"Anonymizing" Suggestions

[siderea]

Title:
"Anonymizing" Suggestions

Area:
Suggestions

Summary:
There should be a way of submitting a suggestion to DW that does not require the suggester to post under their own name to a large public community (which is likely dissuading shyer users from contributing ideas and resulting in suggestions not being evaluated on their merits but by halo effects), and which does not de facto require them to opt into ensuing discussions (and attendant email notifications).

Description:
The public suggestion process which DW has inherited from LJ is problematic in several ways, counterproductive to DW's espoused principles and to the aim of getting the best possible suggestions for the betterment of DW.

Right now, the official suggestion-making channel consists of making a public post in a forum of several hundred users under one's actual account name. This has several drawbacks:

1) Because suggestions are not presented "blind" but are presented with the name of the suggester on them, they are subject to a class of bias called a "halo effect", where instead of the idea being evaluated strictly on its merit, it's reception is mediated by what hearers think of the suggester.

The halo effect is an extremely well established and well documented phenomenon in psychology, whereby when individual identities are attached to work to be evaluated, evaluators are biased in terms of whether or not they like the individual suggesting the idea (or the individual's sex, race, etc.) Further, it has been scientifically demonstrated that even being aware of the halo effect does not allow one to compensate for it by cognitive means alone. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect for cites.)

DW has a fine Diversity Statement; well, here's a place the rubber meets the road. For the same reason that symphony orchestras now audition players behind a screen and academic peer review is supposed to be double-blind, DW suggestions should not identify the suggester with the suggestion. It should be possible for a user who has a reputation as, say, an abrasive social justice advocate, to be able to contribute a feature suggestion to DW without it being voted unpopular because its suggester is seen as "uppity" or "shrill".

2) Potential suggesters are constrained to the unions of the set of people comfortable posting in such a public space and the set of people who didn't realize that's what it entails when they filled out the form for the first time. For those of us who think posting in a community of several hundred people is no big deal, it can be hard to remember or respect the perspective of the (many) people for whom that is an extremely daunting proposition. And yet many of those people can be thoughtful, insightful DW users who have interesting and useful thought to contribute. Being willing to engage in the internet version of "public speaking" is not somehow a necessary concomitant to having good ideas about user interfaces or functional design! By having only so public a process, DW strongly deters those people from contributing. And that's largely DW's loss.

Furthermore, I assume this is about to work just like the LJ version does (I've not yet submitted a suggestion at DW, so I'm about to find out), and I will get inundated with email notifications for discussion of this suggestion. That is also a deterrent to submitting suggestions.

I know *I* am deterred, and I'm not what you'd call a fading violet. But I, for one, certainly don't want to receive all umpty-zillion comments on my suggestion or notifications for everyone who votes on it. About nine times of ten that I have a suggestion to make to DW or LJ, I don't make it because I don't want it in my email. I am not kidding or exaggerating. When I *do* make a suggestion, over at LJ, usually I regret it. I really don't need the tsuris. And why should tsuris be the reward for submitting a suggestion?

Furthermore, the handling of suggestions in this way, where the suggester receives an influx of discussion of their merits of their idea (with their name/identity attached to it!) makes me cringe a bit because it pretty badly violates some basic Western-culture etiquette most of us probably learned growing up.

Suggestions are *gifts*. As such, you're not required to *wear* the damn sweater, but you are required to say "Thank you very much" and not tell Aunt Gussy to her face what you think of her fashion sense.

It's funny: I actually have consulted with volunteer organizers on this issue as it crops up face-to-face, which it often does, and which I suspect is why LJ wound up developing a suggestion system which looks just like the problem I help people solve in volunteer organizations.

I'll illustrate with a story: An organizer for a large SCA event, and dear friend, came to me in a tizzy, saying, "Soandso just emailed me suggesting we have Activity X at my event and volunteering to run it. But I don't want Activity X at my event! What do I do?" And I said, "You don't have to accept her suggestion. You don't have to reject her suggestion. You don't owe her an immediate decision on her suggestion. You don't owe her an immediate justification for not instantly capitulating to what you are taking to be her personal wish. You don't actually owe her anything but courtesy. So you say to her, 'Thank you for that suggestion! I'll take it under advisement.'" And his eyes lit up, and he went and told her, "Thank you for that suggestion! I'll take it under advisement." And she was perfectly happy with that and he was happy with that and he no longer felt like every suggestion put him on the spot and he went on to use that all the time, even on me on occasion, and everybody lived happily ever after.

