Worth the Change?

I think that this is just a start and a small component of the changes. Plus it may be impacting people even though they are not responding. Some of the topics/responses I have opinions about; but they are very hard to articulate in written form. If I tried to convey those feelings through this type of forum it could be interpreted very different than what I intended. Having the opportunity of doing it in a possible discussion group would allow people to see my heart and passion of why I feel they way I do or believe what I believe.

Also people may be reading these and just process the information. I know that alot of the resposes have gotten me thinking…processing…evaluating…

There are only 56 people in this forum…all who are already invested in the journey in some way…I think the “real” discussions will come when we start getting input from those who are “not like us”.

It’s too early to judge yet if this is worth the change. The biggest thing that needs to be behind this change is not this board but all of us being in PRAY about how we can use what we have and who we are and who is in need. It’s about knowing that it is not about US and what we want but about what GOD is guiding us to do. If we try to do this without prayer—-then we may as well stop now.

I like to watch people at parties. Some people (like me) love to talk and love to talk to different people. When I come to a party, I scope out who is there and I pay attention to who arrives after me and then I make sure I set aside time to touch base with each person of interest. Also, I’m shy about just walking up to someone who I dont know but if I see someone who looks interesting or says something interesting, I’ll go meet them.

Other people will just chat with the people they normally hang out with.

Some people will just chat with one person.

And some others simply won’t go to the party at all.

I just got back from lunch with Jon Reid. I liked what I read in his entries here and asked if he’d like to get together. The web site led to the formation of a new relationship for me and Jon.

To conclude that the concept is flawed because 14% of total registered users are doing all the talking is to assume that participation and effectiveness is all about ratios. Effectivity is not about math calculations but about the way people are in real life.

It’s hard to get me to shut up in real life and so it’s hard to get me to shut up on the board. I stir things up in RL just like here. I crack jokes in RL just like here. I’m willing to bet that the degree of other peoples’ participation is strongly similar to how they are in real life.

So, my point is that the web site is a lot like real life. The people that have a need/desire to participate and throw ideas out and weigh in on others’ ideas will jump into this. The people who like to just listen/read and process will do exactly that. Others will completely ignore the conversations altogether because it’s not of interest to them.

And remember too that the web site is not an end to itself. Ultimately, its effectiveness as a tool can be evaluated by whether people are better able to connect with each other and build good relationships. We aren’t overly concerned with “web participation” but are passionate about people forming insanely great relationships, to steal a phrase from Mr. Jobs.

I believe in God because every once in a while, I hear a voice that says, “You’re my favorite.”

To use your party analogy, isn’t the point of this site to get more people to the party? And once there get them to interact? Yes I know you can interact by reading and thinking, but the best interaction and the main focus of the site is to promote more people having an active voice. Also to assume that this is impacting people who are not posting and just reading is a mistake in my opinion. Going back to the party, most people who have fun at parties are the people who interacted with people (even just one), not the people who sit there with a drink in there hand doing nothing.

So if not numbers how do we measure the worthiness or success of this tool? Based on if people make new relationships? Total users? Number of active forum topics? Total topics? There needs to be some tangible measure of success.

The only reason I bring this up is to make sure we are not wasting our resources on something that has minimal impact (and I do not mean just money, but time, talent, money. etc…). Definitely not concluding that concept is flawed with a 14% user rate, but maybe it is not where it needs to be and maybe there is room while in this test phase to help boost the percentage?

Maybe I am missing the point to this tool. If I am someone correct me or point me and others to the point of this tool.

Hey great questions, thoughts, posts…

I was talking off line about this to some of the “purple cobras” (God, forgive us for our horrible names here at the Journey). : )

Here’s a few thoughts I shared with them…

I see the j2 site dynamically, meaning, that the traffic and postings on the j2 site will fluctuate (be dynamic). People and life are dynamic and so social structures are dynamic - whether that’s a Sunday AM experience, series topic or a social website thing…. the j2 site WILL fluctuate. It may be things like new babies that keep some of us away for 2 weeks…or business, or travel… school deadlines. We may be notified to new posts but not feel motivated at the time to go read ‘em (not interested or “grabbed” by the title).

I think we need to start setting up the expectation that the j2 will be a DYNAMIC tool - sometimes used a lot, sometimes visited less-frequently. We can also help people set an expectation that the site will FIRST have A LOT of traffic, then trickle off, then a particular series or something will push people back. Fluctuations are normal - not a sign of failure.

I really think we need to have FRESH things for people to come get (like LTG topics and study questions, Sunday AM pod casts, etc) to make the site be a place people want to come regularly. I would harness some of our CRAZY OVER-BLOGGERS from the current j2 group to become people who can write content (like LTG topics/study guides) for us. Jeff can always sign off on the questions or whatever.

Another thought - posting vs reading. The last several 2.0 sites I’ve been to - I’ve been a silent member (there’s a term for this but I’m too cool to know it : ) Those sites and the posts I read are still very useful… posting or not posting is not necessarily a sign of success/failure. I think TRAFFIC is probably a bigger concern as well as STRONG CONTENT for people to engage with.

Last thought about static/vs. dynamic and expectations. Is the current j2 site more relational (meaning I connect with my friends here, invite more, share videos, etc) or is the current site a big forum/blog space that is more “heady” and “topical?” Just my opinion but I think I personally would be driven to it if it was a good balance of both. Meaning, I want to be able to post and read but also hit Dave an email or “write on his wall.” I want to see more than a huge thing of TEXT under his profile -pics, videos, etc. Maybe I can even subscribe to his profile because he always puts cool stuff there - (I can feel Jeff mincey telling me that that’s the “blog” section.) I’m suggesting marrying the personal blog and profile together for a more “me” and “singular” page for people to check out???

So as one who rarely writes I have a question. So far the only people that have access to this site are those that are hand picked, right? that means their thoughts and ideas are considered importand and even vital to the next step of the church, right?
It seems to me that if these people were selected for their ideas for the new J2 movement than there SHOULD be some concern that we are only getting 14% of this groups input. I mean, that leaves 86% of the input from hand picked people just lost somewhere. I don’t think these other people (myself included) were asked along for the ride just to read and think.