For a site that started off in 2003 as a StarCraft community, it's amazing how TeamLiquid.net has outgrown just the StarCraft side. We've become the home to a very active community with diverse interests, and grown into a business as well. We're happy to announce a new TeamLiquid.net feature that hopes to serve both those aspects of the site.
Team Liquid Knowhow is an attempt to create a unique knowledge base from the insights of our community. There have been countless posts in the past where TL community members have helped out fellow TL members by sharing their knowledge in a certain area. We are hoping to take it step further by creating a specialized section where community members can share the special insights and understanding they have gained as they have pursued their careers and passions in life.
We have very lofty ambitions for the quality of content featured on TL Knowhow. We want articles that can stand out amidst the sea of blogs and guides on the internet. To that end, we're only featuring content written by experts in their respective fields; for example our very own tech wizard R1CH might want to write about programming. Internally, we've discussed very deeply whether this is a realistic goal or not. In the end, we decided it was worth giving a shot, as it was a chance to create something uniquely helpful for our community.
The section will be headed by MightyAtom, who will also be writing TL KnowHow articles himself. MightyAtom has an extensive background in consulting and business (which you can read about in his excellent series of blogs), and he has written a series of articles on start-up businesses to launch TL KnowHow. We hope his articles set the right tone for the section.
Contributing to TeamLiquid.net
While serving the community, part of the TL KnowHow initiative is to find a way to financially benefit TL as well. Each post will include an Amazon referral link to a product relevant to the topic at hand. If readers of an article choose to buy a product via referral link, TeamLiquid.net will receive a commission/portion of the sales. That way, we hope TL KnowHow can benefit both the community and TeamLiquid.net.
We will be very up front about this: All contributions are on a volunteer basis. At this point in time, the sole incentive for writing a TL KnowHow article is to contribute to the community and help TeamLiquid.net out financially.
Depending on the success of TL KnowHow, there is a possibility that in the future, writers will be compensated in some way. However, given the high level of professional knowledge and expertise required to write a TL KnowHow article, it's very unlikely that the compensation will be anywhere near fair market value. Ultimately, TL KnowHow's goal is to identify experts who want to contribute for its own sake.
"Know-how (or knowhow as it is sometimes written) is practical knowledge of how to get something done, as opposed to “know-what” (facts), “know-why” (science), or “know-who” (networking). Know-how is often tacit knowledge, which means that it is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalising it. The opposite of tacit knowledge is explicit knowledge. (Wikipedia)."
Knowhow is after the theories and strategies, it is the knowledge of how to survive to get to your goal, or to outperform others to make it or simply how to get to a level of practical understanding faster. The term 'knowhow' refers to knowledge which is critical and insightful but which is developed internally and not publicly known or taught in a systematic process.
Knowhow is usually applied to industrial processes, making the same machine or process produce 'more' than the same machine/process in the hands of another operator, whether it be the right room tempurature or the exact type of oil that adds 0.5% better performance. But in the broader context, social or career based knowhow is one of the last types of knowledge that is passed on through directly sharing experiences.
By its nature, knowhow is about results and getting to the results with less effort, more output or faster, it is about increasing your performance and it isn't something you can just pick up from a manual, but is something passed on through training or articulated by using someone's experience as a base. This is very different than a theory or opinion because it's value is based off a process that is validated because of its results.
An example of this is if you were raised in an engineering family, meaning both your parents are engineers or a doctor's family or restaurantuer's family. Whether you realize it or not, things that you take as 'givens' such as a more analytic approach to life, or understanding basic human biology and what certain types of medication do, or what are the different standards of customer service are, this is all knowhow that unless someone was raised in the same family or did the same job, they would have no access to though common resources of knowledge.
Knowhow is both simply passed on, but is also guarded fiercely as it may be the only competitive factor that a company or individual has when all things are equal. Thus, the effectiveness of knowhow is mainly to it's very specific nature to a process or task. It may be as simple as a single function command, but used properly can save hours of work and may be completely obvious after the fact, but the amount of experience to have come to such an obvious outcome may have been hours upon hours of trial and error. But the fact that it is obvious and effective makes it true knowhow.
Due to the nature of when and how knowhow is 'passed on', the only reason to share knowhow is because they are family or work in the same company and are aligned with the same goals/objectives
While MightyAtom's articles provide a guideline to the kind of content we want for TL KnowHow, we are very open to a wide variety of suggestions and ideas. Whether it's the eureka moment that changed your professional career, a technique you developed only after painstaking trial and error, or some amazing life tips that only you know, there's no limit on things that could benefit the TL community when shared. As long as you are very experienced in a certain area and can truly illuminate something for the TL community, then we would love to hear from you. If you are interested, PM MightyAtom with the following info.
Area of Expertise (finance, athletics, arts, IT, etc.).
Level of experience and/or accomplishments.
Proof of experience/background (i.e. proof of employment/experience, published work, etc.).
Books or products you would like to recommend.
Desired level of contribution.
*All articles may be subject to editing for content, format and focus by the TL Knowhow Staff.
At the end of the day, we hope that the contributions made in TL Knowhow will be a solid addition to the things that make TL great. We hope you enjoy the content that we'll be producing, and we look forward to sharing our knowledge with you.
You can find the TL Knowhow section on the left sidebar as part of the Blogs section, or view the section directly at http://www.teamliquid.net/knowhow.
That being said, this is pretty cool, TL is full of people who know a ton about some pretty cool shit, I'll definitely be looking through the forum for stuff to learn about!
Wow, awesome. I can already think of some interesting things myself or someone else could write about. But I'm curious as to what makes the cut for criteria. Does it have to have an endorse-able product? Are basic life tricks know how? What about sneaky ways to get around the "system"? Maybe it's to broad of a question, and individual submissions would be needed, but if it's not, I'd be interested to hear any added definition to the guidelines.
Nice idea! I hope it grows into what i think it can possibly grow into this. The way it can go is really good and it should take TL.net from being a sc2 base progaming team site to a world wide site that covers everything around the world.
That's an interesting idea, i'd like to contribute to it but i hate the fact hat i have to recommend some products on Amazon to be featured on a know-how. Why not just completely disregard profit ? By making it a for-profit initiative you really make it look like super blogs that sells stuff on TL (nice way to get some quality copywriting done i guess).
On July 17 2012 02:15 Pandemona wrote: Nice idea! I hope it grows into what i think it can possibly grow into this. The way it can go is really good and it should take TL.net from being a sc2 base progaming team site to a world wide site that covers everything around the world.
I don't really want to see that happening. There is nothing wrong with diversifying, up to a point, but in the end if you try to do everything you end up don't doing anything very well.
On July 17 2012 02:22 Marou wrote: That's an interesting idea, i'd like to contribute to it but i hate the fact hat i have to recommend some products on Amazon to be featured on a know-how. Why not just completely disregard profit ? By making it a for-profit initiative you really make it look like super blogs that sells stuff on TL (nice way to get some quality copywriting done i guess).
Yeah, I'm not quite sure where this is going. It really seems to be limiting if you have to recommend some product which is currently on sale.
I'm interested in seeing how this develops. Normally, people pay $$$ for real experts to share knowledge on their areas of expertise. On the other hand, TL has always been known for having very generous members and people who really want to add to the site.
Wow.. this will be a great tool! I look forward to using it. I really like that it works via submission/approval instead of posting and then deemed inappropriate.
Interesting idea that has potential to grow into something bigger. I love how it brings the average TL forum-goer into helping other people with their specialized skills. Hope it goes well!
I definitely am all for this, TeamLiquid is providing yet another free service to the community and you guys are being completely upfront about the financial side of it. I wish TeamLiquid the best of luck in this.
On July 17 2012 02:22 Marou wrote: That's an interesting idea, i'd like to contribute to it but i hate the fact hat i have to recommend some products on Amazon to be featured on a know-how. Why not just completely disregard profit ? By making it a for-profit initiative you really make it look like super blogs that sells stuff on TL (nice way to get some quality copywriting done i guess).
It's a very valid point and one that was hotly debated on for some time within TL as it was felt that some people wouldn't contribute specific for that reason.
I personally stuck to my guns on this point for a few reasons.
1. This section isn't about being featured as something special per say, it's in the blog section below featured bloggers and actually featured bloggers was part of the roll out of this section as well (that came out first) as we wanted to expand the blog section in general. So people just want to blog about something they feel passionate about, then this area isn't a replacement for that.
2. Why it's the knowhow section is that we don't want this section to be just a FAQ section, so the reference to a book or product was key part of it, not just for revenue, but as the main source of the knowledge for discussion on the actual knowhow. So we hope that as TLers read through or use the product/item that they can also share their comments, questions based on that specifically so it would focus the discussions as well (hopefully making the discussion active rather than just again, FAQs)
3. I'd like to think it is both, a for profit and for community initiative, I don't think for profit automatically cancels that out, because sincerely we wanted to set something up that wasn't invasive and gave back much more than what it was asking. And I think that will be apparent in the quality of the posts because we couldn't really pay an expert their market rate to write these posts, ultimately is a volunteer community contribution and part of the objective is yes, financial, but also contributing a really unique resource to our community. The content itself isn't restricted or based on having to buy the book or product, I mean people can go to the library or buy it second hand and personally all the books I've thus far recommended are older books.
In terms of initial image, I agree, it does look like its some super blog that is selling stuff, but I hope that the actual return to the community is far more than what it's initial image may be, that for some TLers it can really contribute to their understanding and even future endevours.
But I also won't shy from that if TL can get financial benefit from it, then I'm really pleased with that as well. I sincerely believe that TL is a great organization that will be investing in for the development in esports, and that requires funding, and while any act of commercialization can be seen as corrupting, I'd like to think that we're doing it in a responsible fair and appropriate manner which is true to the spirit of the community as well as contributing to TL in a meaningful way.
On July 17 2012 03:19 Trezeguet wrote: I don't want to sound all nostalgic, but there was a time where a blog was a blog, and people read other people's blogs. There is just so much shit on TL that someone who just shows up to the site is bombarded with links and BS. TL offers all sorts of outlets of different information, but some of the stuff is so far down now it is like an afterthought. Knowhow seems like an alright initiative, but it's part on a movement on TL to add add add. One of the reasons the site is big is because new people are finding the site, and finding a reason to revisit.
Why not have TL more like a magazine/newspaper and just have a Page 2 (big link somewhere). Page 1 could be all the starcraft bits, and the general bit, and page 2 could be tech support, sports and games, blogs, all the broodwar stuff (tear), and whatever else. This wouldn't necessarily saying that some content is less important, but there are 100s of links when I open TL, and I always feel like Charlie Murphy in that blog I'm too lazy to find. Heck, there is so much content on TL, that it is unlikely that most people will read this post since it is "buried" on page 3. This is all rambly and bad, but I"m to lazy to read through it again, (6/10 post quality, bey would ban).
Those are some interesting suggestions, but they belong in Website Feedback.
KnowHow is something we are trying out. The first three articles are all about startups, which is what TLKH is. If it doesn't work out, that's too bad, but at least we'll have tried. If it does work than the community has only gained something awesome.
On July 17 2012 02:22 Marou wrote: That's an interesting idea, i'd like to contribute to it but i hate the fact hat i have to recommend some products on Amazon to be featured on a know-how. Why not just completely disregard profit ? By making it a for-profit initiative you really make it look like super blogs that sells stuff on TL (nice way to get some quality copywriting done i guess).
Yeah, I'm not quite sure where this is going. It really seems to be limiting if you have to recommend some product which is currently on sale.
I'll say this, it is really a project in progress and I hope it will be defined really by the quality and focus of the posts we make more than the concept of it. I think the concept will evolve and develop and hopefully we'll get the fit right, meaning the fit that matches with TL.
On July 17 2012 02:15 Pandemona wrote: Nice idea! I hope it grows into what i think it can possibly grow into this. The way it can go is really good and it should take TL.net from being a sc2 base progaming team site to a world wide site that covers everything around the world.
I don't really want to see that happening. There is nothing wrong with diversifying, up to a point, but in the end if you try to do everything you end up don't doing anything very well.
I guess, but even if it was sectioned out properly? With sub headings you still wouldnt want there to be key threads and views written daily/weekly like the SC2 ones? No on the homepage of course, but if you dig into TL you will find anything you looking for, whether its the NBA results or the World cup result. New games etcetc list is endless. I'd like to see that, but of course i wouldnt want it instead of the SC2 on the frontpage, because that is our bread and butter.
I'm glad that TL's being forward and open about their goals for this section. I read the first part of MightyAtom's series, and most of the post honestly seemed like an advertisement for that book (I'm not expecting for each concept in the book to be laid out in that post, but the book got pushed pretty hard). But I'm not going to judge the section yet; I'll give it time.
On July 17 2012 03:44 WahMyNose wrote: I'm glad that TL's being forward and open about their goals for this section. I read the first part of MightyAtom's series, and most of the post honestly seemed like an advertisement for that book (I'm not expecting for each concept in the book to be laid out in that post, but the book got pushed pretty hard). But I'm not going to judge the section yet; I'll give it time.
Thanks for giving me a chance and the benefit of the doubt; I hope I'll get into some real balance as soon as I can, but the first post was really the hardest one to get done. Cheers.
It's great for TL to make some money but I'm a bit worried. If I'm going to be writing an article about something I would not base it upon one book exclusively. As such, how much PR would I need to do for the book I'm trying to force down the throat of my readers? MightyAtom went the route of "if you have not read this book we can't discuss business and you should have nothing to do with business, this book is the sole source of good information and amount to about 15 years of experience". I would not want to write something like that since it's obviously a lie. Could I write an article about field X and then just add a link to a "if you are interested, here's some further reading" book?
This just seems to be profiteering from users writing ranking content for TeamLiquid. So TL will provide writers with a portion of the CPA revenue when products are sold, which is great. However, TL will keep 100% of the CPM or CPC ad revenue when someone reads an article, which will result in a very large portion of the revenues.
There are no reasons to write for TL when you could go to other blog network sites that pay CPM rates like Squidoo, Demand Media, etc.
TL ... you should be paying writers on either a CPM basis or a per article basis! Otherwise, your just ripping off the writers.
The only writer at the moment is MightyAtom, and he's in charge. So if he's ripping himself off....well I don't know what to say to that.
Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand how the system works: writers don't get paid to write the article, editors don't get paid to edit the article, and TL doesn't get paid when people read the article. TL gets a small amount if someone buys whatever the article is referencing, and that money goes into funding the team and websites.
This isn't a section designed to create profit for writers or editors, it's a section designed to be another revenue stream for TL while at the same time giving something awesome back to our members.
I really enjoy the emphasis on mutual benefit (amazon $$ for TL and useful skills for everyone else). This is how entrepreneurialism should be in our time!!!
On July 17 2012 04:01 Stenstyren wrote: It's great for TL to make some money but I'm a bit worried. If I'm going to be writing an article about something I would not base it upon one book exclusively. As such, how much PR would I need to do for the book I'm trying to force down the throat of my readers? MightyAtom went the route of "if you have not read this book we can't discuss business and you should have nothing to do with business, this book is the sole source of good information and amount to about 15 years of experience". I would not want to write something like that since it's obviously a lie. Could I write an article about field X and then just add a link to a "if you are interested, here's some further reading" book?
Short answer, kinda yes. Basically if you talk about one thing and still link to further reading, mechanically it's the same thing except that you're not 'pushing a book down someone's throat' so you don't need to play the role of the sales PR guy. You guys have to give me the benefit of the doubt here than the point of the book isn't simply for sales or to force it down people's throats, sincerely, I have these books, I re-read these books, I buy these books for my staff, etc. And it is the thing that, the book is used as a type of anchor/reference point and the main source of content for the reader of the post, while the contributor is able to provide their knowhow along that backdrop.
You can base it on many books, or focus your knowhow that touches upon one book, but like I said, it was a hotly debated condition that I did stick to because I did want the focus to be there on a number of levels. Mainly, what you can write in a single post will always be limited in depth compared to the books that are out there and specially the books that have influenced your own thinking or ones that if you had the time you would write like that.
Besides you taking my position out of context and exaggerating to make your own point, if people are going to participate in that particular thread, then, yes, we do want them to read it. We aren't looking to just make FAQ threads, but again, to make the entire thread something which has great discussion; in a very simple view of it, the posts with books in them, end up being a kind of book club.
Of course I am going to put forward a book, not because I want it bought, but because I sincerely do like and recommend the book because it is a solid contribution to the knowhow presented, and again, I'll be forth right about the format here, it is for both community content contribution and I hope some financial contribution to TL, so lets not get all 'MightyAtom = Evil Satanic Salesman of lies' here.
What I'd say is:
Could you write an article about field X and also share a book that is part of your experience to understand the knowhow that you've presented, even if the book is just a book that inspired you to take on the chosen field you've taken on and talk about that point to.
If you could think about how the book can be integrated as a content reference to your knowhow, then I don't see how is a bad thing except that some people don't want to look as though they are 'selling' because I know, selling looks like it is cheapening what is given or presented. If people are not comfortable with that, then of course its fine, but for me, part of me contributing like this is for both TL financially and TL as a community on the knowhow side. So this section address that that in this format of the knowhow posts.
Of course outside of the knowhow section, we share in this community how we see fit as I have shared a lot of my own knowledge and experience in my own blog section here and answered countless pms on career advice etc, so I'm just saying, this section has a specific purpose and give it a chance as well as the benefit of the doubt and lets see what comes out.
Hey guys, 1. I really do live in South Korea, so it's 4:48 am and I wanted to stay up for the launch. 2. I really did have a 5 hour surgery last week, so I am a bit weak still, so I am going to pass out from being dizzy, but before I actually do pass out, I'd rather do it on my bed than here at my desk.
So.
Thanks for all the PMs so far, we have some really awesome contributions already in the works, I will get to all new PMs by tomorrow, as I am unable to keep my eyes open at this point due to my dizziness.
In terms of defending the concept, guys, it will be a work in progress, but if the writing contributed and the dedication to the threads are good, I think things will eventually work themselves out. But I do love TL and this community and a lot of time has been put in to setting it up and many of the issues that have been stated in this thread are valid and have been brought up by TL staff and some are feeling exactly like some of you, but again, the proof will be in the pudding so to speak.
So, we're committed to make it work in one way or another.
So it sounds like there's no way to just write articles without the for-profit/tied into a specific referral thing? I'd be interested in writing some things, but I don't feel good from the legal perspective of my own job about writing something in those conditions . I guess good luck to those who do so.
e: that is, essentially using my employment / role to make money for TL
Man, this is some good shit. What's going to make this awesome is the degree of standards and professionalism that articles will have to be upheld to.
This has barely started, but it already is another example why TeamLiquid is one of the premier organizations and communities around the internet - the level of professionalism in everything that it offers and does. So sick
On July 17 2012 05:11 Insane wrote: So it sounds like there's no way to just write articles without the for-profit/tied into a specific referral thing? I'd be interested in writing some things, but I don't feel good from the legal perspective of my own job about writing something in those conditions . I guess good luck to those who do so.
e: that is, essentially using my employment / role to make money for TL
We want people to write about things they believe in. If you use something at work which is sold on Amazon, and you think it's great, write about it. We don't want people pushing stuff just because.
Well maybe I am a bit negative but I do not really follow the idea here. Or well I guess it is good but I still dont get it. How does this differ from wikipedia?
Like I have for instance started a PhD in bacteria metacommunity research and I could write about assembly processes, bacteria communities or ecology in general which few here know about (unless you are a bit odd ^^). I am far from certain that people would want to read it however.
I could probably link you to wikipedia pages about most of the stuff which often are well written already. I guess if you want a summary article from a broad field it could be interesting..
EDIT: Okay I missed the link to product part. Hmm not sure how I feel about that.
On July 17 2012 05:11 Insane wrote: So it sounds like there's no way to just write articles without the for-profit/tied into a specific referral thing? I'd be interested in writing some things, but I don't feel good from the legal perspective of my own job about writing something in those conditions . I guess good luck to those who do so.
e: that is, essentially using my employment / role to make money for TL
We want people to write about things they believe in. If you use something at work which is sold on Amazon, and you think it's great, write about it. We don't want people pushing stuff just because.
First of all, thanks for responding to my somewhat negatively-toned post. I don't want to give the impression that I don't like TL or that I think it's bad for you guys to try new things, because it's actually great and I'm really proud of where you guys have taken the site over the years.
I believe in the value of my work, and I'm passionate about a variety of things that I do outside work which are totally unrelated to my work, but may be interesting to people if they want to get into it. I don't personally really like learning through books - none of the things I do are things I've learned through books, but rather via getting out and doing things, talking to people who do it better than I do, and straight up learning from mistakes.
Basically to me it sounds like TL BookReview. Admittedly, the articles are long and detailed book recommendations, as opposed to what you'd see on a normal Amazon review. But ultimately, that's what it's boiling down to. I love what you guys have written in the spoiler + Show Spoiler [What Is KnowHow] +
"Know-how (or knowhow as it is sometimes written) is practical knowledge of how to get something done, as opposed to “know-what” (facts), “know-why” (science), or “know-who” (networking). Know-how is often tacit knowledge, which means that it is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalising it. The opposite of tacit knowledge is explicit knowledge. (Wikipedia)."
Knowhow is after the theories and strategies, it is the knowledge of how to survive to get to your goal, or to outperform others to make it or simply how to get to a level of practical understanding faster. The term 'knowhow' refers to knowledge which is critical and insightful but which is developed internally and not publicly known or taught in a systematic process.
Knowhow is usually applied to industrial processes, making the same machine or process produce 'more' than the same machine/process in the hands of another operator, whether it be the right room tempurature or the exact type of oil that adds 0.5% better performance. But in the broader context, social or career based knowhow is one of the last types of knowledge that is passed on through directly sharing experiences.
By its nature, knowhow is about results and getting to the results with less effort, more output or faster, it is about increasing your performance and it isn't something you can just pick up from a manual, but is something passed on through training or articulated by using someone's experience as a base. This is very different than a theory or opinion because it's value is based off a process that is validated because of its results.
An example of this is if you were raised in an engineering family, meaning both your parents are engineers or a doctor's family or restaurantuer's family. Whether you realize it or not, things that you take as 'givens' such as a more analytic approach to life, or understanding basic human biology and what certain types of medication do, or what are the different standards of customer service are, this is all knowhow that unless someone was raised in the same family or did the same job, they would have no access to though common resources of knowledge.
Knowhow is both simply passed on, but is also guarded fiercely as it may be the only competitive factor that a company or individual has when all things are equal. Thus, the effectiveness of knowhow is mainly to it's very specific nature to a process or task. It may be as simple as a single function command, but used properly can save hours of work and may be completely obvious after the fact, but the amount of experience to have come to such an obvious outcome may have been hours upon hours of trial and error. But the fact that it is obvious and effective makes it true knowhow.
Due to the nature of when and how knowhow is 'passed on', the only reason to share knowhow is because they are family or work in the same company and are aligned with the same goals/objectives
However, I don't feel that the rest of the post afterwards is in line with the above section. Even taking a look at the list of five things you need to provide, it seems very heavily biased towards the product recommendation, without even caring about the article:
Area of Expertise (finance, athletics, arts, IT, etc.).
