|
Post by ringmasterrob on May 6, 2006 17:13:24 GMT
what I'm saying is, rather than grumbling about it and discouraging everyone else from making an effort, why don't you do, or suggest, something positive? Because I feel it's time to call it a day, even when the site was at its peak with regular posting, articles and advertising we only drew in a handful of people and I think we might as well cut our losses and archive the place. I'm not the first person to consider this option, nor am I the first person to suggest it in this topic. My suggestion is concurring with Mod, we archive the site and shut it down.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on May 10, 2006 6:20:16 GMT
Contrary to what Rob said, I was not advocating that the site be shut down, merely raising the possibility of that for debate. I was completely unaware of the goings on that HStorm mentioned in his reply until a couple of days ago; now that I have been brought up to speed I understand why the forum appeared so quiet. It's a busy time for all of us, but we all spend large amounts of time online - perhaps we should devote more of that to the forums. I certainly intend to, now that I have the net at home, and my schedule has settled down a lot after the wedding.
To answer HStorm's questions, I seem to have been quite remiss in starting threads, it's usually left to other people - a pattern that seems to characterise this site. In order to counter this, I intend to start posting a lot more and even turn my hand to an article or two. Despite being registered for a long time, I've made far fewer posts than a lot of people, so that's something I will address.
Naselus and HStorm will recall when we were in a Jedi Knight clan a few years ago, that we held regular meetings and assigned tasks to people, achieving a lot. Now, I'm not an admin or part of the site management, but I would strongly suggest that there needs to be some sort of regular meeting between those of you in those positions to address the ongoing issues. If people were assigned a task, and given a deadline, then had to report back on what they'd done, I predict that things would move forward a lot quicker.
Issues that, IMO, need addressing if the site is to prosper include - Membership - Site redesign - Forum news ticker - Article submission - Competitions
We always talk about things needing done, but nothing ever happens.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 10, 2006 8:01:23 GMT
Yes, I think those are good ideas. I too have found myself getting a bit exasperated that we always talk about changing things and never actually get round to it. It's clearly a problem and we do need to change approach, but I don't accept Rob's assertion that it means there's something fundamentally wrong with the site itself.
But yes, my point is that it's not just up to the management. If everyone on the forum wants it to work, everyone should be more pro-active.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on May 10, 2006 9:03:04 GMT
I was thinking much the same myself this morning. There's been a lack of co-ordination of the administrative team for quite some time now, starting from the technical difficulties of last year, which I personally think has contributed to the forum's decline more that any other factor.
The news ticker regularly displays items that are months out of date, and should either be updated weekly or scrapped altogether.
The Articles section of the site should be made much more accessible from the forums. At the moment, it's almost impossible to reach it. It could also do with a massive overhaul since it looks no better than a word list. Also, we need the articles to be properly ordered and placed into sections, i.e. humour, politics, etc, and perhaps it's time to scrap some of the older topical articles? We should aim to have a flow of articles on the main page, maybe 10 or 15 at a time, and none of them more than about six months old, with the others archived and stowed in a seperate section.
I'd suggest a caption competition every other week. The caption competitions have generated more posts and more interest in a shorter space of time than any regular thread, and are a more accessible and friendlier area for new members.
On the subject of new members, I think we really need to build up forum activity if we want to keep any newbies. we need at least two people posting every day to keep things from looking stale and pointless, which has been a major contribution to the short life-span of new recruits.
Obviously, this means we'll need a lot more articles, so how about someone other than me and HStorm writes one? It's been over 18 months since that last happened, according to the main page. I'd like to suggest we each produce at least one article a month, and by article I mean perhaps only one or two paragraphs about a recent event or a particular topic, or even a funny joke. Longer 'Features' like the large, serious articles produced by Hstrom (and, very rarely, myself) should be produced less often and hang around for longer.
