About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
 William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Suggestion Box

by: Dean Barker

Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 07:13:46 AM EST
(Bumped. - promoted by Dean Barker)

So we're going to be spending some time before the New Year looking under the BH's hood to design and implement ways - some small, some big - on making this place better than ever for the 2012 cycle.

We'd love to have your input as well. No suggestion is too small or too big or "out of the box," so long as it's respectful of the community here, and mindful of the fact that BH is more or less a volunteer effort.

Oh, and: thanks for coming and being a part of this community.  I don't say that nearly enough.
Dean Barker :: Suggestion Box
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Suggestion Box | 88 comments
Here's an old thread (0.00 / 0)
"Tweet this" (0.00 / 0)
Blue Mass Group introduced a "Tweet this" feature. Some people loved it. I didn't like it because of one annoying bug it had. In Internet Explorer (and apparently only Internet Explorer), you couldn't comment on a diary. You could write a diary, but not comment. And you couldn't reply to someone else's comments.

The only way you could comment in IE was to click on the individual comment, so that it opened in its own window. Then the Tweet this thing didn't appear, and IE worked right

So it may not make sense, depending on the number of IE users. But it might, and the Twitterers loved it.

So in the interest of fairness, and prompted by the idea of thinking about suggestions, I just wrote this at BMG. Meta!


we need more women! n/t (4.00 / 3)

ex-State Senators weekly column ? n/t (4.00 / 1)


note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other
[ Parent ]
More people in general n/t (0.00 / 0)

Can we get numbers - (4.00 / 2)
Is our participate rate at the bottom, at the top, in the middle of other political blogs?

Some ratio like members / voters in covered area?

If we're at the bottom, we need to go steal ideas...

[ Parent ]
And of course (4.00 / 2)
if we're at the top, we need to go get rich as consultants.
[ Parent ]
Sponsoring Member (0.00 / 0)
Some sort of ability for members who are willing to financially contribute to BH to be recognized as "Sponsoring Members"  "Blue Club" or some such.

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.
Editing and editorializing (4.00 / 5)
I want to be able to edit my comments. Even if you still can't delete, even if it says "edited", even if the original is still accessible. Not being able to edit comments for typos and oversights is annoying.

On a less technical note, it would be nice if future primary endorsements by editors and FPers were made in those people's own names (like Dodd '08) rather than as "Blue Hampshire" (like Kuster '10). Endorsing on behalf of the site undermines the ability of this community to serve the New Hampshire liberal community effectively. Although BH has owners who are entitled to do with it whatever they want, it also has regulars who won't want to be associated with every endorsement made by the editors. Disclaimers don't make that right.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

Well said, Doug (4.00 / 1)
I agree with both points wholeheartedly.  Thank you.
[ Parent ]
On endorsements & editorials (0.00 / 0)
Doug,
I don't agree. If Dean wants to dedicate this site to John Edwards, he has every right.

You and I can come and go, as we please. Actually, you have had to take long breaks from this site. Yet, Dean, above all, slogs hours upon hours into making BH what it is. He, and the mastheads, are entitled. If you don't like it, walk.

I prowl this site constantly. It may be that I am one of the most consistant of all the commentors. Yet, I would not dare to hold Dean's jock.

You better check yourself, before you wreck yourself.

To Dean:
Though I've belted you and flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
"If you don't like it, walk" (4.00 / 1)
That ain't you, Jack.

To be clear: Doug never criticized DEAN for making an endorsement -- quite the contrary (see Dodd '08 reference).  He criticized endorsements in the name of BLUE HAMPSHIRE, a community that never speaks with one voice (and generally takes pride its diverse points of view).  

My views on this subject are well known and, admittedly, were shaped by the events of this past summer.  (Won't get into that now.) But Doug, who published a glowing endorsement diary for Annie, is stating a view that he believes is in the best interests of this blog and the values its members share.  

He deserves more respect than this.

[ Parent ]
I meant to say (4.00 / 1)
. . . "generally takes pride IN its diverse points of view."

The editing function would have come in handy there. :)

[ Parent ]
Confusion by Diffusion (0.00 / 0)
D,
This whole subject reminds me of teenagers complaining about the rules on their parents house.

Sorry, bud. On occassion, the site leadership will flex. If that makes you feel diminished, that is unfortunate. I,for one, appreciate being in the company of friends that take a stand.