Level of experience and/or accomplishments.
Proof of experience/background (i.e. proof of employment/experience, published work, etc.).
Books or products you would like to recommend.
Desired level of contribution.
It's totally cool to ensure that there's centralized tracking so five people don't each write an article about how to get gear/into hiking, for example. That said, you want to know the recommendations we're going to make before we've even written the article? That seems just backwards to me; who cares what recommendations someone's going to make? It should be about the quality of the article, and if the article has no recommendations of products to buy online but is well-written and informative, then that's as much KnowHow as anything else.
Basically, I'd rather see a focus on informing the audience (TL users), and if someone happens to have a recommendation for something then cool, maybe TL can get a little extra cash; if not though, it's still going to be a useful document repository by people with some domain knowledge, with the added bonus that the people in question are actually approachable & can answer questions to help users, as opposed to more isolated / uninteractive sources (books, a lot of sites)
On July 17 2012 05:40 Greentellon wrote: Is there a menu link to that knowhow page somewhere? It seems to be a forum somewhere but I can't find it. Only link I can find is in this thread.
In "Customize Sidebar", if you have Blogs enabled it'll show up on the left pane. I don't see a link elsewhere.
On July 17 2012 05:40 Greentellon wrote: Is there a menu link to that knowhow page somewhere? It seems to be a forum somewhere but I can't find it. Only link I can find is in this thread.
In "Customize Sidebar", if you have Blogs enabled it'll show up on the left pane. I don't see a link elsewhere.
Thanks, it seems I'm half blind. Also saw the instructions in first post, now >.<
So if somebody wanted to write an article on something like the following:
An Indepth Look at the Rubik's Cube. For Beginners and Experts A Unique Fitness Program for Beginners How to Make Getting a Job After College Easy An Advanced Guide to Desserts Clothes for the First Professional Job
(Note: Some of these may not be 100% appropriate for what they're looking for. It's unclear without further articles being written what their topic choice range is).
They HAVE to have an Amazon link to a product? How linked does the article have to be with this product? Who gets the final decision on which product is linked? Why does an article have to have a product linked with it if it is informative and useful to the community?
It really sounds like exploiting the free resource of writers on TL to make money. I don't mind TL making money but...I just don't understand why it has to be linked with a product.
Well, I sat around and thought about this a lot. There is a lot of things you can argue about as for the validity of endorsements, bias ect. The other problem is that this is volunteered effort. While I love the idea of this type of effort, I don't think it's necessarily the best choice.
I think my suggested solutions listed below to these problems are logical and make a lot of sense. Here is what I think needs to be done to make this successful and more ?moral?
1. Submissions are voluntary, but producing profit receives mandatory payment and public disclosure.
Why is this important? A couple reasons:
1. A monetary incentive helps promote a well written article, drags closet/lurker "experts" out of the underground, and makes people trust the source more. If i know someone has the possibility of a strong monetary stake in the information he's providing, I will certainly be much more inclined to believe he really wanted to not only push a good product, but that he wanted to give me the best information possible in applying said product to whatever it is he or she is teaching me. The most IMPORTANT part of this is going to be the persons expertise and how well they can write and connect with the layman trying to learn, and having an incentive is going to encourage him to do the best job possible, while comforting me that he or she is likely actually attempting to doing so.
2. The books need to be open on this. When someone hits the jackpot with some great advice/knowledge, and that create profits, other people need to take notice, and it keeps the system honest. A monetary stake is needed, and this makes sure there is an extremely strong integrity for that stake. It also creates a larger incentive for people with knowledge to get out there and create something of real quality.
2. This section will need an AMA similar to Reddit, with possibilities for polling ect. Following this, a similar system for requests on the things we want to learn from these people.
Well, maybe not exactly like Reddit, but an AMA is great because it helps you with the supply and demand for knowledge, and gives you a more public user base of experts. The AMA isn't about funny stories or trivial shit, it's just some simple facts and or stats and or portfolio about the person who is supposedly an expert or professional in their field. Once you start getting some "experts" you can expect an influx of requests in said experts fields of knowledge. It is important however, for the ability of these 2 things, the AMA requests, AMA submissions, knowledge requests, and knowledge submissions, to be kept mutually exclusive. You should be able to request anything, you should be able to volunteer anything, but it's also helpful to know what fields we have an educated presence in, and what fields have a lot of interest in the user base.
3. Knowledge submitted needs approval.
Someone needs to fact check a persons credibility if its not already public, and more importantly, they need someone to spell check and make sure their information is as easy to read, understand, and logically sound as it is informative. This person/peoples should be compensated as well, as there ability to ask questions users would ask should confusing information pop up is an invaluable time saver and maintains quality content, which gives this whole idea a better reputation in the long run.
Apologies for the wall of text and perhaps poorly written ideas, but I feel they are articulated well enough. I haven't contributed anything strongly to this site in a long time, so I thought I'd put my thinking cap on and actually belt out a constructive post here.
Here are some personal AMA requests and Know-How requests for myself, as an example and possibly an incentive to get the ball rolling, as well as some novelty ones.
1.Linguist 2. Fluent 2nd language Japanese writer/speaker, 3.Desktop/computer hardware expert (dude who knows how to build a cheap rig that gets the job done), 4.Artist of the sorts who can customize various peripherals of all types (computer cases, fight-sticks, things around the house, ect)
Experience as an 1.Internetcafe/Gamingcafe owner (I can show you the do's and don'ts, who to market to, legal stuff ect, 2.Debt collector and trained and certified 3.Skip Tracer (I can help you track someone down for whatever reason, and teach you how to eliminate, stall, or hide from money you owe.) I also have a ton of experience learning 4.Japanese Kana (I can teach you surefire methods to learn correctly, and how to network yourself with native speakers so you can learn from a natural pro as well). I have credentials to back these listed things up, but this is half a mock post so I'm not going to post them here.
Most trusted condoms from Rek Poetry book from Trozz Quality hammer from Mani
These are all just examples, and I'm sure someone can think of a much cleaner way to submit information, organize it, access it ect, but I thought I would take the initiative to help illustrate my points.
On July 17 2012 05:11 Insane wrote: So it sounds like there's no way to just write articles without the for-profit/tied into a specific referral thing? I'd be interested in writing some things, but I don't feel good from the legal perspective of my own job about writing something in those conditions . I guess good luck to those who do so.
e: that is, essentially using my employment / role to make money for TL
We want people to write about things they believe in. If you use something at work which is sold on Amazon, and you think it's great, write about it. We don't want people pushing stuff just because.
First of all, thanks for responding to my somewhat negatively-toned post. I don't want to give the impression that I don't like TL or that I think it's bad for you guys to try new things, because it's actually great and I'm really proud of where you guys have taken the site over the years.
I believe in the value of my work, and I'm passionate about a variety of things that I do outside work which are totally unrelated to my work, but may be interesting to people if they want to get into it. I don't personally really like learning through books - none of the things I do are things I've learned through books, but rather via getting out and doing things, talking to people who do it better than I do, and straight up learning from mistakes.
Basically to me it sounds like TL BookReview. Admittedly, the articles are long and detailed book recommendations, as opposed to what you'd see on a normal Amazon review. But ultimately, that's what it's boiling down to. I love what you guys have written in the spoiler + Show Spoiler [What Is KnowHow] +
"Know-how (or knowhow as it is sometimes written) is practical knowledge of how to get something done, as opposed to “know-what” (facts), “know-why” (science), or “know-who” (networking). Know-how is often tacit knowledge, which means that it is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalising it. The opposite of tacit knowledge is explicit knowledge. (Wikipedia)."
Knowhow is after the theories and strategies, it is the knowledge of how to survive to get to your goal, or to outperform others to make it or simply how to get to a level of practical understanding faster. The term 'knowhow' refers to knowledge which is critical and insightful but which is developed internally and not publicly known or taught in a systematic process.
Knowhow is usually applied to industrial processes, making the same machine or process produce 'more' than the same machine/process in the hands of another operator, whether it be the right room tempurature or the exact type of oil that adds 0.5% better performance. But in the broader context, social or career based knowhow is one of the last types of knowledge that is passed on through directly sharing experiences.
By its nature, knowhow is about results and getting to the results with less effort, more output or faster, it is about increasing your performance and it isn't something you can just pick up from a manual, but is something passed on through training or articulated by using someone's experience as a base. This is very different than a theory or opinion because it's value is based off a process that is validated because of its results.
An example of this is if you were raised in an engineering family, meaning both your parents are engineers or a doctor's family or restaurantuer's family. Whether you realize it or not, things that you take as 'givens' such as a more analytic approach to life, or understanding basic human biology and what certain types of medication do, or what are the different standards of customer service are, this is all knowhow that unless someone was raised in the same family or did the same job, they would have no access to though common resources of knowledge.
Knowhow is both simply passed on, but is also guarded fiercely as it may be the only competitive factor that a company or individual has when all things are equal. Thus, the effectiveness of knowhow is mainly to it's very specific nature to a process or task. It may be as simple as a single function command, but used properly can save hours of work and may be completely obvious after the fact, but the amount of experience to have come to such an obvious outcome may have been hours upon hours of trial and error. But the fact that it is obvious and effective makes it true knowhow.
Due to the nature of when and how knowhow is 'passed on', the only reason to share knowhow is because they are family or work in the same company and are aligned with the same goals/objectives
However, I don't feel that the rest of the post afterwards is in line with the above section. Even taking a look at the list of five things you need to provide, it seems very heavily biased towards the product recommendation, without even caring about the article:
Area of Expertise (finance, athletics, arts, IT, etc.).
Level of experience and/or accomplishments.
Proof of experience/background (i.e. proof of employment/experience, published work, etc.).
Books or products you would like to recommend.
Desired level of contribution.
It's totally cool to ensure that there's centralized tracking so five people don't each write an article about how to get gear/into hiking, for example. That said, you want to know the recommendations we're going to make before we've even written the article? That seems just backwards to me; who cares what recommendations someone's going to make? It should be about the quality of the article, and if the article has no recommendations of products to buy online but is well-written and informative, then that's as much KnowHow as anything else.
Basically, I'd rather see a focus on informing the audience (TL users), and if someone happens to have a recommendation for something then cool, maybe TL can get a little extra cash; if not though, it's still going to be a useful document repository by people with some domain knowledge, with the added bonus that the people in question are actually approachable & can answer questions to help users, as opposed to more isolated / uninteractive sources (books, a lot of sites)
It doesn't have to be a book or related to your work, that's just how it started out (Atom's work is his life, basically). If you love the shit out of a movie, and think it's the most amazing movie in the universe of all time, write an article about it!
If you are a shaving fanatic (you own 20 different razors of different styles and have tried hundreds of cremes and whatnot) and want to write all about shaving and have suggested items (a particular razor for instance), write about it!
The reason we are editing them is because we want a minimum quality standard. I asked before I joined the project if we would only accept positive reviews pushing products and was told flat out that that isn't a requirement (although since it's an attempted revenue stream for TL it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, which is understandable). We want a controlled environment where we can say "our readers deserve to have the best, so we will work with the author to make this article as good as it can possibly be". Obviously, if we decide not to use your article, you're entirely free to post it in Blogs or General or wherever it belongs.
Another reason is that there's some HTML that needs to be embedded in the post that does the actual referreralizing which is what helps TL, which can only be done by certain staff. Letting us know what you want to write about is a key part of us having that particular code in the first place.
On July 17 2012 05:49 Complete wrote: So if somebody wanted to write an article on something like the following:
An Indepth Look at the Rubik's Cube. For Beginners and Experts A Unique Fitness Program for Beginners How to Make Getting a Job After College Easy An Advanced Guide to Desserts Clothes for the First Professional Job
(Note: Some of these may not be 100% appropriate for what they're looking for. It's unclear without further articles being written what their topic choice range is).
They HAVE to have an Amazon link to a product? How linked does the article have to be with this product? Who gets the final decision on which product is linked? Why does an article have to have a product linked with it if it is informative and useful to the community?
It really sounds like exploiting the free resource of writers on TL to make money. I don't mind TL making money but...I just don't understand why it has to be linked with a product.
Well...yeah. If you want to write about winning Rubik's Cubes, you can write and say "here's a cube: " and go on with your How To Be Awesome writing.
A Unique Fitness Program might have a place where you buy whatever material (DVD with exercises?) that you link to.
And so on for the others. Might be books, might be a pair of shoes, whatever.
I wouldn't call it exploiting since we are asking for volunteers. If you want to write something on your own that's fine. If you're going to write it anyway, why not help TL with the end result? We aren't demanding our users start writing for us now. TLKH follows the same model as the rest of TL: By the Users.
On July 17 2012 05:54 tofucake wrote: Yeah we are working on getting it placed somewhere more accessible.
@Insane, it doesn't have to be a book or related to your work, that's just how it started out (Atom's work is his life, basically). If you love the shit out of a movie, and think it's the most amazing movie in the universe of all time, write an article about it!
If you are a shaving fanatic (you own 20 different razors of different styles and have tried hundreds of cremes and whatnot) and want to write all about shaving and have suggested items (a particular razor for instance), write about it!
The reason we are editing them is because we want a minimum quality standard. I asked before I joined the project if we would only accept positive reviews pushing products and was told flat out that that isn't a requirement (although since it's an attempted revenue stream for TL it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, which is understandable). We want a controlled environment where we can say "our readers deserve to have the best, so we will work with the author to make this article as good as it can possibly be". Obviously, if we decide not to use your article, you're entirely free to post it in Blogs or General or wherever it belongs.
Another reason is that there's some HTML that needs to be embedded in the post that does the actual referreralizing which is what helps TL, which can only be done by certain staff. Letting us know what you want to write about is a key part of us having that particular code in the first place.
For example, let's say I want to write about hiking. I'm not going to recommend someone buy hiking boots, a pack, etc., online, because that's a terrible idea even if it's the exact same set of gear that I personally use, and I would be irresponsibly doing the readers a big disservice by doing so. I don't understand this sentence:
I asked before I joined the project if we would only accept positive reviews pushing products and was told flat out that that isn't a requirement (although since it's an attempted revenue stream for TL it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, which is understandable).
Why would anyone write a recommendation of a product they want to say don't buy? I'm trying to figure out a potential scenario where someone would write a review about how this book is bad, and then provide a link to buy the book. The only way that quote makes sense to me is if you're saying we can write articles without having specific recommendations, but the OP makes it very clear that we have to be pushing a specific product, and MightyAtom posted specifically about this condition that he firmly put his foot down about it having to be that way. For reference for ease-of-reading, MightyAtom's post is in spoiler + Show Spoiler [here] +
On July 17 2012 02:22 Marou wrote: That's an interesting idea, i'd like to contribute to it but i hate the fact hat i have to recommend some products on Amazon to be featured on a know-how. Why not just completely disregard profit ? By making it a for-profit initiative you really make it look like super blogs that sells stuff on TL (nice way to get some quality copywriting done i guess).
It's a very valid point and one that was hotly debated on for some time within TL as it was felt that some people wouldn't contribute specific for that reason.
I personally stuck to my guns on this point for a few reasons.
1. This section isn't about being featured as something special per say, it's in the blog section below featured bloggers and actually featured bloggers was part of the roll out of this section as well (that came out first) as we wanted to expand the blog section in general. So people just want to blog about something they feel passionate about, then this area isn't a replacement for that.
2. Why it's the knowhow section is that we don't want this section to be just a FAQ section, so the reference to a book or product was key part of it, not just for revenue, but as the main source of the knowledge for discussion on the actual knowhow. So we hope that as TLers read through or use the product/item that they can also share their comments, questions based on that specifically so it would focus the discussions as well (hopefully making the discussion active rather than just again, FAQs)
3. I'd like to think it is both, a for profit and for community initiative, I don't think for profit automatically cancels that out, because sincerely we wanted to set something up that wasn't invasive and gave back much more than what it was asking. And I think that will be apparent in the quality of the posts because we couldn't really pay an expert their market rate to write these posts, ultimately is a volunteer community contribution and part of the objective is yes, financial, but also contributing a really unique resource to our community. The content itself isn't restricted or based on having to buy the book or product, I mean people can go to the library or buy it second hand and personally all the books I've thus far recommended are older books.
In terms of initial image, I agree, it does look like its some super blog that is selling stuff, but I hope that the actual return to the community is far more than what it's initial image may be, that for some TLers it can really contribute to their understanding and even future endevours.
But I also won't shy from that if TL can get financial benefit from it, then I'm really pleased with that as well. I sincerely believe that TL is a great organization that will be investing in for the development in esports, and that requires funding, and while any act of commercialization can be seen as corrupting, I'd like to think that we're doing it in a responsible fair and appropriate manner which is true to the spirit of the community as well as contributing to TL in a meaningful way.
I completely understand the need for editing, so I have no probelm with that patr too prevent b ad articl quality contrl .
On July 17 2012 05:51 Vansetsu wrote: Well, I sat around and thought about this a lot. There is a lot of things you can argue about as for the validity of endorsements, bias ect. The other problem is that this is volunteered effort. While I love the idea of this type of effort, I don't think it's necessarily the best choice. The 3rd problem is what are we learning the tricks for and why are we learning it.
I think my suggested solutions listed below to these problems are logical and make a lot of sense. Here is what I think needs to be done to make this successful and more ?moral?
1. Submissions are voluntary, but producing profit receives mandatory payment and public disclosure.
Why is this important? A couple reasons:
1. A monetary incentive helps promote a well written article, drags closet/lurker "experts" out of the underground, and makes people trust the source more. If i know someone has the possibility of a strong monetary stake in the information he's providing, I will certainly be much more inclined to believe he really wanted to not only push a good product, but that he wanted to give me the best information possible in applying said product to whatever it is he or she is teaching me. The most IMPORTANT part of this is going to be the persons expertise and how well they can write and connect with the layman trying to learn, and having an incentive is going to encourage him to do the best job possible, while comforting me that he or she is likely actually attempting to doing so.
2. The books need to be open on this. When someone hits the jackpot with some great advice/knowledge, and that create profits, other people need to take notice, and it keeps the system honest. A monetary stake is needed, and this makes sure there is an extremely strong integrity for that stake. It also creates a larger incentive for people with knowledge to get out there and create something of real quality.
2. This section will need an AMA similar to Reddit, with possibilities for polling ect. Following this, a similar system for requests on the things we want to learn from these people.
Well, maybe not exactly like Reddit, but an AMA is great because it helps you with the supply and demand for knowledge, and gives you a more public user base of experts. The AMA isn't about funny stories or trivial shit, it's just some simple facts and or stats and or portfolio about the person who is supposedly an expert or professional in their field. Once you start getting some "experts" you can expect an influx of requests in said experts fields of knowledge. It is important however, for the ability of these 2 things, the AMA requests, AMA submissions, knowledge requests, and knowledge submissions, to be kept mutually exclusive. You should be able to request anything, you should be able to volunteer anything, but it's also helpful to know what fields we have an educated presence in, and what fields have a lot of interest in the user base.
3. Knowledge submitted needs approval.
Someone needs to fact check a persons credibility if its not already public, and more importantly, they need someone to spell check and make sure their information is as easy to read, understand, and logically sound as it is informative. This person/peoples should be compensated as well, as there ability to ask questions users would ask should confusing information pop up is an invaluable time saver and maintains quality content, which gives this whole idea a better reputation in the long run.
Apologies for the wall of text and perhaps poorly written ideas, but I feel they are articulated well enough. I haven't contributed anything strongly to this site in a long time, so I thought I'd put my thinking cap on and actually belt out a constructive post here.
Here are some personal AMA requests and Know-How requests for myself, as an example and possibly an incentive to get the ball rolling, as well as some novelty ones.
1.Linguist 2. Fluent 2nd language Japanese writer/speaker, Desktop/computer hardware expert (dude who knows how to build a cheap rig that gets the job done), Artist of the sorts who can customize various peripherals of all types (computer cases, fight-sticks, things around the house, ect)
Experience as an Internetcafe/Gamingcafe owner (I can show you the do's and don'ts, who to market to, legal stuff ect, Debt collector and trained and certified Skip Tracer (I can help you track someone down for whatever reason, and teach you how to eliminate, stall, or hide from money you owe.) I also have a ton of experience learning Japanese Kana (I can teach you surefire methods to learn correctly, and how to network yourself with native speakers so you can learn from a natural pro as well). I have credentials to back these listed things up, but this is half a mock post so I'm not going to post them here.
Most trusted condoms from Rek Poetry book from Trozz Quality hammer from Mani
These are all just examples, and I'm sure someone can think of a much cleaner way to submit information, organize it, access it ect, but I thought I would take the initiative to help illustrate my points.
1.1) I'm not sure I understand exactly which PoV you're talking about. TL gets money if whatever product is purchased. Writers get no money, staff get no money, readers get no money; it all goes to funding TL
1.2) As above, I think?
2) I agree. The threads are for having focal discussions with the writer about the material. We aren't saying you should just buy whatever's written about. Talk with the writer and determine by your own scale whether or not you want to buy the product. No money is earned by just viewing the article.
3.1) This is obvious. I am one of the editors for this section, and there are a couple others (who have worked on unpublished as of yet articles). Again, there are only 4 (maybe 5) paid TL staff. Money generated from ads (in general) and from sales of these products will support TL. Staff are just regular users. We help TL for the love of TL, not because we get paid.
AMA Stuff Not sure I understand these as they aren't exactly specific questions, but appear to be more of a list of "things people do".
Personally, I am quite familiar with linguistics and I fancy myself quite good at words n stuff. Additionally, while I am nowhere near fluent, I can get by in Japanese. More additionally, I know computer stuff, and I can (and have) put together a few computers in my day. We have the TL art team to abusehelp out with graphics.
From your second paragraph I see that was an example but whatever. I stand by what I wrote.
On July 17 2012 05:54 tofucake wrote: Yeah we are working on getting it placed somewhere more accessible.
@Insane, it doesn't have to be a book or related to your work, that's just how it started out (Atom's work is his life, basically). If you love the shit out of a movie, and think it's the most amazing movie in the universe of all time, write an article about it!
If you are a shaving fanatic (you own 20 different razors of different styles and have tried hundreds of cremes and whatnot) and want to write all about shaving and have suggested items (a particular razor for instance), write about it!
The reason we are editing them is because we want a minimum quality standard. I asked before I joined the project if we would only accept positive reviews pushing products and was told flat out that that isn't a requirement (although since it's an attempted revenue stream for TL it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, which is understandable). We want a controlled environment where we can say "our readers deserve to have the best, so we will work with the author to make this article as good as it can possibly be". Obviously, if we decide not to use your article, you're entirely free to post it in Blogs or General or wherever it belongs.
Another reason is that there's some HTML that needs to be embedded in the post that does the actual referreralizing which is what helps TL, which can only be done by certain staff. Letting us know what you want to write about is a key part of us having that particular code in the first place.
For example, let's say I want to write about hiking. I'm not going to recommend someone buy hiking boots, a pack, etc., online, because that's a terrible idea even if it's the exact same set of gear that I personally use, and I would be irresponsibly doing the readers a big disservice by doing so. I don't understand this sentence:
I asked before I joined the project if we would only accept positive reviews pushing products and was told flat out that that isn't a requirement (although since it's an attempted revenue stream for TL it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, which is understandable).
