Article about "Mormon Scholars Testify"

[Mortal Man]

What metric is used to define when a website has "failed?"

An excellent question Mr. Wonka. How shall we quantify the success or failure of MST? Before we can answer this question we must clearly understand the purpose of the site. Dan's vision for the site came to him as he likened the LDS slogan "every member a missionary" unto himself. It thus seems both reasonable and logical to measure success just as it's done in the mission field; i.e., in terms of baptisms per missionary, or in this case, conversions per scholar. I therefore propose the following formula for success:

E=C/S

where:

E is the effectiveness of the MST website

C is the number of conversions in a given month

S is the number of featured scholars for that month

[zeezrom]

Hi Zeezrom,

If you wouldn't mind, could you share with us the metric you have in mind that measures the popularity of a website? Are you thinking of the number of views it receives and where they originate from? What metric is used to define when a website has "failed?"

WW

Here is a useful site. I entered www.lds.org to demonstrate an example of metrics.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/lds.org

[mannisue]

A thousand pardons. . .

. . .but I thought that the website was meant to be a collection of learned people sharing very special and sacred feelings in the publishing of their testimonies of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, not an online sideshow made to bring in "ratings." I have been moved countless times reading through them, even those some would deem "controversial" (), as they do bear the heart and soul of these people kind enough to share such thoughts and feelings. Silly me; I'll have to go scrub my brain out with soap and reprogram my Morg software. . .

[LifeOnaPlate]

I just wanted to point out that I think the Freshwater Invertebrate Biology journal has a questionable chance of survival. Despite gearing things to "fresh" water, I don't know how the North American Benthological Society can keep this puppy exciting for the future.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then why such a rabid kneejerk reaction to it by the antis? How many days did it take for that lame mock-u-site to go up?

Ironic though it may seem, anti-Mormon reaction can indicate the viability of a venture. I'm reminded of the story of when someone told Brigham Young that everytime the Latter-day Saints build a temple, the bells of hell begin to ring. President Young's response: "I want to hear them ring again."

Added: Here's a link to the quote in Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young.

[zeezrom]

here is something kind of like MST: http://www.christiantestimonials.com/

Looks like the main difference is anyone can post (maybe) and others can reply.

[Daniel Peterson]

But seriously, I have thought about MST from time to time and it really does come across to me as very similar to F&TM at church. A site with a dumptruck load of testimonies is marginally interesting at best.

Some people really like it. Some people really enjoy fast and testimony meeting.

If you don't like it, that's fine. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of websites for you to look at instead.

It would be like having a site where a bunch of global warming defenders made statements of their belief in global warming. After reading a few, you would get the point that they do indeed believe. Not much reason to keep going back and reading more of the same belief. It would get pretty boring.

A number of people have written to me, or commented orally to me, that they enjoy the different stories, the different voices, very much. And some have said so here:

http://ko-kr.facebook.com/pages/Mormon-Scholars-Testify/286139727270

My big complaint is that it is boring.

Some will probably agree with you. Others won't.

I don't.

My prediction that it will fail is more of a side note opinion from the peanut gallery.

Quite so.

But I'm curious to know what you would understand as "failure" in this case.

From my point of view, the site is already a success. It can't fail now. Even if no more entries were ever added to those already posted, it has already succeeded in what I hoped from it. (But many more will be added. And my Malevolent Stalker will continue to say that it's either dead or dying. These things are both guaranteed.)

It may not fail if it has continued resources pumped into it.

What do you mean by "resources"? What "resources" do you imagine are being "pumped into it"?

[volgadon]

What do you mean by "resources"? What "resources" do you imagine are being "pumped into it"?

The GNP of Melanesia, provided by Somali pirates hired by the Cannon family. The pirates stole it right from under the noses of the Kikuchi faction, managing to shake Scott "Wiki" Gordon off their trail.

[ttribe]

The GNP of Melanesia, provided by Somali pirates hired by the Cannon family. The pirates stole it right from under the noses of the Kikuchi faction, managing to shake Scott "Wiki" Gordon off their trail.

Don't forget that it's all masterminded by the Okazaki faction.

[zeezrom]

But I'm curious to know what you would understand as "failure" in this case.

