top4top: Why is this not the My Space that I am looking for on the Internet
About the new social portal top4top.ru who only today does not speak. I think my turn has come. I wanted to do this immediately after one of my virtual friends decided to give me a New Year's gift. Like, everything you are looking for on the Internet is an intelligent My Space , and he is already completely at the exit. And he offered me to listen to the well-known top4top presentation, which I myself, repent, being apart from Russian television, missed.
I listened. Indeed, there is something. Although there was something else, vaguely alarming. I decided to wait for the launch of the portal promised on the first days of January, and there they were already judging whether it was something that I, having not yet found on the Internet, decided to create it myself. And now, finally, the promised gift came to life ...
I will say straight away: I will not talk about whether the creators of the portal had the moral right, to hide behind a fig beta leaflet, to launch such an unfinished product into mass circulation. I will not discuss the money in another's pocket and reflect on how they were received and what could be built with this money. I will not evaluate the design, tools and technology. I will not deal with issues of ergonomics (usability) and functionality of the resource. I will not (almost) consider the marketing aspects of the project and its business model. All this, in particular, can be read in several Habrav discussions on top4top. For example, in one of the longest I have seen on Habré.
I will only talk about the concept of the project. As I understood it, listening to Dibrova, and how I managed to deal with it, wading through the wilds of mistakes and unrealized functions.
Best for best or glossy portal?
I'll start by quoting the presentation material. Here and further quotes are captured by the ear. Unfortunately, I can’t find the record of the presentation itself now, but everyone who viewed it will not let me lie - I tried to convey the meaning of what was said exactly.
')
Answering the question of a journalist, and there is a Western prototype for the “best for the best” project, Dibrov said, roughly, the following: “No, and cannot be by definition. In the same way as Chekhov could appear only in Russia, only Runet can become the birthplace of such an intelligent website. ”
Let us leave aside the question of the correctness of such an assertion, although I personally consider it to be as myth-forming as, for example, the statement “Russian programmers are the most inventive (“ creative ”)” [ 1 , 2 ]. However, no one can deny that, really, the thought about the intelligence and intellectuality of top4top has passed through the whole presentation with a red thread. Let's look at this conceptual aspect.
To begin with, it seems to me that intelligence and intelligence are not the same thing. For me, intellectuality is determined by the state of mind, estimated, say, through IQ, in total with the total erudition. The higher the IQ and the broader the erudition (which, as a rule, is associated with higher education), the higher the intelligence. Both figures are roughly equivalent.
Intelligence , in my opinion, is determined by the state of the soul (or, if you prefer, the internal culture) in the amount of the state of mind. The higher the internal culture, the higher the intelligence. IQ at the same time plays a secondary role. We all know well that not every intellectual can be called an intellectual. The converse, unfortunately, is also true.
At the same time, speaking of both the intellectuality and the intelligence of the resource in question, each of these concepts should be correlated with the left and right components of the top4top formula, that is, answer the questions what? and for whom?
I don’t know, intuitively or consciously, but the creators of the social basis of their resource put a progressive “moulet” strategy about which I already wrote a lot, for example, here . In this case, the essence of this strategy can be formulated as "be like me." In this case, the initial role of the group “I” is assumed by the invited experts. In top4top, these functions are still performed by the administration of the resource, unfortunately, now, basically, anonymous.
A mulet strategy assumes that the list of experts formed by the owners of a social resource will gradually be replenished from among the users selected by the users themselves.
About the same authors say top4top. At the same time, the initial list of such expert users is also compiled here by the portal administration. Dibrov calls them these experts grandee. I am sure if Anton Chekhov was alive today, he would certainly have been invited to become the nobleman of top4top, although I’m not sure that with his intelligence, he would like a similar title.
Thus, the “quality” of the left top is largely determined by the quality of the initial list of nobles. By the way, a “simple” startup is unlikely to be able to wipe the full implementation of a mulet strategy: to invite, for example, the promised us M. Gorbachev, the founders of the “middle” startup will not have any connections :).
So, if we look at the composition of today's top4top grandees, then it seems to me that at least half of them can only be attributed to intellectuals as a very big stretch, as to intellectuals as well. Here, more we see the heroes of the glossy magazine, as the portal has correctly compared the participant in one Habrav discussions .
At the same time, I will immediately say that in no case do I consider that such “glossy portals” have no place in the social Internet. But I am sure that such a social portal will be guided by something completely different from the “ right top” that Dibrov is talking about. After all, intellectuals and intellectuals, as I represent them, are by no means the main audience of “glossy” publications, even if they are online.
For the time being, I would nevertheless define the social resource in question as a “cream for cream”. This refers to “whipped” information for the cream of society (well, at least not a tabloid “cream for the masses”) or, in any case, for those who want to be like them. Now, however, on the Russian open spaces rarely pronounce the "cream of society" or "celebrity." Most often they are called "celebrities". Yes, and the authors of the “portal for intellectuals” for some reason prefer to talk about “users” and “accounts”. But this is also a completely separate problem .
Like a few crony style of conversation with these same users, adopted by the portal and weakly corresponding to the claims to intelligence. Interestingly, they will also turn to Gorbachev: “Glad to see you again, Misha”? Or is there another language for “nobles”?