Why would anyone write a recommendation of a product they want to say don't buy? I'm trying to figure out a potential scenario where someone would write a review about how this book is bad, and then provide a link to buy the book. The only way that quote makes sense to me is if you're saying we can write articles without having specific recommendations, but the OP makes it very clear that we have to be pushing a specific product, and MightyAtom posted specifically about this condition that he firmly put his foot down about it having to be that way. For reference for ease-of-reading, MightyAtom's post is in spoiler + Show Spoiler [here] +
On July 17 2012 02:22 Marou wrote: That's an interesting idea, i'd like to contribute to it but i hate the fact hat i have to recommend some products on Amazon to be featured on a know-how. Why not just completely disregard profit ? By making it a for-profit initiative you really make it look like super blogs that sells stuff on TL (nice way to get some quality copywriting done i guess).
It's a very valid point and one that was hotly debated on for some time within TL as it was felt that some people wouldn't contribute specific for that reason.
I personally stuck to my guns on this point for a few reasons.
1. This section isn't about being featured as something special per say, it's in the blog section below featured bloggers and actually featured bloggers was part of the roll out of this section as well (that came out first) as we wanted to expand the blog section in general. So people just want to blog about something they feel passionate about, then this area isn't a replacement for that.
2. Why it's the knowhow section is that we don't want this section to be just a FAQ section, so the reference to a book or product was key part of it, not just for revenue, but as the main source of the knowledge for discussion on the actual knowhow. So we hope that as TLers read through or use the product/item that they can also share their comments, questions based on that specifically so it would focus the discussions as well (hopefully making the discussion active rather than just again, FAQs)
3. I'd like to think it is both, a for profit and for community initiative, I don't think for profit automatically cancels that out, because sincerely we wanted to set something up that wasn't invasive and gave back much more than what it was asking. And I think that will be apparent in the quality of the posts because we couldn't really pay an expert their market rate to write these posts, ultimately is a volunteer community contribution and part of the objective is yes, financial, but also contributing a really unique resource to our community. The content itself isn't restricted or based on having to buy the book or product, I mean people can go to the library or buy it second hand and personally all the books I've thus far recommended are older books.
In terms of initial image, I agree, it does look like its some super blog that is selling stuff, but I hope that the actual return to the community is far more than what it's initial image may be, that for some TLers it can really contribute to their understanding and even future endevours.
But I also won't shy from that if TL can get financial benefit from it, then I'm really pleased with that as well. I sincerely believe that TL is a great organization that will be investing in for the development in esports, and that requires funding, and while any act of commercialization can be seen as corrupting, I'd like to think that we're doing it in a responsible fair and appropriate manner which is true to the spirit of the community as well as contributing to TL in a meaningful way.
I completely understand the need for editing, so I have no probelm with that patr too prevent b ad articl quality contrl .
Surely you bring other things when hiking? Bug spray, sun screen, a badass compass, etc. I agree buying clothes online is generally a bad idea, but that's a bit of a harsh limitation.
As for my post about positive reviews only, see this post, which is quite negative. But I love that movie. It's awesome. Sure, it's poorly written and pretty terrible overall, but then again...so are all zombie movies. But whatever. My point is that if you write a review for a thing, it doesn't necessarily have to be positive. Yeah it doesn't make a whole lot of sense but there you go.
On July 17 2012 05:54 tofucake wrote: I wouldn't call it exploiting since we are asking for volunteers. If you want to write something on your own that's fine. If you're going to write it anyway, why not help TL with the end result? We aren't demanding our users start writing for us now. TLKH follows the same model as the rest of TL: By the Users.
I guess I just don't understand why you have the right to make money off of somebody elses work. But I suppose the simple solution is if they don't want to post a topic with a product they can write a regular blog - So I guess I have no major problems with this.
We have the right because when someone says "take my post and make money from it" they sort of give us that right. We aren't trying to hide the fact that the purpose of TLKH is to increase revenue. If someone has an objection to that all they have to do is not write an article and not buy things directly through others' articles.
On July 17 2012 06:18 tofucake wrote: We have the right because when someone says "take my post and make money from it" they sort of give us that right. We aren't trying to hide the fact that the purpose of TLKH is to increase revenue. If someone has an objection to that all they have to do is not write an article and not buy things directly through others' articles.
I guess my point is why can't an article be written with similar useful information but without a product be written, reviewed, accepted and featured?
That's just a post then. There are posts like that, like TDL's "How to use TL" thread (stickied in General I think) and Featured Blogs and Final Edits and all other manner of posts.
On July 17 2012 05:51 Vansetsu wrote: Well, I sat around and thought about this a lot. There is a lot of things you can argue about as for the validity of endorsements, bias ect. The other problem is that this is volunteered effort. While I love the idea of this type of effort, I don't think it's necessarily the best choice. The 3rd problem is what are we learning the tricks for and why are we learning it.
I think my suggested solutions listed below to these problems are logical and make a lot of sense. Here is what I think needs to be done to make this successful and more ?moral?
1. Submissions are voluntary, but producing profit receives mandatory payment and public disclosure.
Why is this important? A couple reasons:
1. A monetary incentive helps promote a well written article, drags closet/lurker "experts" out of the underground, and makes people trust the source more. If i know someone has the possibility of a strong monetary stake in the information he's providing, I will certainly be much more inclined to believe he really wanted to not only push a good product, but that he wanted to give me the best information possible in applying said product to whatever it is he or she is teaching me. The most IMPORTANT part of this is going to be the persons expertise and how well they can write and connect with the layman trying to learn, and having an incentive is going to encourage him to do the best job possible, while comforting me that he or she is likely actually attempting to doing so.
2. The books need to be open on this. When someone hits the jackpot with some great advice/knowledge, and that create profits, other people need to take notice, and it keeps the system honest. A monetary stake is needed, and this makes sure there is an extremely strong integrity for that stake. It also creates a larger incentive for people with knowledge to get out there and create something of real quality.
2. This section will need an AMA similar to Reddit, with possibilities for polling ect. Following this, a similar system for requests on the things we want to learn from these people.
Well, maybe not exactly like Reddit, but an AMA is great because it helps you with the supply and demand for knowledge, and gives you a more public user base of experts. The AMA isn't about funny stories or trivial shit, it's just some simple facts and or stats and or portfolio about the person who is supposedly an expert or professional in their field. Once you start getting some "experts" you can expect an influx of requests in said experts fields of knowledge. It is important however, for the ability of these 2 things, the AMA requests, AMA submissions, knowledge requests, and knowledge submissions, to be kept mutually exclusive. You should be able to request anything, you should be able to volunteer anything, but it's also helpful to know what fields we have an educated presence in, and what fields have a lot of interest in the user base.
3. Knowledge submitted needs approval.
Someone needs to fact check a persons credibility if its not already public, and more importantly, they need someone to spell check and make sure their information is as easy to read, understand, and logically sound as it is informative. This person/peoples should be compensated as well, as there ability to ask questions users would ask should confusing information pop up is an invaluable time saver and maintains quality content, which gives this whole idea a better reputation in the long run.
Apologies for the wall of text and perhaps poorly written ideas, but I feel they are articulated well enough. I haven't contributed anything strongly to this site in a long time, so I thought I'd put my thinking cap on and actually belt out a constructive post here.
Here are some personal AMA requests and Know-How requests for myself, as an example and possibly an incentive to get the ball rolling, as well as some novelty ones.
1.Linguist 2. Fluent 2nd language Japanese writer/speaker, Desktop/computer hardware expert (dude who knows how to build a cheap rig that gets the job done), Artist of the sorts who can customize various peripherals of all types (computer cases, fight-sticks, things around the house, ect)
Experience as an Internetcafe/Gamingcafe owner (I can show you the do's and don'ts, who to market to, legal stuff ect, Debt collector and trained and certified Skip Tracer (I can help you track someone down for whatever reason, and teach you how to eliminate, stall, or hide from money you owe.) I also have a ton of experience learning Japanese Kana (I can teach you surefire methods to learn correctly, and how to network yourself with native speakers so you can learn from a natural pro as well). I have credentials to back these listed things up, but this is half a mock post so I'm not going to post them here.
Most trusted condoms from Rek Poetry book from Trozz Quality hammer from Mani
These are all just examples, and I'm sure someone can think of a much cleaner way to submit information, organize it, access it ect, but I thought I would take the initiative to help illustrate my points.
1.1) I'm not sure I understand exactly which PoV you're talking about. TL gets money if whatever product is purchased. Writers get no money, staff get no money, readers get no money; it all goes to funding TL
1.2) As above, I think?
2) I agree. The threads are for having focal discussions with the writer about the material. We aren't saying you should just buy whatever's written about. Talk with the writer and determine by your own scale whether or not you want to buy the product. No money is earned by just viewing the article.
3.1) This is obvious. I am one of the editors for this section, and there are a couple others (who have worked on unpublished as of yet articles). Again, there are only 4 (maybe 5) paid TL staff. Money generated from ads (in general) and from sales of these products will support TL. Staff are just regular users. We help TL for the love of TL, not because we get paid.
AMA Stuff Not sure I understand these as they aren't exactly specific questions, but appear to be more of a list of "things people do".
Personally, I am quite familiar with linguistics and I fancy myself quite good at words n stuff. Additionally, while I am nowhere near fluent, I can get by in Japanese. More additionally, I know computer stuff, and I can (and have) put together a few computers in my day. We have the TL art team to abusehelp out with graphics.
From your second paragraph I see that was an example but whatever. I stand by what I wrote.
I'll re-iterate a bit, I'm tired and I tend to post like shit when I am tired. I'll also state this post wasn't meant to contradict or affirm any suggestion bias, only to hopefully inspire a quality system Just trying to do a little good before I hit the sack.
So to address your points:
1. Yes as the model stands TL get's money. i am stating the model should be changed so that the writer gets a small percentage, and that the editor fact/credibility/spellchecker gets a small percentage too. Like I said, providing monetary stake for the writer encourages him to write an extremely informative piece, and knowing this the layman and possible consumer can have a little more faith in the quality of the information. The staff who does the boring shit and filters hundreds of posts can get even a super small amount, unless they want to volunteer, ect. The point is even a small monetary stake encourages quality from people doing the work, encourages people to climb out of their holes and say "Hey, I'm a ____" I didn't go to MIT, but maybe someone really wants to know the shit out of ___, and if I bust my ass, maybe there's something small in it for me to. I believe this community is capable of a complete volunteer effort, but it is much more beneficial for everyone to have a bit of stake in it, even if it is something as small as 1-5% of whatever TL nets on the whole.
2. Just stating possible ideas for making it easy to identify what knowledge source TL has. Without up voting of some sort, I imagine it might be hard to gauge interest in a particular field, and you also end up with a bunch of information that might not get sen by the correct people. Sure there is a search feature for the person with the ama request or the knowledge request, but does that mean that the certified person with the knowledge or the lurker who can fulfill the AMA will stumble upon the thread perchance? Here's a cool idea: do some sort of meta tagging involving the persons expertise. When someone makes a request thread title, have it automatically pm said certified expert(s) with a notification of the possible demand for knowledge when the thread title or something uses some tagged keywords. This way supply meets demand quickly, and information and people can connect easier. Just and idea I really don't think a pure thread system will ever work
3. That's cool, but I think if this thing really took off, it's going to be a heck of a lot of work, and I'm not sure everyone would be so motivated for it. If so cool, but I hate to speak for everyone, even theoretically :p But i'm glad we agree on the necessity.
4. These were just examples, I don't even know why I threw those in there. But it's cool your knowledgeable and there are others who are knowledgeable as well. When this thing is up in running, I'll be sure to make some very specific requests
Again, these are not contradictions or affirmations, they are just ideas for an open mind. I just wanted to suggest some things that might make things run a little smoother in the long run, for no other reason than to be constructive
On July 17 2012 05:54 tofucake wrote: Yeah we are working on getting it placed somewhere more accessible.
@Insane, it doesn't have to be a book or related to your work, that's just how it started out (Atom's work is his life, basically). If you love the shit out of a movie, and think it's the most amazing movie in the universe of all time, write an article about it!
If you are a shaving fanatic (you own 20 different razors of different styles and have tried hundreds of cremes and whatnot) and want to write all about shaving and have suggested items (a particular razor for instance), write about it!
The reason we are editing them is because we want a minimum quality standard. I asked before I joined the project if we would only accept positive reviews pushing products and was told flat out that that isn't a requirement (although since it's an attempted revenue stream for TL it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, which is understandable). We want a controlled environment where we can say "our readers deserve to have the best, so we will work with the author to make this article as good as it can possibly be". Obviously, if we decide not to use your article, you're entirely free to post it in Blogs or General or wherever it belongs.
Another reason is that there's some HTML that needs to be embedded in the post that does the actual referreralizing which is what helps TL, which can only be done by certain staff. Letting us know what you want to write about is a key part of us having that particular code in the first place.
For example, let's say I want to write about hiking. I'm not going to recommend someone buy hiking boots, a pack, etc., online, because that's a terrible idea even if it's the exact same set of gear that I personally use, and I would be irresponsibly doing the readers a big disservice by doing so. I don't understand this sentence:
I asked before I joined the project if we would only accept positive reviews pushing products and was told flat out that that isn't a requirement (although since it's an attempted revenue stream for TL it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, which is understandable).
Why would anyone write a recommendation of a product they want to say don't buy? I'm trying to figure out a potential scenario where someone would write a review about how this book is bad, and then provide a link to buy the book. The only way that quote makes sense to me is if you're saying we can write articles without having specific recommendations, but the OP makes it very clear that we have to be pushing a specific product, and MightyAtom posted specifically about this condition that he firmly put his foot down about it having to be that way. For reference for ease-of-reading, MightyAtom's post is in spoiler + Show Spoiler [here] +
On July 17 2012 02:22 Marou wrote: That's an interesting idea, i'd like to contribute to it but i hate the fact hat i have to recommend some products on Amazon to be featured on a know-how. Why not just completely disregard profit ? By making it a for-profit initiative you really make it look like super blogs that sells stuff on TL (nice way to get some quality copywriting done i guess).
It's a very valid point and one that was hotly debated on for some time within TL as it was felt that some people wouldn't contribute specific for that reason.
I personally stuck to my guns on this point for a few reasons.
1. This section isn't about being featured as something special per say, it's in the blog section below featured bloggers and actually featured bloggers was part of the roll out of this section as well (that came out first) as we wanted to expand the blog section in general. So people just want to blog about something they feel passionate about, then this area isn't a replacement for that.
2. Why it's the knowhow section is that we don't want this section to be just a FAQ section, so the reference to a book or product was key part of it, not just for revenue, but as the main source of the knowledge for discussion on the actual knowhow. So we hope that as TLers read through or use the product/item that they can also share their comments, questions based on that specifically so it would focus the discussions as well (hopefully making the discussion active rather than just again, FAQs)
3. I'd like to think it is both, a for profit and for community initiative, I don't think for profit automatically cancels that out, because sincerely we wanted to set something up that wasn't invasive and gave back much more than what it was asking. And I think that will be apparent in the quality of the posts because we couldn't really pay an expert their market rate to write these posts, ultimately is a volunteer community contribution and part of the objective is yes, financial, but also contributing a really unique resource to our community. The content itself isn't restricted or based on having to buy the book or product, I mean people can go to the library or buy it second hand and personally all the books I've thus far recommended are older books.
In terms of initial image, I agree, it does look like its some super blog that is selling stuff, but I hope that the actual return to the community is far more than what it's initial image may be, that for some TLers it can really contribute to their understanding and even future endevours.
But I also won't shy from that if TL can get financial benefit from it, then I'm really pleased with that as well. I sincerely believe that TL is a great organization that will be investing in for the development in esports, and that requires funding, and while any act of commercialization can be seen as corrupting, I'd like to think that we're doing it in a responsible fair and appropriate manner which is true to the spirit of the community as well as contributing to TL in a meaningful way.
I completely understand the need for editing, so I have no probelm with that patr too prevent b ad articl quality contrl .
Surely you bring other things when hiking? Bug spray, sun screen, a badass compass, etc. I agree buying clothes online is generally a bad idea, but that's a bit of a harsh limitation.
As for my post about positive reviews only, see this post, which is quite negative. But I love that movie. It's awesome. Sure, it's poorly written and pretty terrible overall, but then again...so are all zombie movies. But whatever. My point is that if you write a review for a thing, it doesn't necessarily have to be positive. Yeah it doesn't make a whole lot of sense but there you go.
They don't actually make the compass I use anymore . The thing is, is this about educating people, or is this about selling products? (I suspect you'll say both), but I feel the focus is on the 2nd one, with the 1st one being a potential side-effect. I feel it should be the other way around: educating people should be the focus, with selling products being a potential side-effect if it's relevant to the topic. In order for it to be relevant, something about the TL aspect needs to be there. I guarantee, no matter what the potential topic, there is already a lot of good material out there about it on the internet / in real life. What does TL contribute that I couldn't find with a simple web search somewhere else? To me, it's the ability to interact with the actual poster in order to ask questions, apply the general logic to my specific situation, etc.. In some cases, the knowledge the poster may be bringing may in fact be "XYZ brand is good because ABC". Fine, good for that specific article. If it happens that the specific article lends itself to a recommendation for a given brand, then good for that article; but there are a lot of cases where the knowledge is not about XYZ brand vs DEF brand, and I feel that the current system is excluding that branch of knowledge.
It's certainly possible to still monetize it without the current focus, even if it might be less profitable (but more valuable, to me); TL can put ads on the page if they want. Hell, so long as it's not misrepresented as me recommending the item (I'm assuming the editing of the pages doesn't go to the extent of misrepresenting what I say so it looks like I recommended something that I in fact didn't even mention), I don't care if TL wants to recommend everyone buy Banana Boat sunscreen. The thing is, both bug spray and sunscreen are pretty irrelevant. It really doesn't matter to me or anyone really what you use. Just pick up something from the store. Buying gear is relevant, but the actual aspect that matters are the attributes of the thing you buy, and someone who's properly educated will be able to pick out these things themselves.
It's like the whole "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime" (I don't eat fish, but whatever ). I have no idea what specific brands are available in different countries, and things I personally buy may in some cases be out of the price range of people from less affluent countries who are just trying an activity out.
Regardless, I'm getting the feeling this project just isn't going to go in the direction I'm personally interested in, as it sounds like you guys have already made up your minds. I'm just one reader/potential contributor out of tens of thousands, and if it's successful for you going that in direction, then good luck and more power to you .
e: since I left the window open for a while as I wrote my response, here's a response to this
On July 17 2012 06:23 tofucake wrote: That's just a post then. There are posts like that, like TDL's "How to use TL" thread (stickied in General I think) and Featured Blogs and Final Edits and all other manner of posts.
Then you mistitled the feature, and I feel the section about what "KnowHow" means is irrelevant. Nothing about "KnowHow" to me says "this is a bunch of product recommendations"
Really interesting. I'm heading into the media industry section myself (Starting the first year at University in 2 months). Hopefully there is someone out there with an exstensive working experience who can share some insights.
I'd love someone to write about psychology / the book 'thinking, fast and slow' because that is the best book ever written (let's be honest here...)
edit: I'm not sure what's wrong with having experts advertise books that they think are great.... even without the added editorial / input.... I <3 the idea however it turns out.
On July 17 2012 08:07 tsarnicky wrote: edit: I'm not sure what's wrong with having experts advertise books that they think are great.... even without the added editorial / input.... I <3 the idea however it turns out.
That's not TL KnowHow, that's TL BookRecommendation .
On July 17 2012 05:54 tofucake wrote: Yeah we are working on getting it placed somewhere more accessible.
@Insane, it doesn't have to be a book or related to your work, that's just how it started out (Atom's work is his life, basically). If you love the shit out of a movie, and think it's the most amazing movie in the universe of all time, write an article about it!
If you are a shaving fanatic (you own 20 different razors of different styles and have tried hundreds of cremes and whatnot) and want to write all about shaving and have suggested items (a particular razor for instance), write about it!
The reason we are editing them is because we want a minimum quality standard. I asked before I joined the project if we would only accept positive reviews pushing products and was told flat out that that isn't a requirement (although since it's an attempted revenue stream for TL it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, which is understandable). We want a controlled environment where we can say "our readers deserve to have the best, so we will work with the author to make this article as good as it can possibly be". Obviously, if we decide not to use your article, you're entirely free to post it in Blogs or General or wherever it belongs.
Another reason is that there's some HTML that needs to be embedded in the post that does the actual referreralizing which is what helps TL, which can only be done by certain staff. Letting us know what you want to write about is a key part of us having that particular code in the first place.
For example, let's say I want to write about hiking. I'm not going to recommend someone buy hiking boots, a pack, etc., online, because that's a terrible idea even if it's the exact same set of gear that I personally use, and I would be irresponsibly doing the readers a big disservice by doing so. I don't understand this sentence:
I asked before I joined the project if we would only accept positive reviews pushing products and was told flat out that that isn't a requirement (although since it's an attempted revenue stream for TL it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, which is understandable).
Why would anyone write a recommendation of a product they want to say don't buy? I'm trying to figure out a potential scenario where someone would write a review about how this book is bad, and then provide a link to buy the book. The only way that quote makes sense to me is if you're saying we can write articles without having specific recommendations, but the OP makes it very clear that we have to be pushing a specific product, and MightyAtom posted specifically about this condition that he firmly put his foot down about it having to be that way. For reference for ease-of-reading, MightyAtom's post is in spoiler + Show Spoiler [here] +
On July 17 2012 02:22 Marou wrote: That's an interesting idea, i'd like to contribute to it but i hate the fact hat i have to recommend some products on Amazon to be featured on a know-how. Why not just completely disregard profit ? By making it a for-profit initiative you really make it look like super blogs that sells stuff on TL (nice way to get some quality copywriting done i guess).
It's a very valid point and one that was hotly debated on for some time within TL as it was felt that some people wouldn't contribute specific for that reason.
I personally stuck to my guns on this point for a few reasons.
1. This section isn't about being featured as something special per say, it's in the blog section below featured bloggers and actually featured bloggers was part of the roll out of this section as well (that came out first) as we wanted to expand the blog section in general. So people just want to blog about something they feel passionate about, then this area isn't a replacement for that.
2. Why it's the knowhow section is that we don't want this section to be just a FAQ section, so the reference to a book or product was key part of it, not just for revenue, but as the main source of the knowledge for discussion on the actual knowhow. So we hope that as TLers read through or use the product/item that they can also share their comments, questions based on that specifically so it would focus the discussions as well (hopefully making the discussion active rather than just again, FAQs)
3. I'd like to think it is both, a for profit and for community initiative, I don't think for profit automatically cancels that out, because sincerely we wanted to set something up that wasn't invasive and gave back much more than what it was asking. And I think that will be apparent in the quality of the posts because we couldn't really pay an expert their market rate to write these posts, ultimately is a volunteer community contribution and part of the objective is yes, financial, but also contributing a really unique resource to our community. The content itself isn't restricted or based on having to buy the book or product, I mean people can go to the library or buy it second hand and personally all the books I've thus far recommended are older books.