It would be neat if DW's system had that same grace; that it received the suggestion from the suggester, thanking them for it, and letting them know if it was up for discussion, but not opting them in to that discussion automatically. Further, while the aforementioned separation of identity of suggester from suggestion means that the suggester is less likely to interpret the discussion as a referendum on themselves and their worth as a human being (which reduction is good), nevertheless, for someone who is shy or uncertain of themselves, even when not identified as the originator of the idea, being exposed to people dispassionately discussing the merits of one's idea can feel a bit like feeding one's ego into a meat grinder. Obviously, public discussion of the merits of suggestions is a good thing, so it must not be suppressed; but there's no reason that DW couldn't make it possible for the suggester not to be exposed to that part of the process, if they prefer not.

SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION:

1) That posts to dw_suggestions be "anonymous" in that they don't reveal who proposed them, and

2) The suggester is presented with a ticky box to opt into receiving email notification of comments on their post (i.e. turning tracking on) rather than that happening automagically.

Poll #1804 "Anonymizing" Suggestions

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 56

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
18 (32.1%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
14 (25.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
16 (28.6%)

(I have no opinion)
4 (7.1%)

(Other: please comment)
4 (7.1%)

Comments

[siderea]

Testing, 1 2 3, testing.

[charmian]

So under your proposed system, the mod would then become the poster of all suggestions?

Another problem is that sometimes suggestions are vague or the reasoning behind them is not clearly laid out (i.e., the problem the suggestion is supposed to solve is unclear). Sometimes a suggestion can't really be discussed well until these matters are clarified. Will there also be a system for asking for anon clarifications?

[kaigou]

Sometimes a suggestion can't really be discussed well until these matters are clarified.

What synchronicity, because I was just about to do a suggestion to address exactly that! Guess I need to hurry up and finish and send, eh.

[yvi]

Furthermore, the handling of suggestions in this way, where the suggester receives an influx of discussion of their merits of their idea (with their name/identity attached to it!) makes me cringe a bit because it pretty badly violates some basic Western-culture etiquette most of us probably learned growing up.

I am genuinely confused here what 'basic Western-culture etiquette' you mean here. I don't think telling someone 'Thank you for that suggestion! I'll take it under advisement.' when you have no intention of actually doing it is polite. I think (and have been taught) the polite thing is to discuss with the person suggesting something why you have no intention of doing what they suggest and/or how it can be improved so that it will be done.

That said, I am completely fine with having an anonymous option if so desired. Make it a tickybox or something. Or 'sign your name here if you want to'.

[cimorene]

basic Western-culture etiquette doesn't have to mean that all people in Western culture subscribe to it; etiquette is rarely that clear-cut about things. Usage varies, which opens the question to debate. But a rule of etiquette can still be basic in the sense that it is taken for granted by many people as default in most public interactions.

The basic rule siderea was alluding to (which she named in the next sentence after the one you quoted), that gifts should not be criticized, is indeed the default assumption in mainstream American society and much of the Western world. It's highly debatable whether this rule applies to suggestions at all, since they are by no means necessarily gifts; and it certainly doesn't apply to any situation where there's a contextual necessity for treating the suggestions seriously, such as a committee or organization consisting of members of equal standing, where your counter-suggestion would be the obvious polite course.

However, there is no basic rule that a suggestion must be treated as seriously as you suggest; that would be impossible, because there are some situations where suggestions could never be implemented, even situations where making any suggestion at all violates basic rules of politeness.

[pauamma]

Hmm. I think having an anonymous option that users can select or leave unselected (onymous?) at their option may cause problems too, eg speculation along the lines of "Why did that poster choose to hide their name? Are they somehow ashamed of their suggestion?" or "Is that poster hoping their overall reputation will carry through a dubious or improvable suggestion?" (reverse of the first one). This drawback is not (IMO) the same as for the all-anonymous method (#1 of the suggested implementation), so it (and its social implications) should be discussed separately, I think.

As for the "don't get notification of poll votes/comments" item (#2 of the suggested implementation), yes, that would be nice to have.

[msilverstar]

I totally agree with you. Some of my suggestions have... not been received well. And I would rather not have had reminders of that in my inbox. (But I still think I'm right!)

[zvi]

Siderea:

Now that the suggestion has been posted as an entry, you can edit the entry to control the comment notifications on this entry.

---

I like very much the idea that a person should be able to decide whether or not to receive entry comments at the time of sending the suggestion.

