ca lp website

Activists List
1

Phil,

  I agree that it takes too many clicks to find our candidates [in case
you didn't find them, choose the "Learn" tab and select "Our
Candidates", then choose the category you want (local, state or
federal) from this page -- http://www.ca.lp.org/candidates/2010].
Definitely Libertarian candidates should be more visible on the state
party's website in an election season. I'd also recommend that people
be able to see all the candidates at once, instead of (or at least in
addition to) having to click to view them one at a time.

  I'm copying Flavio, the site's architect, on this message, as well as
Allen Rice (aka Willow Glen Libertarian Alliance), who is apparently
responsible for maintenance of the candidates page -- perhaps one or
both of them can do something about these issues. I also notice that
I'm not even listed as a local candidate for SF School Board, and the
LPSF has not yet been added to the links for county parties despite my
repeated urging for this to happen.

  But in general I think the new LPC website is a drastic improvement
over the old one, which was a real eyesore. The new site is much more
visually attractive, and offers much more in the way of interactivity
and social networking possibilities. Problems and unfinished status
notwithstanding, imho it's the most promising thing to happen to the
LPC in recent memory.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

2

Good to hear from you, Starchild, even if it's only to pass on a complaint.

The quality of the website has indeed improved, presumably a result of Flavio's
effort, none of mine. I hadn't looked for a while and had no idea it had
changed.

Re the candidates' page, which I was indeed maintaining:

1) You are right, Phil: It now takes two clicks, rather than just one to get to
the page. This of course is a 100% increase in effort, a fact which is
horribleness incarnate I am sure.

2) Re the content and presentation method of the page itself, a buggy first
pass for it was handed to me several months ago, which I fixed and got into
working order. Design and content are not within my purview.

3) Given that the page's current format and mode of operation have been in play
for at least 3 months, with no criticism coming to me during all that time
(though there has been an email link provided for exactly that purpose), I am
not at all interested in attempting to change any of it in the two days
remaining before Election Day.

4) While not divulging my own preference, there IS a legitimate argument to be
made for displaying candidates in exactly the way the page currently does.
Persons wanting to see which/if any Libertarians are running in their local
district can drill down immediately to the offices they are concerned about, and
there find names and links.

Regards,
Allen

3

Allen,

  "Only" to pass on a complaint? I can assure you that it is my desire to pass along only quality complaints which I consider it a good use of your time to read, and that Phil's complaint met my discriminating standards. Naturally I would hope that you would be gratified to receive such a complaint -- but if not, you are free to complain to me about it, if you feel the wording of your initial response has not already sufficiently accomplished this purpose. :slight_smile:

  In response to your numbered points below...

(1) Why are you being so sarcastic?

(2) Thank you for providing the breakdown on the division of labor.

(3) No one ever said anything about the page or asked for any input that I was aware of. Not sure what "email link" you are talking about. Presumably the two days before Election Day is when voter traffic will be highest, but if you feel you have better uses of your time that is of course your decision as a volunteer.

(4) Why not divulge your own preference? You're usually not hesitant to offer an opinion. The approach I was suggesting would still let people immediately see the offices they are concerned about, listed along with other offices. If there were a large number of candidates such that people would likely spend more time looking over the list to find what they were looking for than it would take them to click through, it might make more sense to have it the way it is now; but I think the number of candidates is limited enough that this wouldn't be an issue. That's just my take on it.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

4

Starchild,

My comments marked with ***

Allen

5

Thank you for the kind words about the site. The current candidates page is not part of the Freebook team's work, actually. We linked to it in order to get something up and running for the election. Hopefully, the Executive Committee will see fit to give us a budget for 2011 and we can start making dramatic improvements to the candidates section. If you'll express your opinions to other members of the ExCom, that will go a long way toward giving me the tools I need to continue our work. Thanks again!

-Flavio

6

Allen,

  Couldn't justify spending any more time on this before the election, but my responses below to the last message you sent me Oct. 30...

Starchild,

My comments marked with ***
Allen
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>
To: Allen Rice <amrcheck@yahoo.com>
Cc: Phil Berg <philzberg@att.net>; Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>; Flavio Fiumerodo <ffiumerodo@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 9:30:50 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] ca lp website

Allen,

    "Only" to pass on a complaint? I can assure you that it is my desire to pass along only quality complaints which I consider it a good use of your time to read (*** It is a tad arrogant of you to assume you are in a position to decide what are the good uses of my time),

  Please don't be so sensitive! I simply meant that when forwarding material, I make judgment calls about its value, as anyone who values the time of those receiving it is going to do.

and that Phil's complaint met my discriminating standards. Naturally I would hope that you would be gratified to receive such a complaint -- but if not, you are free to complain to me about it, if you feel the wording of your initial response has not already sufficiently accomplished this purpose. :slight_smile:

    In response to your numbered points below...

(1) Why are you being so sarcastic?

*** It seemed better than to simply describe Phil's complaint as whiney.

  Which you have now effectively done anyway.

(2) Thank you for providing the breakdown on the division of labor.
*** Glad to provide it, though common sense might have told you I am in no way controllng the content of the LPCA web pages.

  You acknowledge below that you were "maintaining" the candidates' page on the LPCA website. "Common sense" suggests to me that a person who is "maintaining" a web page has at least some control over its content.

(3) No one ever said anything about the page or asked for any input that I was aware of. Not sure what "email link" you are talking about (*** The one in the bottom right hand corner -"contact"- which solicts comments, and has been there since day one.).

  Thanks for clarifying that. But I'm not too surprised you didn't receive any unsolicited criticism via that link. How many people were even aware the page was up three months ago, let alone that critical feedback was desired?

Presumably the two days before Election Day is when voter traffic will be highest, but if you feel you have better uses of your time that is of course your decision as a volunteer. (*** Gee, thanks,)

  Sarcasm again -- totally unnecessary. BTW, I note that Terry Floyd reports traffic was so high on Election Day that it caused the site to crash.

(4) Why not divulge your own preference? (***In this context, it serves no purpose)

  Here's how it looks -- you wanted to be contrary even in a case where you don't really disagree with what I was saying. Hope not, I'm just telling you how it looks from where I sit.

You're usually not hesitant to offer an opinion. The approach I was suggesting would still let people immediately see the offices they are concerned about, listed along with other offices. If there were a large number of candidates such that people would likely spend more time looking over the list to find what they were looking for than it would take them to click through, it might make more sense to have it the way it is now; but I think the number of candidates is limited enough that this wouldn't be an issue. That's just my take on it.
*** Good luck with your campaign.

  Thanks. But as you know, it's mostly not about luck; rather it's about stuff like getting the word out, which is what Phil and I were concerned about here.

7

Starchild,

My responses to your responses marked with %%%:

8

Allen,

  Given your hostile and arrogant tone, your charge of arrogance is ironic and ludicrous. Continuing this correspondence with you any further is a waste of my time. Please don't bother responding; any email from you will be bounced.

      ((( starchild )))