[thanks, results] Success, so far!

[Larry Sanger]

All,

This experiment was awesome! Let's do it again tomorrow!

Thanks to everyone who joined in. Here's what we did:

• We produced 50 bitts with not many more people than we ordinarily do.
• Three 3-dot bitts, five 2-dot bitts, two 1-dot bitts. So, despite the fact that many of us started small, the edition was quite well developed.
• We did a great job of selecting the top 10. There was a lot of news to choose from, lots of important stories that didn't make it into the top 10; it was a big news day, I think, but we still covered almost everything worth covering (for the top stories, anyway).
• U.S., World, and Tech news categories are all pretty fresh at present. (I take credit for most of the U.S. news; Mike Labossiere did most of Tech.)

In short, we did a great job, which is why I want to try it again and see if we can do a similarly high-quality job tomorrow.

I am hypothesizing that there is great value in conceiving of bitt development in two phases: (a) initial proposal and ranking, with just one or two facts, and (b) expansion of high-ranked bitts.

Having lots of little bitts available to rank might ultimately prove to be more exciting for everyone. It creates more available work and mindshare (so to speak), and we have many more bitts to rank, even if they are relatively lightweight at first. There's also more drama (which I think is important) in the whole question of what news is really worthy to make it to the top of the top 10 (or big categories).

Any reactions to the experiment? Please reply on Infobitt-talk.

Tomorrow, I'd be delighted if many of us were to converge at or before 8 a.m. Eastern (1 p.m. GMT) to propose lots of "stubs."

--Larry

--

Larry Sanger

Founder/CEO, Infobitt.com