I am dubious that anonymizing the suggestions is as useful or appropriate. For one thing, suggestions which draw a lot of comment often draw many comments because the original poster clarifies in comments what they are actually suggesting, or because people responding to the suggestion are explaining what the software currently does and does not allow, and the suggester modifies their proposal in response to that additional information.

Also, I'm not convinced that it is inappropriate to judge/discuss suggestions in part based on what I know about people's expertise with programming or with using the LJ/DW software as opposed to other social media/social networking sites. Personally, I will adjust my vocabulary to take into account the OP's familiarity with the system, when discussing my opinion of the suggestion.

[cimorene]

you can edit the entry to control the comment notifications on this entry.

I actually didn't know about this until you mentioned it. I found it right away, but it hadn't previously occurred to me to look on the notifications page, so perhaps siderea didn't know about it? Either way, perhaps a suggestion that the opt-out ticky-box for notifications in your DW Inbox be reproduced on the Post Entry page is in order.

[gchick]

+1 on anonymity

[cheyinka]

I like the ability to opt in to receiving email notification of comments on a suggestions post - by default I don't get those comments if I post somewhere other than my own journal, so the ability to turn it on before posting would be nice.

I don't have an opinion on anonymizing suggestions. I think it's useful to know that a poster typically posts things that I like or don't like, whether or not that's fair or unfair, and I think it's useful to know who's the suggestor when it comes to later comments; but I can see the lack of anonymity being a problem for some people.

[healingmirth]

I'm all for having an option to anonymize one's suggestion on the submission form (I'll be the one over in the corner with my Ask Me About my Crippling Shyness shirt on) but:

While I think the point about the halo effect is well-made, making an attempt to force a clinically-unbiased method on a site like Dreamwidth seems like it might be ill-advised, and also like it wouldn't really work. I think you would just end up with a false perception of it being unbiased, unless every single suggestion poster is going to be sure to only enter comment discussions anonymously.

People who click votes from their reading pages wouldn't be voting with their opinion of a user, I guess, but more often than not, I review the existing comments before I cast my first vote in case they bring up something that hadn't occurred to me.

[susanreads]

Likewise!

I wouldn't want automatic anonymity, but an option might be useful if it gets people to post who otherwise wouldn't.

I didn't know about opting out of comment notifications. I think having a ticky-box on the suggestion form would be better, because then you wouldn't have to come back later and find the post to turn it off.

[beet]

I think this community benefits from discussion on the suggestions--including the participation of the original poster. For that reason I would not like to see anonymous suggestions become the default way of posting.

However, I could see some alternate option given for users who would like their particular suggestion to be posted anonymously--whether that is by emailing the suggestion to a mod for them to post (and there by allowing for questions or clarifications to the suggestion), or by a "make anon" ticky option.

I am, however, in favor of adding an option in the "make a suggestion" form that will allow the poster to excuse herself from comment notification.

[cheyinka]

I like the "Send this privately to the moderators for them to post" option better than a "check this box to submit anonymously" option.

[kyrielle]

+1. Also, allow one to turn off notifications for individual polls (rather than all polls) and make THAT a tickybox on the form, too.

I made one suggestion and just about died under the influx of poll emails the next morning. Went and turned the option off globally as it seemed all I could do. Now I suppose I will one day post a poll in my account and be confounded at not getting notifications until I go "oh, yeah...."

[afuna]

I *think* (not absolutely sure) a "make anon" option could be possible by making it so that it's posted to the moderation queue as coming from a special stand-in account, specifically created to be used for suggestions (to prevent any confusion).

And from there, it could be processed in the same way as any other suggestion, though rejection could be tricky since there'd be no way to send the message to the original suggester.

[owl]

No to anonymity, yes to being able to turn off comment notifications.

[mskala]

Heaven forbid that anyone should ever be forced to take personal responsibility for their ideas.

[kyrielle]

If someone has an idea that can make it through moderation into the community, but is too shy - or socially phobic for that matter! - to want to put it under their name, I at least would still like the chance to consider the suggestion.

Reverse halo

[matgb]

You're right that some people will automatically favour a suggestion from certain people.

But for others, a suggestion froma user we know makes us a lot more likely to engage with constructive, sometimes negative, criticism.

Given that I'm aware some people are very shy about putting their ideas forward, I tend to be less directly critical of ideas from people I don't recognise--I'll vote against, and put in major bones of contention, but not be too pushy about it.

