Crazy-ass Paul over at Ingram Labs has a new experiment, playing on the notion of a list of things to never do. It's called To-Don't List. It's got an awesome tagline: "Less Useless than Twitter."
With help from one developer, Paul conceptualized, built, and launched this site in 40 hours. It's an experiment in rapid design, and I haven't seen anything like this elsewhere. This is genuine Web 2.0 high adventure.
(I haven't heard this from Paul, but I think the site is also a playful nod to 37 Signals' brilliant Ta-Da List.)
This is also an example of a site with a low threshold of entry. The community is structured around list items contributed by users. The list items are what I'd call the primary content object and what Lee Lefever would call the site's "currency." After signing up, you can create list items in a snap. It takes only seconds to add to the site's content, that is, to contribute a content object.
List items are the basis for social interaction on the site. They can be commented on. They acquire (too many?) different kinds of status reflecting participant feedback:
Most notably, it's easy to participate. Sites with such a low threshold of entry risk accumulating huge volumes of trivial content. And indeed, To-Don't List is mainly meant to provide a quick chuckle.
But something interesting is happening.
A community is, in fact, forming on the site--not so much around the idea of things not to do, but around the idea of developing and launching a community application on the web in a compressed timeframe. Here are some snippets:
More features are on the way. We'll see profile management (and more) rolling out shortly, increasing the ability of participants to enrich their social experience on the site. Over time, we could see the site evolve into a community of web application developers sharing their foibles.
What's happening here? There's nothing particularly rewarding, in a social sense, about the idea of a To-Don't list. It's kind of cute, is all. The answer is in the people.
Paul's chosen to be very transparent about the site process, he's openly acknowledging and discussing shortcomings, and the community was seeded with personal invitations to participate. The site owner is an open presence. Participants have a voice. The people have something in common. Low and behold, community forms, a happy accident.
Or--is it an accident? Not bad, Paul.
Comments