In terms of initial image, I agree, it does look like its some super blog that is selling stuff, but I hope that the actual return to the community is far more than what it's initial image may be, that for some TLers it can really contribute to their understanding and even future endevours.
But I also won't shy from that if TL can get financial benefit from it, then I'm really pleased with that as well. I sincerely believe that TL is a great organization that will be investing in for the development in esports, and that requires funding, and while any act of commercialization can be seen as corrupting, I'd like to think that we're doing it in a responsible fair and appropriate manner which is true to the spirit of the community as well as contributing to TL in a meaningful way.
I completely understand the need for editing, so I have no probelm with that patr too prevent b ad articl quality contrl .
Surely you bring other things when hiking? Bug spray, sun screen, a badass compass, etc. I agree buying clothes online is generally a bad idea, but that's a bit of a harsh limitation.
As for my post about positive reviews only, see this post, which is quite negative. But I love that movie. It's awesome. Sure, it's poorly written and pretty terrible overall, but then again...so are all zombie movies. But whatever. My point is that if you write a review for a thing, it doesn't necessarily have to be positive. Yeah it doesn't make a whole lot of sense but there you go.
Regardless, I'm getting the feeling this project just isn't going to go in the direction I'm personally interested in, as it sounds like you guys have already made up your minds. I'm just one reader/potential contributor out of tens of thousands, and if it's successful for you going that in direction, then good luck and more power to you .
e: since I left the window open for a while as I wrote my response, here's a response to this
On July 17 2012 06:23 tofucake wrote: That's just a post then. There are posts like that, like TDL's "How to use TL" thread (stickied in General I think) and Featured Blogs and Final Edits and all other manner of posts.
Then you mistitled the feature, and I feel the section about what "KnowHow" means is irrelevant. Nothing about "KnowHow" to me says "this is a bunch of product recommendations"
This really seems to be "The TL product review". While the idea to get a bit more money back into TL isn't bad itself, the Knowhow title definitely looks misleading and some post reactions seems to confirm that. It's not meant just for information posts, it's aggregated product reviews for people who happen to live on the TL forums. Not exactly new idea but I wonder if it ever becomes popular around here, we'll see.
The initial post is a review, yes, but it's also the start of a discussion thread. If you read the articles already written by MightyAtom, you'll notice he encourages you to discuss the contents of the books with him, or ask him questions. The initial article is a jumping off point, after which the author agrees to have discussions which are based around sharing his or her knowledge.
Hey Guys, I'm finally back up and back to work. In terms of comments and feedback trying to break down the concept, it's approach etc, lets say this, that much of what has been written has been already debated within TL staff for weeks boarding on and off for months with much the same feedback, but what has come up is that we're giving it a shot.
One issue is that people are simply reading this introduction post and commenting on their thoughts on the concept rather than actually reading the posts that have been written and seeing it as a whole. In many ways, the commitment that each writer makes by writing such a post is also to follow up on the discussion whether it be specific quotes or chapters within the book and that is a lot of time commitment. Time that for someone like myself would only commit if I got something out of it, such as if it were training for my staff, I was getting paid my $xxx hourly rate for consulting or if they were related or a younger friend or colleague.
In this case, I'm going above what I'd normally share in a blog, we've taken time to structure, organize, edit and really invest more than just time, but take it not just as a casual endevour, and there have been a number of PM by people, if not more qualified than me in their respective fields, willing to commit the same time and effort as a volunteer. Why? Because the monetary incentive isn't the incentive here and in fact knowing that TL may get both a community contribution and financial contribution makes it more appealing to someone like me, but maybe that is just me, because nothing has stopped me from contributing to the community thus far, this is just another avenue.
In terms of the focus of the posts, again, what does knowhow mean, are we providing lip service to it, if you read my second post, I share my own knowhow in explaining what really is the business mentality. Now you may not think, it is anything special, and how related is it to the actual book? It is and it isn't but I've made the effort, and it is effort to really make a post that shares my knowhow, base it someone who is published and in having also presented my approach in looking at the book, am prepared now to work with readers through it, as both a text, but also if they take their own action and start their own kickstarter project or any business, hypothetical or otherwise.
Again, most of the comments for or against the concept were already brought up within TL staff, but what it came down to was giving it a shot to see it in practice, because fundamentally the concept isn't something bad, and you can assume that it is just cover for something terrible, but again, in practice if it does what we are looking for then it should be a win win on every level and again the proof will be in the practice.
Everything new is never good, and it can go badly, but take it from the context of just looking at the concept and see it in practice, we have the ability to make it the best it can be. But again, I understand there are concerns and from just the introductory news post that it may not be clear as to the whys and that we've missed things but if you give us the benefit of the doubt that in practice we should make things clearer over time, then it's all I'm asking.
On July 17 2012 09:23 Torpedo.Vegas wrote: This is kind of like "Build Orders For Life". It is in my expert opinion that you consider this for the motto.
lol, that motto does cut to the heart of it =) I will seriously consider it. I could see it on TL t-shirt too. ^^
I don't like mingling knowledge sharing with any kind of money-related incentive, be it for the own good of TL or not. Particularly when I read people want to "produce content" and the like. TL Knowhow is just about creating a distinct section with one only particular characteristic being that there is a link to amazon at the end of the OP. And an heavier moderation on the OP. Nothing else is any different from any regular TL thread right?
Just want to say that I am quite shocked about the advertising requirement.... You want us to write articles to spread knowledge. But only if we advertise a product at the same time? I can't see how the two have to come together, or even how they are remotely related... I can't imagine a reason to require advertisements here, that could not be used to require advertisement in every, say, general forum thread. I can't help but feel that this completely uncalled for advertisement is related to the fact that the driving person is writing about start up business.
I am perfectly fine with the ads at the top and side of the site, I am fine with the store being on the start page. This, however, makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I find it disgusting to be honest. And you say that this has been discussed for long in the mod forum, with this result? I have been registered at TL for some time, and never seen anything from the mod staff that I didn't agree with, or could accept. Individual mistakes here and there, fine, but not more. Even the storm of new people with sc2 was handled very well. But if this is what the collected staff of TL comes up with.... The first time I really dislike TL.
I would consider contributing to this section otherwise, but no way I will advertise like that.
To mighty atom, and the staff that agreed on this: BIG overstep in my book. For the first time I see TL as a bunch of greedy sellouts.
On July 17 2012 10:26 Cascade wrote: Sorry for not reading all the replies.
Just want to say that I am quite shocked about the advertising requirement.... You want us to write articles to spread knowledge. But only if we advertise a product at the same time? I can't see how the two have to come together, or even how they are remotely related... I can't imagine a reason to require advertisements here, that could not be used to require advertisement in every, say, general forum thread. I can't help but feel that this completely uncalled for advertisement is related to the fact that the driving person is writing about start up business.
I am perfectly fine with the ads at the top and side of the site, I am fine with the store being on the start page. This, however, makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I find it disgusting to be honest. And you say that this has been discussed for long in the mod forum, with this result? I have been registered at TL for some time, and never seen anything from the mod staff that I didn't agree with, or could accept. Individual mistakes here and there, fine, but not more. Even the storm of new people with sc2 was handled very well. But if this is what the collected staff of TL comes up with.... The first time I really dislike TL.
I would consider contributing to this section otherwise, but no way I will advertise like that.
To mighty atom, and the staff that agreed on this: BIG overstep in my book. For the first time I see TL as a bunch of greedy sellouts.
Can you please also read some of the posts I've made and then get back to me on it. Cause the amount of effort I put into them was considerable. And read my post about 4 above. I get your reaction, totally valid, but what the concept is as an initial reaction is quite polarizing to some people, but in practice I hope that it isn't as bleak as a picture as you've painted it to be.
And I take full responsibility for the concept and the final structure of this section. This doesn't preclude anyone from contributing the way they have before as well. But if you also read all the comments as well, you'll see that your reaction was shared by some TL staff as well. But they've given me the benefit of the doubt to see the outcome.
But if you want to brand anyone a 'greedy sell out' for providing their time and commitment in this format, then yes, I am your man. And the fact that you use advertise, where I would use share, I mean, you could still accuse me for being a marketing bastard and it's my nature to do so, but again, please read the posts that I have written and see if we haven't tried to make a balance towards community contribution first. But I won't shy and not be upfront about the other financial side to it. But I have been a 'greedy sell out' for some time now as my main profession as management consultant.
On July 17 2012 10:26 Cascade wrote: Sorry for not reading all the replies.
Just want to say that I am quite shocked about the advertising requirement.... You want us to write articles to spread knowledge. But only if we advertise a product at the same time? I can't see how the two have to come together, or even how they are remotely related... I can't imagine a reason to require advertisements here, that could not be used to require advertisement in every, say, general forum thread. I can't help but feel that this completely uncalled for advertisement is related to the fact that the driving person is writing about start up business.
I am perfectly fine with the ads at the top and side of the site, I am fine with the store being on the start page. This, however, makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I find it disgusting to be honest. And you say that this has been discussed for long in the mod forum, with this result? I have been registered at TL for some time, and never seen anything from the mod staff that I didn't agree with, or could accept. Individual mistakes here and there, fine, but not more. Even the storm of new people with sc2 was handled very well. But if this is what the collected staff of TL comes up with.... The first time I really dislike TL.
I would consider contributing to this section otherwise, but no way I will advertise like that.
To mighty atom, and the staff that agreed on this: BIG overstep in my book. For the first time I see TL as a bunch of greedy sellouts.
Can you please also read some of the posts I've made and then get back to me on it. Cause the amount of effort I put into them was considerable. And read my post about 4 above. I get your reaction, totally valid, but what the concept is as an initial reaction is quite polarizing to some people, but in practice I hope that it isn't as bleak as a picture as you've painted it to be.
And I take full responsibility for the concept and the final structure of this section. This doesn't preclude anyone from contributing the way they have before as well. But if you also read all the comments as well, you'll see that your reaction was shared by some TL staff as well. But they've given me the benefit of the doubt to see the outcome.
But if you want to brand anyone a 'greedy sell out' for providing their time and commitment in this format, then yes, I am your man. And the fact that you use advertise, where I would use share, I mean, you could still accuse me for being a marketing bastard and it's my nature to do so, but again, please read the posts that I have written and see if we haven't tried to make a balance towards community contribution first. But I won't shy and not be upfront about the other financial side to it. But I have been a 'greedy sell out' for some time now as my main profession as management consultant.
I've read your posts in this thread. I just see you repeat how you see the point in the complaints, and how it is a tryout, and how you take responsibility. Not a single argument for why this is actually a good idea. Which, tbh, I see as quite typical for a seller with a bad product. And yes, I definitely read you as a greedy, and the supporting TL mods as sell outs. Which for your part is normal in your profession I guess, but I wouldn't expect it to go through the TL staff. Either you are a damn good seller, and managed to convince the rest of the TL staff, or the entire staff is getting greedy.
You want to be upfront about the money part, but you prefer to use the word share? Really? You know the difference between sharing and advertising? Sharing: hey, I did this, and it was really cool! You should consider trying it as well! Advertising: Hey, I did this, and it was really cool. You should try it as well, because I get money if you do! And what you suggest is sharing? Really? Yes, marketing bastard is a good word. Actually, let me upgrade that to deceiving marketing bastard.
But apart from the personal insults (I mean every word, but it's off topic, sorry for that) the important point is that there is no connection whatsoever between sharing knowledge, and advertising. I don't find any in the OP, or in any of your replies.
It may be that the information I want to share leads up to something that can be bought, but that goes for any subforum on TL. None of those subforums have a requirement that you need to advertise for TL with every OP. Should glider have to advertise pens every time he posts his work? Should a guide about sc2 graphics settings have to include advertisements for graphics cards? Does cecile Sunkure have to post advertisements for coaching services with each of his strategy guides? How is this sub forum any different? It changes the entire idea of TL, from a forum for exchanging ideas and information, to a factory for free advertisement for you. Again, I'm fine with seeing ads that you put up on the page, but to force people to take part of selling is entirely different, and to me something disgusting.
If you would provide the option (ie, not forced to) to have these sponsored links, I would be ready to discuss it. If someone wants to help TL by using these sponsored links, fine. But again, no reason to have this in this sub forum more than any other. This would be equally fine all over TL, so that also glider or whoever could use them. But only in case they actually feel that it is really motivated, both from the context, and if they feel they want to support TL that little extra. But to block contributions because they do not want to post advertisement for you? Is that really what is best for the TL community, or even long term TL.net interests? How could any mod agree on this?
On July 17 2012 10:26 Cascade wrote: Sorry for not reading all the replies.
Just want to say that I am quite shocked about the advertising requirement.... You want us to write articles to spread knowledge. But only if we advertise a product at the same time? I can't see how the two have to come together, or even how they are remotely related... I can't imagine a reason to require advertisements here, that could not be used to require advertisement in every, say, general forum thread. I can't help but feel that this completely uncalled for advertisement is related to the fact that the driving person is writing about start up business.
I am perfectly fine with the ads at the top and side of the site, I am fine with the store being on the start page. This, however, makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I find it disgusting to be honest. And you say that this has been discussed for long in the mod forum, with this result? I have been registered at TL for some time, and never seen anything from the mod staff that I didn't agree with, or could accept. Individual mistakes here and there, fine, but not more. Even the storm of new people with sc2 was handled very well. But if this is what the collected staff of TL comes up with.... The first time I really dislike TL.
I would consider contributing to this section otherwise, but no way I will advertise like that.
To mighty atom, and the staff that agreed on this: BIG overstep in my book. For the first time I see TL as a bunch of greedy sellouts.
Can you please also read some of the posts I've made and then get back to me on it. Cause the amount of effort I put into them was considerable. And read my post about 4 above. I get your reaction, totally valid, but what the concept is as an initial reaction is quite polarizing to some people, but in practice I hope that it isn't as bleak as a picture as you've painted it to be.
And I take full responsibility for the concept and the final structure of this section. This doesn't preclude anyone from contributing the way they have before as well. But if you also read all the comments as well, you'll see that your reaction was shared by some TL staff as well. But they've given me the benefit of the doubt to see the outcome.
But if you want to brand anyone a 'greedy sell out' for providing their time and commitment in this format, then yes, I am your man. And the fact that you use advertise, where I would use share, I mean, you could still accuse me for being a marketing bastard and it's my nature to do so, but again, please read the posts that I have written and see if we haven't tried to make a balance towards community contribution first. But I won't shy and not be upfront about the other financial side to it. But I have been a 'greedy sell out' for some time now as my main profession as management consultant.
Blahhh, I told myself I wouldn't respond anymore, but I'm really bad at keeping to that
I did read all of the posts in this topic, including yours, and I've talked with a few people I know outside of here as well. I guess in concept, I don't have a problem with you having a section that's exactly as you've laid it out if it were called something else (say "TL Product Database", or TLPD for short ). I would not personally choose to contribute to it, but its existence wouldn't bother me and I probably wouldn't have bothered commenting on it at all. What I do have a problem with is what I feel is essentially a kind of false advertising that's going on here, where I feel what the original post delivers is simply not what it promises to deliver. When I read the first section, I was pretty hyped and said to myself "wow, this actually sounds pretty badass!"
Then I read the rest of the post, and I felt as if I could simply find a knowledgeable amazon.com featured reviewer and look at what (s)he recommended... You can say what you want about "And the fact that you use advertise, where I would use share", but the fact is that using something like share is just using 'weasel words' to disguise what is essentially an advertisement: an article that must make at least 1 recommendation for something that the reader will hopefully buy; what is that but an advertisement?
"We are hoping to take it step further by creating a specialized section where community members can share the special insights and understanding they have gained as they have pursued their careers and passions in life." Are you really claiming that everything people in their fields have learnt is going to boil down to having some product recommendation?
"Know-how (or knowhow as it is sometimes written) is practical knowledge of how to get something done, as opposed to “know-what” (facts), “know-why” (science), or “know-who” (networking). Know-how is often tacit knowledge, which means that it is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalising it. The opposite of tacit knowledge is explicit knowledge. (Wikipedia)."
Knowhow is after the theories and strategies, it is the knowledge of how to survive to get to your goal, or to outperform others to make it or simply how to get to a level of practical understanding faster. The term 'knowhow' refers to knowledge which is critical and insightful but which is developed internally and not publicly known or taught in a systematic process.
Knowhow is usually applied to industrial processes, making the same machine or process produce 'more' than the same machine/process in the hands of another operator, whether it be the right room tempurature or the exact type of oil that adds 0.5% better performance. But in the broader context, social or career based knowhow is one of the last types of knowledge that is passed on through directly sharing experiences.
By its nature, knowhow is about results and getting to the results with less effort, more output or faster, it is about increasing your performance and it isn't something you can just pick up from a manual, but is something passed on through training or articulated by using someone's experience as a base. This is very different than a theory or opinion because it's value is based off a process that is validated because of its results.
An example of this is if you were raised in an engineering family, meaning both your parents are engineers or a doctor's family or restaurantuer's family. Whether you realize it or not, things that you take as 'givens' such as a more analytic approach to life, or understanding basic human biology and what certain types of medication do, or what are the different standards of customer service are, this is all knowhow that unless someone was raised in the same family or did the same job, they would have no access to though common resources of knowledge.
Knowhow is both simply passed on, but is also guarded fiercely as it may be the only competitive factor that a company or individual has when all things are equal. Thus, the effectiveness of knowhow is mainly to it's very specific nature to a process or task. It may be as simple as a single function command, but used properly can save hours of work and may be completely obvious after the fact, but the amount of experience to have come to such an obvious outcome may have been hours upon hours of trial and error. But the fact that it is obvious and effective makes it true knowhow.
Due to the nature of when and how knowhow is 'passed on', the only reason to share knowhow is because they are family or work in the same company and are aligned with the same goals/objectives
section, because it seems incredibly at odds with what's being delivered. It feels as if the attempt is to tie together a well-known "respected" concept, know-how, together with the intention of advertising products, in order to "put lipstick on a pig" as the idiom goes. "Knowhow is after the theories and strategies, it is the knowledge of how to survive to get to your goal, or to outperform others to make it or simply how to get to a level of practical understanding faster. The term 'knowhow' refers to knowledge which is critical and insightful but which is developed internally and not publicly known or taught in a systematic process. " This in particular seems incredibly different from what's being delivered. Nowhere in the description of knowhow do I get any particular feeling that it's tied to product endorsements; can you honestly say you feel the description of what Know-how is leads you to that conclusion?
I'm mighty curious now which staff members were against it I suppose one thing I will say in its favor is that you are at least upfront about the product placement requirement, rather than covertly trying to enforce it, or just rejecting articles that didn't have recommendations.
On July 17 2012 10:26 Cascade wrote: Sorry for not reading all the replies.
Just want to say that I am quite shocked about the advertising requirement.... You want us to write articles to spread knowledge. But only if we advertise a product at the same time? I can't see how the two have to come together, or even how they are remotely related... I can't imagine a reason to require advertisements here, that could not be used to require advertisement in every, say, general forum thread. I can't help but feel that this completely uncalled for advertisement is related to the fact that the driving person is writing about start up business.
I am perfectly fine with the ads at the top and side of the site, I am fine with the store being on the start page. This, however, makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I find it disgusting to be honest. And you say that this has been discussed for long in the mod forum, with this result? I have been registered at TL for some time, and never seen anything from the mod staff that I didn't agree with, or could accept. Individual mistakes here and there, fine, but not more. Even the storm of new people with sc2 was handled very well. But if this is what the collected staff of TL comes up with.... The first time I really dislike TL.
I would consider contributing to this section otherwise, but no way I will advertise like that.
To mighty atom, and the staff that agreed on this: BIG overstep in my book. For the first time I see TL as a bunch of greedy sellouts.
Can you please also read some of the posts I've made and then get back to me on it. Cause the amount of effort I put into them was considerable. And read my post about 4 above. I get your reaction, totally valid, but what the concept is as an initial reaction is quite polarizing to some people, but in practice I hope that it isn't as bleak as a picture as you've painted it to be.
And I take full responsibility for the concept and the final structure of this section. This doesn't preclude anyone from contributing the way they have before as well. But if you also read all the comments as well, you'll see that your reaction was shared by some TL staff as well. But they've given me the benefit of the doubt to see the outcome.
But if you want to brand anyone a 'greedy sell out' for providing their time and commitment in this format, then yes, I am your man. And the fact that you use advertise, where I would use share, I mean, you could still accuse me for being a marketing bastard and it's my nature to do so, but again, please read the posts that I have written and see if we haven't tried to make a balance towards community contribution first. But I won't shy and not be upfront about the other financial side to it. But I have been a 'greedy sell out' for some time now as my main profession as management consultant.
I've read your posts in this thread. I just see you repeat how you see the point in the complaints, and how it is a tryout, and how you take responsibility. Not a single argument for why this is actually a good idea. Which, tbh, I see as quite typical for a seller with a bad product. And yes, I definitely read you as a greedy, and the supporting TL mods as sell outs. Which for your part is normal in your profession I guess, but I wouldn't expect it to go through the TL staff. Either you are a damn good seller, and managed to convince the rest of the TL staff, or the entire staff is getting greedy.
You want to be upfront about the money part, but you prefer to use the word share? Really? You know the difference between sharing and advertising? Sharing: hey, I did this, and it was really cool! You should consider trying it as well! Advertising: Hey, I did this, and it was really cool. You should try it as well, because I get money if you do! And what you suggest is sharing? Really? Yes, marketing bastard is a good word. Actually, let me upgrade that to deceiving marketing bastard.
But apart from the personal insults (I mean every word, but it's off topic, sorry for that) the important point is that there is no connection whatsoever between sharing knowledge, and advertising. I don't find any in the OP, or in any of your replies.
It may be that the information I want to share leads up to something that can be bought, but that goes for any subforum on TL. None of those subforums have a requirement that you need to advertise for TL with every OP. Should glider have to advertise pens every time he posts his work? Should a guide about sc2 graphics settings have to include advertisements for graphics cards? Does cecile Sunkure have to post advertisements for coaching services with each of his strategy guides? How is this sub forum any different? It changes the entire idea of TL, from a forum for exchanging ideas and information, to a factory for free advertisement for you. Again, I'm fine with seeing ads that you put up on the page, but to force people to take part of selling is entirely different, and to me something disgusting.
If you would provide the option (ie, not forced to) to have these sponsored links, I would be ready to discuss it. If someone wants to help TL by using these sponsored links, fine. But again, no reason to have this in this sub forum more than any other. This would be equally fine all over TL, so that also glider or whoever could use them. But only in case they actually feel that it is really motivated, both from the context, and if they feel they want to support TL that little extra. But to block contributions because they do not want to post advertisement for you? Is that really what is best for the TL community, or even long term TL.net interests? How could any mod agree on this?
I won't get into a person thing here, you're obviously pissed and so emotions are what they are and you clearly on the other spectrum of where I'm at. 1. You're not forced to contribute to this section, but you're just also singling one aspect out and making the connection on your own.
