So far our team has generally been looking for the following when promoting or not promoting posts to the home page:
1. Editorial (opinion pieces), informational (reviews, events, tips, history), and news stories (who/what/when/where/why/how stories) are all looked for.
We are the city and when folks visit Philly Future hopefully they can get a feel for the real Philadelphia. The passion, the anger, the love - all of it.
That means if you have an informational post - a review of a landmark - or a tip to navigate the Conshohocken curve - a great Philly related website to share - an upcoming event - a cause you feel needs to be shared - just some examples - it will definitely get looked at.
If you have a story that you feel needs attention - post it. If you have a movement you want to spread the word about - then speak it. If you have a passion you need to share - then share it.
2. We look for headlines that are short and to the point - saddly there is only so much home page real estate.
3. We ignore cursing. OK, not entirely. If it's in a headline - that's a no go - and if it's used simply to shock - well that's not going to help.
4. Posts that are are ment to stir anger and not discussion - in other words - trolling - will not be promoted. If you want to make a point and back it up with reason - we will promote it.
5. Posts that are clearly spam will not get promoted.
6. Most important: We like posts that are inclusive - that link to other sites - especially other bloggers - to expand the conversation. This site is for growing our web - not capturing it. So whenever possible, link out.
7. And most of all - don't be scared to post. What's the worst that can happen? It doesn't get promoted. What's the best? It does.
A while back I had posted some of these tips on getting a story posted to the home page, but they need more work. This is an evolving list. Does it make sense? What do you think would happen if we promoted *everything* to the home page? Is that a good idea or bad? Help us to figure this out.
It may also help to note.....
That only certain viewpoints will be promotted. As with so many things in Philly it tends to be Democrats only. When the poster who posts rules of what will be selected also attacks people for having a dissenting view of thier views its need not apply.
There are many wonderful and varried things about Philladelphia that is true. I have lived here for almost 50 years. Iwould live no where else. However there is a very intolerant side of this city. If you are not lockstep with the Democrat party or Liberal point of view this city is a hostile environment. If you go to the blogs of the people that are behind the scene on this site they are liberal point of view blogs. Karls rants about how a systematic harrasment of a minority of students is political dissent is an example. The gentleman that does the pictures and who is also an editor of this site says right on his blog that getting GW Bush out of office is one of his ambitions. The question I ask and ask honestly is { Is this site open to other points of view?} From what I have seen it is not. One of my posts was about another blog done by David Horrowitz, and I put a link into the post to his blog. His blog has a very high hit rate. He is re-running a set of articles that were compiled in the 90s against Political Correctness. There was no swearing in my post and I even gave a sample of the history of the articles.
Now I don't care if you ever post one of my entrees to the frontpage but don't try to sell that you lack bias in your choices. If someone disagrees with your beliefs that in itself does not make it incindeairy. What you may view as hostile others may view in a different light, but that is somthing that you seem not able to grasp. I choose the handle of Troll for several reasons one is that whenever you disagree with a liberal they tend to call you a troll rather than debate the real issue.
I considered the David Horowitz piece you posted...
but in the end, I didn't see any Philadelphia angle. When Karl suggests linking out, I think he intends for people to promote local items of interest. As far as I could tell neither Horowitz nor the piece you referenced offered the Philadelphia relevance I would look for. I would hope that if the case had been different, none of us would have had a problem promoting your contribution.
Incorporating Karl's guidelines so far, I can tell you that I generally look for stories that are coherently written and have a Philadelphia focus to them. As far as I've been able to tell from observing the goings-on here for quite some time now, none of our editors have gotten overly political in the way they promote content on this site, regardless of the approaches or politics exhibited on their personal blogs.
We're all entitled to our opinions, and I certainly hope the fact that some people here may disagree with you is not reason enough for you to choose not to take part in the discussion.
We don't generally have much national political discussion here, but if you do contribute in that vein, you probably will get some response from other members, and some of it's bound to be less than affirming to your perspective. That's just the odds of posting a conservative point of view on a community-driven site in Philly.
