Self-aware? It took extremely blunt blog posts from the Quora review blog and TechCrunch for him to notice his behavior.
And then in the very same blog post, he still did his annoying name-dropping thing: "I woke up in Davos, Switzerland", which has no relation to the post other than promoting how cool he is.
He has displayed some very poignant insight into his own behavior in that particular online community. I was able to take away some good lessons about my own activities elsewhere. It's definitely important to keep your ear to the ground, as he has apparently learned. I don't think I've read a lot of what he's written; An article or two over the last several years, maybe. That said I have an image created in my mind about the kind of person he is (very self-promotional) but this has shown me another side of the guy. Something I can relate to.
Good on him for being humble enough to lay his own flaws out there for everyone to see.
That wasn't my take-away. He answers a ton of questions and made a conscious effort to maximize his return on that work (in this case, karma). He knew how to get what he wanted, but in order to get what he wanted he still had to be helpful in the process. If he wasn't being helpful then he wouldn't have gotten the votes in the first place.
If he actually wasn't being helpful but yet still received a lot of votes then that is a flaw in the community's voting habits. For example, people automatically up-voting him because of who he is after seeing other people do that countless times "so he must be insightful, right?" The guy knows how that place works so it seems logical that he might make the most out his time spent on there. There are power players in every community -- even this one -- who can relate to Scoble in this regard.
His problem was that he was playing too hard IMO. This ticked a lot of people off. Now, he does mention that some of his practices were annoying to other community members. That was also his flaw.
The definition of karma whoring isn't posting irrelevant things just for upvotes, it's focusing on getting upvoted rather than answering. His posting low-quality questions quickly just so he can get upvoted while refining them, posting irrelevant pictures just so the posts look nicer, etc, all points to karma whoring, not just answering a lot.
>The definition of karma whoring isn't posting irrelevant things just for upvotes, it's focusing on getting upvoted rather than answering.
Why is there a negative stigma around wanting karma and seeking it out even in the case where you're being helpful? It seems as though karma is something good to have but if you want it, that's bad. This seems similar to how wanting to be cool makes you so uncool.
>His posting low-quality questions quickly just so he can get upvoted while refining them, posting irrelevant pictures just so the posts look nicer, etc, all points to karma whoring, not just answering a lot.
Fair enough, my definition of karma whoring might be a bit off from the norm. I always took it as trying to gain karma from a community while basically doing nothing to further the quality of the community. I wasn't aware from his post that the pictures he was adding to the answers were entirely irrelevant. I must have missed where he said that (and I don't use Quora).
I don't use quora either, I just saw his example post where the photo seems to be an airport whereas the post is about some other issue. There's a difference between being minimally helpful to maximise karma gain and being helpful and getting karma as a side-effect. The things he posted weren't about getting the highest quality posts possible, they were about getting the highest amount of upvotes.
The fact that he posted low quality answers to gain karma while he refined them is a prime example of that, in my opinion. If you just care about helping you don't do that.
Karma is a reward for helpful users, it's not the goal (that's why you can't redeem it for anything). When users act in this way it stops being an indicator of helpfulness and turns into an indicator of who's the best at raking in karma.
These are the self-ware posts by scoble which have made his respected in tech/startup circles.
Perhaps this clarifying post will lead to better discussions on quora. Any new service, when explodes, some one out there misses crucial point of using the service. But in the long run those mistakes become new yardstick to rate content and hence leads to better discussions.
Damn, 400 answers on Quora... no wonder why Scoble is so passionate about it. Scoble is a content creation machine, and unlike most answer sites and other bloggers, his content is high-signal.
I've had his problem before -- being completely addicted to a service or forum and posting constantly just because I'm always there and am so enthusiastic about it. It's really hard to spot in yourself and deal with when you're just... so enthusiastic!
The interesting thing here, I think, is how obvious it is that it's the community and the rules of the community that shapes a service like Quora, not the feature set or the web design or the copy used etc.
Not that this is very surprising, it's just a reminder to not just look at the feature list of your startup but also its.... well, soul.
I think it's hilarious how one person ... one registered user of a web startup can completely derail all positive discussion about the service and spawn so many blog posts and news articles.
This strikes me as one of those "lord of the flies" moments where we all need to stop and ask what we're all doing here exactly.
