[thesite] AnswerThis

[Warden, Matt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> From: "Michele Foster" <michele at wordpro.on.ca>
> Subject: [thesite] AnswerThis
> 

> Hey Matt... and everyone else,
> 
> | AnswerThis is in place and ready to go.
> 
> Matt, care to elaborate? 

No.

Well, ok.

> What's in place and ready to go? 

The category.

> Where is the
> question going to appear?

The AnswerThis category  ;-)

> Has the idea/concept of AnswerThis been written?

You mean, as in an explanation of what it is? No.

> Where are the possible solutions going to be entered? 

The idea here is to get content. The solutions would be in a regular
content category. Which one? Well, that would depend on the question.
Where users should post solutions should be included in the problem.

> Will the solutions
> fit within the existing article structure? 

Um, I ain't gonna fool with it. We're gonna use the existing
structure. If this takes off, and there's a need for it, it could be
branched off into answerthis.evolt.org. But, that's way ahead and
probably (IMO) not gonna happen.

> Who's going to review the
> various possible solutions based on technology used?

Um, huh? The solutions are articles. Same process.

If you're talking about deciding which article is "better", that's
where users' ratings come in.

Again, the solutions are articles. All rules apply.

> Ok, after asking several questions .. let me say this.  I don't
> think the above is in place nor been decided upon. 

Sure it has.

> The most important being how to
> present it to site members (and list members).

Well, promotion of it (if that's what you're talking about) is
secondary to getting the article (what you're gonna promote) written.

> As I understand it, there are two very fundamental goals behind the
> AnswerThis project, the first being, to get some really kick-ass
> articles for weo, the second being to build community involvement
> and encourage members (site and list) to participate, using their
> technology of choice.  

Yup and yup. The third is to get more "Breadcrumbs for XXXXXX" type
articles, which whip ass.

> Yes, we already have a really great idea for the first "problem" to
> be answered.  And, you and I know the solution we'd present for
> ASP, and I see your point about not (a) writing the problem and (b)
> providing the solution. Now, I'll go one step further and say,
> shouldn't ALL of Admin be
> *disqualified* (for lack of a better word) from writing the
> solution?  

No.

> Doesn't this go against the second objective of the project, that
> being to encourage other members to participate?

Admins are members too. If you prick an admin, does it not bleed?
If... ok, I'll stop.

> The way I see it, I'd like to establish a "Team of Reviewers" ..
> taken from Admin and thesite members.  For example, Matt, Scott,
> Adrian for review of ASP solutions, Jeff, Joshua, Erik for CF, not
> sure who to suggest for PHP, Zope, etc.  Depending on the
> question/problem, JavaScript, Jeff and who else?

You could do this if you want. But, what I'm saying is... we don't
have this when we approve regular articles. So, what's different now?

> Then the Team of Reviewers can *expertly* review the various
> solutions, modify as necessary,

modify?

> provide constructive criticism/feedback, etc.  Final,
> kick-ass solutions, could be presented as a whole on the weo site,
> much like what happened with the Breadcrumb articles, we'll end up
> with a series of articles, that have been peer-reviewed, in
> different technologies.  

AFAIK, approving articles is just approving articles. If someone has
an error in their logic or code, depending on what it is, we don't
need to notify them. The thought here, I think, is that the community
will point it out in a comment. And this goes into the whole reason
we don't let people fix errors in their code after someone has
pointed it out in a comment (unless the author admits the problem and
writes a note in the article). The ToR aren't writing the articles,
just like admins don't write the articles now. The authors write the
articles. If the article is relevant, we clean up grammar and HTML
and approve. If not, we reject. I don't see why we should alter that
now.

> Can we, do we want too, set up AnswerThis as its own "site"? 

Heh. I need to read the full message before I start to reply. See
above. I'm not sure we'll ever need to do this unless it becomes
extremely popular, which I don't think it will. Besides, this sorta
contradicts the goal of the project anyways.

> Now, since I've been a pain in the ass, and jumped in on this
> project .. I know you're (Matt) leaving to go away, so, perhaps the
> best thing to do is bring this on the back burner until you get
> back.  Or, if you want to assign tasks to me (or whoever else), to
> get the backend in place or whatever it is that's required, let me
> know.

Just need the article written. I don't want to make this overly
complex.

> I don't want to rush this project .. its too good of any idea, and
> the objectives are really important.

+1


Yes, let's discuss. Feel free to disagree with me. But, I'm trying to
keep this simple, keep it so it fits within our current system, and
preserve the original objectives.





- --
mattwarden
mattwarden.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOxl2W3gH0dUmEhrcEQJ7OwCfSyBthzd5EF+hu0XSv+SKt85fBQ4An3yv
omHObyJZr+bRuwJYoW/yE0KH
=1pNS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----