You're absolutely right, there is no connection to sharing knowledge and advertising, but it is the format of this particular section. You're not looking at all or considering what the role of the book or product has as reference point to the post. And thanks for reading the replies in this post, but again, have you read the posts as well to see if there isn't a balance there. (not to say in your current frame of mind it would be at all well received).
2. There is an objective here, and before going all Joan of Arc here, why not ask first, what was the rational behind this section? I wanted to develop out the blog section and the featured blogger addition was part of that, and so was this section, why? Yes, I wanted to consider something that would financially contribute to TL without being invasive or against the spirit of TL and also contribute to that community. Is that possible even? Maybe, maybe not, but should it stop us from trying to work something out? The goal here is ambitious and maybe at this point we are failing at it because even my own posts are about business as it is my professional background.
But, if you're of the opinion that TL shouldn't consider anything to do with revenue, then I guess nothing I have to say will make a dent, but of course I know your position is not that simplistic. The idea of that there is this commercial requirement to contribute is what is getting your goat. But for someone on my side, because there is this additional benefit to TL and via my contribution of information I wouldn't normally share or commit to flushing out, it makes it also worth while. Because in my worldview, there is the community, but also the strength of the organization behind it that makes it what is its and I don't think its bad to contribute to both and I don't think one cancels out the other.
And there is always a fine line in any transitional period or any organization as it grows where it can lose its focus of how it has grown to the point it has, and I'm acutely aware and sensitive to that, but to simply ignore or not try to address the issue or just think that it is a non issue whatsoever, is also counter productive as well. There are things I'd like to see TL do, like host an event as big as blizcon one day (just my person thoughts), and where do we need to be at to make that happen? I mean there is a broader picture out here of long term objectives that I and others have spent a lot of time thinking about, but for the here and now, you're reaction perfectly valid. So TL staff has given me a chance here to make this work, I'm thankful for that opportunity to contribute in this way. They know my background, my contribution to e-sports and my contributions to TL as well as my professional business background, so they've given me the benefit of the doubt. You of course are under so such obligation and you don't need to give it a chance either, so at the end, it does become your opinion, and the position of this section which I hope I've put into context as much as I can.
In terms of the personal attacks, go ahead, let it rip, because I get you're upset, and really you don't know me, I don't know you and I honestly couldn't care less, but for you to paint things so black and white doesn't help get to any insight here, so I hope that at least been able to sincerely do that, even as you will rip me to put this into context that I am a deceitful marketing bastard. We expected people to be upset, but to be clear, if TL is to be blamed for giving this a shot so be it, but again, I'm thankful for them to give me the benefit of the doubt and the onus is on me to make it work.
Your argument for recommending a book/product hinges on the fact that it makes a meaningful/valuable contribution to the overall article.
However, suppose I don't have a reference that I consider meaningful, why should I still be forced to include an affiliate link?
For example, I would want to write an article about Air Traffic Control and Air Navigation in general, but I don't have anything I would want to link with it. Everything I have learned is widely available to the public or is company-produced. The only products I can conceive packaging with it are things like games (which obviously doesn't serve to enhance the article in question). I mean manuals/textbooks exist for ATC but I can't personally recommend any as we don't actually use any for teaching purposes.
Honestly half the time when you are writing an article to educate someone on something you are recommending books anyway, so making money out of it is genius.
On July 17 2012 11:45 sluggaslamoo wrote: Honestly half the time when you are writing an article to educate someone on something you are recommending books anyway, so making money out of it is genius.
Half the time is key there. The other half you have nothing to recommend. So why force it?
I just don't see good justification for making it anything but optional.
On July 17 2012 10:26 Cascade wrote: Sorry for not reading all the replies.
Just want to say that I am quite shocked about the advertising requirement.... You want us to write articles to spread knowledge. But only if we advertise a product at the same time? I can't see how the two have to come together, or even how they are remotely related... I can't imagine a reason to require advertisements here, that could not be used to require advertisement in every, say, general forum thread. I can't help but feel that this completely uncalled for advertisement is related to the fact that the driving person is writing about start up business.
I am perfectly fine with the ads at the top and side of the site, I am fine with the store being on the start page. This, however, makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I find it disgusting to be honest. And you say that this has been discussed for long in the mod forum, with this result? I have been registered at TL for some time, and never seen anything from the mod staff that I didn't agree with, or could accept. Individual mistakes here and there, fine, but not more. Even the storm of new people with sc2 was handled very well. But if this is what the collected staff of TL comes up with.... The first time I really dislike TL.
I would consider contributing to this section otherwise, but no way I will advertise like that.
To mighty atom, and the staff that agreed on this: BIG overstep in my book. For the first time I see TL as a bunch of greedy sellouts.
Can you please also read some of the posts I've made and then get back to me on it. Cause the amount of effort I put into them was considerable. And read my post about 4 above. I get your reaction, totally valid, but what the concept is as an initial reaction is quite polarizing to some people, but in practice I hope that it isn't as bleak as a picture as you've painted it to be.
And I take full responsibility for the concept and the final structure of this section. This doesn't preclude anyone from contributing the way they have before as well. But if you also read all the comments as well, you'll see that your reaction was shared by some TL staff as well. But they've given me the benefit of the doubt to see the outcome.
But if you want to brand anyone a 'greedy sell out' for providing their time and commitment in this format, then yes, I am your man. And the fact that you use advertise, where I would use share, I mean, you could still accuse me for being a marketing bastard and it's my nature to do so, but again, please read the posts that I have written and see if we haven't tried to make a balance towards community contribution first. But I won't shy and not be upfront about the other financial side to it. But I have been a 'greedy sell out' for some time now as my main profession as management consultant.
Blahhh, I told myself I wouldn't respond anymore, but I'm really bad at keeping to that
I did read all of the posts in this topic, including yours, and I've talked with a few people I know outside of here as well. I guess in concept, I don't have a problem with you having a section that's exactly as you've laid it out if it were called something else (say "TL Product Database", or TLPD for short ). I would not personally choose to contribute to it, but its existence wouldn't bother me and I probably wouldn't have bothered commenting on it at all. What I do have a problem with is what I feel is essentially a kind of false advertising that's going on here, where I feel what the original post delivers is simply not what it promises to deliver. When I read the first section, I was pretty hyped and said to myself "wow, this actually sounds pretty badass!"
Then I read the rest of the post, and I felt as if I could simply find a knowledgeable amazon.com featured reviewer and look at what (s)he recommended... You can say what you want about "And the fact that you use advertise, where I would use share", but the fact is that using something like share is just using 'weasel words' to disguise what is essentially an advertisement: an article that must make at least 1 recommendation for something that the reader will hopefully buy; what is that but an advertisement?
"We are hoping to take it step further by creating a specialized section where community members can share the special insights and understanding they have gained as they have pursued their careers and passions in life." Are you really claiming that everything people in their fields have learnt is going to boil down to having some product recommendation?
"Know-how (or knowhow as it is sometimes written) is practical knowledge of how to get something done, as opposed to “know-what” (facts), “know-why” (science), or “know-who” (networking). Know-how is often tacit knowledge, which means that it is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalising it. The opposite of tacit knowledge is explicit knowledge. (Wikipedia)."
Knowhow is after the theories and strategies, it is the knowledge of how to survive to get to your goal, or to outperform others to make it or simply how to get to a level of practical understanding faster. The term 'knowhow' refers to knowledge which is critical and insightful but which is developed internally and not publicly known or taught in a systematic process.
Knowhow is usually applied to industrial processes, making the same machine or process produce 'more' than the same machine/process in the hands of another operator, whether it be the right room tempurature or the exact type of oil that adds 0.5% better performance. But in the broader context, social or career based knowhow is one of the last types of knowledge that is passed on through directly sharing experiences.
By its nature, knowhow is about results and getting to the results with less effort, more output or faster, it is about increasing your performance and it isn't something you can just pick up from a manual, but is something passed on through training or articulated by using someone's experience as a base. This is very different than a theory or opinion because it's value is based off a process that is validated because of its results.
An example of this is if you were raised in an engineering family, meaning both your parents are engineers or a doctor's family or restaurantuer's family. Whether you realize it or not, things that you take as 'givens' such as a more analytic approach to life, or understanding basic human biology and what certain types of medication do, or what are the different standards of customer service are, this is all knowhow that unless someone was raised in the same family or did the same job, they would have no access to though common resources of knowledge.
Knowhow is both simply passed on, but is also guarded fiercely as it may be the only competitive factor that a company or individual has when all things are equal. Thus, the effectiveness of knowhow is mainly to it's very specific nature to a process or task. It may be as simple as a single function command, but used properly can save hours of work and may be completely obvious after the fact, but the amount of experience to have come to such an obvious outcome may have been hours upon hours of trial and error. But the fact that it is obvious and effective makes it true knowhow.
Due to the nature of when and how knowhow is 'passed on', the only reason to share knowhow is because they are family or work in the same company and are aligned with the same goals/objectives
section, because it seems incredibly at odds with what's being delivered. It feels as if the attempt is to tie together a well-known "respected" concept, know-how, together with the intention of advertising products, in order to "put lipstick on a pig" as the idiom goes. "Knowhow is after the theories and strategies, it is the knowledge of how to survive to get to your goal, or to outperform others to make it or simply how to get to a level of practical understanding faster. The term 'knowhow' refers to knowledge which is critical and insightful but which is developed internally and not publicly known or taught in a systematic process. " This in particular seems incredibly different from what's being delivered. Nowhere in the description of knowhow do I get any particular feeling that it's tied to product endorsements; can you honestly say you feel the description of what Know-how is leads you to that conclusion?
I'm mighty curious now which staff members were against it I suppose one thing I will say in its favor is that you are at least upfront about the product placement requirement, rather than covertly trying to enforce it, or just rejecting articles that didn't have recommendations.
Thanks for the post, 1. Again, people think there is no function to the requirement of the book, but there is one to prevent it from turning into just an FAQ AMA thread, we do want things to have some reference, and yes, the format was made to kill 2 birds with one stone. So yes, it is advertising, but it is also recommending and if you think it is just semantics, it's not because of the role the book plays as a reference to the post. The posts are not just, lets think, but rather, lets do.
2. I wrote that part on the knowhow and I think over time, the posts will reflect that over just sharing knowledge and there is a difference here, knowledge you can google, knowhow not so much so. And again, this is a very long term project, it doesn't live and breath of people buying the book, what if everyone goes to the library and borrows it, do I feel less about it? Of course not, in fact the counter argument was that this model wasn't even efficient in generating revenue because of that. But I am happy to contribute in this capacity with the potential for revenue, again, its not a requirement to read the content, as long as you can get your hands on a copy of the book, you can read it or even just follow along in the thread, but this is definitely a thread for doers who want to really learn and in that sense, from my perspective, that fact is, really..
You just have the option to support or not, if you don't its totally fine, and the content is there for you because the content stands alone as a contribution to the community. None of the volunteers thus far, who are extremely qualified are like, how much will my contribution make for TL, rather, they are asking, how can we make this work in this format and what can I share.
So if the issue is really about the writer and not the reader, and the writer feeling like they forced to commercialize their contribution, no one is forcing anyone to contribute here and if the idea of it bothers you, well I can't help someone's personal position/preference/ideals. But for some writers it does make sense as it makes sense to me. It has forced me to write something of a higher level of quality that I normally would't as a persona blog as well as structure it so it isn't just bullshit off the top of my head but is kept honest by an association to a reference book and a call to action to the reader.
And I really didn't want to bring this up, but I will at this point. Why I really think it is key to match it some type of reference book (which obviously can be bought etc), is that, I did my first grad studies in theology, Masters of Divinity. And my specialization was homiletic and systematic theology. Homiletics is the study of interpreting the bible for preaching -ok- I know this is getting really weird but. There are preachers that just preach from one line in the bible and they usually take it out of context and their are others that respect where the passage is coming from and it usually keeps them more honest to the point of the text. In the same way, I do want the book to act as that reference point, the fact that we also can make a referral fee from it is what I'd consider good project structuring, but is also what may be the grip of a lot of Tlers. But even if we did this section without a referral link, I'd still require a book as a reference point, why? Because in my opinion it does put some level of accountability and focus on the writer's content. So either way, there would have been a book or some external point of reference, but yes, we would like to also commercialize that point of reference. And not as a side, but structurally designed to do so along side the accountability/focus issue as well as the general contribution to the community the knowhow content.
At the end of the day, this section will depend on contributors, while I could share x amount, I'm only one person, with only x amount of time, looking after a family of two kids, 3 companies directly and 1 company as an advisor and I am in transit in different countries at least 10 days out of the month. I say that, not because I'm burdened, (I love working in general), but because no matter how much I contribute, this will thrive or fail based on the contribution of writers and if they do not agree with this structure/format, it will simply not work and it will be a failed attempt. But if it works, it will work because of the writers who feel the contribution is valid in its current format. So I guess in my view, lets let time sort it out, and it was a split view on this project, but again, they've given me the benefit of the doubt to go ahead with it. Cheers.
On July 17 2012 11:44 MightyAtom wrote: You're absolutely right, there is no connection to sharing knowledge and advertising, but it is the format of this particular section.
Well, this would be enough for me to shut this down at first glance.
All the other things you say doesn't at all change this fact, and it doesn't make it any less black and white. Most of it isn't even related to my concern. Again, why should we not do this in other subforums? You say that this is just a test. Does that mean that if this is successful, then you will start adding it to other subforums as well? As apparently a subforum not being at all connected to advertising seems to be a reason to start forcing people to advertise when posting in it.
I'm going to be honest here, upon my first scan of the OP, I thought it'd be something along the lines of the TL Manpower thread (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=84245); didn't even notice the advertising bit until after I started reading some of the responses to the thread. Not really what I was expecting, but good luck with the venture. I'm really interested in seeing how this turns out.
On July 17 2012 12:13 MightyAtom wrote: And I really didn't want to bring this up, but I will at this point. Why I really think it is key to match it some type of reference book (which obviously can be bought etc), is that, I did my first grad studies in theology, Masters of Divinity. And my specialization was homiletic and systematic theology. Homiletics is the study of interpreting the bible for preaching -ok- I know this is getting really weird but. There are preachers that just preach from one line in the bible and they usually take it out of context and their are others that respect where the passage is coming from and it usually keeps them more honest to the point of the text. In the same way, I do want the book to act as that reference point, the fact that we also can make a referral fee from it is what I'd consider good project structuring, but is also what may be the grip of a lot of Tlers. But even if we did this section without a referral link, I'd still require a book as a reference point, why? Because in my opinion it does put some level of accountability and focus on the writer's content. So either way, there would have been a book or some external point of reference, but yes, we would like to also commercialize that point of reference. And not as a side, but structurally designed to do so along side the accountability/focus issue as well as the general contribution to the community the knowhow content.
Umm, that is called to present your sources. It is, again, very different from advertising... You may have heard of places like wikipedia that actually provide sources without trying to sell any books to you for profit.
Also, a source that you have to pay for to read is a horrible source. If the source of information is trying to earn money, they don't have correct information as the first goal any longer, but selling copies. Which leads to overly sensational titles, and radically overplaying it's own merit. In other words, not reliable.
For a good source, something like wikipedia, and indirectly the sources the wiki article points to, or even freely available scientific articles are much more credible. But by now it is pretty clear that the objective of this subforum is not to provide the TL readers with good information.
On July 17 2012 11:44 DoomsVille wrote: Your argument for recommending a book/product hinges on the fact that it makes a meaningful/valuable contribution to the overall article.
However, suppose I don't have a reference that I consider meaningful, why should I still be forced to include an affiliate link?
For example, I would want to write an article about Air Traffic Control and Air Navigation in general, but I don't have anything I would want to link with it. Everything I have learned is widely available to the public or is company-produced. The only products I can conceive packaging with it are things like games (which obviously doesn't serve to enhance the article in question). I mean manuals/textbooks exist for ATC but I can't personally recommend any as we don't actually use any for teaching purposes.
I think the main point is, from my last post that I just wrote is, not turning it into an AMA or FAQ thread for this section, and it may be an effort to make the format work, but this is the format for this section. Otherwise, there isn't anything stopping anyone from making an AMA thread on TL but there is the two objectives here and if it isn't appealing it isn't. So no one is being forced to include an affiliate link and if there a book that may have contributed a bit to your passion of Air Traffic Control or a movie that actually depicts what it is really like and you can say, that is a legit representation of what I'm talking about, then great. I mean lets not just assume that there isn't a way we can't figure out how to make it work in one way or another. But as the start of a project I do want to keep the focus on these two objectives and I don't one being lost in the way side.
Also, this section was launched much later after the 'featured blogs' section and was meant to be seen as a whole, so it not we are saying, this is the only place you can post your own knowledge, etc but again, this is the format for this particular section, but again, nothing stopping you from just posting your own contribution on your own terms and getting a mod to highlight it.
I know its not what you wanted to hear, but its what it is, and again, nothing precludes you from just making a blog on it if you so chose and I'm sure if you wanted the article to be in the knowhow section for whatever reason, we could figure out how to make it work in a meaningful way that contributes to the article than rather than just being a tack on to meet some commercial qualification (which would be against your entire position anyway and probably even dissuade you from writing the it for the knowhow section). And that is I guess the last key point: we do want the reference or product to add to the article as the format and structure of the article and I don't think its that big of an issue, but definitely on one's moral/commercial position, it may be a huge issue. But really, if there are no books or references what so ever, then we'd take it on a case by case basis, but maybe the article is better just to be highlighted as a really special stand alone article.
I'm not sure how Amazon referral links work, but can I just append the TL referral link to everything I buy on Amazon or does TL have to apply for each individual products' referral link?
On July 17 2012 12:13 MightyAtom wrote: And I really didn't want to bring this up, but I will at this point. Why I really think it is key to match it some type of reference book (which obviously can be bought etc), is that, I did my first grad studies in theology, Masters of Divinity. And my specialization was homiletic and systematic theology. Homiletics is the study of interpreting the bible for preaching -ok- I know this is getting really weird but. There are preachers that just preach from one line in the bible and they usually take it out of context and their are others that respect where the passage is coming from and it usually keeps them more honest to the point of the text. In the same way, I do want the book to act as that reference point, the fact that we also can make a referral fee from it is what I'd consider good project structuring, but is also what may be the grip of a lot of Tlers. But even if we did this section without a referral link, I'd still require a book as a reference point, why? Because in my opinion it does put some level of accountability and focus on the writer's content. So either way, there would have been a book or some external point of reference, but yes, we would like to also commercialize that point of reference. And not as a side, but structurally designed to do so along side the accountability/focus issue as well as the general contribution to the community the knowhow content.
Umm, that is called to present your sources. It is, again, very different from advertising... You may have heard of places like wikipedia that actually provide sources without trying to sell any books to you for profit.
Also, a source that you have to pay for to read is a horrible source. If the source of information is trying to earn money, they don't have correct information as the first goal any longer, but selling copies. Which leads to overly sensational titles, and radically overplaying it's own merit. In other words, not reliable.
For a good source, something like wikipedia, and indirectly the sources the wiki article points to, or even freely available scientific articles are much more credible. But by now it is pretty clear that the objective of this subforum is not to provide the TL readers with good information.
yes, you're absolutely right, it's not to provide TL readers with good information, its to provide them for knowhow and what that entails.
On July 17 2012 12:13 MightyAtom wrote: And I really didn't want to bring this up, but I will at this point. Why I really think it is key to match it some type of reference book (which obviously can be bought etc), is that, I did my first grad studies in theology, Masters of Divinity. And my specialization was homiletic and systematic theology. Homiletics is the study of interpreting the bible for preaching -ok- I know this is getting really weird but. There are preachers that just preach from one line in the bible and they usually take it out of context and their are others that respect where the passage is coming from and it usually keeps them more honest to the point of the text. In the same way, I do want the book to act as that reference point, the fact that we also can make a referral fee from it is what I'd consider good project structuring, but is also what may be the grip of a lot of Tlers. But even if we did this section without a referral link, I'd still require a book as a reference point, why? Because in my opinion it does put some level of accountability and focus on the writer's content. So either way, there would have been a book or some external point of reference, but yes, we would like to also commercialize that point of reference. And not as a side, but structurally designed to do so along side the accountability/focus issue as well as the general contribution to the community the knowhow content.
Umm, that is called to present your sources. It is, again, very different from advertising... You may have heard of places like wikipedia that actually provide sources without trying to sell any books to you for profit.
Also, a source that you have to pay for to read is a horrible source. If the source of information is trying to earn money, they don't have correct information as the first goal any longer, but selling copies. Which leads to overly sensational titles, and radically overplaying it's own merit. In other words, not reliable.
For a good source, something like wikipedia, and indirectly the sources the wiki article points to, or even freely available scientific articles are much more credible. But by now it is pretty clear that the objective of this subforum is not to provide the TL readers with good information.
yes, you're absolutely right, it's not to provide TL readers with good information, its to provide them for knowhow and what that entails.
Please explain how forcing the author to use commercial pay-to-read sources instead of reliable publicly available scientific sources achieves this goal.
edit: and why would you even write that?? It doesn't at all address the point. You just nitpick on my choice of words, completely ignoring my point.... Do you see why you give an impression of all the things I called you earlier?
On July 17 2012 11:44 MightyAtom wrote: You're absolutely right, there is no connection to sharing knowledge and advertising, but it is the format of this particular section.
Well, this would be enough for me to shut this down at first glance.
All the other things you say doesn't at all change this fact, and it doesn't make it any less black and white. Most of it isn't even related to my concern. Again, why should we not do this in other subforums? You say that this is just a test. Does that mean that if this is successful, then you will start adding it to other subforums as well? As apparently a subforum not being at all connected to advertising seems to be a reason to start forcing people to advertise when posting in it.
It would seem like TL know how is a new answer for "how do I contribute to the community?" It would seem fitting that you're also throwing in a link that benefits TL. I don't think this will spread to other sub-forums on the basis that this is 'the contributor's corner' or something like that. The level of knowledge the writer must have most likely puts him above the average TLers age, so this constraint probably won't bother him as much as it would the writers in, say, the SC2 strategy section.
That being said, I agree that it's kind of a weird way of doing it, but there you are.
On July 17 2012 12:13 MightyAtom wrote: And I really didn't want to bring this up, but I will at this point. Why I really think it is key to match it some type of reference book (which obviously can be bought etc), is that, I did my first grad studies in theology, Masters of Divinity. And my specialization was homiletic and systematic theology. Homiletics is the study of interpreting the bible for preaching -ok- I know this is getting really weird but. There are preachers that just preach from one line in the bible and they usually take it out of context and their are others that respect where the passage is coming from and it usually keeps them more honest to the point of the text. In the same way, I do want the book to act as that reference point, the fact that we also can make a referral fee from it is what I'd consider good project structuring, but is also what may be the grip of a lot of Tlers. But even if we did this section without a referral link, I'd still require a book as a reference point, why? Because in my opinion it does put some level of accountability and focus on the writer's content. So either way, there would have been a book or some external point of reference, but yes, we would like to also commercialize that point of reference. And not as a side, but structurally designed to do so along side the accountability/focus issue as well as the general contribution to the community the knowhow content.