From my point of view, the site is already a success. It can't fail now. Even if no more entries were ever added to those already posted, it has already succeeded in what I hoped from it. (But many more will be added. And my Malevolent Stalker will continue to say that it's either dead or dying. These things are both guaranteed.)

What do you mean by "resources"? What "resources" do you imagine are being "pumped into it"?

I don't want to imply that the people's contributions are failures. I respect the time they took to share and the time required to build the site. I'm thinking of the longevity and popularity of the site. I realize testimonies are not meant to be popular, but successful websites are.

www.lds.org is popular because it provides a wealth of resources that people use.

I look at MST as an open source project that is built and maintained by the contributors (which happens to be the public - hand picked public).

It falls under an open source development/maintenance scheme.

I was thinking people's time as the resource being pumped in. I assume this is built on voluntary contributions? But when I say "People's" it is different than the "people's" you see keeping this site alive. MA&D is kept alive because the public at large is using it a lot - it is a product of the people at large. A site like MST seems to be more of a site controlled by a benevolent leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_Dictator_For_Life and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship). A lot of open source software starts out with a benevolent leader and enjoy great success. But if the leader exerts too much control, it loses it's flavor and draw to the masses who are needed for contribution and enjoyment of the site.

While it is pretty interesting to read someone's testimony from time to time, it is not a site that is likely to be revisited by many people. Typically, GD instructors will go to lds.org for testimonies to be read in class.

Now if you had a way for people to comment on the testimonies - or some way to involve the public at large more.... I don't know what the solution is but there must be a way to open it up more because this is, after all, an open source project.

[wenglund]

What do you mean by "resources"? What "resources" do you imagine are being "pumped into it"?

Evidently, substantial and seemingly endless resources at the Trailer Park and the Great and Spacious Board are being devoted to negatively publisizing the MST website. Maybe even some of the scoffers look in on the website from time to time if nothing more than to find cause to gnash teeth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't want to imply that the people's contributions are failures. I respect the time they took to share and the time required to build the site. I'm thinking of the longevity and popularity of the site. I realize testimonies are not meant to be popular, but successful websites are.

www.lds.org is popular because it provides a wealth of resources that people use.

I look at MST as an open source project that is built and maintained by the contributors (which happens to be the public - hand picked public).

It falls under an open source development/maintenance scheme.

I was thinking people's time as the resource being pumped in. I assume this is built on voluntary contributions? But when I say "People's" it is different than the "people's" you see keeping this site alive. MA&D is kept alive because the public at large is using it a lot - it is a product of the people at large. A site like MST seems to be more of a site controlled by a benevolent leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_Dictator_For_Life and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship). A lot of open source software starts out with a benevolent leader and enjoy great success. But if the leader exerts too much control, it loses it's flavor and draw to the masses who are needed for contribution and enjoyment of the site.

While it is pretty interesting to read someone's testimony from time to time, it is not a site that is likely to be revisited by many people. Typically, GD instructors will go to lds.org for testimonies to be read in class.

Now if you had a way for people to comment on the testimonies - or some way to involve the public at large more.... I don't know what the solution is but there must be a way to open it up more because this is, after all, an open source project.

From a communications/journalism standpoint I think your comparison to the development of open source software is irrelevant. It seems strained to compare the website, which simply posts testimonies of people, with the structure of creative projects generally.

I regularly read many websites that allow no "participation" on my part. I read many websites which allow for more participation via commenting and contributing and sometimes don't do either. My personal blog has a comments section and although I average about 100-200 readers a day I don't get too many comments at all. (Maybe that's due to my posts being boring, or not engaging enough, but I have about 50 regular readers, most of whom don't comment.) Once in a while I'll do a post that gets 30 or so responses, and it becomes really obnoxious when anonymous commenters come and stink up the joint. It takes a lot of time to monitor garbage. A free website like MST probably doesn't have the time or resources to deal with that situation.

Despite not always getting comments on my blog I still blog, I still have things to say. I'm glad for other bloggers who do the same.

There's a difference in dissemination vs. dialog. Each has its own strengths and drawbacks as modes of communication. MST seems to be a means of dissemination.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't want to imply that the people's contributions are failures. I respect the time they took to share and the time required to build the site. I'm thinking of the longevity and popularity of the site. I realize testimonies are not meant to be popular, but successful websites are.

