[thesite] Answer this [LONG]

John Handelaar john at userfrenzy.com
Sat Jun 9 13:35:04 CDT 2001


> -----Original Message-----
> From: thesite-admin at lists.evolt.org
> [mailto:thesite-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Warden, Matt
> Sent: 09 June 2001 17:45
> To: thesite at lists.evolt.org
> Subject: Re: [thesite] Answer this
>
> ...
> > In every other respect, WEO (in common with all
> > other webloggy-type apps) takes responses to
> > the question on the same page.  We're asking
> > people to create new articles in another section
> > entirely.
>
> AnswerThis isn't a response-based system, if that makes any sense.
> It's not like comments on an article.
>
> Maybe if you saw the objectives of AnswerThis you would like it
> better. Summarized from an admin posting:

I an see quite clearly what it is, thanks :-)  My problem
with it is that it introduces an incoherency to the 'genre'
of site which WEO represents.  Kind of like [pauses, thinks of
a more extreme example of what he means] introducing
discussions under Yahoo! category listings, but *only some
of them*.

> > Suggested options:
> >
> > 1) Backtrack Code articles to their source
> > (not attractive to me because it will
> > inevitably fill the code section with
> > shitloads of similar articles in various
> > script languages)
>
> That's the point. See Breadcrumbs for XXXXXX. Shitloads? I don't
> think it will be *that* effective. If so, we'll have to figure a way
> to determine which articles get approved.
>
> > 2) Allow long responses (including code) in
> > the below-article discussions in the
> > AnswerThis section.
>
> No way. See above.

Hang on: you can't have it both ways.  Either there won't
be shitloads of similar-looking Code articles, or there'll
bee too many comments in AnswerThis articles.  To reject
both assumptions is illogical, Captain.

> > Something this obtuse defeats the object:
> > I see very little point in creating something
> > which is intended to get soid contributions from
> > outside the evolt 'core', yet cannot really be
> > used by anyone in that category.
>
> What do you mean by this? I think you are hinting at something that
> should be added to the category information article. If so, what
> should be added?

Nah - just a reiteration of the way in which AnswerThis
doesn't work the same way as any other article type.

> And "outside the evolt 'core'"? You mean we'd be accepting problem
> articles from non-admin authors.. is that what you're referring to?

No, rather to the intended influx of Code pieces.  [Brief pause there
to note how much Earth: Final Conflict (which is on the TV behind me)
sucks ass].




I just figured it out.

BG: I've been a print and radio editor.  I think that one of the
things that doesn't fly for me with this is that your^H^H^H^H
our procedure of acquiring new feature articles (you're right,
it has tailed off enormously, but I'll come to that in a moment)
contains the following assumptions:

*	The way to get one new great code piece à la 'Breadcrumbs'
	is to invite several people to write entire features.

*	Merely 'good' features shouldn't be posted, commented on
	and possibly, as a result, re-posted as 'great'.  They
	must be great to begin with even though our medium (the web)
	doesn't require it.  IIRC, 'Breadcrumbs' took a long time
	to pull together.

My editing head says that this isn't how it's done - an editor
would draw up a features list and find people to write the stuff,
and/or receive proposals from freelancers and accept/reject/modify
those.

In evolt's case, the latter was the only original mechanism, and
the articles have trailed off.  Interestingly, though, the only
reason they've *noticeably*  trailed off in number is because the
Admin group have stopped writing them.  We've never had many more
pieces going in from non-admins than now.

Why?  [That's probably a new thread, and in any case I'll wait for
suggestions before offering any].

Meanwhile, the new (and to some extent previous) commissioning
process also makes all of these assumptions at the same time. Please
no-one read this and think I'm saying this is deliberate, it's
just how it's gone:

*	WEO is a publication, not a community site (not even one with
	a high bar to jump).

*	WEO is a community site and therefore needs no formal
	editing procedure.

*	WEO has an editing process but its 'core' sees no need to
	explain what that is to either its readers or its
	'employees' - nor does that editing process need to be in
	any way 'professional'.

These are mutually contradictory.  Which is usually not a problem
for any organisation *until* something cracks.  Or suddenly
stops happening.  Like the evolt founders getting radically busier
in the last 2 years and not writing nearly all the content...

I mean, I've been a member of thelist for about that long
and there's no doubt at all that I'd have written articles
(or got friends and/or employees to do so) *if* I had a
clearer idea of what was wanted....

...to which the stock response will be 'The Community
Decides What's Wanted All By Itself'...

...which whilst sincerely meant, has never been true in
practice.  There IS an editorial hand at work on WEO and
very few people have a real feel for what it is.  I doubt
that any person or people created it, either. (OMG!!!
A roving dismembered editorial HAND!!!!)

But I'll tell you one thing (and to be honest I might not
have jumped in quite so quickly on this subject otherwise):
MAN, that's one _dull_ first Question.  By which I mean
what can it possibly result in that hasn't been done by
every other How-To site?

http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/backend/databases/tutorials/tutorial3.ht
ml
http://www.webmasterbase.com/article.php/228
<insert your favourite example here>

> > Obviously I should make clear that I'm not
> > denigrating anyone's efforts per se - this is
> > more of a UI 'bug' than a fundamental problem
> > I think.
>
> Even if you were saying "AnswerThis sucks", I'd rather you speak up.

I know, that's what we're like here.  But (as aardvark will
no doubt readily attest), it's only when you forget to include
the caveats that someone unexpectedly takes exception :-)

> We can make changes if you still think there are problems. Remember,
> this is something new. We aren't super-gods who know everything about
> usability, building community, managing content, etc., etc., etc.

Sure - hence the post, innit?

Here's a very serious suggestion:  why don't we take the
question of 'What Would You Like to See on WEO?' to thelist?
We want more articles, but you don't get if you don't ask. At
the very least we'd be able to compile a nice commissioning
list.

Tired now.  That took an hour of thought and editing.

JH









More information about the thesite mailing list