But if it's a suggestion from Denise, Azure, 'Fey, etc, then I'll be very critical, saying exactly what I think and engaging with alternate suggestions--I know that not only is that fine with them, it's what they want.

Open Source development appeals to my basic British Liberal instincts--ideas must be tested, ideas must be discussed.

If people are put off suggesting their own ideas, then they can already approach many of us that are happy to put ideas forward on behalf of others--I've done it in the past, and I know Az does it regularly. Yes, some people are very shy, but completely anonymous posts is not something I want to see.

I very rarely see harsh or attacking comments on a suggestions post, even on LJ, it's just not within the culture of the comms--we perhaps need to do more to encourage people to engage, but a lot of the worry people have is misplaced.

Re: Reverse halo

[azurelunatic]

"Harsh" is relative. The style of rigorous debate that we prefer can be very unsettling to unaccustomed users who would prefer agreement or nothing, or agreement or "no, thank you". Getting ten "I think I would quit LJ if they did this" or "-1000" comments blasted at you in the space of fifteen minutes when this was your cherished good idea ... it's valid feedback to the idea, but it can be reasonably taken as harsh.

[cesy]

Actually, thinking about this further, the AO3 process might be worth noting for comparison and pros and cons.

If a suggestion is made to the AO3, it comes in via the support form. The user gets a reply, which will either be "thanks, we've added it to the list for consideration", or "thanks, it's already on the list and is likely to happen at some point", or "thanks, we've added it to the list but it's unlikely to happen and here's why". (The first one is much more common than the second two, because Support volunteers don't generally have the authority to say either of the second two unless it's come up before.) The process of being considered and either approved or rejected is then completely invisible to the user, or to any other users who are interested. (Volunteers and staff can see it happening.)

This has the advantage that by the time a suggestion gets to the consideration stage, it doesn't have a username attached - it's just an anonymous suggestion on the list, with a tally of how many people have requested it. However, it has the disadvantage that it's all internal. Sometimes specific requests go out for community feedback, and sometimes we get helpful ideas when someone else requests a similar thing but worded in a different way, but most of the design is done internally. I don't see an easy way of getting the full benefit of community discussion, with people debating for and against particular suggestions, without losing anonymity. (And the reverse - I don't see an easy way of getting anonymity without losing either transparency or accountability to a certain extent.)

[torachan]

I think having an option when submitting the suggestion to turn off comments/poll notifications is a good idea, but I don't know that I really see the need for an anon option.

For one thing, even if there is a "halo" effect (which I don't know how common that actually is, because in order for there to be, people must notice the poster's name and recognise them and to know enough about them to have an opinion of them one way or the other, none of which are guaranteed or even that likely, IMO), the people voting do not get the final say-so, so it's not like if there's some ridiculous suggestion and someone gets all their friends to come and vote for it, it HAS to be implemented, you know?

[cheyinka]

Yeah, I think the fact that popular suggestions aren't guaranteed to be implemented helps the "positive" side of the halo effect, and the fact that it's unlikely that everyone who reads dw_suggestions will dislike a given person sufficiently to vote against that person's suggestions out of spite helps the "negative" side.

[azurelunatic]

Supposing there were two options:
1) post publicly to dw_suggestions, or send privately to the owners/admins, and
2) if posted publicly, unsubscribe from notifications for it (both comment and poll) ... or heck, separately -- I don't want to hear the poll results, I want the comment notifications.

This discussion also inspires me to make inquiries about clarifying the feedback vs. suggestions process in the LiveJournal contact form. One can make suggestions in private to staff through the feedback form; the suggestions form is deposited into the moderation queue for the LJ suggestions community. Clarifying that "feedback" is for feedback to staff and suggestions that are not intended for public discussion, and "suggestions" are for suggestions intended for public discussion, would probably improve user experience.

[ciaan]

I do agree that the suggestions posting process should include an easy way to opt out of notifications.

As for the rest.... There are pros and cons each way. I can definitely agree that it could be good to judge suggestions solely on themselves, not as coming from individuals.

On the other hand, I think that there's often a lot gained through discussion of the suggestions, and many of them have needed clarification by the OP, and people change their votes based on that clarification in the comments.

I also think that having some things anon and some named doesn't do anything to discourage the halo effect, as then people would judge/treat anon different from named. So it seems like it would need to be all one way, or else we would need to have various levels of process - a discussion stage and then a voting stage, for example, with one possibly being all anon and one named (but then people might also remember the names into the anon section, if it were that way around).