It's great that this site offers a diversity of opinion to gather and prosper. But it does no good, imo, to allow the diffusion to lead to a lack of clarity.

The internet is a big place.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
"Their Parents House" (sic) (4.00 / 1)
Therein lies our difference. . . . While I have tremendous respect for Dean, I don't feel as thought I'm a guest in his house.  

Rather, I consider myself a member of a community that he created -- one in which his voice, while the most respected, is no more dominant than anyone else's.

Back to football.

[ Parent ]
Tragedy of the Commons n/t (0.00 / 0)


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden
[ Parent ]
House party (4.00 / 2)
Several hosts. Many guests.

Sometimes it's a dinner party with one set of rules. Sometimes it's a kegger. But even there, somebody has authority. Somebody has to answer the door if the cops knock and clean up in the morning.

I don't think the community analogy works, simply because communities elect leaders and rotate the leadership.

Maybe we're a condo association? If so, beware Hoefer, he wants to raise the monthly fee. :-!

[ Parent ]
And make sure you (4.00 / 4)
don't put up any holiday decorations before Thanksgiving!

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.
[ Parent ]
Suggestions were invited, and I stand by them. (4.00 / 1)


--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Disagree on both counts (4.00 / 1)
Comments can be previewed, which provides an opportunity to edit. Editing after the fact jeopardizes too much content. Not saying you, but the temptation for people to edit embarrassing content would be overwhelming. Users have to learn to count to 10 (or maybe 3) before they click post. (which is not to say I have learned this on every post).

Re: endorsements, I post here pretty frequently, and had no dog in the primary fight, and the Blue Hampshire endorsement was never a problem for me.

[ Parent ]
When I introduce myself to people at New Hampshire political events, (4.00 / 1)
I'm often told "I read you on Blue Hampshire"--far more often than "oh yeah, you're on the Young Dems board, right?"

Endorsements in the name of "Blue Hampshire" have implications.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

[ Parent ]
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
We may have different approaches. I think (usually) as a writer would. For me, "I read you" is always good news.

[ Parent ]
It is good news, that's not the point. (0.00 / 0)
The point is that when people think of opinions on Blue Hampshire, that isn't confined to seven people on the masthead. When a candidate in a primary for Congress announces at the state convention that she has been endorsed by "Blue Hampshire", that doesn't come with a disclaimer about how "Blue Hampshire" refers to editors and a specific group of contributors, rather than all of them.

People know who Dean is, but I'm not sure casual lurkers are paying all that much attention to the distinctions between editors, FPers, and regulars--particularly because regulars often have diaries promoted to the front page.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

[ Parent ]
Implications (0.00 / 0)
Ya ever wonder what BH mastheads go through when readers approach them with comments on content created by others?

Do you know how many e-mails Dean sorts through?

The idea that you have somehow endorsed "Candidate X" because Blue Hampshire has, is laughable on its face. If anyone suggests otherwise, it is because they are trying to make your skin crawl for their own political purposes.

Let me ask you, if you contributed to the UL, would their editorials speak for you.

Don't let herders play you for a sucka.  

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
Union Leader Analogy (0.00 / 0)
If I was a sports reporter on the U-L staff, then, no, I would not expect others to think that their ridiculous editorials spoke for me.

If I was contributing member of the U-L Editorial Board, then I imagine that they would assume this.

Blue Hampshire is not a newspaper.  It is a diverse community with widely disparate viewpoints.  An endorsement by individual leaders on this site may well be considered as the Word of Blue Hampshire by many, but there's no reason why those endorsements can't be in the name of the individuals who make them.  

[ Parent ]
Think Oscar Mayer Ditty (0.00 / 0)
The Masthead has a first name,
It's B-L-U-E
The Masthead has a second name,
It's H-A-M-P-S-H-I-R-E

I love to read them everyday,
And if you ask me why I'll say,

They bust their ass,
While we get a pass,
So remember the internet is a big place,
Okay?

When they speak as one, they have a name. It is BLUE HAMPSHIRE.

So your "many" would be wrong.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
A thread called "Suggestion Box" (4.00 / 1)
is not an appropriate place for a message of 'quit whining'.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner
[ Parent ]
How about, I suggest (4.00 / 1)
a "no whining allowed zone."

It is fitting, in our diverse community, that someone makes a suggestion and then another argues that the suggestion is flawed.

We are allowed to disagree?