I know your question was rhetorical, but I'll give an answer anyway. Because unfortunately (in my opinion) news has become as much about whos delivering the information as what's being said. And I use the word "said" because many times whats written or spoken isn't even what I'd call reporting. Take Wikileaks for example ... much of the main stream media reporting on Wikileaks has placed as much prominence (or more) on Julian Assange as they have on the trove of information thats been exposed. Cable-"news" has built brands around their personalities that pass off editorializing as reporting. This has resulted in viewer loyalty to the point where many of their viewers threaten to go elsewhere if their favorite newsreader isn't retained. This "story" has all the ingredients to fit into that model ... two prominent internet personalities (Arrington & Scoble) without enough followers, fans and haters to ensure that there'll be people on either side to fuel the fire using their platforms to promote their opinions about stuff.
Is it news? I guess about as much as what you see presented as news elsewhere.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. And I tend to agree. In the case of Wikileaks, the guy did something substantive at least (whether you agree or disagree with it) so I can understand the fascination with the man behind the story as his motivations, methods, etc are potentially interesting.
In this case, this whole thing appears void of any real "substance" which I guess is what led to the question.
In truth it shouldn't be news, because it is simply one man's (one user's) opinion. The reality is that Scoble is a tour de force of the tech world: the man has a power with his words to change the course of how startups can gain (or lose) fame/funding/etc. In the case of Quora, they have the accolades to withstand the storm a bit better than most startups.
I think the message here is that even a prominent tech figure can be quelled if he breaks the rules. I think an underlying message here is that the power of the people still rules supreme - what this community can take away from this exchange in Scoble v Quora is that the power of the people still win, so if you can build a compelling piece of software that appeases your customers, even if the critics don't like your product, you can basically give them the finger and tell them "xx customers couldn't disagree more!"
Remember that he may be a juggernaut, but the bigger they are the harder they fall, and to not let one man's negative comments on what you work on deter you from your course.
23 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 56.8 ms ] threadAnd then in the very same blog post, he still did his annoying name-dropping thing: "I woke up in Davos, Switzerland", which has no relation to the post other than promoting how cool he is.
Good on him for being humble enough to lay his own flaws out there for everyone to see.
If he actually wasn't being helpful but yet still received a lot of votes then that is a flaw in the community's voting habits. For example, people automatically up-voting him because of who he is after seeing other people do that countless times "so he must be insightful, right?" The guy knows how that place works so it seems logical that he might make the most out his time spent on there. There are power players in every community -- even this one -- who can relate to Scoble in this regard.
His problem was that he was playing too hard IMO. This ticked a lot of people off. Now, he does mention that some of his practices were annoying to other community members. That was also his flaw.
Why is there a negative stigma around wanting karma and seeking it out even in the case where you're being helpful? It seems as though karma is something good to have but if you want it, that's bad. This seems similar to how wanting to be cool makes you so uncool.
>His posting low-quality questions quickly just so he can get upvoted while refining them, posting irrelevant pictures just so the posts look nicer, etc, all points to karma whoring, not just answering a lot.
Fair enough, my definition of karma whoring might be a bit off from the norm. I always took it as trying to gain karma from a community while basically doing nothing to further the quality of the community. I wasn't aware from his post that the pictures he was adding to the answers were entirely irrelevant. I must have missed where he said that (and I don't use Quora).
The fact that he posted low quality answers to gain karma while he refined them is a prime example of that, in my opinion. If you just care about helping you don't do that.
Karma is a reward for helpful users, it's not the goal (that's why you can't redeem it for anything). When users act in this way it stops being an indicator of helpfulness and turns into an indicator of who's the best at raking in karma.
Perhaps this clarifying post will lead to better discussions on quora. Any new service, when explodes, some one out there misses crucial point of using the service. But in the long run those mistakes become new yardstick to rate content and hence leads to better discussions.
So Scoble - thanks again!
Not that this is very surprising, it's just a reminder to not just look at the feature list of your startup but also its.... well, soul.
Hacker News is itself an example of this.
Great points by Erik. I quoted this exchange at http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2374&cpage=1#comment-...
This strikes me as one of those "lord of the flies" moments where we all need to stop and ask what we're all doing here exactly.
Is it news? I guess about as much as what you see presented as news elsewhere.
In this case, this whole thing appears void of any real "substance" which I guess is what led to the question.
I think the message here is that even a prominent tech figure can be quelled if he breaks the rules. I think an underlying message here is that the power of the people still rules supreme - what this community can take away from this exchange in Scoble v Quora is that the power of the people still win, so if you can build a compelling piece of software that appeases your customers, even if the critics don't like your product, you can basically give them the finger and tell them "xx customers couldn't disagree more!"
Remember that he may be a juggernaut, but the bigger they are the harder they fall, and to not let one man's negative comments on what you work on deter you from your course.