As surprisingly "intelligent" feature of the authors of the portal not to respond to comments and suggestions from users (we will still call them that). They don’t respond to the emphasis even if these suggestions and comments are placed in the “Pros” and “Minuses” sections of the portal, which is in fact at the alpha testing stage.
Who are the judges? or are there intellectuals in america?
And now, all the same, going back to the question of the uniqueness of top4top in terms of intellectuality and intelligence. Thanks to one note in Habré, I began to more deeply understand the site bigthink.com (also beta, but working beta :)). It’s not for me to judge whether I’m an intellectual or not, but I can say for sure that I speak English as fluently as Russian, I wouldn’t choose a minute between top4top and bigthink.com, as the author of this article doubting would prefer the latter. And as a reader, and as a blogger. Why? And simply because purely conceptually (as promised, I speak only about conceptuality) this is 3/4 what I unsuccessfully tried to find on the Internet [ 3 , 4 ]. Judge for yourself…
Read on for this blog post on my iTech Bridge blog . And here I will give only general conclusions. In general, they can be titled so ...
Famous trouble beginning, or Wanted as better ...
Using the top4top headings:
pros
1. The idea to create a social portal for intellectuals and intellectuals deserves all approval, and the fact of its such noisy appearance on the Runet is a clear confirmation of the fact that you can make serious investments for such a project.
2. The choice of the basic concept of the portal, based on a “mullet” strategy with its institute, of invited experts is also welcome.
3. The creators of the portal, by virtue of their social status and financial injections, received a unique opportunity to attract as experts the entire color of the Russian-speaking intelligentsia. Any “ordinary” intellectual-oriented startup can only dream of such luxury.
4. The portal has some interesting functional features, the consideration of which is beyond the scope of this note. Among them, I would point out the means of information exchange not only at the level of blog posts and comments, but also through files of different types, as well as the device for synchronizing portal blogs with popular blog platforms.
Minuses
1. The mechanisms put into the portal do not always and not completely correspond to the concept of intelligence and the intellectual nature of the social Internet. This, in particular, concerns the ranking of users and information, as well as administrative methods of "rejection" of the latter.
2. The currently available list of invited “nobles” and the anonymity of experts also does not allow us to talk about the intellectual nature of the resource. And if you take into account the design, then all this is more like a glossy magazine in the cover of a social web.
3. The portal platform is completely closed, which excludes any attempts of “third-party” creation of more specialized communities based on its network with its own, slightly different rules of the game. As such, for example, various professional communities would be well looked at.
4. A resource of this caliber, by definition, cannot and should not appear in such a “disassembled” state.
Here, perhaps, is all that at the moment I can say on the conceptual basis of top4top ... more
I listened. Indeed, there is something. Although there was something else, vaguely alarming. I decided to wait for the launch of the portal promised on the first days of January, and there they were already judging whether it was something that I, having not yet found on the Internet, decided to create it myself. And now, finally, the promised gift came to life ...
I will say straight away: I will not talk about whether the creators of the portal had the moral right, to hide behind a fig beta leaflet, to launch such an unfinished product into mass circulation. I will not discuss the money in another's pocket and reflect on how they were received and what could be built with this money. I will not evaluate the design, tools and technology. I will not deal with issues of ergonomics (usability) and functionality of the resource. I will not (almost) consider the marketing aspects of the project and its business model. All this, in particular, can be read in several Habrav discussions on top4top. For example, in one of the longest I have seen on Habré.
I will only talk about the concept of the project. As I understood it, listening to Dibrova, and how I managed to deal with it, wading through the wilds of mistakes and unrealized functions.
Best for best or glossy portal?
I'll start by quoting the presentation material. Here and further quotes are captured by the ear. Unfortunately, I can’t find the record of the presentation itself now, but everyone who viewed it will not let me lie - I tried to convey the meaning of what was said exactly.
')
Answering the question of a journalist, and there is a Western prototype for the “best for the best” project, Dibrov said, roughly, the following: “No, and cannot be by definition. In the same way as Chekhov could appear only in Russia, only Runet can become the birthplace of such an intelligent website. ”
Let us leave aside the question of the correctness of such an assertion, although I personally consider it to be as myth-forming as, for example, the statement “Russian programmers are the most inventive (“ creative ”)” [ 1 , 2 ]. However, no one can deny that, really, the thought about the intelligence and intellectuality of top4top has passed through the whole presentation with a red thread. Let's look at this conceptual aspect.
To begin with, it seems to me that intelligence and intelligence are not the same thing. For me, intellectuality is determined by the state of mind, estimated, say, through IQ, in total with the total erudition. The higher the IQ and the broader the erudition (which, as a rule, is associated with higher education), the higher the intelligence. Both figures are roughly equivalent.
Intelligence , in my opinion, is determined by the state of the soul (or, if you prefer, the internal culture) in the amount of the state of mind. The higher the internal culture, the higher the intelligence. IQ at the same time plays a secondary role. We all know well that not every intellectual can be called an intellectual. The converse, unfortunately, is also true.