That said, I sincerely hope that those who disagree with you will also make an attempt to keep the discourse civil. And I hope you'll stick around long enough read a few of the fine Philly conservatives who are also active in this community.
City Troll -- I'll identify
City Troll -- I'll identify myself as a liberal, even a borderline democractic-socialist. I actually agree with some of your points concerning the Operation Yellow Elephant contest... but your vitriol and your one-sided rants ensure I would never respond to one of your comments.
Sure, people invovled in this site are liberal. I've seen posts promoted that are both conservative and questioning of liberal points of view. Those posts were logically organized, respectful, and non-combative.
Philly Future gives you the power to speak your mind. If you choose to act like an arse, compare people on here to Nazis, rant about some sort of descrimination without supporting that claim... I would imagine your posts won't get promoted, but only because you have zero respect for anyone else on here. It doesn't matter if you are the most brilliant mind on the planet. It doesn't matter who you agree with or disagree with. While you're here, play nice with the rest of us.
Thanks Howard
I only brought up the Horowitz post because it fit the profile that Karl posted. I really didn't give much thought to any of my posts being put on the frontpage, it's not why I post. Part of the reason that after reading that you wanted people from Philly Future to be active on driving more trafic to this site. I know he gets millions of views a month, and people tend to checkm out where a good comment originates from on any blog. If you are looking primarily for local favor I will keep that in mind.
As for my political point of view. My feathers don't ruffle over non-agreement. Like I said I have lived here all my life. I have always been a conservative. So it's no shock or surprise, but like anyone else from this area I won't back away from what I believe is right. Even if the discussions remain at the local level, there is plenty that I will have to say.
Mozzer what vitriol?
If my words invoked feelings in you they were your reactions and I can not beheld responsible for those feelings. Never at any point did I call anyone anything. I stated clearly that the tactic that was being used on the Yellow Elephant was a nazi tactic and it is. As I pointed out if people choose to get thier point accross by using the same methods that have been employed by the KKK and The Nazis what does that say about them? Guilt will make you tilt. The only vitriol was in the way people felt when it was pointed out that those methods were used by those two groups. I am not going to sugar coat facts or make excuses due to motivation for anyone employing nazi tactics. No matter how noble someone feels thier cause is, it looses any credibility by use of those methods. I write the way I speak plane and honest. I don't clean my spelling and grammatical errors and even throw some in for fun. Oh and by the way if your going to say someone is acting like an arse in Philly the word is ass aw'ight. (that word for those outside the region is {all right} with a South Philly accent)
guidelines
Karl,
I like the guidelines, but do have some general comments:
1) I understand your interest in encouraging people to link to other blogs, and I do like to see a posting that gathers together a variety of postings on these same subject, to show differing views of the same event or collect up source materials. What I don't like are people in a group simply linking to each other and saying "look at this," with no commentary. My view must be a minority one because a lot of bloggers do this. I would rather see new information here, or a more detailed linked post, since a simple "look at this" is probably linked to a blog on the PF blog list and most of us have browsed through and found the ones we like.
2) I am not so concerned with the political leanings of a post but the way the information is presented. There are a number of blogs that present a viewpoint I agree with but the viewpoint is presented in such a snide, overbearing, righteous attitude that I do not re-visit them. Words that are meant to elicit strong feelings, like "nazi" or "kkk" are not helping anyone understand anything or presenting any new information. I'm sure that many people who belonged the the KKK and the Nazi Party were kind to their pets but that does not mean someone should write a post saying that Friday Cat Blogging is a racist or fascist activity.
3) I haven't seen much of this on the front page but could we agree that Monday morning quarterbacking, wherein someone sits around with benefit of hindsight and resources and picks apart something people did in a moment of crisis? I am seeing a lot of this in regards to Hurricane Katrina and it always bothers me.
4) Could there be a general agreement that people should be upfront about any personal interest they have? I've noted posting by people in support of candidates or politicians when I know they have received money from that person or members of their family and it is not acknowledged in any way. It always makes me wary of anything else they post.
I stated clearly that the
This statement, amongst many others you make, closes off all discussion. What can be said -- "Sorry I disagree, I must be a Nazi." ????