The site could be extremely successful, but it's been suffering from neglect. The admin staff are not entirely to blame, given that two-thirds of them could not log in for over six months, but we have to take action now if we want to release the site's full potential.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 10, 2006 17:29:58 GMT
There's been a lack of co-ordination of the administrative team for quite some time now, starting from the technical difficulties of last year, which I personally think has contributed to the forum's decline more that any other factor. So do I. More regular staff meetings on MSN - say one every month instead of one every six months - would be a good move, and should be easier to achieve once I get my new PC (which happens later this week). It certainly shouldn't be scrapped. I agree it needs more regular updates, although as an unwritten rule it's good to have six or seven items on the reel. We're kind of at the mercy of how many interesting news stories there are in a given week. That's not true in fact. You can reach it by clicking on the link that appears on and off on the news ticker, or through the links at the top of each of the article threads. Could still do with more, I agree, but it's not as difficult as all that. This undoubtedly is true. I've been proposing this for a long time. It's not that nobody's willing to do it, so much as nobody who has access to the editing tools has the time or know-how to change it. That's a good idea, so long as we can stay plentifully supplied with funny photos. More than that, I think we need more new topics on a regular basis. DEFINITELY!!!!!! It's genuinely annoying the way it keeps being allowed to drift, and the longer it lasts, the more I feel a personal pressure to write more when I haven't got the muse. (I know that isn't anyone's intention, and that no one is specifically expecting me to carry the burden, but it's still there.) An interesting approach - would give the site a more magazine-y feel, which is no bad thing. May be a little bit hopeful though, as we can hardly force people to co-operate.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on May 10, 2006 18:09:23 GMT
It certainly shouldn't be scrapped. I agree it needs more regular updates, although as an unwritten rule it's good to have six or seven items on the reel. We're kind of at the mercy of how many interesting news stories there are in a given week. The BBC manages to do it daily. On the other hand, the reference to the smoking thread was on the reel for over a year and a half. It gives the site a ghost-town feel to see the same things on the ticker that were there when you last logged in four weeks ago. That's not true in fact. You can reach it by clicking on the link that appears on and off on the news ticker, or through the links at the top of each of the article threads. Could still do with more, I agree, but it's not as difficult as all that. Going into each individual article's thread to get to it is thoroughly impractical, and the fader shouldn't be a navigation tool, since it's rubbish for the purpose. There should be a proper link to the page, somewhere immediately accessible. I know, but if we put in the effort others will too. And new people will hang around, and start adding their own. As for the magazine feel, I think that's exactly what the site needs. Most of the people I've convinced to look at the site weren't interested in joining because they felt it was stuffy, dull, and stagnant. Changing it into more of a topical e-zine would eliminate that completely, even if it means dropping the articles that are more than six months old. Does anyone really mind the stuff they wrote two and a half years ago being moved to an archive section? Where they are it makes the whole site look abandoned. As for us lacking the time and skills to do so, I propose we allow anyone who's willing the chance to work on the site. It's madness having a number of highly computer-literate people here (and I think that covers all the regular posters quite comfortably), and yet not allowing them the opportunity to improve the site in some way. Anyone who's left clearly feels some attachment to what we've built here, or they would have left during the six months or so that the Admin team couldn't get online. LET THEM DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 10, 2006 18:30:07 GMT
Couple of points here; - The BBC manages to do it daily. The BBC is a vast organisation with tens of thousands of employees. Plus they do it for a living. We, on the other hand, have two or three admin doing this in our spare time as a minor hobby. I'm not saying it's impossible for us to do it more regularly, you understand, but it is rather more difficult. Yes, we deliberately left it there because it's a long-running issue and one of the more fierce debates. That's why the main way is to use the fader. I wouldn't say it's rubbish. It's slightly awkward because the link disappears after a few seconds, but it pops back for a bit between each headline. I mean, all it involves is waiting for the green text to appear and then clicking on it. Not ideal, perhaps, but hardly rubbish. Suggest somewhere, and how we're supposed to add it in. As I say, I've been arguing for that for ages. Ah, now hang on a second, you've got the wrong end of the stick there. Indeed, this underlines my point about how users should try to be more pro-active. Nobody is being barred from doing work on the site, they just have to volunteer. At various points in the past, Will has advertised, asking for volunteers to come forward and help fashion a new look for the site, and no one ever does. By all means, let them do something about it. No one's stopping them, they just never let us know that they have anything to do about it.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on May 10, 2006 18:54:53 GMT