This thing, "appropriate," is fairly squishy. Now, you are trying to herd me with decorum. LOL.

Truly, Blue Hampshire IS a free market of ideas. It is a private enterprise, subsidized by the voluntary offerings of many.

I am not willing to accept that we, the at-large community of commentors, have reached a critical mass which subjugates our hosts to our collective lack of clarity and will.

You position, and iterations of it, weaken the site. I wholeheartedly oppose it.


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
Who said anything about not being allowed to disagree? (4.00 / 1)
Dean asked for suggestions. I left a few. You criticized my suggestions for suggesting things. I pointed out that Dean asked for suggestions.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Do not understand (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, Jack.  I see two points that have absolutely no relation to one another:

1. Dean and his fellow editors spend many, many hours building this community; and

2. Blue Hampshire is home to a diverse array of perspectives on politics and public policy.

The time-intensive contributions of Blue Hampshire's editors do not make their viewpoints any more correct or valuable than those of other members of this site who spend fewer hours on it.

And, as far as I know, Dean and his colleagues have never (and would never) make this argument.

[ Parent ]
Value (0.00 / 0)
If their opinion has no greater value, then their time arguably does. What they give to provide the monkey bars you and I swing from is worthy of respect.

You can choose not to honor it. I choose to defend it. I'd be embarrassed, if they had to do that themselves. I feel I owe them that much.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
Hey Jack (0.00 / 0)
I do respect it, and you know it. Insulting me (as a substitute for ignoring my point) doesn't change that.
[ Parent ]
I ignored nothing (0.00 / 0)
You ignore your place.

You show up. Me, too. I mean, really.

If refusing to validate pretense is insulting? I'm guilty.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
I strongly agree with Douglas regarding endorsements. (4.00 / 1)
Ambivalent about the post editing.

On endorsements, my position is that if BH wants to endorse a candidate/position/policy, and wants to have the full force of the community it represents, then that community should have a participatory role in the decision.



In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

[ Parent ]
It may be worth pointing out (0.00 / 0)
... that, in the history of Blue Hampshire, the editors and FPers had never done a group endorsement. This year, for the first time, they all agreed on one candidate before the primary.

The odds of that happening again may be low.

But I still agree with Jack. The people on the masthead have greater responsibility, and with greater responsibility should come some greater power. It's their rule to set, not ours.

To your point -- BH already is participatory. Anyone can write a diary, and anyone can have that diary front-paged.

[ Parent ]
After the editors endorsed Dodd in 08, there was still plenty of engagement from all sides (4.00 / 2)
After "Blue Hampshire" endorsed Kuster in 2010, the Swett campaign and nearly all of its supporters stayed away.

As I said before, this site has owners and it's theirs to do with as they please.  Suggestions were sought, and these are mine.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

[ Parent ]
All fine (0.00 / 0)
And taken in that spirit. We're discussing principles here.

I guess I would say -- people come and go for their own purposes. If traffic is genuinely down when it should be up -- if -- then that's a separate issue and perhaps not related to endorsements. It could be anything.

[ Parent ]
NB: (4.00 / 3)
I'm purposefully not taking part in this thread in the hopes my absence will encourage suggestions, but to correct the record: at NH-Primary 08 time, there were three admins, only two of whom endorsed Dodd on separate occasions.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker
[ Parent ]
Duly noted. (0.00 / 0)


--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Would you please find (0.00 / 0)
a diary posted on BH by the last Swett campaign? Or by Swett?

If you mean to say, they were here and then they left, we should establish that they were here. I can't. Maybe you will have better luck. I've searched Swett, Katrina Swett, Swett for Congress, Coffman, & Megan Coffman.

Zilch.

DeJoie - Yep.  Kuster - Yep. Fernald - ?. Swett - ?.



"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
There an obvious reason for that, Jack. Let me address it. (4.00 / 2)
My experience:

1. Katrina entered the race one week before the "Blue Hampshire" endorsement. (A fatal mistake, admittedly.  Only Meagan was on the payroll until late Spring.) Many on this blog interpreted her lack of engagement with them as a sign that she didn't care about netroots; rather, her campaign was just getting organized at that point.  

2. At the time of the endorsement in May, I was encouraging the Swett campaign to engage Blue Hampshire directly. I was informed that the campaign was planning to do so, and had designated someone very close to Katrina (not me) to be its voice on Blue Hampshire.

