The problem with user generated content...
...is that you don't have any control over the quality of the content. I was clicking my way along the information super highway this morning and found a link to www.vox.com a service I hadn't heard of before, so I clicked away and was met with this rather alarming homepage:
It's an interesting notion that these sites which foster online communities and promote user generated content have only the content their community has made to call on. The result is that my introduction to the service is a somewhat unappealing (if not unpleasant) image of an ice cream sandwich thing.
Now, i'm as rational as the next person, so I know not to judge a site by its cover. After a couple of clicks I found a little more information from the information page, and it turns out that the service does seem to be pretty good, actually.
But that ice cream didn't half leave a funny taste in my mouth.
please log in to add a comment
posted by Francesca Granato
on 07 May 2009
Food for thought
I don't think most people find services, like Vox, by idly 'clicking their way along the information super highway' of a morning.
People don't stumble across blog software in the way they might stumble across something when they are wondering down the local high street. I think softwares like these become popular by being recommended, either by friends or IT guys at work or ISPs or magazines etc.
Sites like these don't need to work like a shop window, so maybe it really doesn't matter what image a visitor is greeted with on the home page.
posted by Martin Jacobson
on 18 May 2009
yeah, but
there is a serious point in there: user-generated content is unmoderated, and usually reveals the writer's political, sexual, and occasionally, culinary preferences, but rarely provides genuine truth, information or insight. On the other hand, by the time most content has been edited, checked for adherence to company disclosure policy, moderated, checked for political correctness, and trimmed to fit, any truth, information or insight has long departed. Which leaves us where?
posted by Matt Cooper
on 19 May 2009
good points both
Francesca: I'd argue that people do find services this way. But whatever way people get directed to a site the fact remains that your homepage is your 'book cover' and you know how people judge books by their covers.
Martin: You're absolutely right about the lack of moderation out there on the internet. I guess what we need is a curator of the internet, kind of like a radio DJ; someone who sifts through the detritus and recommends the best bits.
Does this service exist? Someone could make some money out of it...
posted by Malcolm Garrett
on 19 May 2009
Maybe, but
I'm not so sure I totally agree with Martin. It depends where you look, and who else is looking. I have read, and added my voice to, a few good discussions online. One particularly good one helped speed up the long overdue publication of a book about the designer Barney Bubbles. www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/2007/01/20/barney-bubbles-artist-and-designer/. Yes I know, maybe an online forum, or a blog such as this, which naturally has some consistently authored start points, can not quite be considered alongside a totally user-generated content site such as www.vox.com? The question remains, is it the moderation that counts or the consistency of the editorial stimulus, which prompts quality contributions? Most of YouTube is unwatchable, and the comments unreadable, but I wouldn't want to be without it.
And, er, isn't dynamo itself about user-generated content, so it can't all be bad?
I guess like most things in life, you have to sift through an awful lot of debris and deadwood to find something of real value.