Umm, that is called to present your sources. It is, again, very different from advertising... You may have heard of places like wikipedia that actually provide sources without trying to sell any books to you for profit.
Also, a source that you have to pay for to read is a horrible source. If the source of information is trying to earn money, they don't have correct information as the first goal any longer, but selling copies. Which leads to overly sensational titles, and radically overplaying it's own merit. In other words, not reliable.
For a good source, something like wikipedia, and indirectly the sources the wiki article points to, or even freely available scientific articles are much more credible. But by now it is pretty clear that the objective of this subforum is not to provide the TL readers with good information.
yes, you're absolutely right, it's not to provide TL readers with good information, its to provide them for knowhow and what that entails.
Please explain how forcing the author to use commercial pay-to-read sources instead of reliable publicly available scientific sources achieves this goal.
On July 17 2012 11:44 MightyAtom wrote: You're absolutely right, there is no connection to sharing knowledge and advertising, but it is the format of this particular section.
Well, this would be enough for me to shut this down at first glance.
All the other things you say doesn't at all change this fact, and it doesn't make it any less black and white. Most of it isn't even related to my concern. Again, why should we not do this in other subforums? You say that this is just a test. Does that mean that if this is successful, then you will start adding it to other subforums as well? As apparently a subforum not being at all connected to advertising seems to be a reason to start forcing people to advertise when posting in it.
It would seem like TL know how is a new answer for "how do I contribute to the community?" It would seem fitting that you're also throwing in a link that benefits TL. I don't think this will spread to other sub-forums on the basis that this is 'the contributor's corner' or something like that. The level of knowledge the writer must have most likely puts him above the average TLers age, so this constraint probably won't bother him as much as it would the writers in, say, the SC2 strategy section.
That being said, I agree that it's kind of a weird way of doing it, but there you are.
Yeah, I see what you mean, and as I said earlier (nested in one of long posts possibly.. ), I would discuss + Show Spoiler +
not said I would support it, but it would deserve discussion from an "economical gain vs keeping coomunity happy"-perspective, while this subforum as it is now is an clear "no-way" at first glance.
the OPTION of including this kind of sponsored links. And then no reason to restrict them to one subforum. Just have it as option together with the "upload image" and other help you have just above the field where you write your posts. Introducing this by forcing it on every OP in a new subforum is highly arbitrary and makes no sense.
On July 17 2012 12:13 MightyAtom wrote: And I really didn't want to bring this up, but I will at this point. Why I really think it is key to match it some type of reference book (which obviously can be bought etc), is that, I did my first grad studies in theology, Masters of Divinity. And my specialization was homiletic and systematic theology. Homiletics is the study of interpreting the bible for preaching -ok- I know this is getting really weird but. There are preachers that just preach from one line in the bible and they usually take it out of context and their are others that respect where the passage is coming from and it usually keeps them more honest to the point of the text. In the same way, I do want the book to act as that reference point, the fact that we also can make a referral fee from it is what I'd consider good project structuring, but is also what may be the grip of a lot of Tlers. But even if we did this section without a referral link, I'd still require a book as a reference point, why? Because in my opinion it does put some level of accountability and focus on the writer's content. So either way, there would have been a book or some external point of reference, but yes, we would like to also commercialize that point of reference. And not as a side, but structurally designed to do so along side the accountability/focus issue as well as the general contribution to the community the knowhow content.
Umm, that is called to present your sources. It is, again, very different from advertising... You may have heard of places like wikipedia that actually provide sources without trying to sell any books to you for profit.
Also, a source that you have to pay for to read is a horrible source. If the source of information is trying to earn money, they don't have correct information as the first goal any longer, but selling copies. Which leads to overly sensational titles, and radically overplaying it's own merit. In other words, not reliable.
For a good source, something like wikipedia, and indirectly the sources the wiki article points to, or even freely available scientific articles are much more credible. But by now it is pretty clear that the objective of this subforum is not to provide the TL readers with good information.
yes, you're absolutely right, it's not to provide TL readers with good information, its to provide them for knowhow and what that entails.
Please explain how forcing the author to use commercial pay-to-read sources instead of reliable publicly available scientific sources achieves this goal.
edit: and why would you even write that?? It doesn't at all address the point. You just nitpick on my choice of words, completely ignoring my point.... Do you see why you give an impression of all the things I called you earlier?
Like earlier from your very first post? ^^ seriously, at this point, you understand the point of this section, nothing would preclude someone to linking to those publicly available scientific sources as well (although some very recent ones you do need to be subscribed to) and yes, you'd still need to include the link for the affiliate which you could just disregard and just go to the library or borrow from someone anyway.
Um. I think at this point, its clear that we should agree to disagree unless you want still keep doing this, but unless you have something else, then I'd rather we agree to disagree at this time. Cause again, you said, 'do you see why you give an impression...blah blah' while your first post clearly was already based on whatever your position was, and you second post and with your personal attacks, etc. It is hard to respond to you when you're obviously pissed off, so don't get all hurt and bothered here either, you can't play both sides mate.
So can we call the truce here cause I ain't really trying to fight you here. Cheers.
On July 17 2012 12:13 MightyAtom wrote: And I really didn't want to bring this up, but I will at this point. Why I really think it is key to match it some type of reference book (which obviously can be bought etc), is that, I did my first grad studies in theology, Masters of Divinity. And my specialization was homiletic and systematic theology. Homiletics is the study of interpreting the bible for preaching -ok- I know this is getting really weird but. There are preachers that just preach from one line in the bible and they usually take it out of context and their are others that respect where the passage is coming from and it usually keeps them more honest to the point of the text. In the same way, I do want the book to act as that reference point, the fact that we also can make a referral fee from it is what I'd consider good project structuring, but is also what may be the grip of a lot of Tlers. But even if we did this section without a referral link, I'd still require a book as a reference point, why? Because in my opinion it does put some level of accountability and focus on the writer's content. So either way, there would have been a book or some external point of reference, but yes, we would like to also commercialize that point of reference. And not as a side, but structurally designed to do so along side the accountability/focus issue as well as the general contribution to the community the knowhow content.
Umm, that is called to present your sources. It is, again, very different from advertising... You may have heard of places like wikipedia that actually provide sources without trying to sell any books to you for profit.
Also, a source that you have to pay for to read is a horrible source. If the source of information is trying to earn money, they don't have correct information as the first goal any longer, but selling copies. Which leads to overly sensational titles, and radically overplaying it's own merit. In other words, not reliable.
For a good source, something like wikipedia, and indirectly the sources the wiki article points to, or even freely available scientific articles are much more credible. But by now it is pretty clear that the objective of this subforum is not to provide the TL readers with good information.
yes, you're absolutely right, it's not to provide TL readers with good information, its to provide them for knowhow and what that entails.
Please explain how forcing the author to use commercial pay-to-read sources instead of reliable publicly available scientific sources achieves this goal.
edit: and why would you even write that?? It doesn't at all address the point. You just nitpick on my choice of words, completely ignoring my point.... Do you see why you give an impression of all the things I called you earlier?
Like earlier from your very first post? ^^ seriously, at this point, you understand the point of this section, nothing would preclude someone to linking to those publicly available scientific sources as well (although some very recent ones you do need to be subscribed to) and yes, you'd still need to include the link for the affiliate which you could just disregard and just go to the library or borrow from someone anyway.
Um. I think at this point, its clear that we should agree to disagree unless you want still keep doing this, but unless you have something else, then I'd rather we agree to disagree at this time. Cause again, you said, 'do you see why you give an impression...blah blah' while your first post clearly was already based on whatever your position was, and you second post and with your personal attacks, etc. It is hard to respond to you when you're obviously pissed off, so don't get all hurt and bothered here either, you can't play both sides mate.
So can we call the truce here cause I ain't really trying to fight you here. Cheers.
You really don't want to address the point I'm making, do you?
On July 17 2012 12:52 MightyAtom wrote: I just did, stop being a troll at this point.
No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more.
Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example:
1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in.
2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way.
3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before.
4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality.
On July 17 2012 12:52 MightyAtom wrote: I just did, stop being a troll at this point.
No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more.
Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example:
1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in.
2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way.
3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before.
4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality.
Address that please.
There is practically a book on absolutely everything no matter how specific, there is no 'bending' required.
The main difference is that here we start with an OP with a subject expert and then recommend a book for those who want to learn more.
It is different to going, TL you need to advertise a specific book, write something about that topic.
Therefore the vested interest does not affect the content of the post. The vested interest is to make money, not to sell a particular book.
I don't know about you but I have delved quite deep on some particular aspects of computer science, and nothing on the internet comes close to the books I have bought.
On July 17 2012 12:53 MightyAtom wrote: If you want to discuss this more, then let it rest for a few days and then pm me, you want to post up my response, it's up to you.
I don't see the point of PMing you. My problem is this subforum, not you as person. I don't care about you as a person, in the same way as you don't care about me. We are just handles on a forum... What we CAN do, is to post our arguments publicly here on the forum, to try to promote our viewpoints. But I guess you would prefer to write a book and sell it instead?
On July 17 2012 12:52 MightyAtom wrote: I just did, stop being a troll at this point.
No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more.
Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example:
1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in.
2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way.
3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before.
4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality.
Address that please.
There is practically a book on absolutely everything no matter how specific, there is no 'bending' required.
The main difference is that here we start with an OP with a subject expert and then recommend a book for those who want to learn more.
It is different to going, TL you need to advertise a specific book, write something about that topic.
Therefore the vested interest does not affect the content of the post. The vested interest is to make money, not to sell a particular book.
I don't know about you but I have delved quite deep on some particular aspects of computer science, and nothing on the internet comes close to the books I have bought.
Yes, if you feel that linking to a book makes sense, and would contribute to the OP, that is fine. Some OPs will not have a problem with this as you just gave an example of. Thus the "OPs that not naturally have a product to sell" in point 1. And this kind of "links that make sense" can pop up in any subforum, so no reason to not support these links all over TL at that point.
But other potential authors don't have a natural product to sell in that way. Like the previous poster in this thread, and me.
I can't believe I missed seeing this, good thing it appeared in the sidebar. So excited, it's unbelievable haha. Though wow, significant controversy in the comments.
Like Empyrean, I'd also like to have that made clear--is it required that a product be mentioned in the writing?
On July 17 2012 12:52 MightyAtom wrote: I just did, stop being a troll at this point.
No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more.
Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example:
1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in.
2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way.
3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before.
4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality.
Address that please.
Hey Cascade.
I'm not directly involved with TL Know How, so don't take my word as anything official. I definitely see where you're coming from though. It might be that the initial premise of TL Know How is too restrictive in scope and that the issues you bring to the table are going to hold the section back. Points 2 and 4 certainly seem like plausible issues that might arise down the line. At this moment in time, we think this is the best way to lay the ground work for the section - indeed its a more natural transition to go from something more restrictive to something less restrictive than the other way around.
As MA leads the section into the future, we'll be keeping an eye on how successful this feature becomes and internally evaluate whether the section is on track or not. For instance, if we see a lot of content posted outside of the forum that we think could/should have been 'know how' (with or without pay-to-read sources) then we know the section is off track. Right at this moment we're not seeing that, and we have quite a few people interested in contributing to the section. Of course this is still really early days so we're taking this observation with a grain of salt.
The beauty of hosting this feature in a forum environment is that we can adapt the section to suit the needs of the community over time (if the current section doesn't fulfill its goal). And we won't let the core concept behind this feature (the incredible power and knowledge of our user base) fall to the wayside if the current model fails.
I know this isn't any kind of concrete answer like you want, but hopefully it's sufficient for the time being.
Another question I have, and it may stem from ignorance, is whether there's a generic referral link to all amazon products from TL. I buy stuff from amazon every once in a while, and if it doesn't cost significantly more, I wouldn't mind taking a few months to support TL.
But back to my first question, are referral links required to open a thread in the TL KnowHow section? There seems to be some confusion here. I'm getting the feeling that they are, but I just want to be explicit here.
On July 17 2012 13:45 Empyrean wrote: Another question I have, and it may stem from ignorance, is whether there's a generic referral link to all amazon products from TL. I buy stuff from amazon every once in a while, and if it doesn't cost significantly more, I wouldn't mind taking a few months to support TL.
But back to my first question, are referral links required to open a thread in the TL KnowHow section? There seems to be some confusion here. I'm getting the feeling that they are, but I just want to be explicit here.
This is actually completely true, if you are to buy anything from Amazon, and use TL's referral link, we will get a % of the sale. While the % is miniscule, it does add up, which is why anytime we buy things at the TLHQ from Amazon we do this.
On July 17 2012 12:52 MightyAtom wrote: I just did, stop being a troll at this point.
No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more.
Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example:
1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in.
2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way.
3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before.
4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality.
Address that please.
As an obligation to this project I'm reply as directly as I can to your points, I would ask that you respect this effort, whether you agree or disagree, and let the matter lie for a couple of days.
1. If the OP is to first think of their knowhow and from their knowhow think to where there is a book or reference or product which adds to explaining the knowhow. If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum. We are not forcing anyone to write for this section or down grade their content. In my view, it helps me to add accountability and focus it from a AMA FAQ view, but if the addition of such reference material were to get in the way of that for whatever reason, then I would say, not to post in this particular section of TL.
2. Yes, I agree, but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section; your terminology of 'selling in a natural way' is besides the point, if the book is sold or not, it is irrelevant as the use can seek to go to the library and get it or not. What is critical is, if there is book or product to be referenced in the first place, as in point 1. " If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum."
3. It depends on what industry, for business you are 100% wrong. For medical journals you could be 100% right. But it depends on what industry/field.
4. Yes, I agree, but I refer to point 2, 'but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section' and the real crux of the issue is really the mentality. If they do not agree with it, then it is best that they simply post on their own accord wherever they would like to, other than the knowhow section. As it is their own mentality and therefore their own preference and choice, it is choice to participate and contribute or not, if not, then do not visit or post in this sub section. Your right to contribute what you'd like is not being restricted or restrained, but this section has requirements and if the commercial aspect of the requirement you find distasteful, then do not post here.
5. As to your final point. "TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality."
No one is forcing you Please understand this. And if someone was forcing you, I'd agree with you. Go post in blogs, much like every sub-forum, there are types of regulations like posting in dota2 should about dota2, but in general about general, and if its personal view, in blogs etc. In my case, the content quality was increased because I agree with the format, but for others like yourself it will not. So in your case, you should never post in this section and no one is forcing you to.
The ones that chose to write in this section will have their own responsibility to maintain a standard of quality as well as though me heading this sub section, if they think their writing will be comprised, then just go write in blogs or general, no one is required to share what they know. The ones that write do so with the full knowledge of the conditions in this particular situation and as volunteers obviously do not feel for themselves it is something negative.
On July 17 2012 12:52 MightyAtom wrote: I just did, stop being a troll at this point.
No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more.
Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example:
1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in.
2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way.
3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before.
4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality.
Address that please.
Hey Cascade.
I'm not directly involved with TL Know How, so don't take my word as anything official. I definitely see where you're coming from though. It might be that the initial premise of TL Know How is too restrictive in scope and that the issues you bring to the table are going to hold the section back. Points 2 and 4 certainly seem like plausible issues that might arise down the line. At this moment in time, we think this is the best way to lay the ground work for the section - indeed its a more natural transition to go from something more restrictive to something less restrictive than the other way around.
As MA leads the section into the future, we'll be keeping an eye on how successful this feature becomes and internally evaluate whether the section is on track or not. For instance, if we see a lot of content posted outside of the forum that we think could/should have been 'know how' (with or without pay-to-read sources) then we know the section is off track. Right at this moment we're not seeing that, and we have quite a few people interested in contributing to the section. Of course this is still really early days so we're taking this observation with a grain of salt.
The beauty of hosting this feature in a forum environment is that we can adapt the section to suit the needs of the community over time (if the current section doesn't fulfill its goal). And we won't let the core concept behind this feature (the incredible power and knowledge of our user base) fall to the wayside if the current model fails.
I know this isn't any kind of concrete answer like you want, but hopefully it's sufficient for the time being.
Hi plexa,
Thanks for reply.
I wasn't really asking any question though, or requiring any answer from the staff. I think it is clear to all what the motivation is behind the requirement of an advertisement in the OP.
The argument that it is more natural to go from something more restrictive sounds kindof weird to me. If the restriction doesn't make any sense, why would you apply it? You could by the same reason apply limits on including the word "teamliquid" at least 10 times in the post, or mention Koalas in two paragraphs or more. After all, it would be more natural to remove them afterwards that the other way around. I mean, the argument that it is easier to take it away that to add it later isn't really in it's own an argument to have it there.
The needs of the community? are you saying that the requirement of forcing advertisement in every OP is in the interest of the community rather than to earn money? Or is this the argument that money to TL is in the interest of the community?
I realise that this is testing the community for how much advertisements they will put up with, and it is not the first time. I am fine with the ads at the top and side, and I am fine with the shop. If that helps you get your HQ, do TSL etc, then great. But when you start putting restrictions, not possibilities, in how we can post, then it's too much imo.
Anyway, I think I have made my point some pages ago. We will see how this goes I guess. Maybe others are more ok with this restricting posting rule than I am.
On July 17 2012 12:52 MightyAtom wrote: I just did, stop being a troll at this point.
No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more.
Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example:
1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in.
2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way.
3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before.
4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality.
Address that please.
As an obligation to this project I'm reply as directly as I can to your points, I would ask that you respect this effort, whether you agree or disagree, and let the matter lie for a couple of days.
1. If the OP is to first think of their knowhow and from their knowhow think to where there is a book or reference or product which adds to explaining the knowhow. If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum. We are not forcing anyone to write for this section or down grade their content. In my view, it helps me to add accountability and focus it from a AMA FAQ view, but if the addition of such reference material were to get in the way of that for whatever reason, then I would say, not to post in this particular section of TL.
2. Yes, I agree, but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section; your terminology of 'selling in a natural way' is besides the point, if the book is sold or not, it is irrelevant as the use can seek to go to the library and get it or not. What is critical is, if there is book or product to be referenced in the first place, as in point 1. " If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum."
3. It depends on what industry, for business you are 100% wrong. For medical journals you could be 100% right. But it depends on what industry/field.
4. Yes, I agree, but I refer to point 2, 'but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section' and the real crux of the issue is really the mentality. If they do not agree with it, then it is best that they simply post on their own accord wherever they would like to, other than the knowhow section. As it is their own mentality and therefore their own preference and choice, it is choice to participate and contribute or not, if not, then do not visit or post in this sub section. Your right to contribute what you'd like is not being restricted or restrained, but this section has requirements and if the commercial aspect of the requirement you find distasteful, then do not post here.
5. As to your final point. "TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality."
No one is forcing you Please understand this. And if someone was forcing you, I'd agree with you. Go post in blogs, much like every sub-forum, there are types of regulations like posting in dota2 should about dota2, but in general about general, and if its personal view, in blogs etc. In my case, the content quality was increased because I agree with the format, but for others like yourself it will not. So in your case, you should never post in this section and no one is forcing you to.
The ones that chose to write in this section will have their own responsibility to maintain a standard of quality as well as though me heading this sub section, if they think their writing will be comprised, then just go write in blogs or general, no one is required to share what they know. The ones that write do so with the full knowledge of the conditions in this particular situation and as volunteers obviously do not feel for themselves it is something negative.
Thank you for your feedback.
Thanks for replying to the points.
So you say that no matter how high quality my knowhow article would be, if it is a field where sources are public, then you want them to post in general instead. Did I understand that correctly?
Don't you think that excluding all those areas would decrease the quality of the knowhow section? How about keeping the advertisement as an option (and why not add this option all over TL?), add a requirement for sources (pay-to-read or not), and get a knowhow subforum that actually spans all areas?
And don't give me the "it ads credibility" argument. If credibility is truly what you would want, you would have added a requirement for credible sources, not for something you can buy. The requirement for ads is to earn money. Everyone knows it, and it is even in the OP, let's not pretend anything else.
From what I understand, English being my second language and all, know how is the act of sharing experiences. I don't see how a link to amazon ever really fits in there.
I think that's my take on it. Otherwise I really love the idea of the sub forum. I think its' great that there's a knowledge base on TL.
Edit. Does the amazon link have to be relevant? Could I just post 'And here's a link to the A Song of Ice and Fire from TL-Amazon. Read it, it's awesome!'? As far as I understand it, the only reason this constriction is added is because TL needs more funding, rather than that it would in any way benefit the sub forum. It would seem to me like a second TL vote on the right bar of the forum with say 'game of the month', 'film of the month', 'book of the month' etc with links to amazon would be better ways to actually bring people to buy stuff through TL. Or maybe just let people know how to buy stuff through TL in the first place. The whole 'buy relevant books from amazon' seems like it doesn't have a lot of thought behind it, but what do I know.
On July 17 2012 12:52 MightyAtom wrote: I just did, stop being a troll at this point.
No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more.
Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example:
1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in.
2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way.
3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before.
4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality.
Address that please.
As an obligation to this project I'm reply as directly as I can to your points, I would ask that you respect this effort, whether you agree or disagree, and let the matter lie for a couple of days.
1. If the OP is to first think of their knowhow and from their knowhow think to where there is a book or reference or product which adds to explaining the knowhow. If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum. We are not forcing anyone to write for this section or down grade their content. In my view, it helps me to add accountability and focus it from a AMA FAQ view, but if the addition of such reference material were to get in the way of that for whatever reason, then I would say, not to post in this particular section of TL.
2. Yes, I agree, but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section; your terminology of 'selling in a natural way' is besides the point, if the book is sold or not, it is irrelevant as the use can seek to go to the library and get it or not. What is critical is, if there is book or product to be referenced in the first place, as in point 1. " If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum."
3. It depends on what industry, for business you are 100% wrong. For medical journals you could be 100% right. But it depends on what industry/field.
4. Yes, I agree, but I refer to point 2, 'but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section' and the real crux of the issue is really the mentality. If they do not agree with it, then it is best that they simply post on their own accord wherever they would like to, other than the knowhow section. As it is their own mentality and therefore their own preference and choice, it is choice to participate and contribute or not, if not, then do not visit or post in this sub section. Your right to contribute what you'd like is not being restricted or restrained, but this section has requirements and if the commercial aspect of the requirement you find distasteful, then do not post here.
5. As to your final point. "TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality."
No one is forcing you Please understand this. And if someone was forcing you, I'd agree with you. Go post in blogs, much like every sub-forum, there are types of regulations like posting in dota2 should about dota2, but in general about general, and if its personal view, in blogs etc. In my case, the content quality was increased because I agree with the format, but for others like yourself it will not. So in your case, you should never post in this section and no one is forcing you to.
The ones that chose to write in this section will have their own responsibility to maintain a standard of quality as well as though me heading this sub section, if they think their writing will be comprised, then just go write in blogs or general, no one is required to share what they know. The ones that write do so with the full knowledge of the conditions in this particular situation and as volunteers obviously do not feel for themselves it is something negative.
Thank you for your feedback.
Thanks for replying to the points.
So you say that no matter how high quality my knowhow article would be, if it is a field where sources are public, then you want them to post in general instead. Did I understand that correctly?
