@patrickokeefe Thank you for your thoughtful response. It’s very helpful. I’m going to share this annotation and these thoughts with the moderators, as I think what you’ve written (both in your article and in your reply) is important to talk about in a forum setting, as well.

No worries about the broken highlight; it happens. :)

• Your first point definitely makes sense. To add onto that, the @genius-moderation tag is used for other things (e.g. to promote a discussion). Having read what you stated, I agree that having segmented users' complaints with a ‘Report Abuse’ button would’ve made things more effective for Genius to promote a safer, more inclusive online community.
• Your second point makes sense, as well… particularly because this creates more work on the end-user. How was a new user supposed to know to inbox message someone with purple or steel blue username… unless he/she reads through the guidelines (and the annotations within those guidelines)…?

With regard to your disclaimers, you mentioned:

My hope is that Genius will allow people to opt-out of annotations, just like Google does with its index.

I personally hope so, too. We have seen how the platform can be used… and history is bound to repeat itself if nothing is done with the platform as a whole. The ‘Report Abuse’ button is a Band Aid on a wound that needs stitches… and Ella Dawson exposed what Genius can potentially become if WE don’t take the initiative and fix the problem ourselves (rather than someone from outside of Genius creating the solution that makes a website un-annotatable).

I haven’t determined whether or not I will attempt to block Genius annotations from my website(s).

I respect that, and I appreciate you being upfront about that. Regardless of whether you do, know that (speaking on behalf of Genius) we support your decision, whatever the outcome may be.

If someone looks at this conversation and says, “and this is why we need Genius!,” I would caution that thought.

In all honesty, I would too. Not necessarily for ALL the reasons you mentioned, but particularly because Genius is always the preferred means of communication when an author or creator makes a small error.

Because I represent Genius and because I’m an avid user, I want people to perceive Genius as the preferred means of communication for a LOT MORE than criticism and/or sarcasm; as you mentioned, it can be perceived as “discourteous”. Although I still think we can do that, I would like to see more responses that HELP the author and provide a service to their readers. Just like what we aim to do on-site, we can cite resources and add commentary that SUPPORTS the author’s claim rather than attempt to debunk/diminish it.

Thanks again for the constructive feedback, and once again, thanks for reading my thoughts.

@patrickokeefe Hey Patrick I just wanted to say thank you so much for reading our annotation, taking our points on board, and being transparent in the process. We really appreciate people who are keen to engage in open (and in this case intellectual and stimulating) discussion, so I have to say again thank you.

If you do decide to block Genius, it is entirely your decision. It’s your website and it’s your call, and we will have no qualms with it. Thanks mate.

Thank you, Mr. @Ezzo and @Theonlydjorkaeff, for the thoughts and kind words. I appreciate it. It’s my pleasure.

In my communities, there is this principle I try to adhere to, which is that people who are not present deserve (basically) the same level of respect as those who are. Even celebrities. This stops us from looking at non-members or public figures as somehow less human than us.

Some people might not be able to spend time engaging here. I don’t think that those people are less deserving of respect from Genius (not just the community, but also in policy decisions) or even the courtesy you yourself might expect (or hope for, heh) if you made an error at your job.

Just like when you meet someone face-to-face, first impressions are really powerful with online communities. If I am an author, and my introduction to Genius is that people are picking apart my writing and pointing out errors (especially minor or debatable ones), my first impression may not be a good one.

We could argue the idea that some authors “have it coming” because they don’t put enough effort in. But many authors do put time and effort into their writing.

What you don’t want is for Genius annotations to become a parody of sorts, like YouTube comments. “I just spent 20 hours and wrote a 3,000 word piece on X. Now, to wait for the ‘corrections’ from Genius!” But I could absolutely see that happening, especially if every minor error an author makes is suddenly a pitch message for that author to join Genius.

Thanks again.

Patrick

Hi @Theonlydjorkaeff,

I happened to catch your post here, as it showed up in my traffic referrers: https://genius.com/discussions/221895-09-04-tates-of-the-week

I was really disappointed because it makes it sound like my article had massive factual issues that were somehow corrected by Genius' contribution to my work. You say that Mr. @Ezzo’s annotation was “setting the record straight on some of the “facts” that were presented in the article.” The use of facts in quotation marks is interesting to me.

This is objectively wrong. In reality, there was one minor fact that had absolutely no impact on my intent, points or the veracity of my writing. To put facts in quotation marks (forgetting that it was one fact, singular) and to label this as “setting the record” straight doesn’t seem like an accurate description of what occurred. The points I made in this piece remain unchanged from the moment I published it. I could have left the article as it was, and it would have been no weaker a piece of writing. And yet, your description will have people questioning my integrity before they even click in.

I point this out because we spoke about building trust and how writers and authors might view Genius. This interaction was positive for me, but now it feels awkward, as if me engaging is actually being used against me. To read your comment here, and then your post in the forums, it’s almost like speaking to two different people, which is a hard way to build trust.

Best of luck,

Patrick

@patrickokeefe the use of quotations marks may have been an error in judgement on my part, i had just woken up when i wrote the piece and Genius has no way of editing forum posts.

I have posted underneath to show that there was one fact, not multiple. This reflects what you said in your annotation, “Thank you for the clarification, regarding the moderation tag. I have updated the text to reflect this.” You modified the text based on new information. No shame in that, in fact it’s an example of the web annotator being used to spread knowledge :)

@Theonlydjorkaeff You could delete the post and remake. Obviously that’s a pain if you don’t have a version saved in Lazarus or a Word Processor.

@Vesuvius i do not have a version saved, I don’t use those programs although I should.