Topic: Areas of Focus
Posts (1 - 14 of 14)
Sort by: Ascending | Descending
Login to Post a Reply.
|
|
Hey Tim, I think we somehow need to make the main portals stand out more. And Im open to exploring how to include the main portals. Like you said, they don't really seem to have a point. I've heard of people overwhelmed at looking at the long list of aofs too. So somehow, something has to be changed about AOFs.
While I think the aof list is overwhelming, I do NOT think we have too many. I feel that areas of focus should integrate tags, so that people could "create" their own area of focus, as has been mentioned before in the forums. This could open up ways to connect organizations based around ethnic groups for example. Right now, there is an "ethnic equality" area of focus, but the term DOESNT mean organizations which are working on racial issues find and select the "ethnic equality" area of focus for their organization. It doesnt make it apparent that WiserEarth has hundreds of Asian American or Arab American orgs for example in its database, just by looking at an organization's page. |
|
|
A comment from an Asian American activist who I recently informed of WiserEarth: "I skimmed the site briefly and I think that without tagging, the site won't match up to what we were hoping an organizational database could deliver for people seeing out AAPI organizations in the Bay Area. Natural search terms are too organic for the average person to search/browse. "
What if we had a system for people to enter tags underneath certain areas of focus, which moderators could then "approve"? This could reduce clutter from tags but also allow people to link organizations with the "search terms", or areas of focus/tags that they feel are most appropriate. |
|
Speaking of Aof design, how can we ensure fresh content on portal pages? Templates would be a great way to easily refresh content but I'm not sure where that idea stands at the moment...I know a lot of attention has moved away from portal content to more of our social networking features (groups etc), but as AoF are still such a crucial part of the site, how do we keep up w/new content w/an ever-expanding taxonomy?
|
|
|
perhaps I could spend (and so could all editors) a lil time each day or so, seeking new editors who can edit portal pages? It's hard to tell who has editor potential, but maybe we won't be able to find out until after we take the first step in communicating.
|
|
*** In response to Nasher ***
I think it's OK to have as many AoFs as we can as long as they are relatively independent of each other (no unnecessary redundancy) and are defined eloquently and with clarity (as some definitions still feels too vague for me, and I even found ones which can not be called a definition). The reason why I think it's OK is that it enables broader and more fine-grained collaboration between WiserEarth entities (people, orgs, wikipages, jobs, events, etc.). This would in turn enable a more precise and a more context-and-culture-sensitive attack on our problems (be they global or local) via WiserEarth. The current linking between AoFs and WE entities in the AoF main page is good enough for this : "AoF name (x organizations) (x users) (x resources) (x jobs) (x events)". Of course, further improvements will still be possible. I think your suggestion on enabling the selection of the Main AoF must be implemented. I also share similar frustation upon signing up and seeing so many AoFs (and their pop-in definitions to read) to choose from. Maybe in the sign up process, we should only enable the selection of Main AoFs (but keep the sub AoFs list there for clearer picture of what each Main AoF contains), while notifying that after completing the sign up process, they can fine tune their AoFs. *** In response to MichaelK *** I see that there's already a "Tags" section on many AoF portals. Maybe the tags can be made "linkable" and "searchable" and more tags can be suggested by users like you said. And maybe we can have an "AoF tag cloud" on the bottom right-hand side of the main Area of Focus page? In anticipation of the upcoming alert system via email and RSS, we can then enable users to be notified to updates on each AoF and/or on each Tag of their choosing (and also enable those updates to be streamed to their personal profile or the upcoming personal homepage) so they become more relevant and useful to each user. *** In response to molly and MichaelK on Portal maintenance *** I think we should assign at least three editors to maintain each AoF portal. These editors must have a deep knowledge on their respective AoF and are committed to spend effort on maintaining their assigned portal. We should also enable an easier method for users reading the info on the portal to suggest new contents or other improvements. The current method is complex or creates unnecessary complexity. User have three options to do this at the moment: via "Add a comment", "Questions About This Page" and "Suggestions About This Page". The "Add a comment" route seems troublesome to me for at least four reasons: 1. In some portals, I see users post totally irrelevant comment. 2. When a user does post a constructive comment, the comment will become irrelevant once the portal is updated to accommodate that user's comment. 3. In other portals, discussions are held in the comment section, not in the forum via "Suggestions/Questions About This Page", which again, will become irrelevant once the portal is updated to accommodate the conclusions of that discussion. 4. All of these, will in the end greatly clutter the portal page. The "Questions About This Page" and "Suggestions About This Page" route seems troublesome to me for the following reasons: 1. Why split it into two? into questions and suggestions. Why not just make it into "Discussions About This Page"? 2. Why must user post questions and suggestions under the general "Questions" and "Suggestions" forum instead of in a discussion forum specifically set up for each AoF? The latter I guess would be easier to maintain by the assigned editors for each portal. So, I think we can just disable commenting all together on the portal page to avoid this unnecessary complexity. And then, the "Questions About This Page" and "Suggestions About This Page" link should be merged into a "Discussions About This Page" link, which would point users to a dedicated discussion FORUM (NOT individual topic) about that particular AoF. That discussion forum will need to be automatically added under the "Related Discussions" link on the right-hand side of the portal. We also need to make that link stands out (e.g. in the form of a button, not just a text link) to entice participation of users in improving the portal. I think, this would streamline the process of maintaining, improving and updating each AoF portal by both editors and users. *** In responding to Molly on AoF portal template *** I agree that we need to make a template for AoF portals. This template: 1. Should have uniform structure over all AoF. This means that the division of the portal page (into "Definition section", "Featured resources section", "Best practices section", "Related portals", etc), the size of each section, the postioning of each section, the visual design of the portal page and the language style used must be standardized so that users can read all portal pages with the expectation of seeing similar structured layout. This could smooth out users learning process. 