The BBC is a vast organisation with tens of thousands of employees. Plus they do it for a living. We, on the other hand, have two or three admin doing this in our spare time as a minor hobby. I'm not saying it's impossible for us to do it more regularly, you understand, but it is rather more difficult. Yes, but I'm merely asking for us to update the fader once a week, not daily, while simultaneuosly running ten TV channels, twenty radio stations, manufacturing television programs, and updating the largest news website on the internet. Yes, we deliberately left it there because it's a long-running issue and one of the more fierce debates. But it had died well over six months before the ad was removed. It wouldn't have been so bad if it was dropped in occasionally, as a filler advert when there was no news, but it just remained there for time unimaginable. We should have stock adverts for a selection of long-running threads (most of the Iraq war ones would be useful), and pop them in when it's a slow news week. I wouldn't say it's rubbish. It's slightly awkward because the link disappears after a few seconds, but it pops back for a bit between each headline. I mean, all it involves is waiting for the green text to appear and then clicking on it. Not ideal, perhaps, but hardly rubbish. It's inconvenient, irritating and a very poor method of navigation. It would be extremely easy for someone to visit the forum and never be aware the articles page even existed. Suggest somewhere, and how we're supposed to add it in. No idea, I've not seen the editing suite for the site. However, at present there is precisely one (1) method of getting to the articles page 'proper', and it's only on the site five seconds of every minute. Ah, now hang on a second, you've got the wrong end of the stick there. Indeed, this underlines my point about how users should try to be more pro-active. Nobody is being barred from doing work on the site, they just have to volunteer. At various points in the past, Will has advertised, asking for volunteers to come forward and help fashion a new look for the site, and no one ever does. By all means, let them do something about it. No one's stopping them, they just never let us know that they have anything to do about it. No-one is ABLE to do work on the site. The rigid structure of the Admin system means only Will and Rob had access to do anything. Why not arrange things so Mod and Thantos could, for example, upload their own articles? Give them the ability to unlock threads? Let them add to the site in their spare time? If all the regular posters have access to the main site, I reckon we'd probably see an upturn in it's appearance pretty quickly. I would have been happy to add to the site, and most of the articles I've written would have been only weeks earlier, had I been able to do these things myself. The problem is that we've focused too much on appointing people to do things, and not let them just DO them.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 10, 2006 19:19:56 GMT
But it had died well over six months before the ad was removed. That's why I eventually got shot of it. (I also changed it on one occasion to reflect the ban on smoking in public.) Good idea. That's not very likely, as it's the first headline that appears, and is never off the menu page for more than nine seconds. I just checked. It appears for six seconds. There's a transition of about a second, then a headline appears for six seconds. Then that disappears and the link returns. I don't know what's happening on your PC, but 'five seconds in every minute' is wa-a-a-a-a-a-ay wide of the mark on every PC I've viewed the forum on. Well for one thing, neither of them have done any articles for uploading. For another, I don't think the forum allows them to be given those powers without granting them GMOD status. We can't have everyone on the forum as an Admin. I repeat, if they'd wanted to contribute in a more direct way, such as the one you describe, all they had to do was say so. But no one except TheMekanik ever did, and even he threw a tantrum and left before he finished the Flash version of the site he was working on. This is what I mean when I say users are waiting for instructions too often instead of being pro-active; this is what the Site Feedback board was created for. You may need permission to do certain things, but you don't need permission just to ask for permission. Having said all of the above, I do agree a looser grip on the editing of the site would be no bad thing. Nas and I might be able to do one or two things to organise its presentation better i.e. dividing up the articles into sections. One thing that I think can and should be done straight away, and which would take only moments to do, is get rid of the dates next to the links for individual articles, as when there's been a spell of months without fresh material, they really do make the site look like it's dead in the water.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on May 11, 2006 9:30:58 GMT