3. Just as this was about to happen, the "Blue Hampshire" endorsement came out -- not on behalf of the editors as individuals, but appearing to speak for the entire site. Naturally, it made the Swett campaign treat BH as the enemy territory that it soon became. And, as one who encouraged many supporters of Katrina to join me in backing her on the blog, I can assure you that its perspective was shared by the vast majority of Swett endorsers across New Hampshire.

To be clear, I had (and have) no issue with individual endorsements from editors.  Quite the contrary -- I would have preferred reading personal reasons for supporting Annie, rather than a blanket statement likely written by one person and signed by a group. But, like Doug (a strong Kuster backer), I did/do have a problem with (a) an endorsement that appeared to the outside world -- perhaps unintentionally -- to speak for the entire Blue Hampshire community, rather than its six governing members; and (b) one that undermined a role that this blog could have played as a forum for constructive discussion between both candidates -- rather than as an advocate for one.

I really don't want to start up another 20-against-1 Bash Katrina diary. (Had enough of that.) But I do feel that this information is germaine to the discussion.

So there.

[ Parent ]
So the answer is zero? (0.00 / 0)
Yes. Swett bungled her entry into the race. She was half way in for how long? How about 1 year!
Mon May 04, 2009 at 14:37:15 PM EDT
Thu May 20, 2010 at 05:13:20 AM EDT

That is a looooooooong time to thumb twittle. Shame she wasted that year which could have been used for "constructive discussion."

Let me close by saying, I have no love in kicking a private citizen that has bowed out of the fray. BUT, we must learn. If learning requires examining egg on anothers face, so be it.



"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
Actually, you *love* kicking a private citizen that has bowed out of the fray (4.00 / 1)
Let it rest.  Katrina's campaign mistakes are irrelevant to my (and Doug's) argument -- and you know it.
[ Parent ]
Odd (0.00 / 0)
In Lowell politics, they make it personal. Everyone here wants to be the most popular "kid in school." It's like they are vying for prom king and queen, ferchrissakes.

I just can't stand lazy, sloppy, ect, "bad" political practices. Especially, stuff that is "Day 1 shit."

Don't bother trying to assign intentions to me, or anyone else. It is a laughable practice.

Please address the year Swett ignored BH. That pesky year which preceded the BH endorsement of Kuster.


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
That just isn't true: they are not just relevant (4.00 / 1)
they are central to that discussion.

Doug claims that the endorsement drove her supporters away.

The facts show otherwise. She was out on the hustings for many months, not participating here. The greatest influx of Swett supporters and defenders came AFTER the endorsement.

We no more drove her campaign supporters from the site than we drove giraffes out of Colebrook.

[ Parent ]
My experience differs (4.00 / 1)
Elwood, I was rebuffed over and over and over again by Swett supporters who were so pissed off that they didn't want to touch Blue Hampshire with a ten-foot pole. The perception that BH was a Kuster vehicle rather than an open forum DID drive supporters from this site.  And, since I was actually engaging them at the time, I feel like I can speak with more authority on this topic than you can.

Your comment below - "she had her defenders throughout" - doesn't reflect what happened on this site during the summer.  First of all, as I noted above, the campaign scuttled its plan to engage the blog after the "Blue Hampshire" endorsement. (You can criticize that decision all you want, but you'll have a hard time finding a campaign anywhere that will justify investing time and resources on a medium that has endorsed its opponent.)  

Secondly, for most of the summer, I was the only Swett supporter who participated regularly on Blue Hampshire. Rep. Dejoie joined in late in the campaign, and a few other supporters and non-supporters (e.g. Putney Swope) got involved because they were pissed off at the relentless attacks on Katrina. That's pretty much it.

Granted, one could easily place much of the blame for this disengagement on the campaign itself, and you would have a damn good case. I'm not here to defend the Swett campaign's decisions or its approach to netroots; rather, I'm saying that engagement between both candidates could have been facilitated -- and enriched -- on Blue Hampshire had you and your colleagues endorsed Annie as individuals rather than on behalf of the entire community.  

[ Parent ]
It was a strategy (0.00 / 0)
Campaigns make choices. I'm not judging the choice, but they made a choice not to engage here.

There was a time when Blue Hampshire had one, and only one, fully engaged Obama supporter who posted frequently. (I think you know his name.) As the primaries proceeded, more Obama supporters emerged. Immediately before the 2008 primary, the place was flooded -- and, for the record, it was a bit of a bummer; some of them were rude. Most of those people who appeared right before the primary have never returned.