Don't you think that excluding all those areas would decrease the quality of the knowhow section? How about keeping the advertisement as an option (and why not add this option all over TL?), add a requirement for sources (pay-to-read or not), and get a knowhow subforum that actually spans all areas?
And don't give me the "it ads credibility" argument. If credibility is truly what you would want, you would have added a requirement for credible sources, not for something you can buy. The requirement for ads is to earn money. Everyone knows it, and it is even in the OP, let's not pretend anything else.
1. No you did not understand that correctly, you can add in all the sources you want, but if you still do not meet the criteria of this section, go post it as your own thread in blogs or wherever else you'd like to share it. I do not understand how you cannot understand that this is a requirement for this section. Meet the requirements that meet the format, if you cannot do so without lowering the quality of your work, do not post in the section.
2. Quality no, scope perhaps. We're not looking to put random adds all over the place either or supervise them in other sections, we're running this as a trial in this section with volunteers. Nothing precludes you from sharing your knowledge with your sources, but not in this section if you don't abide by the criteria which the reader themselves can choose to purchase or not or simply borrow from the library.
On the flip side, aside from the commercial criteria, if a writer wanted to write on running a business, but was a 1st year business student with no experience and it was based on a good book he read, unfortunately he would not meet the criteria as well. There has always been 2 aspects of these posts, that the writer understands that they are providing a high level of select knowhow and it is tied to a possible commercial gain for TL via a referral link. Should the writer be fine with it, then they would write the article. For me and others (13 volunteers at this point), the fact that their time and effort can both be used to share their experience and be a possible source of minor financial gain, is appealing to them. To others it is not, so they are free to post without any format or restrictions, but not in this particular section. But in the case of certain industries and professions, tying it to a book or product may be much easier than others, such as business. We will trial this to see how it goes.
3. "And don't give the 'it ad credibility' argument..." I don't see how you think a book that you can have the option to buy is not credible, I buy text books, biographies, etc, they are all credible sources of information; also, they don't need to buy the book, also, of course the requirement for the ad referral is commercial. Of course everyone knows it, of course it is in the OP, who is denying it? But there is a functional reason for it as well which I've explained to say, we have considered the format in its entirety, we just didn't just tack on this requirement, and yes we hope it does keep the thread more focused and not a free for all AMA FAQ thread. But this is secondary and goes hand in hand with the commercial purpose. Which no one has denied or pretended otherwise.
On July 17 2012 12:52 MightyAtom wrote: I just did, stop being a troll at this point.
No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more.
Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example:
1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in.
2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way.
3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before.
4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality.
Address that please.
As an obligation to this project I'm reply as directly as I can to your points, I would ask that you respect this effort, whether you agree or disagree, and let the matter lie for a couple of days.
1. If the OP is to first think of their knowhow and from their knowhow think to where there is a book or reference or product which adds to explaining the knowhow. If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum. We are not forcing anyone to write for this section or down grade their content. In my view, it helps me to add accountability and focus it from a AMA FAQ view, but if the addition of such reference material were to get in the way of that for whatever reason, then I would say, not to post in this particular section of TL.
2. Yes, I agree, but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section; your terminology of 'selling in a natural way' is besides the point, if the book is sold or not, it is irrelevant as the use can seek to go to the library and get it or not. What is critical is, if there is book or product to be referenced in the first place, as in point 1. " If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum."
3. It depends on what industry, for business you are 100% wrong. For medical journals you could be 100% right. But it depends on what industry/field.
4. Yes, I agree, but I refer to point 2, 'but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section' and the real crux of the issue is really the mentality. If they do not agree with it, then it is best that they simply post on their own accord wherever they would like to, other than the knowhow section. As it is their own mentality and therefore their own preference and choice, it is choice to participate and contribute or not, if not, then do not visit or post in this sub section. Your right to contribute what you'd like is not being restricted or restrained, but this section has requirements and if the commercial aspect of the requirement you find distasteful, then do not post here.
5. As to your final point. "TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality."
No one is forcing you Please understand this. And if someone was forcing you, I'd agree with you. Go post in blogs, much like every sub-forum, there are types of regulations like posting in dota2 should about dota2, but in general about general, and if its personal view, in blogs etc. In my case, the content quality was increased because I agree with the format, but for others like yourself it will not. So in your case, you should never post in this section and no one is forcing you to.
The ones that chose to write in this section will have their own responsibility to maintain a standard of quality as well as though me heading this sub section, if they think their writing will be comprised, then just go write in blogs or general, no one is required to share what they know. The ones that write do so with the full knowledge of the conditions in this particular situation and as volunteers obviously do not feel for themselves it is something negative.
Thank you for your feedback.
Thanks for replying to the points.
So you say that no matter how high quality my knowhow article would be, if it is a field where sources are public, then you want them to post in general instead. Did I understand that correctly?
Don't you think that excluding all those areas would decrease the quality of the knowhow section? How about keeping the advertisement as an option (and why not add this option all over TL?), add a requirement for sources (pay-to-read or not), and get a knowhow subforum that actually spans all areas?
And don't give me the "it ads credibility" argument. If credibility is truly what you would want, you would have added a requirement for credible sources, not for something you can buy. The requirement for ads is to earn money. Everyone knows it, and it is even in the OP, let's not pretend anything else.
1. No you did not understand that correctly, you can add in all the sources you want, but if you still do not meet the criteria of this section, go post it as your own thread in blogs or wherever else you'd like to share it. I do not understand how you cannot understand that this is a requirement for this section. Meet the requirements that meet the format, if you cannot do so without lowering the quality of your work, do not post in the section.
2. Quality no, scope perhaps. We're not looking to put random adds all over the place either or supervise them in other sections, we're running this as a trial in this section with volunteers. Nothing precludes you from sharing your knowledge with your sources, but not in this section if you don't abide by the criteria which the reader themselves can choose to purchase or not or simply borrow from the library.
On the flip side, aside from the commercial criteria, if a writer wanted to write on running a business, but was a 1st year business student with no experience and it was based on a good book he read, unfortunately he would not meet the criteria as well. There has always been 2 aspects of these posts, that the writer understands that they are providing a high level of select knowhow and it is tied to a possible commercial gain for TL via a referral link. Should the writer be fine with it, then they would write the article. For me and others (13 volunteers at this point), the fact that their time and effort can both be used to share their experience and be a possible source of minor financial gain, is appealing to them. To others it is not, so they are free to post without any format or restrictions, but not in this particular section. But in the case of certain industries and professions, tying it to a book or product may be much easier than others, such as business. We will trial this to see how it goes.
3. "And don't give the 'it ad credibility' argument..." I don't see how you think a book that you can have the option to buy is not credible, I buy text books, biographies, etc, they are all credible sources of information; also, they don't need to buy the book, also, of course the requirement for the ad referral is commercial. Of course everyone knows it, of course it is in the OP, who is denying it? But there is a functional reason for it as well which I've explained to say, we have considered the format in its entirety, we just didn't just tack on this requirement, and yes we hope it does keep the thread more focused and not a free for all AMA FAQ thread. But this is secondary and goes hand in hand with the commercial purpose. Which no one has denied or pretended otherwise.
hi!
1. It seems we agree on this. Not sure where the misunderstanding is. If I write a knowhow OP on a subject with free sources, but do not include a sponsored link (because it wouldn't be relevant), you want me to post in another subforum, such as blogs or general. Isn't that what both of us are saying?
2. Yes, if you keep only the OPs that can keep high quality with the ads, then yes, you will only lose quantity. But isn't the volume of knowhow articles that actually is in this subforum important for this project? ie, the subforum will lose quality, as it will contain only a fraction of the articles it could have.
3. No, reliability is not an argument for requiring ads, because you can reassure reliability much better by requiring sources (which you already do as well). So the requirement of ads do not add anything in terms of reliability.
Anyway, now that you replied to my point, I think we are reaching some kind of end to our discussion. Agree? I think we both have said what we wanted? I think I have at least. Also, I have to leave for today, but I'll be back tomorrow if more comes up I guess. Also want to say that the idea of the subforum isn't a bad one (although it may overlap with wikipedia a bit. ), and that it is only the ads that bothers me. So well, good luck with the information sharing.
tbh, something like this is cool but i dont think it is needed in TL. This is not something that is Teamliquid-like and not something that people came here for. Its like trying to look up a video in google translate, no one do that. As the forum is already as big as it is, keeping the amount of contents at a certain level will help the site out a lot in term of visual appearance.
Imo its best just to keep a thread that keep the shortcut(archive) to all the highlighted threads/blog and make it a new search category is more than enough.
On July 17 2012 12:52 MightyAtom wrote: I just did, stop being a troll at this point.
No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more.
Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example:
1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in.
2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way.
3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before.
4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality.
Address that please.
As an obligation to this project I'm reply as directly as I can to your points, I would ask that you respect this effort, whether you agree or disagree, and let the matter lie for a couple of days.
1. If the OP is to first think of their knowhow and from their knowhow think to where there is a book or reference or product which adds to explaining the knowhow. If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum. We are not forcing anyone to write for this section or down grade their content. In my view, it helps me to add accountability and focus it from a AMA FAQ view, but if the addition of such reference material were to get in the way of that for whatever reason, then I would say, not to post in this particular section of TL.
2. Yes, I agree, but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section; your terminology of 'selling in a natural way' is besides the point, if the book is sold or not, it is irrelevant as the use can seek to go to the library and get it or not. What is critical is, if there is book or product to be referenced in the first place, as in point 1. " If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum."
3. It depends on what industry, for business you are 100% wrong. For medical journals you could be 100% right. But it depends on what industry/field.
4. Yes, I agree, but I refer to point 2, 'but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section' and the real crux of the issue is really the mentality. If they do not agree with it, then it is best that they simply post on their own accord wherever they would like to, other than the knowhow section. As it is their own mentality and therefore their own preference and choice, it is choice to participate and contribute or not, if not, then do not visit or post in this sub section. Your right to contribute what you'd like is not being restricted or restrained, but this section has requirements and if the commercial aspect of the requirement you find distasteful, then do not post here.
5. As to your final point. "TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality."
No one is forcing you Please understand this. And if someone was forcing you, I'd agree with you. Go post in blogs, much like every sub-forum, there are types of regulations like posting in dota2 should about dota2, but in general about general, and if its personal view, in blogs etc. In my case, the content quality was increased because I agree with the format, but for others like yourself it will not. So in your case, you should never post in this section and no one is forcing you to.
The ones that chose to write in this section will have their own responsibility to maintain a standard of quality as well as though me heading this sub section, if they think their writing will be comprised, then just go write in blogs or general, no one is required to share what they know. The ones that write do so with the full knowledge of the conditions in this particular situation and as volunteers obviously do not feel for themselves it is something negative.
Thank you for your feedback.
Thanks for replying to the points.
So you say that no matter how high quality my knowhow article would be, if it is a field where sources are public, then you want them to post in general instead. Did I understand that correctly?
Don't you think that excluding all those areas would decrease the quality of the knowhow section? How about keeping the advertisement as an option (and why not add this option all over TL?), add a requirement for sources (pay-to-read or not), and get a knowhow subforum that actually spans all areas?
And don't give me the "it ads credibility" argument. If credibility is truly what you would want, you would have added a requirement for credible sources, not for something you can buy. The requirement for ads is to earn money. Everyone knows it, and it is even in the OP, let's not pretend anything else.
1. No you did not understand that correctly, you can add in all the sources you want, but if you still do not meet the criteria of this section, go post it as your own thread in blogs or wherever else you'd like to share it. I do not understand how you cannot understand that this is a requirement for this section. Meet the requirements that meet the format, if you cannot do so without lowering the quality of your work, do not post in the section.
2. Quality no, scope perhaps. We're not looking to put random adds all over the place either or supervise them in other sections, we're running this as a trial in this section with volunteers. Nothing precludes you from sharing your knowledge with your sources, but not in this section if you don't abide by the criteria which the reader themselves can choose to purchase or not or simply borrow from the library.
On the flip side, aside from the commercial criteria, if a writer wanted to write on running a business, but was a 1st year business student with no experience and it was based on a good book he read, unfortunately he would not meet the criteria as well. There has always been 2 aspects of these posts, that the writer understands that they are providing a high level of select knowhow and it is tied to a possible commercial gain for TL via a referral link. Should the writer be fine with it, then they would write the article. For me and others (13 volunteers at this point), the fact that their time and effort can both be used to share their experience and be a possible source of minor financial gain, is appealing to them. To others it is not, so they are free to post without any format or restrictions, but not in this particular section. But in the case of certain industries and professions, tying it to a book or product may be much easier than others, such as business. We will trial this to see how it goes.
3. "And don't give the 'it ad credibility' argument..." I don't see how you think a book that you can have the option to buy is not credible, I buy text books, biographies, etc, they are all credible sources of information; also, they don't need to buy the book, also, of course the requirement for the ad referral is commercial. Of course everyone knows it, of course it is in the OP, who is denying it? But there is a functional reason for it as well which I've explained to say, we have considered the format in its entirety, we just didn't just tack on this requirement, and yes we hope it does keep the thread more focused and not a free for all AMA FAQ thread. But this is secondary and goes hand in hand with the commercial purpose. Which no one has denied or pretended otherwise.
hi!
1. It seems we agree on this. Not sure where the misunderstanding is. If I write a knowhow OP on a subject with free sources, but do not include a sponsored link (because it wouldn't be relevant), you want me to post in another subforum, such as blogs or general. Isn't that what both of us are saying?
2. Yes, if you keep only the OPs that can keep high quality with the ads, then yes, you will only lose quantity. But isn't the volume of knowhow articles that actually is in this subforum important for this project? ie, the subforum will lose quality, as it will contain only a fraction of the articles it could have.
3. No, reliability is not an argument for requiring ads, because you can reassure reliability much better by requiring sources (which you already do as well). So the requirement of ads do not add anything in terms of reliability.
Anyway, now that you replied to my point, I think we are reaching some kind of end to our discussion. Agree? I think we both have said what we wanted? I think I have at least. Also, I have to leave for today, but I'll be back tomorrow if more comes up I guess. Also want to say that the idea of the subforum isn't a bad one (although it may overlap with wikipedia a bit. ), and that it is only the ads that bothers me. So well, good luck with the information sharing.
Hi! Thank you for your post, sincerely. I don't have all the answers at this point, but of course, everyone in TL staff knew that anything commercial would be controversial to some degree, but yes, its not that I disagree with fundamentally anything you've said about number of articles, and quality in terms of the context of the sub forum as a whole, but I have a specific objective here and I am testing things out with this project.
And yes I fully agree, that we are reaching the end of our discussion, and really, if I could just say, make it optional, I would, but I want to trial the model first and see what does come out. I think if there was no commercial requirement at all, it would be best for growth, but why do we put it in, especially if we knew it was going to 100% bother people? Of course it was my stance on this, but we put it in because there is a commercial object to it. Does that make me evil to want to do so, do I really want to exclude TLers from sharing their knowledge or stunting the potential of this subjection, of course not (well maybe I am evil), but I also want to give this black sheep a chance to see if in TL can we introduce a non-invasive revenue stream that also brings really exceptional content along with it.
Maybe this will fail, maybe it will be moderately successful, maybe it won't be until six months later, but I want to give it chance to stand or fail as it really is. Hopefully a great service, but like every hybrid, it won't be the best of both worlds, it won't generate lots of cash, it won't have the broadest scope, but as a trial, it may give me an idea how to best structure and advice TL on how to develop over the coming years.
It's not something that normally would be spoken in the open, but I was questioned quite thoroughly when the idea of this project first came together about 5 months ago now by a very senior member of TL. And my response ultimately was one that, I don't know where e-sports is going in the future, it could be great and mainstream or it could hit the dark ages again like between the SCBW period and SC2 (in an international context), but regardless, I have a skill set that this advising companies, - not how to make money- but how to be at their best in any competitive or market situation. My skill set, isn't romantic, at times it is pretty evil cause sometimes you need to crush other competitors, but its what I have to contribute to TL which I do adore, as is.
And regardless of what happens in the future, I would like TL to be as TL as it can be, but also if it can be more, then be more and take up whatever role it needs to take up at the forefront of SC2 or just be in the best position it can until the next coming of SC3 or something to that end. I don't know, but I'd like TL to be prepared and for me it is a matter of keeping what is good about TL intact, but also fortifying it on an organizational and financial side. This is my first project is this regards, I haven't contributed much aside from some advice from experience that I have, but I am good at what I do. And I can't see where esports is going, good or bad, but I would like to see that TL is always there as a vibrant part of the scene. For me, there is a strategic component to everything, while this may not be the more relatable section to most now, it may grow over a period of a few years into something a gem of resource that does a double duty, like a pylon (supply & energy) or eg. content/funds.
But for me, on a practical level, why make the link required now, because if it can work at a minimal level, then the funds can be reinvested to actually hire full time staff or give the writers some token appreciation (as we've mentioned in the OP). While it may always be basically a volunteer run sub-section in essence (cause of the worth of the writers can't actually be compensated at that level), I can know whether or not this will be a self sufficient operation or when it may be a self sufficient operation and plan accordingly and understand where TL is at as an entity in some level of transition. To that I need to know as soon as I can if the entire basic premise of this approach is acceptable/applicable to TL in practice. If not, there will be changes or the sub section will simply putter out, but I do want to see if this black sheep pylon can work.
I'm very thankful to the TL higher ups for allowing me to contribute, it ain't pretty thus far, but I'd like to think that I do know what I'm doing and not to let anyone down in this regard. Cascade thanks for your end of the day post, I appreciate it, i don't know if I stepped over the line in explaining my view point or whether people will buy it as sincere, but this is the way I'm contributing as well.
I rather just help out people when I can. Not that it has happened yet via TL but I doubt people are waiting on an article discussing VHDL and satellite payload processing
On July 17 2012 21:16 Kareltje wrote: I rather just help out people when I can. Not that it has happened yet via TL but I doubt people are waiting on an article discussing VHDL and satellite payload processing
Hey, why not? Give it a go if you have the time ^^
On July 17 2012 21:16 Kareltje wrote: I rather just help out people when I can. Not that it has happened yet via TL but I doubt people are waiting on an article discussing VHDL and satellite payload processing
I have a book on VHDL that I highly recommend....I just need to find it...
I read this yesterday and immediately thought; "Yes, this is something I can contribute to!". For all those who are who are coming out against this idea, I urge you to hold off on judging this new venture until at least the first handful of user-submitted articles have been posted? It may indeed all come down exactly as you fear, and be a cesspool of poorly written articles shilling products that are useless to you.
It may also look nothing like that and instead be a place where you can go to learn about things you were never (but should have been) taught in school. It may be a place where you'll find thoughful, well written pieces by people who share your passion for Starcraft. It may be that when someone with 20 years of automotive experience tells you that buying a used car off a guys lawn without reviewing the carfax report is like 6 pooling on a four player map, you might finally go "Oh! I get it now!"
Be patient. Be respectful. Let's see where this thing goes.
I like the idea of this section, especially that only high quality content will be posted I also like the possibility to support TL.net financially
I do NOT like however, that this will be achieved though amazon.com ref-links only
I find the requirement of the amazon-links distracting for my reading experience. Since I KNOW a link will be there at the end of the blog/article I always feel like reading a text meant to advertise this product. (I know this will be far from the truth for most articles here, but still. If providing a link would be optional, I would know for sure that the author chose the book solely because it adds to the article and most likely did not alter the way the article is written, which adds a lot of credibility) Also, since most links will be directed to amazon.com (I guess), this feature is actually not very useful for me since I live in Germany and will avoid the shipping costs. Even worse scenario: maybe I want to support TL because of the article but I really don't want to spend 15$+ on a book (maybe because the article was good enough on its own), what am I going to do? I probably wont do anything and just go on to the next topic :/
In my opinion, a better option would be to make the amazon-links optional, but include some kind of donation system to every entry. This will ensure that books etc. posted will add to the experience where necessary, but also offers a way to (directly!) support TL and maybe the author. I am much more willing to donate 1-2$ to TL directly (I could be split 80-20 between TL and the author too) than buying a book for 15$ in most cases
Anyway, I'm exited to see where this section of TL is heading and what the first user-contributions look will look like
This section is going to rock. Can't wait to see what comes out of it! I've taken so many products recommendations from TLers over the past couple years, from beer to cars so this is like that on steroids :D
On July 17 2012 23:22 gilden wrote: I read this yesterday and immediately thought; "Yes, this is something I can contribute to!". For all those who are who are coming out against this idea, I urge you to hold off on judging this new venture until at least the first handful of user-submitted articles have been posted? It may indeed all come down exactly as you fear, and be a cesspool of poorly written articles shilling products that are useless to you.
It may also look nothing like that and instead be a place where you can go to learn about things you were never (but should have been) taught in school. It may be a place where you'll find thoughful, well written pieces by people who share your passion for Starcraft. It may be that when someone with 20 years of automotive experience tells you that buying a used car off a guys lawn without reviewing the carfax report is like 6 pooling on a four player map, you might finally go "Oh! I get it now!"
Be patient. Be respectful. Let's see where this thing goes.
I don't think anyone has actually said that. You might want to actually, you know, read the posts..
Instead of it being a requirement to post a section, the Amazon referral links could be obtained through community input or discussion in a dedicated thread to the contribution. They could then be compiled and added in a second section below the contribution where people can then click on them to both see the original post it was recommended in and to the link where it can be purchased.
Certain people maybe possess a greater capacity to write clearly and eloquently on a subject, but I am sure there are also many knowledgable people who can contribute certain parts or ideas to the concept being explained. For example, a submitter may have years of technical experience in a certain field, but not necessary remember what it is like to learn the subject. Things may appear second nature to them that are in reality complicated concepts. A different poster who may be comparably inexperienced overall, may be able to contribute a book or computer program that has greatly helped them in understanding certain aspect of the issue.
In this way, the referral link is less of a barrier and does not appear as forced upon the contribution. And the resulting list of suggested materials would have an organic web of knowledge not only to the core issue being explained, but also to supporting works and alternative selections. I would also think this would lead to more relevant links overall and thus a greater chance of TL obtaining a potential commision.
Let me break it up to the two sides: Reader: -the criteria here was that something was non invasive, that the reader could click or not but that wouldn't interfere with the actual content. -it was in the North American context to start and with Amazon it was the easiest to trial with, in the future we could expand it, but again, we really have zero expectations for readers to actually click on the links -so why do it,? the model is supposed to be as close to an optional donation as possible, except that should you decide to purchase the book via the link then for no extra cost to the reader, TL would get a small x% of the sale. -the book isn't supposed to be forced on the reader, again, the expectations for referrals is zero except for the fact, the book is being sincerely recommended by those who have used it and endorse it.
For the writer: -Ok honestly for myself, I read about a book every 2 weeks and in my profession of business strategy and marketing, books are a key source of learning and keeping up with things -I have made the assumption that this is true for most other professionals or industries -This assumption may not be true for very unique or very academic oriented fields -*BUT* what is clear thus far, that outside of manufacturing and business, the concept of *knowhow* is not something that most people are familiar with and thus lies some additional confusion -The text/book that I had always envisioned that writers would be keen to present would be more along two types: reference / experience -reference being that: if knowhow is a process then a reference text that acts as the framework is always needed -experience being that: knowhow as a process is formed via the act of experiences in different scenarios (eg the ah ha moment), such as a book giving insight and inspiring or understanding things in greater clarity
In essence the original concept was more along the lines of a book review club, but it was deemed to be to limiting in a scope, but in practice, it is what we've started with as examples.
