Spot.Us Gets First Great Critique – We Are Listening, Learning and Plotting
Today’s Los Angeles Times has a column on Spot.Us that includes some constructive criticism that I am taking to heart and some that I’d like to respond to. In a not-so-ironic twist, I can’t respond in the form of a comment on the article itself and have to blog it here (does the LA Times still not allow comments?!?!?).
First: My hat is off to James Rainey who reported this piece out more than most that have written about Spot.Us. I’m also happy he pointed out that although I am filled with enthusiasm (that I hope is contagious), I remain realistic. I never want to identify myself as a “savior” of journalism and I am also aware that Spot.Us could prove to be unsuccessful. I think the only way we could “fail” in the true sense of the word is if we learn nothing on the journey to our (un)successful future.
Yes, there is a “but.” To wit: My response to the second half.
First let me say: I value constructive criticism – which is what I took this to be. In fact, it is some of the best criticism I have received on Spot.Us. Anyone who builds an online community should have their ears open. Listen, learn and adapt. This is the only way Spot.Us will improve. In fact, next week’s Spot.Us email newsletter will be asking our community for specific feedback, feature requests, etc, that we will gather via a simple Google Form (cheap plug: please register to give feedback!). As I noted when we first started building the platform – “if Spot.Us is never “finished” – then it will be a success.”
Rainey asks: Could the journalism be better on Spot.Us?
My response: Of course!
(Afterthought: You could say this about any journalism).
While I don’t think we’ll win a Pulitzer with our content so far – I am proud of what we’ve produced and the reporters. At this stage I refuse to let perfection be an enemy to the good.
While the content might not fit the sensibilities of an LA Times columnist who admits getting “queasy” about the new age mindset, nobody has recently died to crown them judge of all things journalism quality. Rainey points out weaknesses and I could just as easily point out strengths.
But I do want to improve the content and recently have made some decisions that, I hope, will do this. Specifically: A reporters agreement that lays out how much a reporter can ask for their reporting and more importantly: Soon Spot.Us will be filtering what pitches will be highlighted in our browse page. We still will let anyone upload a pitch (that is within our categories and local), but we may not highlight them if it is a pitch we don’t think can also be thoroughly reported and turned into a great story.
“The site’s platform outperforms its product.”
As an open source project this put a HUGE smile on my face. I also think this comment points to exactly what James missed.
Anyone can take the code for Spot.Us and create their own version of it!
I tell people right now that the code isn’t ready to be used – but I think in a few months it’ll be stronger and I WANT people to take it and launch their own community funded reporting projects. I intend on expanding Spot.Us but would LOVE it if somebody beat me to their city.
They can use their own editorial methods, conventions, etc. Perhaps they can take the strong platform and produce stronger content than Spot.Us as well. This is the BIG picture. Spot.Us will absorb 98 percent of the cost of building this platform and others can take it, apply their own editorial standards and create a new local journalism organization using their own policies and rules.
Even without launching a whole new organization Spot.Us is a tool that existing news organizations can use and while we provide a platform – they can apply whatever journalism quality standards they want to the freelancers procured. In that sense, if Spot.Us was in Los Angeles we could fund stories for LA Times freelancers.
That is why I say: “Spot.Us is a platform not a news organization.”
later. “That is really important to me, because I should not be the one
to define what is and isn’t journalism, what should and shouldn’t be on
Spot.us.”
I want to examine this quote particularly because taken out of context I don’t think the second half conveys what I meant. This is often my response to people that ask if I’d let bloggers or “non-profesionals” put pitches up on Spot.Us. To which I say – of course!
I often use the N Judah Chronciles blog as my anecdote. This blog is not maintained by a “professional journalist” – but if the author wanted to pitch a story on Spot.Us about the N Judah line or general public transit, obviously his expertise, who would I be to say “sorry, no bloggers allowed.” That would be a HUGE step backwards in my opinion.
But hey – others could take the code and make their own version that is restricted just to “professionals,” however they want to define that. I won’t stop them, although I’d advise them that it would be a silly distinction to make.
As for the end of the column:
the new school, particularly its confidence in the “wisdom of the
crowd.”
I won’t respond in full only to say:
- Don’t box me in – the Internet is far more diverse than just being described as the “wisdom of the crowd.”
- I drink no koolaid. I always try and remain realistic about what is and isn’t possible with the “wisdom of the crowd” which again – is just one of many phenomena we see online with journalism.
- Your old road is Rapidly agin’. Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand.