I just checked. It appears for six seconds. There's a transition of about a second, then a headline appears for six seconds. Then that disappears and the link returns. I don't know what's happening on your PC, but 'five seconds in every minute' is wa-a-a-a-a-a-ay wide of the mark on every PC I've viewed the forum on. It was an exageration, but the point is we should have a permanent link, and perhaps make it a tad more obvious that it leads elsewhere. It's termed "Welcome to the critique.tk", and frankly it sounds like you're already on it; hence why I suspect many people have no idea the articles page even exists. Could we not add another fader, which ONLY contains a link to the articles page, and doesn't change? Well for one thing, neither of them have done any articles for uploading. For another, I don't think the forum allows them to be given those powers without granting them GMOD status. We can't have everyone on the forum as an Admin. I'd imagine that's not accurate. Surely the .tk site is seperate from Proboards, and so could be modified by anyone who knows the passwords. The Admining of the forum would fall into a complete seperate catagory. I repeat, if they'd wanted to contribute in a more direct way, such as the one you describe, all they had to do was say so. But no one except TheMekanik ever did, and even he threw a tantrum and left before he finished the Flash version of the site he was working on. This is what I mean when I say users are waiting for instructions too often instead of being pro-active; this is what the Site Feedback board was created for. You may need permission to do certain things, but you don't need permission just to ask for permission. Having said all of the above, I do agree a looser grip on the editing of the site would be no bad thing. Nas and I might be able to do one or two things to organise its presentation better i.e. dividing up the articles into sections. One thing that I think can and should be done straight away, and which would take only moments to do, is get rid of the dates next to the links for individual articles, as when there's been a spell of months without fresh material, they really do make the site look like it's dead in the water. It's true that people haven't asked for permission, but then again no-ones asked for any help in at least a year, there's not really been anyone to ask for permission from (at least, no one in a position to do anything about it), and the site editing has always been perceived as being restricted from us 'regular' users anyway. We're going to have to re-invent the image of the main site entirely. Rather than the articles, pictures etc. being an additional chore for the Admin team to keep up, in addition to looking after the forums, I'd like to see the site itself becoming more of a feature. People join the forums of sites that they like, rather than the other way around, and that's where our problem lies. We've been using the site to support the contents of the forum, when the forum should instead support the contents of the site.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 11, 2006 10:05:27 GMT
we should have a permanent link, and perhaps make it a tad more obvious that it leads elsewhere. It's termed "Welcome to the critique.tk" No it isn't. It's termed "Welcome to the forum for www.thecritique.tk." I'll change it a bit, but... No it doesn't. The link is actually worded as a link that is enormously different from the forum URL, and the use of the words 'forum for' make it pretty clear that this is part of a wider 'canon'. No. As GMOD I don't have access to all the controls, but I've never seen any indication that we can have more than one fader, or that we can prevent it from fading in and out. Yes, but I was referring to your suggestion we give powers to people to unlock threads etc. That's because we gave up asking, as it was never getting us anywhere. They could've asked me and I would've passed the request on to Will and Rob. It would've added maybe 2 minutes to the length of time it would've taken to get the message to someone who could do something about it. Well possibly, but it was never stated, and to the best of my knowledge no one ever complained about it. Which once again leads me back to the point about being pro-active. Yes, I would agree with all that.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on May 11, 2006 12:45:54 GMT
Look, all I'm saying is that it's time the admin team took a more proactive approach to encouraging member participation, rather than just expecting them to do so. You yourself have already said you're sick of just talking about doing stuff and actually want to get something done; let's open things up and revamp things. The forum has run to stagnation because theer was nothing to encourage activity, so I'm saying we offer more scope for the members themselves.
Yes, if someone wanted to get something done then they could ask you to pass on a message to Will or Rob, who would then ponder the idea, before replying, probably through you. While this would almost certainly take a lot more than the 2 minutes that you claim would be added, it's not actually the time factor that I'm really pointing out, it's the added hassle and red tape and over-structuring. Getting an article up has become a bit like trying to sign on at the jobcenter.
"If you wish to post an article, please fill in form 973Aa and return it, signed in triplicate, to an advisor between the hours of 05:30 and 05:35 on Thursdays in Months with a 'F' in them, complete with seven forms of original photo ID, not including passports, laminated material or anything printed on a vegetable product. If the form is approved, please send your srticle to sit in a member of Staff's Inbox for eighteen day before he posts the wrong draft on the site, where it will be advertised within the next two months."
Again, I exagerate, but it's felt a lot like that sometimes. Again, a lot of this can be blamed on the technical difficulties our Nuneaton friends were suffering, but when those problems started we should have immediately created 'stand-in' admins for both site and forum.
No-one complained about the structure of the site because it worked quite well, prior to the difficulties of last year. However, when it stopped working, we did nothing to adapt the site to the new situation, and it almost died out as a result. New situations require new behaviour, as Chaos Theory has pointed out, regardless of if your a population of newts living in Stoke Newington or a website forum. We've got our own domain name, for Christ sake. It's time we let people make use of it easily.
