May 17, 2007
Help Us Help You: the Future of Clusterflock
Chris Glass is in the prepatory phase of thinking about an update to clusterflock. I’m not sure whether to call it a redesign as much as a tinkering, but he has freedom to approach the site in any way he would like.
This said, let’s open up the discussion to all of clusterflock. As Chris said: “Discourse always welcome. I wouldn’t call it a new clusterflock, but phrase it as, what would you like to see at CF in the future? Niggles and nitpicks welcome.”
So, the floor is open. Let ‘er rip.
P.S. For example: Chris has suggested a form for tips / suggestion for links on the site. I suggested a space for future advertising. What are your thoughts for how to make clusterflock better.
Don’t be shy.
comments
29 Responses to “Help Us Help You: the Future of Clusterflock”
I’m not a good one for suggestions re: forms, advertising, etc.–I’m generally passive on those issues. But I really admire Chris’s style, and I’m excited that he’s taking on the re-design.
I haven’t been around clusterflock very long but there’s not a whole lot wrong with it in my opinion. I like the spare, clean layout. I think adding advertising is OK because I know it will be done with restraint. The tip/suggestion form would be fun–I guess there wasn’t even a email contact link until recently?
I’d like to hear what others say.
Oh, a cupholder. clusterflock should have a cupholder.
can we get some a/c? I’m sure Chris will do a great job. Depending on our revenue objectives, a PayPal button could be nice. I’m not sure how many people would regularly donate, but it would eliminate the need for Deron to post a paypal button when we need more bandwidth..?
I like the idea of being able to flag a comment or a post that we really enjoy and keep it near the top or in a special link of clusterflock favorites.
also, the traditional digg / delicious / etc. links for posts might be nice.
Pictures. It would be nice to have a small thumb of the contributor. Give us a chance to see you all.
I love the uncluttered look of the site right now and I’m a little worried that it’ll end up with icons all over the page. Please try not to….
As for advertising. Why not? Eventually it all costs - so why not try and cover yourselves.
Fret not on clutter. My style is sparse. Er, I like to think so.
I do think that the archive system needs an overhaul. For instance, if you click on my name the page will load up ALL of my posts, perhaps a page limit with the “next page” option.
I am also fairly certain there is a plugin for MT which allows rating and favorited posts. I’ll have to check that out.
that would be great, Andrew. if you don’t mind coordinating with Chris, I’d appreciate it.
I’ll look into it.
This is an AJAX based rating system, but I think there may be better coding.
I am definitely in favor of the less is more style of the current clusterflock website. Very simple and Appley (is that a word?)
Couple of questions/suggestions–
1. Is there a way to view the site’s visit statistics?
2. Maybe a “recently popular” link to see the most popular posts of the day or week?
The comment page template is different than the front page template. This is obvious, but it drives me a wee bit crazy.
And though it seems like everyone loves the old logo, I think we need a new logo. And I like the thumbnails-of-each-poster idea. I’d love to see real “about” pages for each contributor (or one for everyone en masse). But truthfully Chris, I’m sure you’ll do a super job, whatever you do.
Not a design issue, but is Clusterflock getting a little insular for anyone’s comfort level? Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, that’s just the vibe I’ve been getting, as someone who tries to follow but can’t always find the time to contribute these days, and is sad about that.
” . . . is Clusterflock getting a little insular for anyone’s comfort level?
Joshua raises a damn good question. I used to try every so often to pull back and see clusterflock as others might see it, but it’s been a while since I conducted the experiment.
My provisional answer to the question is: I think Joshua is onto something. Those of us who post or comment daily (or at least frequently) do have a way of succumbing to the cozy warmth of the familiar (in the sense of ‘family’ — in this case, perhaps ‘alt.family’), and I imagine that for some site visitors (and less dogged contributors), it can feel a little like walking into a party where a core of people are having such a good time that they may neglect other guests unintentionally.
How to maintain the sense of a ‘clusterflock’ without clustering (or flocking) in too close-knit a group? I think it can be done, and I’ll be interested in others’ responses to Joshua’s question.
I agree, Sheila. It’s an interesting question. When I started the site, my initial inclination was to have nothing on the site be self-referential. Have everything point outward. To have the site be a place that pointed to things. But inevitably, and I think positively, the site developed a sense of itself. I’m interested to know more about specifics of how the site has taken on that dimension. is it an issue of comments? an issue of posts? an issue of referring to previous posts? something else? the more information we have perhaps the better the conversation can be.
Some very random thoughts after reading Joshua and Sheila’s comments:
Are groups about inclusion or exclusion? Sounds harsh, but I think it’s part of what makes humans human.
Being human is different than expressing humanity. clusterflock does both.
The diverse interests and talents of clusterflock contributors and commenters are what makes this site “work”. It’s a rare and beautiful alchemy/magic/critical mass kind of deal and I like it a lot. I have yet to see anyone get shitty.
Insularity is great as long as I am on the inside.
Deron and Andrew drive this car, and everyone else is yelling directions from the back seat. Each passenger has a map of a different state. Sometimes we stop for pee breaks or ice cream.
I haven’t been around here long enough to really know what I’m talking about, so I’ll stop now.
Except that what I first saw here on clusterflock was cool enough that it made me want to participate in some way.
Shit. I don’t know about driving, I just change the oil when its needed.