I happen to agree with you that it isn't a great idea to encourage people to make signs of protest against the Iraqi war, especially not targetted against students. It's one thing to post banners condeming Bush and his administration for orchestrating it. The contest seems risky because it could quickly jump from the realm of protest into harassment against individuals. And I agree that would be both wrong, and destructive.
Why not just make your point -- and drop the repeated Nazi comparisons? What do you accomplish besides turning people off to your argument?
And, look, arse, ass, whatever... the point is, there are people here that may see some of your point of view, and people that will flat out disagree. But when you're abrasive, that just turns people off to the rest of your message.
Me Abrasisive?
Come now Mozzer
Lets look at somthing #1 the campaign won't lead into harrasment it is designed to start as harassment. #2 the typing of the word nazi is not vitriolic. Not if it applies. I am sorry if the truth is to hard for you to read. The tactic they are imploying was used by the n**** an the K**. Those are facts. You can choose to ignore them but it won't change them.
If the sight of a word makes you unable to read the content of what it is being used in than I pity you, and your inability.
This Just reinforces what I said about the Intolerant Left
I have been BLACKLISTED by the free speach loving lefty at The All Spin Zone. Due to a challeng of facts that I brought up on the ASZ I have been blacklisted. Nowhere did I get hostile or abusive. They like I said earlier about a lot of ther people that post here ONLY WANT TO HEAR FROM LIBERALS. Here is a copy of the exchange that got me BLACKLISTED..... now this person is one of the Icons here at Philly Future..... Is this the so called willingness to here all points of view? I guess I will be Banned here next. I am a conservative and a republican I have lived here for almost 50yrs in Philly I know that the majority will disagree with my points of view. That is to be expected. What I always find amusing is the lefts tendancy to not try to debate with someone they disagree with but to silence thier point of view instead. So much for Tolorance and Free Speach huh guys. In the Piece intitled Michael Marcavage — Philadelphia's Own Version of Fred Phelps
The City Troll wrote: No Bobby Kennedy Jr said it first. He said it was gods wrath against Haley Barbor for writing a letter to convince him not to support Kyoto. So is the little Kennedy a wacked out rightwing Christian also? 09/02/05 22:16:08 The City Troll wrote: If your going to hold that light of critisism up hold it brightly so that it shines on the kooks of both sides. Or is it because Kennedy says its gods punishment to conservatives it's OK 09/02/05 22:19:32 SpinDentist wrote: City Troll, when we post things around here we show citations. Please show the same courtesy. Idiot. 09/02/05 22:30:52 Johnny Zucchini wrote: The City Troll has a problem with reading comprehension. 09/02/05 22:42:41 The City Troll wrote: Katrina and Kyoto: Robert Kennedy Using Tragedy for Political PosturingRobert Kennedy Jr.Breathtaking. Robert Kennedy, Jr. writes a post in today's HuffPo entitled “For They That Sow the Wind, Shall Reap the Whirlwind.”Incredible. There are bodies floating in the water in New Orleans and Kennedy rushes to the microphones to blame Katrina on the Bush Administration — because we didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol:Now we are all learning what it's like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which [Haley] Barbour [then-head of the RNC] and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.I guess he must have missed yesterday's New York Times which reported no link between global warming and hurricanes.What? If you're a Kennedy you don't have to get your facts right?* * *Hat tip to and See Jim Glassman's outstanding Tech Central Station column today for more on the decrease in the number and force of hurricanes. . .It was in the Huffington Post IDIOT or do want a ticket (citation) for speeding to look for things on one side but not the other 09/02/05 22:52:15 The City Troll wrote: Here is the link to bobby's story http://www.huffingtonpost.c... 09/02/05 22:55:09 The City Troll wrote: If you can't get the link to work just type in Bobby Kennedy and For They That Sow the Wind, Shall Reap the Whirlwind.”And it will take you to the first one who said the storm was Gods Retribution 09/02/05 22:59:21 The City Troll wrote: and just in case you don't know how to do a google search Here is Bobbys article“For They That Sow the Wind, Shall Reap the Whirlwind.”As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2.In March of 2001, just two days after EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman’s strong statement