I propose we release the passcodes for adding to the articles page to anyone who wants to produce an article. As long as we note it may be edited to remove any libelous or offencive materials, it would immediately spped up growth. As things stand, if I made an article it would have to go through you and then Will before I saw it in print on the page, which can take (and has previously taken) weeks. If I could just write an article and slap it up myself I would produce more of them, and more often. Besides, it would also prevent the situation we used to have with months of inactivity followed by four or five articles arriving at once.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 11, 2006 14:48:43 GMT
Look, all I'm saying is that it's time the admin team took a more proactive approach to encouraging member participation, rather than just expecting them to do so. But, as I say, when we have in teh past, no one's responded. I'm not saying we shouldn't try again, but I am saying that if it's going to work, we need a more positive attitude and approach from everyone, not just from the admin staff. That's not even an exaggeration, Ruzl. Even the gist of it isn't true or fair. Yes, it would always take a long while for articles actually to get put online, but the process of getting them there was never remotely as knotty or convoluted, nor was there a finicky selection process, and never was there the slightest issue about when exactly you were allowed to send them. It was purely a question of when the staff could get time to put the articles online, nothing more. Which is a bit of a trick when the owner of the site can't log in, as he's the only one who can promote members. Okay, again that's a fair enough idea, but what I'm saying is, many of the problems we have at the moment are not happening for the reasons you assume they are, and that's why some of the ideas you're coming up with won't work. That's what I mean when I say my part in the process adds maybe two minutes. If you send directly to Will, it would still take weeks because he doesn't always have time to update the site. And as I say, that's a good idea. But is it going to encourage articles to come in from everyone else?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on May 11, 2006 15:17:35 GMT
But, as I say, when we have in teh past, no one's responded. I'm not saying we shouldn't try again, but I am saying that if it's going to work, we need a more positive attitude and approach from everyone, not just from the admin staff. I know. The problem has stemmed from apathy on both sides of the admin/user divide, but when half the members of the forum couldn't get online anymore, we should have redoubled our efforts to build up. Instead, we carried on, failing to change to the situation's demands. That's not even an exaggeration, Ruzl. Even the gist of it isn't true or fair. Yes, it would always take a long while for articles actually to get put online, but the process of getting them there was never remotely as knotty or convoluted, nor was there a finicky selection process, and never was there the slightest issue about when exactly you were allowed to send them. It was purely a question of when the staff could get time to put the articles online, nothing more. And I didn't say it actively WAS like that. It just felt like it was, which made producing an article seem less worthwhile, since it would take forever to get online in one of the few brief moments that Cisco deemed Will's internet connection to be worthy of bandwidth, which contributed to the stagnation of the main site. and that made it Which is a bit of a trick when the owner of the site can't log in, as he's the only one who can promote members. So let's not make the same mistake again. Sort it out now while Will can get on, and that way we're covered. Okay, again that's a fair enough idea, but what I'm saying is, many of the problems we have at the moment are not happening for the reasons you assume they are, and that's why some of the ideas you're coming up with won't work. They'll work, as long as the members work with them. But at the moment, and all through the long dark Adminless winter, things have been turning to rot because everyone was more or less powerless to prevent it. Even you only had GMOD priviledges, and all you did (which was essentially run the site single-handedly for six months, let us all gratefully remember, even if we're arguing with you) was still held in check by the restrictions on your account. That's what I mean when I say my part in the process adds maybe two minutes. If you send directly to Will, it would still take weeks because he doesn't always have time to update the site. Which once again proves my point. I know Will's busy with A levels, I know he can't get online as much as the rest of us. Doesn't that mean we SHOULD implement some sweeping changest to the way the site is run? Isn't that the strongest argument in favour of the devolution of editing powers?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 11, 2006 17:08:51 GMT
And I didn't say it actively WAS like that. Yes you did. Now that's a condemnation of supposed bureaucracy. But also, it appears to contradict this... You may not think it's important that I point that out, but you're making your arguments appear confusing, self-contradictory, and without foundation. You were complaining that the problem wasn't the time frame but bureaucracy, now you're complaining it wasn't bureaucracy but the time frame. While I agree that widening editing access is a good idea, we need to get it clear now that red tape is not an issue of the way this site is run, and so any ideas you may come up with specifically meant to address that will not help. