read/CJD

The reason for the change that was communicated in the email was absurd to me. What makes matters worse is that after reading your various comments and blog posts, your reasons don’t jive with what was given in the email.

In this blog post it seems I explain exactly why the email was sent out, but here is another bit of background. You should know as well as anyone since you were there from the beginning how people would leave 9rules and throw a huge pissy fit because we didn’t send them Digg traffic daily. For some reason these were people that we never spoke with, never had any interaction with or even tried to be part of the Community. We always said you got out of 9rules what you put into it and that will always be the case, but some people don’t understand that.

Are we saying if you are a 9rules member we expect you to drop by the Community every once in a while to say hi, help each other and have fun? Damn straight we are, because we created the community for people to be a part of and that was the vision from day 1. Are we trying to create an artificial community? No, because we know everyone makes their own decisions and if they like them they will stay and if they don’t they will as was the case with you. Do people sometimes need a reminder they are part of something bigger and that something is nothing if they don’t partake in it? Yes they do.

When Members start to complain about others in their Community not being around or living up to the expectations of 9rules, then we have to listen. You would have noticed these things if you dropped in even at least once a month. To be honest if we emailed everyone to discuss this situation (and again it was discussed for months in the private forum) I have no doubt the same people who are complaining now would have complained with the same reasoning then. What’s interesting is that when you received the email what would have stopped you from just emailing us to talk about it? Instead you went public with it because maybe you thought we didn’t give you a chance so why should you give us a chance right?

“I don’t have even a hint of an objection to the change if it was geared toward bringing 9rules closer to the idea you had when you started out.”

1. Provide quality content to the masses. Still do that.
2. Connect like-minded individuals so that they may help and support each other. Still do that, but guess what? Some people weren’t living up to their end of the bargain. Some people have huge leaves to show they are part of 9rules and others have little links tucked away in their footers. Does that matter to us? Do we remove them? No, because this goal is bigger than that. You help 9rules by helping others and that has always been the 2nd goal and that aligns perfectly with the new agreement.

“No matter what, at the end of the day I would have had to bow out of 9rules, even had this been handled in a way that left my world filled with rainbows and ponies.”

Even more reason for me to think we could’ve discussed this privately, but that’s the way the web works right? Best of luck to achieving future success in all you do. A shame to have you leave the way you did though, since I see you around the web commenting in many places and to be honest participating in 9rules is no different. We choose how to use our time and that is something we will always respect.

OK.

I’ve read lots of these discussion posts ‘round the Internet re the “exodus” and somehow I think this might be the place to leave a comment … also because it seems to be heading in the most objective and level-headed direction on your blog.

Before we get started: I used to be a member of 9rules and am not anymore. The reasons were more of a private nature and had nothing to do with the new 9rules direction (and yes, it is new) or anything else that people usually throw around. Just private, my life, etc.

I am somewhat surprised myself at the harsh criticism the 9rules team has received ever since that ominous change in policy.

When I was a member, there were three groups of members, maybe four.

Group one was regularly on the private forums, posted frequently and altogether provided lots of input.

Group two basically provided quality content and dropped by once in a while to see what was up.

Group three “leeched off” 9rules … they were members on paper, provided quality content and otherwise just basically steered clear of the whole 9rules site thing.

Group four, which consisted of a small group of individuals, appeared in small explosive bursts, threw in a ton of activity and then disappeared again for weeks or months on end.

When the new Ali (1.0) version rolled around, with notes and the opening up to the general public, I was a member of the “beta group” (if I recall correctly) and I wrote a post or mail at some point warning about the hissy fits former regulars would throw once they actually noticed/saw the changes.

And those fits came.
You could set your clock by them.

That time I went on record basically saying this:

a) Some members saw 9rules as a sort of “elitist” cult-like site that they could profit from. They loved being an exclusive few who could boost their egos, their business, their own CV (or whatever) by being members.

b) I also said that the new course 9rules was about to embark on was indeed the right one, and I stick by my words. That (yes, I call it elitist”) blog network shtick was just getting old (and is dead as a doornail by now). If you want to stay on top of the game, you need to change and adapt and of all the blog “networks” out there, 9rules is the only one that doesn’t give off the scent of a decaying corpse. Quite the contrary, actually.

Now, when I read about the impending changes a while ago, I just knew that a whole bunch of “early adopters” would pack up and leave. Why? Simply because 9rules has changed massively. Paul can insist as much as he likes (I can take it …), but 9rules is a completely different beast today, and it is the better for it.

It is NOT jumping on any bandwagon that’s called “social network” but - in my eyes - is following a natural progression from a content-centered aggregation site to one that puts interaction first and foremost.

Maybe I see things completely differently, but that direction to me seemed to be a totally natural progression, not a forced one. If you were around the site as much as I was, you could see it coming even from day one. It was built-in, and it was brought there by the members … the interactive aspect was - for those who partook - the central aspect of 9rules. Yes, some of the members were there to boost their stats, or to brush up their CVs, but many were there to enjoy the interactive element.

I was, simply because I had no need for any of the other windfall profits.

It doesn’t surprise me one bit that a bunch of people threw massive fits when said e-mail arrived. Many were caught off-guard because they didn’t have a clue. Why? Because they spent most of their time (if not all their time) away from the site, minding their own business(es).

Personally, I thought that group of members was always irritating, although they stuck to the member agreement to a “t”. They (often) provided superb content, but besides that they smiled at the (few) referrers 9rules was getting them, rubbed their noses …. and continued doing what they had always done … 9rules or not.

So, there were a whole bunch of members (a lot more than left the site) that didn’t contribute squat aside from their content. Nada. Zip. Niente.

Additionally, there are - of course - the people who contributed lots and also left.

The latter group baffles me a bit. They spent tons of time online, from anything like Flickr to Facebook, from high-profile sites to obscure blogs, they comment right and left, they start ass-long discussions … but they suddenly don’t - apparently - have a single minute ANYMORE once a month to post on the 9rules site.

Or, to put it into Freudian terms, they’re anal about the new member’s agreement, declining it out of principle. I’m sorry, but the latter I do not understand. I respect the decision, but I do not understand it.

So, being on the sidelines of all of this (and continuing to be so), I think it’s a tornado in a Tequila glass, blown out of proportion by a handful of people that - and that’s the only way I can make heads or tails of this - object to (“forced”) participation on principle.

Of course, some people have also objected to the way this whole thing has been handled, as have you.

Yes, maybe things could have been handled a bit better, but on the other hand, the wallop received did clear the air in a way a tedious process might not have been able to.

We all know that the 9rules triad can come on a bit strong at times, but they themselves are the first to admit that. Hell, I wasn’t a member anymore and saw stuff brewing by simply being on the site once a week or less. No MEMBER should have been surprised by what transpired.

That’s my take.

Not objective, not neutral, but certainly not written by a 9rules member or contributor either. Hell, I check it out and maybe I’ve posted something aside from a one-liner, but that was before my summer holidays in July, I think.

Hope some of it made sense.

End of ramblin’

I’ll be reading here. This site had the best arguments, responses and the most sensible take on things. Thanks for that!

Kudos!

…ould leave, but to react in such a way is very strange when trying to foster a community.
Moreover, wishing that the communication had happened privately when you operate a blog network is an outright pipe dream. Listen to yourself speak the words: “Pri…

Interesting… here I was, thinking 9rules was a network of blogs with quality content, not a discussion invite-only community…