Comments on: Defining the damn thing… using crowd wisdom http://www.jarango.com/en/blog/2008/09/14/defining-the-damn-thing-using-crowd-wisdom/ Information Architecture + User Experience Design Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:14:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jarango http://www.jarango.com/en/blog/2008/09/14/defining-the-damn-thing-using-crowd-wisdom/#comment-131 jarango Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:07:39 +0000 http://www.jarango.com/en/?p=775#comment-131 <p>Thanks Christian for your kind comments. You are right about the instructions not being very clear; I’m gonna think about the wording a bit.</p> <p>One of the advantages we have today over, say, ten years ago, is that we have frameworks that make prototyping ideas like this quick and easy. (I used CodeIgniter to create this app; it took about four days.) I’m partial to the “let a thousand flowers bloom” approach to app design: bottom-up is a more robust approach than top-down. Now these things can go from idea to artifact more quickly and cheaply than ever before.</p> Thanks Christian for your kind comments. You are right about the instructions not being very clear; I’m gonna think about the wording a bit.

One of the advantages we have today over, say, ten years ago, is that we have frameworks that make prototyping ideas like this quick and easy. (I used CodeIgniter to create this app; it took about four days.) I’m partial to the “let a thousand flowers bloom” approach to app design: bottom-up is a more robust approach than top-down. Now these things can go from idea to artifact more quickly and cheaply than ever before.

]]> By: xian http://www.jarango.com/en/blog/2008/09/14/defining-the-damn-thing-using-crowd-wisdom/#comment-130 xian Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:24:38 +0000 http://www.jarango.com/en/?p=775#comment-130 <p>the voting instructions still sound ambiguous. something about “for each” should be mentioned there to clarify.</p> <p>i love the app, btw, and the initiative you took to build it. I was debating someone on twitter who complained that the latest DTDT thread was a waste of time etc. I listed a number of ideas that had come out of it and mentioned that you had put up this site, her reply? </p> <p>http://twitter.com/gabrielle/statuses/923604138</p> <p>but it is a big deal. It was agile. It’s beautifully designed. It meets a need. It’s doing something, the exact thing she said we should be doing instead of talking.</p> <p>sigh.</p> the voting instructions still sound ambiguous. something about “for each” should be mentioned there to clarify.

i love the app, btw, and the initiative you took to build it. I was debating someone on twitter who complained that the latest DTDT thread was a waste of time etc. I listed a number of ideas that had come out of it and mentioned that you had put up this site, her reply?

http://twitter.com/gabrielle/statuses/923604138

but it is a big deal. It was agile. It’s beautifully designed. It meets a need. It’s doing something, the exact thing she said we should be doing instead of talking.

sigh.

]]> By: jarango http://www.jarango.com/en/blog/2008/09/14/defining-the-damn-thing-using-crowd-wisdom/#comment-129 jarango Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:09:29 +0000 http://www.jarango.com/en/?p=775#comment-129 <p>Hi Andrew, the tool seems to have a UI issue here. New definitions don’t get added at the bottom of the list because definitions are sorted by votes, not chronologically. I’ll see how I can fix this.</p> Hi Andrew, the tool seems to have a UI issue here. New definitions don’t get added at the bottom of the list because definitions are sorted by votes, not chronologically. I’ll see how I can fix this.

]]> By: Andrew Hinton http://www.jarango.com/en/blog/2008/09/14/defining-the-damn-thing-using-crowd-wisdom/#comment-128 Andrew Hinton Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:42:52 +0000 http://www.jarango.com/en/?p=775#comment-128 <p>Jorge: I did a stupid thing and spent an hour typing in the “submit” box, only to see my submission get lost … I think … <br /> Any chance you got some data out of it? An email or anything?</p> Jorge: I did a stupid thing and spent an hour typing in the “submit” box, only to see my submission get lost … I think …
Any chance you got some data out of it? An email or anything?

]]> By: jarango http://www.jarango.com/en/blog/2008/09/14/defining-the-damn-thing-using-crowd-wisdom/#comment-127 jarango Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:20:09 +0000 http://www.jarango.com/en/?p=775#comment-127 <p>Hi Leisa, thanks for your feedback. I originally had the rules set up so that you could only vote for and against any one of the definitions, but I had to change it to resolve the issue you raise.</p> <p>How it currently works is that you can cast one vote either in favor or against any of the definitions, except those that you’ve already voted for. (When you add a new definition you automatically vote for it.) So if someone adds a definition you like, you can vote for it even if you’ve already voted for something else.</p> <p>I’m not sure about using Wikipedia in this way. I know of people who monitor Wikipedia pages constantly to roll back any changes they disagree with. This system usually ends up favoring whoever has the energy/patience to hang on the longest, as opposed to those with “the best ideas”.</p> Hi Leisa, thanks for your feedback. I originally had the rules set up so that you could only vote for and against any one of the definitions, but I had to change it to resolve the issue you raise.

How it currently works is that you can cast one vote either in favor or against any of the definitions, except those that you’ve already voted for. (When you add a new definition you automatically vote for it.) So if someone adds a definition you like, you can vote for it even if you’ve already voted for something else.

I’m not sure about using Wikipedia in this way. I know of people who monitor Wikipedia pages constantly to roll back any changes they disagree with. This system usually ends up favoring whoever has the energy/patience to hang on the longest, as opposed to those with “the best ideas”.

]]>