At the same time, speaking of both the intellectuality and the intelligence of the resource in question, each of these concepts should be correlated with the left and right components of the top4top formula, that is, answer the questions what? and for whom?
I don’t know, intuitively or consciously, but the creators of the social basis of their resource put a progressive “moulet” strategy about which I already wrote a lot, for example, here . In this case, the essence of this strategy can be formulated as "be like me." In this case, the initial role of the group “I” is assumed by the invited experts. In top4top, these functions are still performed by the administration of the resource, unfortunately, now, basically, anonymous.
A mulet strategy assumes that the list of experts formed by the owners of a social resource will gradually be replenished from among the users selected by the users themselves.
About the same authors say top4top. At the same time, the initial list of such expert users is also compiled here by the portal administration. Dibrov calls them these experts grandee. I am sure if Anton Chekhov was alive today, he would certainly have been invited to become the nobleman of top4top, although I’m not sure that with his intelligence, he would like a similar title.
Thus, the “quality” of the left top is largely determined by the quality of the initial list of nobles. By the way, a “simple” startup is unlikely to be able to wipe the full implementation of a mulet strategy: to invite, for example, the promised us M. Gorbachev, the founders of the “middle” startup will not have any connections :).
So, if we look at the composition of today's top4top grandees, then it seems to me that at least half of them can only be attributed to intellectuals as a very big stretch, as to intellectuals as well. Here, more we see the heroes of the glossy magazine, as the portal has correctly compared the participant in one Habrav discussions .
At the same time, I will immediately say that in no case do I consider that such “glossy portals” have no place in the social Internet. But I am sure that such a social portal will be guided by something completely different from the “ right top” that Dibrov is talking about. After all, intellectuals and intellectuals, as I represent them, are by no means the main audience of “glossy” publications, even if they are online.
For the time being, I would nevertheless define the social resource in question as a “cream for cream”. This refers to “whipped” information for the cream of society (well, at least not a tabloid “cream for the masses”) or, in any case, for those who want to be like them. Now, however, on the Russian open spaces rarely pronounce the "cream of society" or "celebrity." Most often they are called "celebrities". Yes, and the authors of the “portal for intellectuals” for some reason prefer to talk about “users” and “accounts”. But this is also a completely separate problem .
Like a few crony style of conversation with these same users, adopted by the portal and weakly corresponding to the claims to intelligence. Interestingly, they will also turn to Gorbachev: “Glad to see you again, Misha”? Or is there another language for “nobles”?
As surprisingly "intelligent" feature of the authors of the portal not to respond to comments and suggestions from users (we will still call them that). They don’t respond to the emphasis even if these suggestions and comments are placed in the “Pros” and “Minuses” sections of the portal, which is in fact at the alpha testing stage.
Who are the judges? or are there intellectuals in america?
And now, all the same, going back to the question of the uniqueness of top4top in terms of intellectuality and intelligence. Thanks to one note in Habré, I began to more deeply understand the site bigthink.com (also beta, but working beta :)). It’s not for me to judge whether I’m an intellectual or not, but I can say for sure that I speak English as fluently as Russian, I wouldn’t choose a minute between top4top and bigthink.com, as the author of this article doubting would prefer the latter. And as a reader, and as a blogger. Why? And simply because purely conceptually (as promised, I speak only about conceptuality) this is 3/4 what I unsuccessfully tried to find on the Internet [ 3 , 4 ]. Judge for yourself…
Read on for this blog post on my iTech Bridge blog . And here I will give only general conclusions. In general, they can be titled so ...
Famous trouble beginning, or Wanted as better ...
Using the top4top headings:
pros
1. The idea to create a social portal for intellectuals and intellectuals deserves all approval, and the fact of its such noisy appearance on the Runet is a clear confirmation of the fact that you can make serious investments for such a project.
2. The choice of the basic concept of the portal, based on a “mullet” strategy with its institute, of invited experts is also welcome.
3. The creators of the portal, by virtue of their social status and financial injections, received a unique opportunity to attract as experts the entire color of the Russian-speaking intelligentsia. Any “ordinary” intellectual-oriented startup can only dream of such luxury.
4. The portal has some interesting functional features, the consideration of which is beyond the scope of this note. Among them, I would point out the means of information exchange not only at the level of blog posts and comments, but also through files of different types, as well as the device for synchronizing portal blogs with popular blog platforms.
Minuses
1. The mechanisms put into the portal do not always and not completely correspond to the concept of intelligence and the intellectual nature of the social Internet. This, in particular, concerns the ranking of users and information, as well as administrative methods of "rejection" of the latter.
2. The currently available list of invited “nobles” and the anonymity of experts also does not allow us to talk about the intellectual nature of the resource. And if you take into account the design, then all this is more like a glossy magazine in the cover of a social web.
3. The portal platform is completely closed, which excludes any attempts of “third-party” creation of more specialized communities based on its network with its own, slightly different rules of the game. As such, for example, various professional communities would be well looked at.
4. A resource of this caliber, by definition, cannot and should not appear in such a “disassembled” state.
Here, perhaps, is all that at the moment I can say on the conceptual basis of top4top ... more
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/18706/
All Articles