented with income from Netscape. I’m doubting Calacanis himself is cutting personal checks for paying them. Hence, if you are earning the Netscape dollar, it should be earned with quality and integrity — which generally a majority of what I see is that the Navigators do earn it.)

Now, how should Netscape rate Navigators/users and collect feedback? Great question. (Aren’t I good at the 2-person dialogue in my mind?) Netscape should institute a Karma system. Karma meaning the overall rating of a user’s comments and contributions to the Netscape Social News website. Karma will carry the same “One user, One Vote” as Calacanis describes, and will merely be utilized for FEEDBACK to Netscape Staffers on their Navigators/users on who is favored, who is causing a ruckus. My suggestion is to institute the Karma system. I made a mock-up of what I am suggesting:

1a. The original, current look of Netscape homepage.

1b. My suggestion with Karma ratings next to the post author, and on the user’s main page.

The benefit of the Karma rankings is to empower the users to give feedback to the user on the posting, and also give feedback to Netscape staffers on the quality of the posts. Anonymous of course, and again only used for feedback and review. In addition, it can also give a chance for people to reward contributors who offer valuable insight (comments) and also story submitters that are authoritative in their view. This lets Navigators and regular contributors be judged equally and on the same plane.

My next suggestion is to segment two forms of Anchor follow-up into two main categories: Actions and Commentary. This will help add validity and closure when Anchors merge similar stories, pinning, and other “actions” to a given story. Also, this yields the opportunity to cleanse the Commentary section for follow-up, interviews, and even their personal opinion. Reading articles quicker, faster, and more efficiently is a benefit for all. I have a mock-up of my suggestion on this:

2a. Original, current story article layout

2b. My suggested, modification in segmenting Netscape Anchor contributions

2c. Now same thing, but with commentary as well. (No change in the commentary format)

So what do you think? I suggest that Netscape does this to better serve their users for quick reading, and also accountability on which stories got merged; why things got pinned, and generally a check and balances system. I think Netscape is great; and I just want to keep it real and have it be a hopping social news portal on the web.

P.S. - I mean no offense to the Navigators that do an excellent job posting stories, keeping Netscape a hot spot on the net. I just want to make it clear that if you post a story; please verify that there are no duplicates. Aside from that, Keep Scapin’!

[tags]Netscape, Calacanis, Social News, Social Bookmarking, Editors, Moderators, Suggestions, Opinions[/tags]