By contrast, some new members joined during the marriage equality fight, and several of them still post, which is good to see. But either way, choice of user is the determining factor -- not what other people are saying on the site.

There are other people who have made cameos -- Jay Buckey? Steve Marchand? And they have, by choice, not reappeared (at least not very often).


[ Parent ]
Typing too fast (0.00 / 0)
Should read "as the primary approached," and "New Hampshire presidential primary." Sorry.
[ Parent ]
That's an entirely different matter. (4.00 / 1)
I'm not surprised that Swett supporters who had not joined the site over the previous years, and were laser-focused on electing their candidate, didn't find it a great place to spend time once the campaign began (which was LONG before the endorsement). Endorsement or no, this did not appear to be the "sweet spot" for her constituency.

The charge Doug makes is, the endorsement drove away existing Hamsters who felt alienated by it. There's no evidence of that. The shifting-ground charge is, Swett supporters who had not yet joined, didn't thereafter.

That may be true. But this isn't a general Democratic Party campaign newsletter. It is a "progressive online community."  

[ Parent ]
Facts don't prove a negative. (0.00 / 0)
Did the endorsement make Swett supporters feel this community isn't for them, thereby discouraging those who might have posted?

You don't know that.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

[ Parent ]
Spine (0.00 / 0)
I think it is an insult to suggest any of the many supporters that Swett had would be so easily put off. These people help shape NH as you and I understand it. Yet, repeatedly, I read they are weak in the knees. That doesn't jive with reality.

Thumping your chest about something that fails the straight face test is a bad practice. Knock yourself out, if you must.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
Half the country doesn't vote. (0.00 / 0)
Most visitors to this site don't post.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Adding: (4.00 / 2)
Once again, I was a Kuster supporter. Your implicit argument that I'm carrying water for Swett is invalid.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner
[ Parent ]
role of BH in an election (4.00 / 1)
"a role that this blog could have played as a forum for constructive discussion between both candidates"

I don't agree with everything DD said but I did wish that BH would have made itself available as more of a forum for debate in the Primary this season.

IMHO BH has every right to endorse. It's just that the content because somewhat 'One Note' during this congressional campaign, progressives who were not already on board with Kuster might have turned off. I think that it might have better served the progressive agenda to have a place where voters could come to learn about the pros and cons of both candidates.

When I worked for the coordinated campaign in 2000 we had a very hard time convincing Bradley supporters who come out and support Gore-Lieberman. In fact, we had a very hard time convincing the former Bradley activists that they wanted or even welcome among the fold.

The tone of the Kuster campaign and her most ardent supporters after the Primary (and by association this blog) really reminded me of our (and by that I mean the NHDP) troubles engaging people in the fall of 2000.

The hostility did not end after the Primary. In 2000 we had a big fight on our hands and we needed all of the Democratic activists in the state on board to prevail. If Gore supporters, and the Gore campaign in general, had been less hostile to and more welcoming of the former Bradley supporters into the fold would their energy have been enough to push us over to victory? It is impossible to say for sure but I, for one, am convinced it would have made a big difference.

The fact that the 2010 CD-2 Primary was extremely hostile is undeniable. It is also hard to escape the fact that this animosity did not end with Kuster's nomination. Just look at the posts on this diary for proof.

As progressives and as Democrats we need to be able to work together in order to defeat conservatives and Republicans. In this year I think we say that we produced an epic fail on this front.

I think that in order not to repeat this debacle in 2012 we need to get our ducks in row ASAP. I ask each of my fellow Blue Hampsters what each of us can do to make sure that in the future we assemble a united front to fight the opposition instead of fighting among ourselves.

My peanut gallery suggestion is work very hard to bury the hatchet, to stop accusing each other of not supporting this or that candidate in the general election and put our energy where it is needed: uniting and reinvigorating our party.

Let's stop sniping and accusing each other and start working together. Divided we fall. United we kick ass.


Politics is a dirty game but if you don't play the bad guys win - Morgan Magnus Grey

[ Parent ]
on the suggestion front (0.00 / 0)
as a too-fast typer and not-super editor of my own posts I understand the opposition to being able to edit comments but I would very for that development.

Ahem, there are 3-4 missed/wrong words in my post above that I'd be delighted to be able to fix.