Next Steps for Spot.Us
In two weeks I will be going out to visit my developers to discuss next steps for the platform. I hope to record this on the Spot.Us blog. My sincere hope is that as we improve the functionality, so too will we improve the content. Rainey’s challenge is accepted with open arms.
And so once again I leave this blog post saying “ONWARD!!!!”
Related posts:
Good response to a good critique. It is interesting that you can’t comment directly on Rainey’s column, but that’s somewhat normal for large papers with high Web traffic. Don’t know how this matters, but I saw the original column and your response on Twitter (@LAjourno). Perhaps there is some significance in that.
[...] UPDATE: Spot.us founder David Cohn replies to Rainey’s critque. [...]
Maybe one more thing to add to the platform are mentor/editors. I’d certainly volunteer to read drafts and be a “running buddy” for someone who got funded via Spot.us and is working on a project.
This rocks, all press is good press, no?
In response you your opening up of the platform, this is great! I think it is immensely important that we use tools and infrastructure that are as transparent as our reporting is.
Is the software for the Spot.Us platform licensed? I would recommend the AGPL. This license is designed specifically for web applications (such as Spot.Us) to make the source code available to the public.
Making the web application in line with ideals of user freedom and transparency is as simple as allowing public access (not commits, just check outs) to your version control software.
Coulda sworn I left a comment, but maybe I didn’t push the button?
Maybe one thing to add to the platform, too, is a place for volunteer editors and mentors. I was a mentor for Knight News Challenge applicants this year and I loved it.
One of the things I’ve learned about working entrepreneurially/independently is how much it matters to have a community of practice, and how much better my work is when I have people to bounce it off on.
Darn it, now I have two! D’oh!
Hi Dave– that’s great about the LA Times article and the continued plotting. I didn’t know the Spot.Us code was open– that rules!
As you discuss next steps, I hope you consider my suggestion of letting reporters define reimbursement terms for news orgs that want to take the stories exclusive. Then donors could become investors who profit from their good judgment or early knowledge, and reporters could craft the formulas for maximum success.
If a pitch does avalanche with investors, the appeal for news organizations would be less “donate to a good cause” and more “the longer you wait, the more you have to pay for this demonstrably irresistible story.”
Looking at the current site, I think it would require changes to just three page templates in order to enable this new dynamic:
[CHANGES TO /pitches/new]
Requested Amount
Note: 10% goes to Fact-Check Editor
[ADD NEW HEADING AND MULTI-LINE TEXT BOX HERE]
Exclusivity Terms
Set contributor payment terms for news organizations that want to take this story exclusive. If left blank, contributors are simply reimbursed $1 for $1.
[STRING VAR = TEXT BOX CONTENTS]
[END OF ADD]
[END OF CHANGES TO /pitches/new]
[CHANGES TO /pages/about]
[TEXT CHANGES]
Here are the various ways [...]
* Spot.Us content that is 100% [...]
* You can buy exclusive publication rights to any investigation from its donors, following the terms set by its reporter. If these terms are blank, you must reimburse all donors the amounts that they have contributed. You can do this at any time, before or after the pitch has reached 100% funding through community donations.
* We encourage you to donate small amounts. Even a tiny donations from a news organization [...]
[END OF TEXT CHANGES]
[END OF CHANGES TO /pages/about]
[CHANGES TO /pitches/#]
I’ll Donate $25
OR DONATE ANOTHER AMOUNT >>
$ raised
$ to go
[ADD NEW CAPTION AND TEXT VARIABLE]
Exclusivity Terms
If a news organization wants to take this investigation exclusive,
[IF == "" THEN]
they must reimburse your donation.
[ELSE]
they must pay you according to the terms defined below:
<exclusivity-terms
[END ADD]
[END CHANGES TO /pitches/#]
That’s it! Even if such exclusivity buyouts don’t happen soon, I think it would help to have the option available and visible.
Paul
Hi again– the text-cleanup filter munged some of my code notation and indentation in the response above, but you get the idea…
I think the two biggest challenges facing Spot.us are:
1) Boosting the quality of the average story by increasing the number that are edited by a professional editor. At the professional rates exchanged on this site, there should be enough to pay an editor to double-check facts, edit for consistency, grammar, structure, style, etc.
2) Getting news organizations interested in buying exclusives on stories, so that a significant portion of the money each story generates recycles to fund other stories in the Spot community. More dollars for writers means more writers, which means more story ideas. More ideas means better ideas and better journalism.