For me, it is hard to separate anything I do without relating to some book that I've read or been exposed to, in that respect, everyone can do the job, but in my particular field, it is all about the small edges that win the day and it comes via experience but of course a lot of self learning and then applying that to one's experience.
I haven't understood having a book as a restrictive element as it is more meant to be a reference book and to put the knowhow presented in the post into context or give it a more indepth background. And so, if you approach the TL Knowhow section as more like a wikipedia entry of knowledge, then having a book doesn't really make sense, but again, knowhow and knowledge are two very different things and this is where additional confusion about this section may lie.
I'm going give a very basic but hopefully relateable analogy of what is knowhow opposed to knowledge and note that while they are very very similar, knowhow is the application of knowledge to make something more optimal, efficient or to get there faster.
Knowhow Pop Culture Example:
In the movie, Harry Potter and the Half Blooded Prince, Mr. Potter is in his new semesters potion making class and everyone is asked to grab a text book to begin the semester. Unfortunately Mr. Potter is unable to grab one of the new shiny text books and is left with a drab old used text book, while everyone is proud of their new shiny ones.
As Mr. Potter, is resigned to his crappy old ugly text book, as he opens it up, it says that it was owned by the 'half blooded prince' and in the margins of the recipes of each of the potions there are additional instructions. In fact, sometimes the recipe itself is slightly changed as well, with words like, 'cut' are crossed out and replaced with 'mash', and even the number of drops are changed, every so slightly from 2 to 1 or the speed at which you stir, from regular to very slowly.
Mr. Potter thinks really nothing of it until potion making actually begins and as Ms. Hermione Granger dives straight into the process following the text book word for word as well as the other students eager to get as many brownie points as possible, chaos and hilarity ensues as there are explosions and mishaps and failed potions everywhere.
Mr. Potter pauses and then instead of following the exact recipes for the potions, he follows the adjusted recipes and instead of cutting, he mashes; instead of just pouring the liquids together, he stirs them in and in the end, he is left with perfect potions.
Now this is a basic example of knowhow, whereby the recipes are fundamentally correct, but they aren't optimized or explained to maximize the success rate or quality or to give understanding. Thus, via experience or an acute understanding the process has been made optimized more than the standard of what people normally would do. It is like having gun powder and with the exact same gun powder I can make my rocket go 500 m, but some other guy can make his go 800 m, the materials are the same, but the results are different.
In the case of life processes, there is knowhow in everything we do, and it is the difference between learning something from a book or learning from a master, the base knowledge is the same, this does that, but the application of that knowledge (knowhow) is vastly different.
When most people start off their careers in research, they have a bitch of time getting materials together. While things are better now, getting different web page texts into a perfectly formated word document was hell 10 years ago. You could get all your material cut and pasted together, but then spend 4 agonizing hours to get it formatted to be presented in a nice document for the senior manager with all the same margins and formatting (say you are putting it together from 20 different sites, it was difficult), but there is a very very simple knowhow which is a single step. Which, I would make interns suffer for a few days of hair splitting before I shared. Simply because if I told them at the beginning the wouldn't think much of it and not appreciate the knowhow I had bestowed upon them and just think that the job was just stupidly easy.
But I won't share that here, haha, but my point is, just like in Karate kid (the very first one, and I suppose the latest one), Mr. Miyagi or Mr. Jackie Chan, has some weird training methods, like wax on wax off, or jacket on jacket off, but it comes from knowhow as to what really is important, ie. the natural reflexive movement.
I will be working with the writers to flush out the knowhow, but again, the entire section is very ambition for both its content and what is hoping to set as foundation moving forward. Obviously we're not trying to make another wikipedia here, definitely not, not in concept or intent, but again, as a repository of knowhow across a lot of disciplines at an entry level, I would say this is a first. Many large companies have a lot of knowhow that is given via training seminars or held within their company's intra net, etc.
But it is a work in progress and for a lot of commenters who are just reading the OP, and have questions, please read maybe a couple of the current TL knowhow posts to get a better idea where things are moving.
Thanks for the solid replys and I see where you are coming from with the comparison from Harry Potter. Speaking as a current university student, I guess the idea of books or at least textbooks has jaded me. Often overpriced and relatively outdated. Professors often say that even though it may be old the basic concepts are there, which is exactly counter to the emphasis on the subtle details you described. For me and engineering, I sometimes like to try and find a video demonstration of a principle or concept, or even similar lectures by different professors whereby comparing their differences seems to highlight the subtle details from the core concepts. Again this is only a personal opinion of mine and I definitely understand the overall goal is a more practical and worldy sort of tool to help apply the abstract concepts floating around. (Hope I'm not mistaken on this. )
I understand this is experimental and still extremely early in development. Obviously have a potential monetary upside to TL is nothing, but good and establishing those kinds of deals and systems takes time. I look forward to the day when the successful TLKnowHow team and Liquidpedia team get into gang-like turf wars across the website.
On July 18 2012 10:32 Torpedo.Vegas wrote: Thanks for the solid replys and I see where you are coming from with the comparison from Harry Potter. Speaking as a current university student, I guess the idea of books or at least textbooks has jaded me. Often overpriced and relatively outdated. Professors often say that even though it may be old the basic concepts are there, which is exactly counter to the emphasis on the subtle details you described. For me and engineering, I sometimes like to try and find a video demonstration of a principle or concept, or even similar lectures by different professors whereby comparing their differences seems to highlight the subtle details from the core concepts. Again this is only a personal opinion of mine and I definitely understand the overall goal is a more practical and worldy sort of tool to help apply the abstract concepts floating around. (Hope I'm not mistaken on this. )
I understand this is experimental and still extremely early in development. Obviously have a potential monetary upside to TL is nothing, but good and establishing those kinds of deals and systems takes time. I look forward to the day when the successful TLKnowHow team and Liquidpedia team get into gang-like turf wars across the website.
haha, i hope so, but yeah, you got the idea of knowhow bang on, but it is very much a work in progress and testing the waters out. But we have a good number of contributors now who are banging away, so lets see what the final formats are like. I mean, we'll do what we can to make this work. ^^
On July 17 2012 17:24 MightyAtom wrote: I don't have all the answers at this point, but of course, everyone in TL staff knew that anything commercial would be controversial to some degree, but yes, its not that I disagree with fundamentally anything you've said about number of articles, and quality in terms of the context of the sub forum as a whole, but I have a specific objective here and I am testing things out with this project.
Ok, I am fine with this. I think I just wanted you to admit publicly that you sacrifice quality of the knowhow section for money.
As a user, I am of course not happy about quality being compromised for money, but if that is the direction you, and TL, want to go, I have no means to stop you.
I'm happy we reached an end to the discussion, thanks for the patience.
On July 17 2012 17:24 MightyAtom wrote: I don't have all the answers at this point, but of course, everyone in TL staff knew that anything commercial would be controversial to some degree, but yes, its not that I disagree with fundamentally anything you've said about number of articles, and quality in terms of the context of the sub forum as a whole, but I have a specific objective here and I am testing things out with this project.
Ok, I am fine with this. I think I just wanted you to admit publicly that you sacrifice quality of the knowhow section for money.
As a user, I am of course not happy about quality being compromised for money, but if that is the direction you, and TL, want to go, I have no means to stop you.
I'm happy we reached an end to the discussion, thanks for the patience.
I think it's a bit harsh to say that quality is being sacrificed about something which might not even have been possible unless there was the potential for monetary revenue. While i agree that the section might have more potential without this "book rule" remember this is an experiment, for all we know the need for a written source could prove to, in most fields, srve as a filter only letting the properly good articles through, or it could not. It could drive anyway a whole bunch of amazing articles which could otherwise have been written for this section or it could not.
The way i see this is as an experiment, and if it turns out that a noticeable amount quality is indeed being sacrificed then i have all faith that the tl staff will notice this and bend the rules, but as mightyatom says, anything which doesn't have book sources can just be posted where it would otherwise have been posted, so noone loses anything. Just because teamliquid's vision of a small section of articles on various subjects with links to books for further reading (and mabye a little profit) if it interests you doesn't line up with your vision of a section where helpful articles on all topics can be found doesn't mean that liquid's is worse, it's just a different kind of thing they are creating.
For the record i agree with you on the book rule, (which i find a bit arbitrary) but I fail to see what making mightyatom say "i admit i'm selling out quality for money" will possibly achieve. This is an experiment, so i see nothing wrong with liquid experimenting with a new form of advertising as well, it will either work or it won't, so lets just wait and see
Edit: i'm not trying to restart the entire discussion, just expressing my views and as they are similar to yours, i decided just to highlight yours and then explain my differences. Not trying to restart the entire argument again.
Edit: I'm having quite a hard time understanding why the book recommendation thing is causing such a fit but it's probably my misunderstanding. I thought some guy with a lot of knowledge writes it down and attaches a referral link to a book on amazon that might help someone else out. What's the deal with that? It's not like the writer is forced to write a document completely in line with a book, or that the books are sponsoring TL, it's just an extra thing on the side. Is something wrong with writing about a topic, attaching a link at the end and say "here's something I read when I was starting out, it's not the best and a combination of online sites might do better but I liked how the chapters were well presented"? The option is there. Isn't that all that matters? I think it's a bit uncommon for an expert in a field to have never read a book on the subject. Not impossible, but I think there are more people who do than don't.
I confess that I too am struggling to reconcile 'know-how' as described in the OP with the commercial intent of the section. Although that could be just me
What I mean is: to my mind expert know-how usually is the further reading.
For instance, I could have a go writing an article about some aspect of programming or designing games. I could also link to any number of books on the subject. If my article is worth reading, it's because it covers something not in the references. If it's not in the references then it's either because I disagree with them or I'm dealing with some nuance they don't cover and assuming a base level of knowledge.
I'm not saying it can't happen, but it seems reasonable to suppose that click-through is going to be reduced the higher-level the article is pitched, which makes the stated intent of the sub-forum ... to minimise click-through?
Like I said, maybe I'm failing to appreciate something obvious.
On July 17 2012 17:24 MightyAtom wrote: I don't have all the answers at this point, but of course, everyone in TL staff knew that anything commercial would be controversial to some degree, but yes, its not that I disagree with fundamentally anything you've said about number of articles, and quality in terms of the context of the sub forum as a whole, but I have a specific objective here and I am testing things out with this project.
Ok, I am fine with this. I think I just wanted you to admit publicly that you sacrifice quality of the knowhow section for money.
As a user, I am of course not happy about quality being compromised for money, but if that is the direction you, and TL, want to go, I have no means to stop you.
I'm happy we reached an end to the discussion, thanks for the patience.
The ability to post know-how without a link, already exists.
And why should he admit something that is not true? How does posting the link sacrifice quality? You do not have to change anything, because you are posting a link that fits what you write, not the other way around.
If someone wanted to share knowledge bad enough, there is always the TL man-power section, and they can just write a blog as they do now (of which many already do). If people haven't already written an article for free its not gonna make a difference whether or not the link is optional.
There is no point having another section without the [link] requirement, simply because that would just add another layer of redundancy, people already have the opportunity to post know-how without a link if they want to. The point of the section is to make money. If that didn't exist, then we may as well not have this section, because we have blogs.
At least you come into this section knowing for sure there is a monetary vested interest. If the link were optional, people would be scrolling to the end first to see if there is a link or not.
This section really is relying on the kindness of strangers to volunteer and help TL grow.
IMO
On July 18 2012 21:35 Umpteen wrote: I confess that I too am struggling to reconcile 'know-how' as described in the OP with the commercial intent of the section. Although that could be just me
What I mean is: to my mind expert know-how usually is the further reading.
For instance, I could have a go writing an article about some aspect of programming or designing games. I could also link to any number of books on the subject. If my article is worth reading, it's because it covers something not in the references. If it's not in the references then it's either because I disagree with them or I'm dealing with some nuance they don't cover and assuming a base level of knowledge.
I'm not saying it can't happen, but it seems reasonable to suppose that click-through is going to be reduced the higher-level the article is pitched, which makes the stated intent of the sub-forum ... to minimise click-through?
Like I said, maybe I'm failing to appreciate something obvious.
You couldn't put a books worth of info on a website page tho. So the book is always going to be further reading.
If I buy a used book through the amazon link, does TL still get a comission? There's no way I'd pay a $15 pricetag for a book directly through amazon when they have it listed for $4 in their used section.
On July 20 2012 12:00 Najda wrote: If I buy a used book through the amazon link, does TL still get a comission? There's no way I'd pay a $15 pricetag for a book directly through amazon when they have it listed for $4 in their used section.
Yes TL will still get a commission and regardless of how much, the fact that we get any commission at all, is just really great for the section. That being said, even just getting the book from the library or borrowing it and participating in the thread will go a long way to really making this a great long term resource for TL as a whole.
This is a great idea.... Trying to think of how i could possibly contribute..... Having a good collection of guides/ tips/ and tricks for nerds by nerds is something that really interests me
On July 21 2012 00:24 kommunalka wrote: This is a great idea.... Trying to think of how i could possibly contribute..... Having a good collection of guides/ tips/ and tricks for nerds by nerds is something that really interests me
I hope your right. From my understanding there will be no guides, tips, or tricks. just a blog telling you to buy a book. hopefully Im proven wrong.
Only legitimate question I have is why is this in the Blogs heading? Shouldn't it be general?
Blog as a general term relates to personal interest stories. Someone writing about their trip, or their girl problems, or just writing some personal opinions rather than opening up a legitimate discussion.
A little guide geared toward getting you to purchase something off Amazon doesn't fit with these, even if it is a requisite that you have an interest in what you're writing about. It isn't a personal story, is basically what I'm getting at...
It would make way more sense to put this in General. Even tho it bears the similarity of ratings, that is as far as it goes. Blogs isn't the junk forum for things you aren't sure of... I really don't like that it has this image on TL, because most of the best threads are in Blogs.
On July 22 2012 02:59 Chef wrote: Only legitimate question I have is why is this in the Blogs heading? Shouldn't it be general?
Blog as a general term relates to personal interest stories. Someone writing about their trip, or their girl problems, or just writing some personal opinions rather than opening up a legitimate discussion.
A little guide geared toward getting you to purchase something off Amazon doesn't fit with these, even if it is a requisite that you have an interest in what you're writing about. It isn't a personal story, is basically what I'm getting at...
It would make way more sense to put this in General. Even tho it bears the similarity of ratings, that is as far as it goes. Blogs isn't the junk forum for things you aren't sure of... I really don't like that it has this image on TL, because most of the best threads are in Blogs.
Well, 2 things, #1, we wanted to build out the blogs section, and #2, I think again, there is still a lot of confusion of what is knowhow opposed to knowledge, because knowhow is completely based off of one's understanding through experience and not just reiterating things that they know or have just thought about. For me, because it is in that context of person experience, it is really fitting it should be in the blog section. Especially when, we are expecting in depth pieces as well as discussion -as well as being a standing resource.
So again, it is a matter of development rather than just figuring out the best slot, and while I've never thought that blogs is the section where the things that don't fit or 'junk' go, because it is where I mainly post 95% of the time; well if what you've said really is the general image, then I think that having TL Knowhow goes a long way in refining the Blogs section beyond that.
As an aside, this section is a very purposely step for developing out the blogs section, and wasn't just a, 'lets add something on', thus the featured blogs was launched first, but was developed at the same time. But, time will tell if it works out or not, but we're gonna give it our best shot.
I think the idea of having a subforum with guides on relevant/interesting topics is great. But I think forcing users to weave in advertisements to buy something on Amazon is appalling, especially when said users are producing this content for free. Seriously guys?
On July 30 2012 11:50 Fortis-Et-Fidus wrote: this is great, now i think the general forum will be less clogged up with general tutorial-esq style posts, and more organized posts can be put here
When has the general forum ever been clogged with tutorial style posts?
On July 31 2012 12:33 Probe1 wrote: When can we expect new threads to start popping up?
There are about 8 in the pipeline right now, but these articles are taking time to write as they are a bit more involved. But we should start seeing some regular articles within a couple of weeks by other contributors.
On July 31 2012 12:33 Probe1 wrote: When can we expect new threads to start popping up?
There are about 8 in the pipeline right now, but these articles are taking time to write as they are a bit more involved. But we should start seeing some regular articles within a couple of weeks by other contributors.
On July 31 2012 14:39 Probe1 wrote: Cool, I look forward to it!
No offense to those who put in the effort, but given the flow of the first knowhow series, this seems like a thinly veiled set of endorsements. There is some content, but a lot of it simply seems to be an attempt to advertise a product. I'm not saying endorsements are a bad thing, because honestly, anything technical needs a good expert to teach it (in the detail offered by a book), not just a blog post or two. But it shouldn't revolve around marketing a product like MA's current posts seem to do because that seriously cheapens the experience. Right now, it feels like more of a sales pitch than anything else. Changing the feel of it would be very helpful. A book is quite helpful, but marketing it shouldn't be the focus of a post.
On July 31 2012 12:33 Probe1 wrote: When can we expect new threads to start popping up?
There are about 8 in the pipeline right now, but these articles are taking time to write as they are a bit more involved. But we should start seeing some regular articles within a couple of weeks by other contributors.
On July 31 2012 14:39 Probe1 wrote: Cool, I look forward to it!
Unfortunately, I have had some complications of exhaustion from a recent surgery a few weeks ago and I'm currently caught in a national flood here while visiting the Philippines. As soon as we can, they will placed out.
On August 06 2012 14:34 Lightwip wrote: No offense to those who put in the effort, but given the flow of the first knowhow series, this seems like a thinly veiled set of endorsements. There is some content, but a lot of it simply seems to be an attempt to advertise a product. I'm not saying endorsements are a bad thing, because honestly, anything technical needs a good expert to teach it (in the detail offered by a book), not just a blog post or two. But it shouldn't revolve around marketing a product like MA's current posts seem to do because that seriously cheapens the experience. Right now, it feels like more of a sales pitch than anything else. Changing the feel of it would be very helpful. A book is quite helpful, but marketing it shouldn't be the focus of a post.
The amount of work I put into the posts as well as the fact that they are for a reader who isn't involved with start-ups, I'd really have to disagree with your assessment as they are thinly veiled set of endorsements and I get that people don't like advertising etc, but they are books, you can get them at a library, buy them used and I have bought them for my own staff and would have my own children, when they are old enough read them. So in terms of cheapening the experience, I'd agree if you just take the posts as is, but if you give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm sincerely talking about books that I know have real value, and you do one day read them, and are involved in a new project; then I think that is where the real value of the experience comes from, from the doing not just reading a blog post for an experience.
On August 06 2012 14:34 Lightwip wrote: No offense to those who put in the effort, but given the flow of the first knowhow series, this seems like a thinly veiled set of endorsements. There is some content, but a lot of it simply seems to be an attempt to advertise a product. I'm not saying endorsements are a bad thing, because honestly, anything technical needs a good expert to teach it (in the detail offered by a book), not just a blog post or two. But it shouldn't revolve around marketing a product like MA's current posts seem to do because that seriously cheapens the experience. Right now, it feels like more of a sales pitch than anything else. Changing the feel of it would be very helpful. A book is quite helpful, but marketing it shouldn't be the focus of a post.
The amount of work I put into the posts as well as the fact that they are for a reader who isn't involved with start-ups, I'd really have to disagree with your assessment as they are thinly veiled set of endorsements and I get that people don't like advertising etc, but they are books, you can get them at a library, buy them used and I have bought them for my own staff and would have my own children, when they are old enough read them. So in terms of cheapening the experience, I'd agree if you just take the posts as is, but if you give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm sincerely talking about books that I know have real value, and you do one day read them, and are involved in a new project; then I think that is where the real value of the experience comes from, from the doing not just reading a blog post for an experience.
That's just circular reasoning... "You didn't read the books, so you don't know how great they are, so you have to read the books."
You say that reading the blog is not enough, and it isn't. And that makes the blogs adverts, well written and lenghty one maybe. But nothing more.
I get that you/TL like money (who doesn't), but this is not what I expected.
On August 06 2012 14:34 Lightwip wrote: No offense to those who put in the effort, but given the flow of the first knowhow series, this seems like a thinly veiled set of endorsements. There is some content, but a lot of it simply seems to be an attempt to advertise a product. I'm not saying endorsements are a bad thing, because honestly, anything technical needs a good expert to teach it (in the detail offered by a book), not just a blog post or two. But it shouldn't revolve around marketing a product like MA's current posts seem to do because that seriously cheapens the experience. Right now, it feels like more of a sales pitch than anything else. Changing the feel of it would be very helpful. A book is quite helpful, but marketing it shouldn't be the focus of a post.
The amount of work I put into the posts as well as the fact that they are for a reader who isn't involved with start-ups, I'd really have to disagree with your assessment as they are thinly veiled set of endorsements and I get that people don't like advertising etc, but they are books, you can get them at a library, buy them used and I have bought them for my own staff and would have my own children, when they are old enough read them. So in terms of cheapening the experience, I'd agree if you just take the posts as is, but if you give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm sincerely talking about books that I know have real value, and you do one day read them, and are involved in a new project; then I think that is where the real value of the experience comes from, from the doing not just reading a blog post for an experience.
I don't doubt that the books do have real value; I've taken a look at at least a few and they seem fairly helpful. But this isn't about whether or not the books are helpful, because that's not the point. With the setup that requires that the blogs be endorsements of a product and your writing style, it does come off as an advertisement more than anything else. The vibe I get is "buy the book I'm advertising or we have nothing to talk about." Maybe that would be more reasonable if you were giving advice to people that all intend to start a business in the near future. I'm willing to bet that most of the people who read do so purely out of curiosity. While that doesn't mean they wouldn't buy the book, it certainly does mean that it's not reasonable to ask them to read up on the subject in detail before even starting to discuss it. The fact that there is almost no discussion despite quite a few views in your posts supports this.
I don't mind people using books as references to the topics because, honestly, I rarely trust much of the technical discussions laying around TL--it is the internet after all. If I'm curious, what I usually end up doing is literally skimming over those discussions to have a clear idea of where to start, e.g., what to google, and then learn from reputable sites or books. This makes it so much more convenient for me since it leads me straight to a book. And it automatically answers questions such as "Where can I read more about this?", which happens often, and gives direction to the discussion that follows.
To be honest, I'm not really interested in start-ups (sorry!), but I do hope there will be threads that will interest me in the future!
How can i get involved, i m a Recruiter in a highly technical environment, so i could do an article about job interviews and applications, do's and dont's, i m mostly lurking but i think i can contribute in threads like that and i want to give something back to the awesome communityand fellow nerds. Everyone who doesnt start his own business could benefit from this ^^.
Slowly but surely they are starting to finally see light of day- not because of the authors or editing, its really an issue that I held up the process and there were still a few things we didn't iron out, but we have a few more coming out shortly every few days or so. ^^
EPT
