Endorsing Jim
Submitted by cramoukji on Tue, 02/15/2005 - 13:20
Tags:
I sit typing at my desk and wonder why people have the possibility of endorsing the webmaster of this site for his submissions of lists... isn't there a conflict of interest in there ? Can someone say "ah, you know, I like the site and actually enjoy it a lot in my free time and I thank you for taking the time and effort to creating it and running it but I won't endorse you because I don't think your contribution to this site is good" ? Food for thought, this, I tell you... anyway, just for the sucking-up factor, I endorse the master, long live the master, oh, the master he is so good to us, we are not worthy and all that stuff...
I endorsed Jim because I enjoy his lists and comments, not because he runs the site. I suspect several folks have endorsed him not knowing that he is the webmaster.
If that means I am sucking up, at least I get the word 'up' added on the end this time!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
No conflict of interest as far as I can tell. The main reason being that this isn't a competition.
Its sad that I even have to comment of this, because jim is an invaluable contributer to discussions here, and has some of the best lists around. This is a pretty humiliating thing to post. We don't usually single out members of our site and question the validity of their opinion and then open the floor to discussion.
Don't endorse him if you don't want to, but don't belittle his contributions here by posting things like this.
I endorse Jim because I love his lists (check out my favorites!) and his intelligent, insightful contributions to so many discussions. If Jim blocks people from endorsing him over this I will be very sad. And mad.
He doesn't require new Listologists to endorse him. He has so many endorsements because he has so much good content and so many good comments.
The thing that makes it really tricky is that if you don't endorse me I secretly edit your posts to introduce small grammatical and factual errors. You wouldn't believe how many people's credibility I've undermined over the years via such subterfuge! :-)
Actually, when we had a Hall of Fame this bothered me more, since I felt my position near the top was might be due to some grade inflation (then again, maybe it's just because I've been around the longest, plugging away). But with that page gone endorsements don't really affect anything any more. All it does is allow you to pull up a profile of somebody you like, and find other people that person likes. It is not in anybody's interest to endorse me without liking my content, as it just misleads folks as to your tastes.
All that said, it's a valid question, I think. After all, I don't endorse anybody because I don't want to show favortism as the site administrator (although again, now that the HoF is dead perhaps it's not a big deal). Also, as administrator I'm grateful for everybody that contributes content - not just folks that contribute stuff I particularly like, so it's hard to exclude anyone. The fact that I run the site probably does have subtle effects on how folks interact with me. Or at least among newer folks - there are lots of Listologists that have known me for years now, so I expect we're past any such effects.
Thanks for the support, gang! The feeling is wholeheartedly mutual.
I can't explain or even fully understand why I think so, but I for one am glad you still aren't endorsing people.
I endorse jim by reading (many of) his posts with attention, interest and respect. I also endorse him by attempting to respond (whenever I do respond) with thought, zest/relish and consideration. I try to treat everyone in this way and I hope that others take my posts as endorsements. You may take this in that way, if you choose.
[Please note: A lack of response doesn't necessarily mean disapproval. I try to avoid short posts (quel surprise!) of agreement, dispute or pointlessness.]
If I think that someone is 540° wrong (look it up, English majors) and I feel that I absolutely must respond then I struggle to be constructive (not destructive), open for discussion (not close-minded) and brilliantly clever (not... you know what I mean.) I try to avoid making them feel that they are not worthy while simultaneously telling them to stuff that stuff and not be such a stuffhead. Lastly (really?) I make these kind of contributions at a time when I think that they will drop off the eight hour Recent Activity page before everyone wakes up to read it in the States, EST. There's something to be said for modesty and kindness. They're nice. There, I've said it.
Personally, I pay more attention to people who like what I say/write (have said/written.) I try to follow what they do because it is natural to like those who like you. These are people who respond well and often to what you do. Some may call it a "conflict of interest" but I think that it's simply simpatico.
Finally (finally!) I don't think that unendorsements are in keeping with the communal spirit that pervades this site... and that is a tremendous endorsement of jim. I will post to exalt, examine and/or excoriate. You may take that in any way that you choose.
I am 0dysseus and I endorse this message.
0dysseus, you could post about folded sheets sitting in a dark closet and I'd love reading it.
I'm not so sure I agree with you about unendorsements, though.
As a side note, how do you do that thing where a link jumps to the middle of a page?
They're done with 'anchors.' Nice 'ol Jim has made it easy for us. Each post automatically has it's own anchor. In most browsers, you can find it by hovering over the 'reply to _____' link; you will see an URL in your status bar ending with "msg.id.#####". Those 5 digits at the end are the anchor for that post. To link to that post, simply create a hyperlink normally and then add the # symbol and then the five digits. For example, let's say I want to link to the first post on this page. I would code:
<a href="http://www.listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.16562#50236">Link</a>
Make sense?
Great, thanks!
I'm delighted and flattered that you feel that way. Thank you. I must warn you that my pillow cases might have other plans, but... that isn't anything unusual.
You know my feelings about unendorsements. I would appreciate the opportunity to try and convince you that they are against the communal spirit of the law before you take the law into your own hands and start pointing fingers... You and I might want to elbow each other aside to slap handcuffs on the wrists of those who should shoulder the blame and are running from the long arm of the law... and a hideously tortured set of metaphor-arms. Enough of that, farewell to arms (sigh.)
Hopefully you will allow jim to snip this thread before we drag everybody's dirty laundry out of the closet and start linking to every post (and beam) that we do not hold in the highest esteem. Or at least until I have a chance to persuade you to try a little tenderness and fabric softener. I'll be sad to lose this post along with the chance to plug my novella about three towels and an old quilt inside a locked trunk... but I think it would be for the best.
At least I didn't make a cheap crack about knuckles (heavy sigh.)
If I disagree with someone's behavior, I don't mind saying so. However, I think I'm capable of distinguishing between the behavior and the person - which is why I don't really favor 'unendorsements'. If I really thought poor behavior should always result in such damnation, I'd have to damn myself.
Thank you for forcing me to clarify myself.
whooo whooo people care :) it's time for a celebratory dance