Comments on: Wisdom of Crowds – or stupidity of the mob? http://quilp.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/wisdom-of-crowds-or-dumbness-of-the-mob/ Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:31:03 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Alexander Braun http://quilp.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/wisdom-of-crowds-or-dumbness-of-the-mob/#comment-6 Alexander Braun Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:21:41 +0000 http://quilp.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/wisdom-of-crowds-or-dumbness-of-the-mob/#comment-6 Good point, Peter. Content with sales *expectations* below 5,000 won't even get out even if it is perceived to be of high quality, as smaller print runs aren't economically viable. Ergo all the 4,999 people within many niches who would love to get their hands on it don't even get served. The internet has the potential to change that. And it gives room for evaluating content beforehand to better grasp its sales potential. As the Rowling example shows, many (astronomically) underestimated Harry Potter's sales potential as there wasn't really a control segment around in publishing to base the estimates on. Nowadays a sorcerer kid comes in many shapes and forms as this segment seems to be big enough for me-toos. The current (single expert based) bottlenecks might succeed to some degree in evaluating something well-established (although the 40% return rates even here suggest they don't) but have obvious limitations in paving the way for the unknown because of the costs associated with the decision to publish. As the costs of publishing online are virtually zero the threshold for testing many different creative ideas is removed. What's better than that? With regard to the quality aspect of this equation I'd like to quote science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon, who when confronted with the question 'Isn't ninety percent of science fiction crap?' by an interviewer replied: 'Ninety percent of everything is crap - but the remaining ten percent are worth dying for.' Let a diverse crowd of people decide where their ten percent lie and don't deprive those who think differently of their freedom of choice. Judging by the expert decision of twelve editors at different publishing houses who rejected Rowling millions of people around the world are making the wrong decision by bying Harry Potter - enough rejections that would have lead many unknown authors to give up. If we can give authors the tools to reach their audience and let the readers decide for themselves without limitations to creativity, then the work we are putting into building this platform for authors and readers has been worthwhile. Good point, Peter. Content with sales *expectations* below 5,000 won’t even get out even if it is perceived to be of high quality, as smaller print runs aren’t economically viable. Ergo all the 4,999 people within many niches who would love to get their hands on it don’t even get served.

The internet has the potential to change that. And it gives room for evaluating content beforehand to better grasp its sales potential. As the Rowling example shows, many (astronomically) underestimated Harry Potter’s sales potential as there wasn’t really a control segment around in publishing to base the estimates on. Nowadays a sorcerer kid comes in many shapes and forms as this segment seems to be big enough for me-toos.

The current (single expert based) bottlenecks might succeed to some degree in evaluating something well-established (although the 40% return rates even here suggest they don’t) but have obvious limitations in paving the way for the unknown because of the costs associated with the decision to publish. As the costs of publishing online are virtually zero the threshold for testing many different creative ideas is removed. What’s better than that?

With regard to the quality aspect of this equation I’d like to quote science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon, who when confronted with the question ‘Isn’t ninety percent of science fiction crap?’ by an interviewer replied: ‘Ninety percent of everything is crap – but the remaining ten percent are worth dying for.’ Let a diverse crowd of people decide where their ten percent lie and don’t deprive those who think differently of their freedom of choice. Judging by the expert decision of twelve editors at different publishing houses who rejected Rowling millions of people around the world are making the wrong decision by bying Harry Potter – enough rejections that would have lead many unknown authors to give up. If we can give authors the tools to reach their audience and let the readers decide for themselves without limitations to creativity, then the work we are putting into building this platform for authors and readers has been worthwhile.

]]> By: Peter Beermann http://quilp.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/wisdom-of-crowds-or-dumbness-of-the-mob/#comment-5 Peter Beermann Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:15:16 +0000 http://quilp.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/wisdom-of-crowds-or-dumbness-of-the-mob/#comment-5 100% agree! Furthermore I think that Keen’s argumentation is not very realistic. Let’s face it, the major principle these gatekeepers stick to while making their selection is not quality but profit orientation. They will prefer content that is supposed to bring the expected ROI. In most of the cases they won’t take any chances by going for very unpredictable content even though they might value it due to their expertise in this field. The crowd itself on the other side is free from profit orientated thinking. They will choose the content they value most. The new technology is what enables them to do so. The question is, if this crowd chosen content is from an expert’s view of higher quality than the pre-selected content? Not necessarily, but at least it is what people chose. Isn’t that a major criterion for the quality of content? Additionally a learning effect will take place while choosing this content. By confronting people with bad content they will learn to identify quality criteria. Thus they will become trained experts themselves. People will therefore have the ability to recognize the Mozarts and Van Goghs of our time themselves and not value them because they were told to! 100% agree! Furthermore I think that Keen’s argumentation is not very realistic. Let’s face it, the major principle these gatekeepers stick to while making their selection is not quality but profit orientation. They will prefer content that is supposed to bring the expected ROI. In most of the cases they won’t take any chances by going for very unpredictable content even though they might value it due to their expertise in this field. The crowd itself on the other side is free from profit orientated thinking. They will choose the content they value most. The new technology is what enables them to do so. The question is, if this crowd chosen content is from an expert’s view of higher quality than the pre-selected content? Not necessarily, but at least it is what people chose. Isn’t that a major criterion for the quality of content? Additionally a learning effect will take place while choosing this content. By confronting people with bad content they will learn to identify quality criteria. Thus they will become trained experts themselves. People will therefore have the ability to recognize the Mozarts and Van Goghs of our time themselves and not value them because they were told to!

]]>