The Columbia Journalism Review wants to know
"How did the first week [of Disputations] go?"
As someone who never read comments until Disputations, all it's done for me is highlight how utterly unusable Kinja is. Shit makes zero sense.
HEH. It's almost like that's part of the project!
Glad to be a confused focus tester in this bold and courageous mission to re-invent message threading.
2
If the outcome of all of this is that I'm paid to post on proprietary message board software I won't be upset, honestly.
We should change our titles to variations of mod.
Staff Mod
Senior Mod
Head Mod
2
One thing I am not totally clear on is whether Disputations is a play for traffic (e.g., unique visitors) or whether it’s a play to diminish the necessity of traffic for Gawker’s sustainability and/or profitability.
(This is something of a tension at Gawker Media, right? Whether we want to keep accumulating traffic—as that metric is traditionally defined by Chartbeat et al—or whether we want to establish some other metric by which to measure ourselves?)
Perhaps Disputations is a play for neither, though.
1
At its heart Disputations is a play to get Gawker writers to use Kinja as though it were an external messaging and discussion service and not the CMS their jobs obligate them to use.
Confusingly. Most of the "recommended" links for most writers now lead here.
Yeah, this is an interesting side effect.
1
It's cool because the authors seem to readily interact here more than in the comment sections following their posts.
3
Yeah, it's a little less oppositional here.
...and by less oppositional you mean there are less morons in here...and if that indeed is what you mean, then yes, I agree and just one more reason I love disputations...
8
Fewer morons.
Well damn....
Shhh.