And "Mormon Scholars Testify" seems to be drawing a respectable audience and a respectable degree of media attention (thus far, I'm aware of articles about it in the Church News and Mormon Times and on Patheos, as well as the eeevil discussion on that Rexburg radio station that has so inflamed certain critics -- not to mention the frothing and hyperventilating that I've seen on certain apostate message boards and at least two spoof anti-Mormon parody sites), so I'm not sure why you're inclined to think it a failure.

Now if you had a way for people to comment on the testimonies - or some way to involve the public at large more....

I'm not even slightly inclined to provide a place at "Mormon Scholars Testify" for the folks in the Great and Spacious Trailer Park and the strangely-named "Recovery" board to append their comments and reactions to peoples' heartfelt testimonies of the Gospel. They have their own venues. (See 1 Nephi 8:26-27.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

There's a difference in dissemination vs. dialog. Each has its own strengths and drawbacks as modes of communication. MST seems to be a means of dissemination.

To clarify for folks without time to check the link,here are some points from Arvind Singhal, a communications professor (internal references removed):

Dissemination is an intentional process of information transmission from a source to one or many individuals. In this sense, dissemination involves telling: The message doesn't change, and there is limited, if any, role for feedback. Mass-media messages are thus mostly dissemination...Interestingly, in the economics of communication, messages are worth more in dissemination than they are in reception (Peters, 1999). Teachers are paid to teach. Students spend to learn. In essence, society places a high economic value on expert-centered transmission.

Dialogue involves mutuality and reciprocity in information exchange between two or more individuals. In this sense, dialogue involves not only a channel of information exchange but also is embodied in the relationship between participants. Dialogue, by nature, is recurring and iterative. Through dialogue, human relationships are co-created, co-regulated and co-modified. That is, something new is created in the interaction. Also, unlike mass-mediated dissemination messages, dialogue is oral, live, immediate and bound to a physical context.

You'll notice that MST fits under the dissemination rubric best. There are further points to be made about why that is and what it means, but this is good enough for now.

One more quick point. Dialog and dissemination are means of communication that need not compete against each other as to which is superior. The MST website seems geared to disseminate, but the dialog can occur practically anywhere else. Around the dinner table, through an email exchange, here on this message board, on my blog, on your blog, on anyone's blog, in a conversation with friends, etc. Just because MST itself doesn't have a comments section doesn't mean comments can't be made about it.

[ttribe]

Just because MST itself doesn't have a comments section doesn't mean comments can't be made about it.

Indeed the evidence proves that comments are, in fact, being made about it. This very thread is evidence of that.

[zeezrom]

From a communications/journalism standpoint I think your comparison to the development of open source software is irrelevant. It seems strained to compare the website, which simply posts testimonies of people, with the structure of creative projects generally.

I regularly read many websites that allow no "participation" on my part. I read many websites which allow for more participation via commenting and contributing and sometimes don't do either. My personal blog has a comments section and although I average about 100-200 readers a day I don't get too many comments at all. (Maybe that's due to my posts being boring, or not engaging enough, but I have about 50 regular readers, most of whom don't comment.) Once in a while I'll do a post that gets 30 or so responses, and it becomes really obnoxious when anonymous commenters come and stink up the joint. It takes a lot of time to monitor garbage. A free website like MST probably doesn't have the time or resources to deal with that situation.

Despite not always getting comments on my blog I still blog, I still have things to say. I'm glad for other bloggers who do the same.

There's a difference in dissemination vs. dialog. Each has its own strengths and drawbacks as modes of communication. MST seems to be a means of dissemination.

well, if you consider 50 regular readers a success than MST is a success.

You are right, MST is dissemination. But isn't it dissemination of the same thing over and over? That is why I mentioned the analogy of global warming debate. How many testimonials of global warming do you want to read? Boring.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Mormon-Scholars-Testify?offset=0&max=1

Where is the krispy kreme doughnut section, Dan?

I want to see some testifying about the best doughnuts in the world!!!!!

OK maybe this will help...

[zeezrom]

I'm not even slightly inclined to provide a place at "Mormon Scholars Testify" for the folks in the Great and Spacious Trailer Park

[ttribe]

Indeed, that would be disaster. But there must be something you can do with a bunch of static testimonials... I don't know what it is. The only reason F&TM would be interesting to me is because it is in real time. Listening to some guy's testimony from last year is not so amazing- then adding 30 more testimonies from last year is grueling.

