Skip to main content

View Post [edit]

Poster: garthus1 Date: Jan 21, 2016 7:15pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Removal of flagged content

Jeff, The way great things are built is to incorporate enhancements which usually are the result of criticism which may not be liked by those responsible for the original creation. You completely misunderstand my intent here. I have said in the past and am still telling people today, that the IA site is the best one out there, especially concerning the amount and type of content they have available. If I would have felt the way you have written, I never would have spent, by my own count (which does not include any work I did for the Archive before 2010) nearly 6,000 hours (yes I do keep track of it and no I do not take any tax deductions for any of my contributions) of my own time creating content and putting it up. The time spent alone on copyright investigation is not included also and that was not insignificant. The INFOPORTAL will not be another IA, I do not think anyone could easily replace the IA; and that would not be our intent in any case. The problems I see should, and upon which others are commenting here, really have been addressed some time ago. Offers have been made, but no one seems to be interested in contacting any of the main providers of content unless they apparently are large education or corporate organizations. The shame here is that Brewster or anyone in the administration at the Archive does not think (heh wait a minute, we have people willing to help us without charge, may be we should at least talk with them and see if their ideas have any merit) and then if you do not like what we have said, at least give good reasons for not listening. Instead we get the approach more like, 'up yours', if you do not like it leave. No one at the Archive will yet answer the question concerning what is wrong with having two sets of web sites; I am sure that the group of us who like the old site would keep it running as long as we can without any cost to the Archive. We would even be willing to host it on our own servers if that would be a problem. So you see what the frustration is … the appearance is that these decisions appear as if they were being made arbitrarily (I am not saying they are, only their [those in power at the Archive at the moment] non-communication makes it appear that they are). Apparently egos are so that people have invested themselves personally into the decisions which they have made and have an irrational reaction when some criticism is leveled. I assure you that this criticism is made out of a love for what has been created at the Archive and I am sorry if some people's egos get hurt along the way. The people whom I work with only know one way to work, that is professionally, truthfully, and honestly. We only know two ways to do things … good and even better. Optimization should be a hallmark of any system and I am sure people could find issues with what I do also. But the difference is that I am willing to listen to that criticism and incorporate good recommendations into my creations. 'Killing the messenger' has been going I am sure since humans first walked the planet. No one is saying here that you have to do it 'my way' only that people should listen and then if you do not want to accept the recommendation, at least be honorable enough to give a valid explanation explaining why you are not willing to listen. This argument has been going on for some time now … and I will not name them at this time, but there are people who have skills which would be extremely useful for the Archive as an organization and are willing to work voluntarily. It is their and all of our losses that the 'people at the top' have become so insular that they cannot even reply to a simple question “why not let a group of us take over the old (classic) site and continue its operation, at no cost to the Archive. WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER. Take a look at this link: http://www.openeducation.org/moodle/ My courses since 2011, I think what I am saying should have some credibility ... 74 course in multiple and different fields. Gerry
This post was modified by garthus1 on 2016-01-22 03:15:13

Reply [edit]

Poster: stbalbach Date: Jan 21, 2016 7:48pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Removal of flagged content

Gerry, Jeff is right. I don't understand your position. It's not your organization. Friendly feedback and ideas is one thing, but cutting remarks about the staff? No one is entitled because of their age, work experience or upload count. Whatever the technical and policy disagreements, there's got to be a better way than haranguing the forums.

I worked in an early era ISP with 10s of thousands of customers. We had support forums (pre-web usenet) and some people were continually critical of our work. It was like their full time job to post complaints, tantrums, threats, etc.. You may be on the other end of it if you have an online customer base to support. There's no glory it's a combat zone where most of the time you are the pin cushion.

Stephen

Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus1 Date: Jan 29, 2016 1:01pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Removal of flagged content

Stbalbach,
Everything Is Fine On The Titanic?
From a customer service perspective you may have a point; however, I think many people miss the points being made here. The Archive is a non-profit organization and as such is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers whether many really understand this or not. The Archive is not a 'private' corporation since it is not exclusively funded by private money. When you agree to take nonprofit status you also have additional responsibilities to your members over and above what a private corporation has to its stock-holders. No one is trying to tell them how to run the Archive ... only asking why certain decisions were made ... and I think that is not too much to ask. Simple two line answer ... maybe 'it will cost too much' or 'we do not have the time to do this', would suffice; however the 'up yours' attitude does not cut it. I never ran nor do I run my private companies like that. We offered to give them advice or information with no strings attached, but the management seems to not want any advice unless ‘they’ pay for it ... strange coming from a so-called nonprofit organization. You would think that efforts to optimize would be welcome ... but the exact opposite is true. I remember the cork-in-the-ear approach during the adoption of flash and the resultant waste of time and resources was so predictable. Progress is not made with kumbaiya-kiss-ass-conformism as the driving force. The dialectic oft-times gets heated, but an intelligent person does not take criticism as a personal attack and understands that out of the strife of conflict comes new more adaptable and of course really 'better' systems. I am sure Brewster did not get rich by following the path of producing products or services that increasingly were harder to use and less optimal. That is not the way competition works in a free market. And unfortunately government subsidized nonprofits which are run like private country clubs do no produce optimal results. Those who refuse to listen to 'wake-up' calls will just repeat history and ultimately even though they may have a good product or service ... it will always function sub-optimally.

All this verbiage and no reason yet given why there cannot be two interfaces for the Archive ... I always had at least two interfaces to my web-sites, the front-end which put one's face on the Internet and maybe should 'look' good, whatever that means; but there was always a back end which was purely functional, since that is what we used to support the front-end. If one wants to produce better systems ... they must be willing to take and understand criticism ... without that you just have a group of kiss-ass groupies just telling each other how good everything is as the Titanic is heading towards the iceberg.

Gerry