[thesite] Answer this [LONG] [EVEN LONGER NOW]

Michele Foster michele at wordpro.on.ca
Sat Jun 9 22:54:21 CDT 2001


Hey John ...

As the author of both articles (with others' input of course) ... I figured
I better pipe up here.. <G>

I'll try not to repeat what Matt and Martin have already said.


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Handelaar" <john at userfrenzy.com>

| > > 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*.


*Eventually*, I'd like to see AnswerThis grow into something more
substantial.  We actually talked about this last week on here.  It was
decided to keep it simple .. and maybe in the future it could grow into
something else.  It was agreed to keep within the existing weo structure,
whereby stand-alone articles appear under their appropriate catetgory, can
be rated and commented upon.  Responses within the comments section for
AnswerThis, though feasible, wouldn't have the desired result .. that being
new articles.


| > > 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.
| >


I'd *love* to fill the entire hard drive(s) we have for weo, with code
articles.... sorry Dan. <G>

Seriously though, a series of articles in different technologies or using
different approaches to solving a problem is one of the best things about
evolt.org.  We aren't limited to one approach (or coding language).  Often
times on thelist someone will ask a specific question, and end up with 4+
responses, all accurate, all different.  My point being, this industry
changes far too fast for there to ever be just one way of doing things.
That first problem that appears in AnswerThis, I can think of three
different, unique approaches with ASP to solve the problem (yeah Matt, I
thought of another one <G>).  I'd like to see all three written up
eventually ... and I'd like to see the same problem *solved* using PHP, CF,
Zope(?) .. and, since its a database problem and with SQL differences,  we
could even get into the approaches/solutions based on which coding language
and database combination.

Wow, that's long-winded.  The point being, the more quality articles we can
get for weo, the better.

<snipped>

| > > 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.


AnswerThis is just the place to put hypothetical problems.  In all honesty,
yes, we are article whoring .. just in a different way.  Going back to
original discussions that were had with respect to "how do we get other
folks to write quality articles", one of the things I had originally brought
up was the fact that a lot of people need a scenario, they need a reason to
write something, they want to solve a *problem*.  Its looking at the inner
competitive side of a lot of programmers (and others too, engineers).  If
something doesn't work, or needs solving, they'll solve it.  It's an
adrenalin rush .. faced with a complex scenario ... working through it,
fixing it/solving it.  (I could go on for hours about this.. but I'll spare
ya.)



|
| > 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].


Other members can write hypothetical situations/problems.  Admin, of course,
will review them .. and probably with even more of a fine tooth comb than
some other types of articles on weo.  I *want* others to write the
hypothetical problems.  I want the problems to be generic enough that a
multitude of solutions are available, whether its a design problem and the
solution can be in PhotoShop, Fireworks, PaintShopPro, that's fine.  In all
honesty, the *next* hypothetical problem I'm hoping will be design or a
interface/usability situation, to provide some depth and show that
hypothetical problems don't have to be just <code> .


|
| 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.

Yes, this is true.  At the same time, I'm hoping AnswerThis will encourage
other members to participate.  (Hey, we're all fully aware that AnswerThis
may not fly at all .. I'm hoping it does .. but we'll see in time.)


|
| * Merely 'good' features shouldn't be posted, commented on
| and possibly, as a result, re-posted as 'great'.


I'm not sure what you are getting at here.  Almost *all* articles are never
edited again after they go live.  We (admin group as a whole) don't want
articles edited, and instead prefer that the comments section be used.  And,
there's nothing stopping anyone from writing another better article, if they
so desire.  The members rate the articles ... Good ones will be rated as
such, so will excellent/exceptional articles.  I can't see us ever saying to
someone, "we're deleting the article you wrote three months ago because Joe
just wrote one that's better".


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.

Not many articles are actually denied.... except for obvious marketting
pushes and questions that belong on thelist.   Martin commented on this
point in greater detail.


|
| 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.


AnswerThis *is* doing this.  Just a diffferent angle, in that we aren't
asking any *one* person specifically to write the article.  Instead, we are
asking the weo community at large.  Like I said before, it is completely
possible that this approach won't work at all, and we'll have to go back to
the drawing board and re-evalute how we get great content on the web site.

|
| 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].


I'm game to discuss this in greater detail.  It is VERY important topic ..
and if you have some ideas as to why or how we can get more content, let's
discuss them.  AnswerThis is just *one* idea that we had .. doesn't mean
we're not open to other ideas.  I would like to give AnswerThis a chance
though .. and do other things in combination.


|
| 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).

This I disagree with.  I don't see weo as a publication.


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


This is very much true.

|
| * 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'.

WOW .... ok, this we need to discuss.  This is far over and beyond
AnswerThis ... so, let's discuss this as part of the getting new content
thread.


|
| 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...

Yup.

|
| 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....

WOW .. again.  This never occurred to me .. I've been looking at things from
a different angle, one of community-building, more people will be more
confident and want to contribute more.  Martin mentioned a guideline (or
whatever it is).

BUT, can I ask you one question ... is it because you don't know *what* to
write about?  In other words, will AnswerThis (maybe not that first problem)
help lead you (and others) ... since we've outlined the type of article that
we want, presented a problem, provided the basic information, provided a
possible solution (aesthically only) ... i.e. all the general information is
there to write a great article.  Something that hasn't already been covered
in the articles BUT does come up on thelist once bymonthly or so.

Or would you prefer I say ... John will you please write an article for
evolt.org on *insert whatever your expertise is here* (sorry, I don't know
you well enough).   That's pretty aggressive "article whoring" .. and its
possible on a case-by-case basis.  The thing is though, we want to involve
others too .. and we want they to volunteer .. and there's no possible way
for all of Admin and TheSite members to know who within the community are
experts in which field.  Sure, we know a number of experts .... but there
are SEVERAL hundred/thousands of other members that we don't know on a more
personal level.  It's an option .. it's something we can consider doing over
and above AnswerThis.


|
| ...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!!!!)


See above ... and .. we don't edit content .. we may make suggestions to
make it more relevant (yes, we do get two line artilces, with a link off
site) .. and we'll check spelling, grammar, and sometimes even code... the
last only from a colleague or if someone asks us too.


|
| 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>

Ok, now's where I come in... since I wrote it.

What's "dull" about it?

The two samples you sent are NOT the answer we're looking for.  We don't
want a "How to Design a Database" response .. not for this particular
hypothetical problem.  It's a complex 3/4 level hierarchical display issue
that comes up on the list.  I've seen/used some really good ASP tutorials,
but they are only 2/3 levels.

What's dull about it?  You don't like the way it was written, the tone used,
or is the problem not clear enough?  Seriously, I'm not arguing, I'd really
like to know.  Perhaps because I already know the solution or at least the
technique *I* would use to solve it .. that I'm too close to it, and haven't
written it clear enough.


|
| > > 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.

Yup ... let's keep the conversations going .. the ultimate goal to make
evolt.org better is always a good thing.

<snipped>

| 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.

This is a great idea.  There is a "members survey" thing I'm *supposed* to
be working on.  Not real high on my priority list, as other things have come
up.  But it *is* something on my plate to do.   This is more of a community
building exercise ... and we'll get all sorts of feedback no doubt.

Exhausted here now too .. thanks for your comments John .. hopefully I
haven't offended in anyway with my responses.

Laterz,

Michele






More information about the thesite mailing list