2. If needs be, each portal page can be given the "Customize Layout" feature of Groups. WE administrators can change this layout as needed, while editors assigned to each portal can edit the contents of each section in the layout. If this is too cumbersome, then we can just design a good template for all portals to use. *** In response to MichaelK on scouting new editors for portal pages *** I couldn't agree more. As I've said before, we need more people with a deep knowledge of each AoF as editors. To know a user's expertise can be done by browsing their profile and the links within (to their blog, organizations, etc.), by googling their name, by monitoring their activities in discussion forums, in their edits and in their additions to the site. Or we can just invite people who we know have those expertise but still not a part of WiserEarth yet. Maybe we can even try getting really famous and capable people for this. For example, our very own Paul Hawken for the Natural Capitalism portal. With the potential usage of WiserEarth by millions of people (in the future), I think it's a pretty good offer for those experts to contribute to each portal. To have such people mingling with the rest of WiserEarth users would be a great boon to attract new users eager to learn directly from the gurus. |
|
|
It's hard for me accept the selection of only the main aof's. I think it'd be nice to see a list of JUST the main aof's, and then allow users to see the subportals within them. Users could also be given to see the entire list of subportals, like we have currently.
I think this is what Eddie is referring to in his comment, months ago: I find it a little difficult sometimes to find the appropriate Areas of Focus when I'm in the process of adding new organizations. Would it be possible to simplify the process by turning the entry box into a tree, similar to the way Windows handles folders/files in Internet Explorer? I don't see a tag system currently. We have keywords, but they aren't linkable, so that clicking on them leads you to an automatically generated list associated with that tag. Instead, you have to search by keyword, which are hard to see, and thus less likely for people to participate in contributing to. The tag system requires a technical change. The areas of focus have far more visibility because theyre linkable, like tags. Your other comments about enabling an easier method for users to make suggestions and comments are totally understandable, adam btw has been working on a new area of focus template. He's been working on a nice standard template that probably addresses your concerns. He says he looks forward to any feedback you might have on it. Note: it's not the final version but gives you a look at how things are being arranged http://wiserearth.org/article/74e8b37279c057c969dc47f0ee40ac1e |
|
|
Yep, I mistakenly remembered it as Tags, while they are in fact Keywords. Btw, I didn't suggest that only main AoFs are selectable, but rather to do so only in the sign up process. And then, upon completing the sign up process, they can then select the sub-AoFs. Anyway, this won't be necessary if your suggestion on making a tree-like structure for the AoFs can be implemented.
Some imaginings: With the upcoming email/RSS alerts, personal homepage/hub, and the BRILLIANT portal template adam is designing, some/much of the worry on WE becoming a "data sink" would be gone. If we add to it a mailing list and website/blog equipped Groups, the worry will I suspect, decrease further. Tagging would add a similar effect to that end. WiserEarth will truly then have the potential to be a knowledge repository, exchange, evolution and clearing house site, while at the same time being a virtual headquarter for concerned citizens and NGOs of the world to coordinate their effort. On the brilliant portal template: I'll look into it more carefully to give some constructive feedback. |
|
Hey, all:
I have hoped that more attention would be paid to improving the AoF, or revising it in some way to make it better able to meet participants' needs. I had commented quite a while back on a couple of biological inconsistencies, which as I recall fell on deaf ears. I support Bowo's idea of having editors with areas of responsibility in the AoFs in whatever form it takes, preferably with some expertise in those areas. Perhaps this would spur more responsiveness to suggestions. I think having limitless, adhoc tags is rather chaotic, and it seems it would make linking organizations by shared interests much more difficult. I appreciate the logic of having an existing framework from which to choose, provided it makes the greatest possible sense. An accurate comprehensive list of AoFs would seem to be the best answer. However, the current organization of the hierarchy is somewhat arbitrary, and makes it difficult to add things to a logical location. As a simple example, from my background in biology and ecology, I would reorganize those parts of the AoFs. There is a category "Animalia", with many AoFs for some rather specific mammal groups, but no category at all for botany. And, as another example, the only place "invasive species" can be found is under the "Marine" category, while invasives are a serious biological, agricultural, and economic issue in all habitats worldwide. In short, the organization and content of the AoFs should be improved. Both would serve the WE community and the overall goals of the movement very well. David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
Hi David - which biological inconsistencies did you point out? Apologies for feeling like it fell on deaf ears - our pledge is to serve the community, so anytime you felt you have not been able to reach us is an issue we'd like to redress right away. Please let me know, and I'll run it by the staff and make sure you get an update.
|
|
|
David, developments for new areas of focus have been put on hold for a while. But we should always be working on improving them...and I appreciate your important observations. I'll make sure your comment regarding aofs will be heard. The process for suggesting and approving changes to the current taxonomy will be clarified for everyone to understand, I wouldn't want users to feel that its not worth their time to speak up on areas of focus they want to see. I encourage you to share your suggestions as well.
I'd love to see a voting system of some sort, but for now, I think that what's more important is generating active discussion on areas of focus so that it's clear to others that there is a demand for an area of focus. I'm sorry that there hasn't been a response to your suggestion. I feel that the discussion on akreider and I's suggestion on an area of focus that addresses race or ethnicity has died too, and its unclear to me what it's standing is. There are also other areas of focus suggestions here that haven't been created yet, each of which in my opinion deserves more of a response to whether there are plans to make it an area of focus. I feel that the lack of response doesn't necessarily mean "no", but still, there is no follow-up: http://wiserearth.org/forum/view/dcfd137839534b43807badc51923ab81 Part of the reason why I really would like to see a separate "tag" system, which can remain separate from the taxonomy of areas of focus, is that users could freely generate their own "areas of focus", instead of running into roadblocks due to either lack of staff capacity, lack of interest, disagreement from other users or staff, etc. That's my solution to addressing the many areas of focus suggestions we have. This is what you wrote, it makes total sense to me. I'll try to get it addressed. http://wiserearth.org/forum/view/5fadd564e0d9808718e3c66eed95c31a/postid/1884 "I guess I would be called a "lumper" in the parlance of biological taxonomy, but AoF is not a simple taxonomy. The way it is set up, there are some features that have a correct hierarchy, but there are some areas in which features are horizontal, and unless an entire new logic is adopted it will remain much the same. From the other related topic here, breaking up mammals into no less than 15 lower taxa seems unnecessary, even to the extent that if one focused on mammals, one is forced to select one of those lower taxa, since there is no separate AoF for Mammals! On the other hand, in school we were taught outlining, and you did not add a lower group unless there was a valid division and at least two entries, e.g., not just I.A.1., but I.A.1 and I.A.2. So while Mammals does not exist, Birds does exist, but it is only "divided" into Raptors. Even as a longtime wildlife biologist, even working on endangered mammals, I see little value in 15 taxa on mammals. The reasons for decline of species and subsequent concern, and the techniques, and goals for recovery are universal, so Biodiversity, Endangered Species, etc., are sufficient." |
|
|
Hey, all:
Hey, Honore and Michael: Thanks to both of you for your responses, to you, Honore, for the heads-up, and to you Michael, for digging up an old comment! I do realize the constraints of priorities, time, and budgets, so I must apologize if my comments seemed too critical. I also really should back up my own suggestions and apply to be an editor ("put up or shut up"), but for now, I think the idea of having parallel systems, tags and AoFs, would help satisfy many participants and needs. Many are used to using tags in other sites, but the more formal AoFs also certainly have a useful purpose. AoFs have an advantage in using standard English, easing use by the rest of the world--jargon and buzzwords are harder to decipher. I would be lost in virtually any foreign language for even ordering in a cafe, much less understanding everyday "street" language. For organizations, groups, resources, etc., the more formal AoFs seems quite appropriate. On the other hand, it seems that tags for individual people would also be self-generating, needing less WE staff setup time, and would be a good quick fix while still being substantive, rather than just a band-aid. Perhaps an alphabetic listing of tags to choose from first would cut down on proliferation, which likely will lead to clutter. I will write more, to clarify my comments on the "biological inconsistencies" I mentioned, and to suggest alternatives. Again, thanks! David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
|
bowo: Yea I knew you were referring to only the sign up process, sorry didn't make that clear. A mailing list would be a definite plus for Groups. While those of us working on WE would love to promote other forms of interaction between group members online, an e-mail listserve is understandably the favored mode of communication. It makes it easy to catch up on past conversations when theres an archive, or activity log of what's going on.
|
|
|
thanks David you explained the importance of AOFs clearly and Im glad you agree with me that tags as a parallel system would satisfy our needs for an expanded taxonomy. I've always been a fan of the aofs as it helps promote certain fields that otherwise could get buried from the barrage of tags elsewhere. I think that we could take the time to learn more from successful tagging systems such as del.icio.us, which allows tags to be viewed alphabetically, by frequency, in a tag cloud or in a list.
|
1 to 14 of 14 Posts
I think there are WAY TOO many areas of focus, especially when you consider the sub-areas. On the AoF page you should only be able to choose the MAIN areas. This way the main portals can act as gateways into the sub-areas. Otherwise, what's the point of the main portal??
Also, this way when people are setting up their profile they don't have to root through 379 possibilities. We call this 'de-materialization', its a good sustainability strategy!
Peace,
Tim