While reading and commenting in both of the MySpace diaries yesterday, I got caught up in a side discussion that started there; it didn't end there, though. My penchant for meta wouldn't let me stop thinking about it and if I do say so myself, I think I've stumbled upon some useful insights.
I'm not going to re-hash the broader debate of "feel good" diaries vs informative. That one has been raging for years. I think it's certainly the case that we can foster both community and cutting-edge political action; we just have to use dkos to its best potential, which is a responsibility we all share.
We all know how productive this blog can be, thanks precisely to its amazing community. But there is just something quintessentially wrong, imHo that a truly important story has to be diaried several times before capturing the spotlight, or wonderfully written, informative essays don't see the light of day for the sheer volume of diaries being posted.
That is not making the best and most of the enormous potential we have with this thing. And if we don't make the best and most of it, we are essentially driving a Lamborghini 5 blocks to the corner store.
And now, on to the cat herding...
While it's true I won't rehash that particular debate, I will touch upon it briefly, starting with GrannyDoc's commentary:
Increasingly, this place is degenerating into a cozy little coffee club, where personal stories dominate.
...But, the diaries that demonstrate the most effort, those that represent hours of thought, and planning and gathering supporting information are being swamped by vignettes that are more appropriately shared across the back fence with your BFF.
...Can we get back to the mission of this site? Can we beat back the urge to broadcast every little event, every random thought, and every YouTube video you find?
This is not a social networking site. DKos was designed to further the aims of electing More and Better Democrats. Isn't there some place else that would be more appropriate for personal disclosures and momentary whims?
I agree with her, but let me qualify that support by saying there is a difference between community-building diaries (e.g., C&J, etc.) and the more inappropriate personal diaries (No; I'm not saying all personal diaries are inappropriate, but many of them are.) As Granny said, dkos' raison d'etre is to elect more and better democrats. It does not exist for your own use and enjoyment. It is not your very own microphone to the internets; that would be your blog.
And so it is absolutely valid to ask and expect dkos diarists to respect that and keep this broader context in mind when deciding to post a diary. Posting here is a privilege, after all. Each of us needs to remember that we are but 1 person in a community of 190k+. What if all 190k+ members decided that it was okay to break the rules...just this once...I mean, look at this video!...but I apologized ahead of time...lighten up, etc.?
We used to be able to post two diaries a day, you know. Kos limited it to one somewhere around Katrina and 65k users. The dkos population has basically tripled since then. Kos cannot impose a limit of less than one diary per day, but when you thnk about it, dailykos is kind of like Boyle's law: in a closed system, something's got to give as volume goes up. So it becomes incumbent on all of us to adhere all the more to diary rules and not treat dkos like our personal pixelated playground.
But enough about that. I really want to talk about recommending diaries today, because I see that as a significant factor in the phenomenon GrannyDoc describes. Let's start by quoting the FAQ, courtesy of kck in the side discussion that started this whole rambling screed.
When should you recommend a diary?
Very simply, recommend a diary if you think other dkos users should read it. That may mean that the diary is covering a breaking news story, or it has an insightful bit of analysis, or even is an extremely funny bit of humor. Note that diaries can have much more content in the comments than in the main text; it is perfectly legitimate to recommend a diary because of an interesting discussion in the comments. Don't recommend a diary simply because of who the author is.
I italicized "should" because I think it's an important distinction. To say that someone "should read" something is very, very different from the idea that someone "would enjoy this" or "would appreciate this or even "would find this interesting." So when you recommend a diary, you are basically saying "zomg! You have to read this!"
But dkos cannot be approached in the same way as your inbox; to "recommend" a diary is not at all akin to forwarding a really funny/poignant/intelligent/insightful email to everybody in your contact list. The primary difference being that the people you email don't have a limitation on how many emails can be accepted at once, whereas the rec list can only hold eight diaries at a time.
Some prioritizing is necessary. To me, this means we all have an obligation to be fairly cirucumspect in recommending diaries. By recommending a diary, you are not simply saying "I liked this" or "This was cool" or "Totally worth reading!"
That is why we recommend comments, not diaries. Which brings me to Insight the 1st: I think this dual usage of "recommend" contributes to the problem. I would go so far as to recommend (hahaha!) that comment ratings be changed to "Mojo" and "Hide" (Insight the 2nd). This would eliminate any potential confusion as to what it means to "recommend" a diary. In the meantime, it might be helpful to think of it as "recommend" for comments, but "Recommend" for diaries, the way we use "small d democrat." And in the meanmeantime:
To recommend a diary means that it is newsworthy/important/timely/significant/well written/whatever enough to be on the rec list.
Now please don't get all pedantic on me and say "But Cedwyn, the FAQ says that recommending means you think others should read it, not that you think it belongs on the rec list." True enough as far as it goes, which isn't far enough. Because the way to get diaries read by those who "should read" them is by giving them prominence via placing them on the rec list.
To rec a diary is basically an editorial decision on what is presented to others to read.
Making the rec list is a numbers game: diaries with the most recs end up there. You are, in essence, making choices for others.
By reccommending a diary, you are not just expressing approval of said diary.
You are making editorial decisions over what should go on the rec list, i.e., which diaries warrant the most exposure. You are saying that said diary should occupy one of those eight spots, garnering days' worth of attention. I'm not saying that is a bad system; I'm just saying we need to not recommend lightly.
Be honest with yourself: it simply is not the case, or even possible, that every single diary you read and enjoy merits that kind of attention. No matter how delightful/moving/intriguing/whatever some comic relief/personal anecdote/confessional/whatever diary may be, it doesn't have to be on the rec list just because it's "awesome." In fact, I would never in a million years recommend some of the diaries I have enjoyed the most here. Conversely, I have recommended diaries that were personally of no interest to me, but the topic was so important it seemed warranted.
So to sum up: I think if we all make the commitment to be a little more stingy with our diary recs, there will be plenty of room for all the wonderful types of diaries that feed this community mind and soul. I was gonna include "body," but well, cookies are hard to do via the internet tubes. 'Tho I'm sure Mrs. Pastor has tried.
; P