Last time I checked, there's no mechanism which requires that all testimonies on the site be consumed at once. Furthermore, it seems apparent that it is not a topic that interests you (namely to read what certain member-scholars say about their faith). To others, it is very interesting.

[Daniel Peterson]

well, if you consider 50 regular readers a success than MST is a success.

I'm curious where you get that number.

And, anyway, who says that we're seeking "regular readers"? What do you mean by "regular readers," anyway? People who check in daily? Hourly? Weekly? Monthly?

You are right, MST is dissemination. But isn't it dissemination of the same thing over and over?

No, it's not.

Gary Hadfield's testimony, up today, is very different from, say, Jim Faulconer's testimony or my testimony. To dismiss them as merely "the same thing over and over" seems to me to say much about the mindset with which you approach the site -- to the extent that you've actually read it -- but relatively little about the site itself.

Boring.

So feel free to continue to ignore it!

[zeezrom]

Last time I checked, there's no mechanism which requires that all testimonies on the site to be consumed at once. Furthermore, it seems apparent that it is not a topic that interests you (namely to read what certain member-scholars say about their faith). To others, it is very interesting.

Time will tell. I guess we need to wait and see how it succeeds.

It is healthy for projects like this to be criticized. That way, they are not developed in a vacuum. My criticism is not that great. Hopefully the developers are listening to the criticism that matters out there.

[volgadon]

Criticism or whining?

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm a bit puzzled by the criticisms.

How, I wonder, does Zeezrom know that nobody is interested in "Mormon Scholars Testify"? Based on his own judgment that the site is "boring," how does he conclude that a substantial number of others don't disagree?

Moreover, since a number of apostate sites seem to regard it as worthwhile to include "exit stories," on what basis (other than the obvious ideological one) would people active on such sites believe that what might be called "entrance stories" are not worth posting?

Anyway, what difference does it make? According to my Malevolent Stalker, the site is dead or dying. The pace of posting new entries (which has remained pretty much constant since the beginning) has, he says, slowed to a snail's pace. And up is down and black is white and 2+2=5.

[zeezrom]

How, I wonder, does Zeezrom know that nobody is interested in "Mormon Scholars Testify"? Based on his own judgment that the site is "boring," how does he conclude that a substantial number of others don't disagree?

I'm sure people are interested. I'm just wondering how many and whether it will remain interesting in the future. It may or it may not.

Just curious, how many hits do you get per week? How many new arrivals per week? How many requests for new testimonials per week?

And, as a side note, how do you screen testimonials? Do you edit them or provide comments that go back to the contributor before posting online?

I'm just curious. Thanks!

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm sure people are interested. I'm just wondering how many and whether it will remain interesting in the future. It may or it may not.

That's right. It may or it may not.

I think that having the testimonies of faithful Latter-day Saints up on the Web is a good thing, in and of itself. If the site gets a huge number of hits, that will be fabulous. If it gets a smaller number of hits, that's still good.

Just curious, how many hits do you get per week?

Off hand, I don't know. I believe the figure that I was given for February was 4000 hits. If that's accurate, it would mean about a thousand hits per week. The site is new; that doesn't seem too bad to me. Others are tracking this. I'm not.

How many new arrivals per week? How many requests for new testimonials per week?

We've been putting up new entries every other day. That was our goal. However, since the time that the Stalker first noticed our decline and impending death, we've been reduced to posting new entries only every other day.

And, as a side note, how do you screen testimonials?

To this point, I've rejected nothing. "Screening" hasn't been a big issue (to put it mildly).

Do you edit them or provide comments that go back to the contributor before posting online?

I do minor copy editing. So far, I've only gone back to a contributor perhaps twice. And, in those cases, it was only to ask a question about clarifying something, style-wise.

P.S. One critic over at The Great and Spacious Trailer Park is now terming "Mormon Scholars Testify" not only "nefarious" and "shady" but "pretentious." And, of course, the Stalker has devoted considerable effort to denouncing it and fantasizing about it for many weeks now. It's rather humorous, given their own behavior, to see them try to pretend that the site is insignificant and moribund. LOL. They certainly don't treat it as insignificant. It seems to bother them considerably.

.