Hi Deb, thanks for your comments. I think we can do more editorially to identify the "shovel ready" hacks we already have and make them more accessible--both in terms of topic (e.g., trust) as well as in terms of the basics of the hacks we're featuring. thanks

M

I love this idea, and it really is actually DOING things that makes the difference, and small ideas that work, that catch on, can make a big difference. The one thing that everyone does... this would be great with a way to feedback and refine. So it's a "try this" followed by "I did it, it worked, though we changed this bit..." or "this didn't work because..."

I like this idea, and I've commented elsewhere that I think the story template is kind of onerous. But, I do think we'd have to implement this with a ranking/reputation/karma model. The downside of this kind of thing is that you could end up with a whole lot of short content that is hard to sift through. Combining it mechanisms to "like" or otherwise rank the content (that contribute to a users reputation score), can really help surface the more compelling content.

Building on this, maybe we have mini hacks and mini stories. This could be sort of like we've done in the hackathons or in the QuickMIX event, where you provide the kernel of a hack or story just to get it down. If there is enough demand for more information, if people find it extremely compelling, perhaps the author would be willing to build it out into a fuller hack or story.

But this would reduce the high barrier to entry for stories or hacks and create a way for people to get meaningfully involved without committing to a full hack or story.