affirming Bush’s CO2 promise former RNC Chief Barbour responded with an urgent memo to the White House.Barbour, who had served as RNC Chair and Bush campaign strategist, was now representing the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry who had enlisted him to map a Bush energy policy that wouldbe friendly to their interests. His credentials ensured the new administration’s attention.The document, titled “Bush-Cheney Energy Policy & CO2,” was addressed to Vice President Cheney, whose energy task force was then gearing up, and to several high-ranking officials with strong connections to energy and automotive concerns keenly interested in the carbon dioxide issue, including Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, White House chief of staff Andy Card and legislative liaison Nick Calio. Barbour pointedly omitted the names of Whitman and Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, both of whom were on record supporting CO2 caps. Barbour’s memo chided these administration insiders for trying to address global warming which Barbour dismissed as a radical fringe issue.“A moment of truth is arriving,” Barbour wrote, “in the form of a decision whether this Administration’s policy will be to regulate and/or tax CO2 as a pollutant. The question is whether environmental policy still prevails over energy policy with Bush-Cheney, as it did with Clinton-Gore.” He derided the idea of regulating CO2 as “eco-extremism,” and chided them for allowing environmental concerns to “trump good energy policy, which the country has lacked for eight years.”The memo had impact. “It was terse and highly effective, written for people without much time by a person who controls the purse strings for the Republican Party,” said John Walke, a high-ranking air quality official in the Clinton administration.On March 13, Bush reversed his previous position, announcing he would not back a CO2 restriction using the language and rationale provided by Barbour. Echoing Barbour’s memo, Bush said he opposed mandatory CO2 caps, due to “the incomplete state of scientific knowledge” about global climate change.Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.In 1998, Republican icon Pat Robertson warned that hurricanes were likely to hit communities that offended God. Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast. [UPDATE: Alas, the reprieve for New Orleans was only temporary. But Haley Barbour still has much to answer for.] 09/02/05 23:10:58 SpinDentist wrote: Oh, I know how to do a google search. I saw that article word for word in several questionable sources. Odd that you haven't linked one single source other than Robert Kennedy Junior's article in Huffington Post's blog, which reflects an opinion shared by many, many people around the world. Your claim of him politicizing the story shows up in places like Chronwatch, a source that has published many stories, such as the supposed mistress of John Kerry, that proved to be utterly false. But Chronwatch is not a credible source not because they made a mistakle, but because when they found they had published a complete and utter lie, they never, not one single time, retracted their statement. No. find a real source, kid. 09/02/05 23:19:25 The City Troll wrote: Those are his own words you can't deny what he is saying. Even if you agree, he is still saying its gods reveng on the right.You make fun of a loon on the right who says its Gods reveng for SIN but you trumpet agreement for a loony on the left who says its Gods revenge for Globall Warming. I am simply Ilustrating that #1 your post is a lie the nut case you quote wasn't the first to say it was gods revenge and #2 you provide the laughable same loony thinking as what you ridicule above by saying many agree with Kennedy. 09/03/05 00:09:19 The City Troll wrote: And I did post it from a questionable source your right. ANYTHING on the Huffington Post is questionable. LOL 09/03/05 00:11:44 The City Troll wrote: Please explain why it is odd. I post the original article and your disapointed that I posted it from a website that touted it as a great article. Whats the matter did I upset you because my source is a liberal icon to you? You say qustionable source and then throw in chronwatch. I posted Kennedy's article from its source the Huffington Post word for word. So whats questionable except bobby's sanity? 09/03/05 00:30:50 The City Troll wrote: Ah spindentist so much for standing your ground in intelligent debate pointing out that there are loonies on both sides of the issue, but since you state that many many people agree with kennedy I guess in your mind he is right. Its gods just punishment for globall warming. 09/03/05 09:59:07 The City Troll's blog | technorati links Submitted by The City Troll on September 4, 2005 - 12:20pm. Blogging, Internet, and Media