Incidentally, has anyone else been noticing occasional 500 internal errors?
yes, when I post and make comments sometimes, but so far they haven’t had an effect on what I’ve posted.
No Ads, no ads please! Let’s keep this space ad free. No ads, no ads please! Please…
I vote ‘yes’ for ‘no ads’.
. . . and to return to the matter of insularity, try though I may, I still can’t pin down any specifics, but I’m thinking that perhaps Joshua’s question can serve as a sort of early warning of a trend that merits our awareness.
Here’s one small example of something that, taken over the long run, could affect the feel of the site: the use of direct address within comments. Now there are plenty of occasions on which directly addressing the author of a post or another commenter is the only thing to do, but it occurs to me that when one is making a general observation in response to someone else, framing that observation in the third person might offer a clear indication that one is addressing a group.
Case in point: in writing my earlier comment on this post, I think I wrote something like: “Joshua, that’s a damn good question,” etc. Nothing wrong with that. That’s what I’d say if we were face to face. Then I got to thinking and recast it: “Joshua raises a damn good point” (don’t you think so, folks?).
Speaking for myself, this small exercise served as a reminder that — hey, there’s an audience out there. It’s a small thing, certainly not a consideration I’m all hot to urge everyone to adopt, and it doesn’t loom large as insurance against insularity. I offer it simply as an instance of one of the little things that might add up.
About the “insular” thing: if you are sitting in a room with a bunch of silent strangers, waiting, is it okay to speak–or might you be “hogging the floor” as they say down here? Should you not speak just in case somebody else might want silence? If you do speak and a few people respond, and after a while start to laugh and get to know each other–should you care that some of the silent ones who have chosen not to speak are scowling and rolling their eyes in reference to what the speakers are saying? In my case, I’ll happily talk to them too if they want to enter the conversation or start a new one, but if they want to be mimes they can kiss my ass.
I vote ‘yes’ for ‘no ads’.
. . . and to return to the matter of insularity, try though I may, I still can’t pin down any specifics, but I’m thinking that perhaps Joshua’s question can serve as a sort of early warning of a trend that merits our awareness.
Here’s one small example of something that, taken over the long run, could affect the feel of the site: the use of direct address within comments. Now there are plenty of occasions on which directly addressing the author of a post or another commenter is the only thing to do, but it occurs to me that when one is making a general observation in response to someone else, framing that observation in the third person might offer a clear indication that one is addressing a group.
Case in point: in writing my earlier comment on this post, I think I wrote something like: “Joshua, that’s a damn good question,” etc. Nothing wrong with that. That’s what I’d say if we were face to face. Then I got to thinking and recast it: “Joshua raises a damn good point” (don’t you think so, folks?).
Speaking for myself, this small exercise served as a reminder that — hey, there’s an audience out there. It’s a small thing, certainly not a consideration I’m all hot to urge everyone to adopt, and it doesn’t loom large as insurance against insularity. I offer it simply as an instance of one of the little things that might add up.
Sheila makes a damn good point.
Seriously, although I agree with her I often reflexively address specific comment authors when I reply to a subject. Threads get disjointed (usually because of my damn slow typing) and I hate it when replies get out of sync with whatever elicited my response in the first place. I also think I do it out of some kind of simple courtesy, like holding a door for someone or greeting them by name when I see them. It never occurred to me that it might exclude others.
It comes back again to whether the value or appeal of this site is observational or participatory — is it engaging to watch, like seeing clever monkeys at the circus, or is it cool because it is universally involving and interactive? I think it can be, and is, both at the same time.
Any site that can successfully integrate art, humor, literature, modern culture, politics, food, travel, design, and poop is OK with me.
Sheila also repeats herself.
This is an interesting conversation. On the question of insularity, while I think some people might be driven away by our internal conversations, others are likely drawn to the site specifically because of them. It’s like getting to overhear all manner of intense discussion as an unseen observer (one of my favorite things to do).
On a personal level, if the site ever reaches the point where the contributors are asked to behave in a certain way, or be more or less inclusive, as a means of presenting clusterflock as a kind of unified product aimed at maintaining a “common denominator” audience–well, that’ll be the day I leave the site. So now you know how to get rid of me!
Directly addressing people by name contributes to clarity, not insularity. Clarity is a good thing.
The kind of stuff random visitors would most likely see as insular are things like Deron’s fashion photo, or Sheila’s outpouring of love. And the big/little pants discussions are over my head, even. Do we want to therefore avoid having those kinds of posts? I, for one, would be sad if we did.
As long as the bulk of the posts on the site are not self-referential, I think it’s fine to have some silliness from time to time.
ads-wise, if you look at how Coudal / Kottke et al does it, that’s the direction I hope to take the site.
I can be more specific about my reason for wanting (needing?) ads on the site if that would be helfpul, but each time I have tried to write something about it, it has come across mildly defensive, so I will refrain.
more specifically, it has always been my intention that the site support itself and perhaps provide a sort of income to those who participate. that continues to be my intention.
I hate ads, but I hardly ever see them, since I use Firefox with Adblock Plus. And even when I can see them, it’s really only the blinky ones that drive me up the wall (or send me over the drumset, to use an inflock locution).
And I was actually looking at The Deck’s ads the other day, in search of models for some ads I had to make for work. If we do add ads, I think The Deck or a Decklike system is the ideal way to go.