[quote=“Chronos, post:149, topic:2499”]Sentinelrv’s 100 PPC idea is reasonable, but I would like to clarify objectives. I outlined two options:
[quote=“Chronos, post:143, topic:2499”][ul][li]Option 1: I put out a Marketing Fund bid to take a lead role on content creation, working directly with TheWildHorse. In this role, I would edit and/or create written content, as needed, for every page of the new site. In addition to the written content, I would create short instructional videos for certain pages, such as the minting page.[/li]
[li]Option 2: I put out a Marketing Fund bid to product short instructional videos for a small handful of pages, and leave general content creation to the community, as it has been.[/li][/ul][/quote]
The main difference between these proposals is the “leadership” role. In Option 2, I create video content as needed, and the proposal is considered completed when the videos are launched. Here, I would not take a lead role in the website construction, nor would I be responsible for ensuring a finished website.
With Option 1, however, I would take a leadership role for the website, responsible for its completion. This option would be significantly more work.
To help clarify, consider the difference between the production process for the OKC promotional video, and the Chronos Crypto Intro to Peercoin video. The former was developed over a long period of time, while the latter was produced quickly. Now, Overkillcoin did a great job, and the delays were simply a reflection of the “design by committee” that the OKC video went through. Please see http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/06/29/why-design-by-commitee-should-die/, or search the internet for other articles.
I believe that design-by-committee could be the reason that this website project has struggled, and am concerned that a mixture of the two options is not the best approach.[/quote]
I read the article you linked. This quote…
“And when too many people have product input, you’ve got lots of features but no soul.”
…reminded me of NXT. Lots of features, but no guiding vision. That is what makes Peercoin different. Sunny King will listen to feedback, ideas and suggestions, but he ultimately has the final say as the creator and architect. His guiding vision overrules everyone else.
With the OKC video, the problems seemed to come when people would second guess him. For example, when ppcman started to have second thoughts about the voice work. The community took care of the script, because that’s what we were good at and the designer took care of the animation, because that’s what he was good at. I think we provided him with a lot of room to move when it came to his animation ideas. We felt confident in his decisions. Nobody really second guessed him that much in that area, so maybe that’s why the end product came out so good. Everyone was allowed to do what they do best. The feedback process just seemed to slow everything down.
What you’re talking about here makes sense to me. So you want to be able to do your work here without the process being drug out over a long time span. You would need to have the final say on content in order for this to work, right? I think I might be able to go along with that only because you’ve already proven yourself with the Intro to Peercoin video. My only concern is how much say the community will have. I’d still like everything to be done publicly, so anyone can give you feedback on your work or suggest possible improvements. You would need to have the final say though, so things keep moving along.
What do you and others think?