Perhaps we could edit our posts for an hours or so and then have the ability disappear?

Politics is a dirty game but if you don't play the bad guys win - Morgan Magnus Grey

[ Parent ]
It seems like there is a logical dividing line (4.00 / 2)
between comments that have not yet drawn any responses, and ones that have.  Changing the lead comment in a discussion to correct something erroneous or ambiguous can make the whole sub-thread difficult to understand.

But, posters shouldn't worry about mis-spelled words. You don't lose stature in the eyes of sensible reader. A post with some typos is the nature of blogging - arguably part of its allure, like the early days of live TV.

Besides, some Eastern religion has a tenet that the craftsman must never create a perfect work - it would be an insult and challenge to the Almighty. My own errors are deliberate acts of humility...

[ Parent ]
IIRC, John DeJoie had already dropped out (0.00 / 0)
before we endorsed. It arguably wasn't "early."

That's not to dismiss your points, though.

[ Parent ]
more on the suggestion front (0.00 / 0)
Thanks.

I will sometimes post in the wrong spot here out of sheer laziness at trying to go back and find comment that stuck out in my mind after reading a thread.

I'm not sure if this has been said yet but it might be cool to be able to hide sub-threads (not sure that's a word but...) when you are viewing comments.

Politics is a dirty game but if you don't play the bad guys win - Morgan Magnus Grey

[ Parent ]
I think I follow - (0.00 / 0)
We have different reading styles, which is what the medium is meant to create.

If I've got it right, you tend to read a whole thread in its nested outline treely goodness, then think a bit, but then can't always find the comment you would like to respond to.

And the sort of outline view - "Level 1. only, level 1.1.1.1 instead" - that Word provides would be cool.

Is that it?

[ Parent ]
exactly! (4.00 / 1)
I'm trying to think of blogs where i have seen this function but its escaping me at the moment.

Politics is a dirty game but if you don't play the bad guys win - Morgan Magnus Grey
[ Parent ]
I like it - (0.00 / 0)
It could even help structure the conversation usefully in the first place.
[ Parent ]
"The Swett campaign and all of its supporters" (0.00 / 0)
turned out to be under 30% of the primary electorate.

The BH group endorsement was an early indicator of how out-of-touch her campaign was.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps (4.00 / 1)
But I'm not sure how that's relevant to Doug's point about how the endorsement was presented and perceived:

When a candidate in a primary for Congress announces at the state convention that she has been endorsed by "Blue Hampshire", that doesn't come with a disclaimer about how "Blue Hampshire" refers to editors and a specific group of contributors, rather than all of them.

[ Parent ]
We've had this discussion before - (0.00 / 0)
I think the newspaper metaphor works well; you do not.

I'm listening.

[ Parent ]
Respectfully noted (4.00 / 1)
But I think it comes down to this:

* Is Blue Hampshire's role to drive advocacy for specific candidates?  

* Or is it to encourage debate and discussion between multiple perspectives in an election campaign, and to serve as a forum by which the progressive bona fides of various candidates can be vetted as constructively as possible -- thus strengthening the winning candidate by building broad engagement?

I believe in Door #2. And, while I realize that you disagree, my experience (see lengthy comment above) offers evidence that they can be mutually exclusive.  

Unlike newspapers, blogs exist not to provide a one-way stream of information, but to engage people to seek truth via intellectual sharing.  That is why the role of an "editorial board" for the two types of vehicles can -- and should be -- different.  

[ Parent ]
With, truly, a great deal of respect, (4.00 / 1)
So?

It's the principle of the thing.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

[ Parent ]
So, I'm not convinced that (4.00 / 2)
the group endorsement drove a substantial flock of Swett supporters away. She had her defenders here throughout.

Furthermore, to the extent that a group endorsement did drive supporters away, it isn't at all obvious to me that 5 or 6 individual front-pager endorsement diaries, all favoring Kuster, would have been less likely to.

There are questions about the advisability of a group endorsement - but I just don't see this as a major factor in that assessment.

[ Parent ]
There are two problems with "Blue Hampshire" endorsing (0.00 / 0)
1. it drives other Democrats away from the conversation

2. it can easily be interpreted as speaking on behalf of more people than are actually involved in making the decision

For at least the fourth time this thread, I respect that this site has owners and they may do with it what they wish.  But it also has a community of contributors that help make it what it is, and who can be associated with it for better or for worse.  In my opinion, a community blog should think about how its actions affect the community that grows around it.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

[ Parent ]
An annual Blue Hampshire meet-up ... (4.00 / 3)
.... regardless of whether you have a big-name guest speaker - that takes place on a weekend, so that folks from the Lakes region or North Country can attend.

