Surely the fact that it's community curated ensures the quality. Inbound.org wasn't built to list all of the articles that you personally find interesting, it was built to list the articles that the community find interesting.
Additionally, the fact that you mention SEO so heavily in your post somewhat suggests you've missed the point altogether. It's a resource for marketers of all kinds not just SEOs.
Sometimes, the content is not really what the community wants, but what it has been forced to see. A mod mentioned in another discussion, that some people post stuff, then a lot of new accounts show up, to upvote those articles; rigging the voting system.To solve this, we could do what hackernews does. New Accounts should not be able to upvote stuff until they are active and have interacted with the community for a certain time.
This sounds like a good idea.
A colleague of mine who was a fairly new user to the site posted an article she wrote today, due to a few of us in the office upvoting it got quite high and was later removed since apparently this constitutes a "voting ring".
I think this is a fundamental problem with the size of the community at the moment. 4 or 5 genuine upvotes shouldn't have such an impact.
Correct.Comparing it with hackernews, 4 and 5 upvotes can bring you to the homepage, but the best part is that within half an hour or so, the page would either be gone or will get enough upvotes (if worthy) to stay on the HP longer. Now, this can happen on inbound only if we get more submissions, more people checking the incoming section and more readers overall. Very good posts here, can get like 50 odd upvotes, while you'll easily see 500-1000 upvotes within a day on HN. So I guess, with time, the requirement to check voting rings will subside, and only good content will remain on the top.
The difference in the number of upvotes may come from the difference in the amount target audience of these 2 sites. I believe HN has a broader target audience than Inbound.
True. Threads on HN can be on any topic about with technology. Heck, I've also seen a lot of submissions, outside technology, doing well. However, I still believe there is a long way to go for inbound and the site can easily get 10x (in terms of traffic) compared to what it does now.
I think it's you who missed the point. Please don't get misled by the term SEO. I have just noticed that the overall quality of UGC of the website has decreased.
Sorry about my original comment, I've just looked again and realised how rude it seemed!
I think as the size of the Inbound.org community increases then the overall quality will increase.
Sorry about my reply as well. ;)
Whoa, this is clearly not reddit. Well done both of you.
Ed here, General Manager of Inbound.org
I hear what you're saying. Some days the content submitted and upvoted is superb, other days it's not. Part of that is us as a team, the software and what we push onto the homepage - but the other side is the community and what the community submits.
There are pieces in the works to help clear out the junk and make it easier for the great posts to be pushed up onto the homepage. There's a lot of small and big features in the pipeline to help make this happen. The Inbound.org site and software is still quite embryonic - we're maybe 10-15% of the way there in terms of a roadmap (so think of this as a 'public beta'). There's a lot to look forward to.
In the meantime, if I can encourage you to upvote great content and flag content which doesn't belong on Inbound.org and thank you for being part of the community so far :)
Thank you Ed. I really appreciate what you guys doing with the site and to me it is the best resource on everything related to Internet Marketing, long waited for. Please, keep up the good work. Please, see my reply to Keri. Right now, when I click Flag, it looks like the page is just refreshing and that's it. Some response from the site would be great, something like: "Thank you for your submission, we will take a look into this post and see what can do!"
Hehe... yah, bits of the UI really suck right now! I've added that to queue of immediate bugs.
Thanks for chiming in Ed. I agree that there's some good moves we can make to keep the quality high and the spam low. Honestly, though, every time I come here, I see a lot o good stuff that I don't find elsewhere. I've been pretty impressed by what the community surfaces, despite some manipulative stuff.
SO MUCH SPAM!
Please do flag the spam. We have moderators that come in multiple times a day to remove the spam.
Another problem is the number of people that only submit items that they wrote, or items that have been written by someone from their agency or their friends. It does take more time to actively search online for good posts instead of submitting from people you know, but the results are worth it.
Kerl, Thank you for jumping in. Thanks for suggestions, I will start doing that. Also, I think that not all the posts that people write themselves should be automatically regarded as spam.
I would flag more if the UX didn't take me to a new page every time I do. Totally unnecessary, and with how slow this site is on mobile, very dis incentivizing to flagging.
Searching for a post before submitting could help us several ways on Inbound (as we wait for the technical fix to catch duplicates). We can reduce clutter of duplicate submissions, and also put all of the votes behind one submission. Just this morning I saw five submissions for the same post, and each of them only had one vote.
If we are truly here to make sure great content gets found, perhaps we should focus less on "submitting all the things" and a little more on looking to see what's already there and giving it a vote up if you thought it was good and wanted to submit it yourself.
Maybe you could add some pop-up box, so when somebody flags a post, they are presented with this window and a phrase: "Please, tell us why you think this post is a spam?" This will give you better feedback from the community and help to understand our needs better. ;)
Ooh I like this idea! +1000
Agree. With some checkboxes of regular issues like "spam", "irrelevant" etc. to make it easier?
ermmm, I am not sure about the checkboxes, since there maybe thousands of reasons why people could flag anythng as spam. I'd better prefer just to click Flag, see a modal window, and describe why I think this should be flagged as spam, so you could better understand my choice. Also, this field should be necessary to complete, ie, you can't mark anything as spam, unless you provide your explanation.
I think the bug is fixed!
Just tried submitting a post, and although I tried searching for it first, someone beat me to it but had changed the title (i.e. the submission/Inbound.org title differed from the original). Anyway, instead of mine posting separately, my vote got attributed to the other guy.
Great to hear! I did just see a dupe come in that had a slash when the original didn't have a slash in the URL. It was from Ed, so even he's not immune to having his submissions deleted because of duplicates, if that makes anyone feel better.
that's cool. How about the blogspot problem? Whereby the Google blogs for example are TLD suffixed but the same content? So for example, this http://analytics.blogspot.com.es/2013/07/how-nri-netcom-uses-analytics-to.html is the same ashttp://analytics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/how-nri-netcom-uses-analytics-to.html but Inbound will treat them as separate entries and typically the intray queue gets deluged by different territory Inbounders submitting inadvertent duplicates - that all conspire to crush other worthy stuff. Same happens for econsultancy posts between US and UK submissions. You could probably devise a list of likely domains that do this.
Another thing - we should be able to unflag posts/comments we flagged. I just flagged Steve's comment (sorry it was the closest thing I saw) to test it out and I couldn't unflag it.
Been there done that. Have an up-flag. I mean vote. Crap. Help mods!
In retrospect, maybe a 5-second rule or 10 second one that stops it being changed after you submit it would be a nice idea. Can't have people flagging and unflagging the same thing over and over. Doesn't sound like a fun thing for mods.
that's a brilliant great idea - also there could appear a small line of text: "Flagged as spam, do you want to change your decision? "with a ticker counting back from 10 to 0. I would suggest 20 seconds instead of 10, this would keep people on the site for a longer period of time ;)
You could also implement the downvote. Although I think this introduced negativity and this is why we such personalities on Reddit.
I'm not super into the downvote idea. I think marketers (some marketers, not everyone by any means jeez you guys let me finish) are prone to putting other people down to pull themselves up, so I think there would be a huge outbreak of 'downvote fever.' Reddit has some serious downvote problems and I'm glad Inbound, while not perfect, doesn't suffer from those problems.
And yeah, people could probably manipulate downvotes pretty easily, which would result in more gray hair for everyone involved behind the scenes of Inbound.
I like where people are going with the idea, I just think it will lead to problems and more negativity. We have enough negativity already.
We have a downvote on Moz, and people can get pretty upset by it. I'd not recommend adding it here. If something is spam, mark it as spam. That is most helpful for moderators.
Speaking of considering a downvote option, how about replicating (or improving on) the imgur.com gallery model (http://imgur.com/blog/2013/04/16/tech-tuesday-measuring-virality/) and where views would instead be link clicks (to article) for Inbound.org's case? Couple this with a holding period for fresh accounts (can comment but not vote) and the manual banhammering of obvious spam/manipulation (removal for posts; warning/permaban for users).
Another option would be, besides the time factor (interval between upvotes), weighing in the authority of the upvoting user so new accounts don't hold as much power as the veterans.
I was going to suggest a downvote option, but thinking about it downvoting would be as easy to manipulate as upvoting. Demanding interaction before allowing someone to upvote sounds a good idea.
Paul, that could definitely be a solution. I have always wanted to see this downvote arrow here.
Agreed - I'd love to see a downvote option - even if it didn't necessarily affect the position in the 'hot articles' list - it would be more of an instant way to see what is actually good stuff.
I think downvoting is less often abused. I can be wrong, but I do think it is a great form of self-moderation.
Reddit has existed perfectly fine with downvotes so far.
and can someone please write 500 words on "5 local SEO tips" with a stock image?
I also love inbound.org (I really loved the old layout much more and still don't see the added value of the new functionality)
TBH I really don't ever see "spam." Occasionally I spot a lower-ish quality article that hits the top or has been gamed to the top but it usually doesn't last long. My definition of quality is different than others. I personally love reading the more controversial topics as well as the humorous ones from 10010101 or whatever it is called.
There are a ton of communities spammed to death every day I think inbound is doing pretty OK the way it is.
Here's a thought - how about letting us see which members have up voted an article - it'll highlight up voting circles and maybe that'll be enough to discourage people from doing it.
I think We are already trying to stop spam, as only quality articles are getting Upvote from community members. And I have one more option like why not we use a "Report Spam" option, in which you can flag any post or submission as " report spam" and provide your feedback about the post. Then Inbound moderators will check the post and they will decide it is a spam post or not..
I see your point.
The thing is that it is almost impossible to build 100% valuable articles timeline basing on submissions and curation. The only way to ensure that low quality content won't appear on the website or at least won't rock the top is implementing old good editors work (as it is used to be made on more traditional resources). Which can also fail because of subjectivity and human factor. Obviously Inbound.org is unlikely to implement such a strategy because the main point of it is submission and curation by upvoting.
I think the best we can do is to start from ourselves: submit articles that are really good, report spam, discuss valuable content etc. I mean, being a decent part of the community might help.
Articles should automatically hit the spam filter if they have the word "dead" in the title. SEO is dead, organic search is dead, link building is dead. It's just ridiculous at this point. This site would be greatly improved by a downvote button.
This is what I was talking about - lots of articles are just about the things that have been discussed 1000's times. I wouldn't say Inbound needs a filter for the word "dead" but rather a live person who would monitor and filter out the submissions considered of no adding additional value to the community. In other words - if it's something unique and useful - let it go through. If not - filter it out.
I can see why that might be appealing. But words like "unique" and "useful" are subjective and open to interpretation. Adding a human filter in that way would go against the spirit of this community. We already have hundreds of people that perform the same function via upvotes (and a group of moderators who do great work of deleting outright spam).
I agree with Matthew about downvoting and not having it affect the post's position. It would be great if we can see at first glance if people found it interesting or not.
Besides, spammy people would rather think about getting the up votes rather than wasting their efforts down voting and not really getting any effects on it as far as positioning goes.
Great! Head over to login and use your credentials there