 "We should pay attention to that man behind the curtain."
Also, more "Open Threads" daily .... (4.00 / 2)
.... so that a small item that doesn't merit its own diary can be placed out there.

 "We should pay attention to that man behind the curtain."
[ Parent ]
More WYSIWYG editing and posting tools - (4.00 / 3)
advanced font styles, linking tools, etc.  HTML coding creates a learning curve that might be cutting off a potential segment of contributors.


In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.
Ability to recommend front page posts. n/t (4.00 / 2)


In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.
What if.. (4.00 / 1)
There was a function that FP'd a diary if 4 commentors recommended it?

Like a "viewers choice" award.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
I think my awkward wording has spawned (4.00 / 1)
an excellent idea, Jack.

I was referring to the ability to recommend a post already posted on the Front Page, say this Suggestion Box post.  In this way, as contributors, we can work as a community to decide how to keep a topic alive for just a bit longer.

I like your idea as well, empowering the community to promote to the FP.

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

[ Parent ]
I disagree with this (0.00 / 0)
You might as well put up a "Trolls Welcome" sign.

[ Parent ]
Punish The Innocent? (0.00 / 0)
Are you thinking we should stop a good to prevent a bad?

I was more concerned with NHDP staff pumping pressers.

The Admins can flush. I maintain there is a "jiggle the handle" clause in this social contract.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
Stop two bads (0.00 / 0)
Think of primary diaries battling it out for the FP.

But really I was thinking more of "Frank Guinta Rules!" diaries sitting atop BH for three or four hours.


[ Parent ]
Not sure I agree with Jack's idea, but there are ways to get around trolls (0.00 / 0)
Waiting periods on allowing new accounts to participate in that particular process, only allowing people with x number of posts to get involved, etc.  Works for Wikipedia.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Either way (0.00 / 0)
No automatic FP. Editorial control, from human beings. I'm kickin' this new school old school.

[ Parent ]
I'm inclined to agree. (0.00 / 0)


--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner
[ Parent ]
How so? n/t (0.00 / 0)


In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.
[ Parent ]
In theory (0.00 / 0)
Four unwelcome visitors could organize themselves to take over the front page (temporarily).

Yes, the likelihood is low, but stranger things have happened.

I suppose the feature could be configured to only allow what SoapBlox calls "trusted" users, but then we still have the dueling primary diaries problem I cited above.

Besides, we would lose the strategic option of rec'ing a diary that isn't front page-appropriate, like the occasional just-for-fun pop culture celebration / argument / palette cleanser.


[ Parent ]
Palette/palate (4.00 / 1)
 not sure which you meant, but I kinda like the image of cleaning the paint off to refresh things, Jim.

I think the rec'ing of diaries is quite satisfactory for the purpose, and actually less ephemeral than the FP function, as you yourself noted the other day when you were asking folks to un-rec your diary.

Sometimes I wish there were more than three in the recommended area, but three is probably best in the long run.

I find very little here to complain about, but I am cogitating on any possible suggestions...

They. Don't. Care.
We do.
Rinse, repeat.

[ Parent ]
Maybe a selective edit function would be useful (4.00 / 1)
... for sloppy users like me.
[ Parent ]
I think the number of rec diaries (0.00 / 0)
is as simple as changing a # in a form field.

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.
[ Parent ]
Blue box (0.00 / 0)
If dues are instituted, I'll have you know that I intend to pay myself as well. Because I believe dues should be participatory.

One small geekish wish: (4.00 / 1)
that there could be some page feature to toggle/collapse (+/-) levels of comments and replies so that it is would be more evident who was commenting/replying on what when things get, um, "thready" toward the right hand side of the page.

More than a few "Sorry, meant to reply to..." posts around here.

Not sure if that's an available Soapblox function, but it sure would help sometimes.

They. Don't. Care.
We do.
Rinse, repeat.

I don't think (4.00 / 2)
its a part of soapblox, and I have growing concerns that inovation to soapblox that I thought might happen after the "soapboxcalypse" has not happened.

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.
[ Parent ]
Suggestion Box | 88 comments

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox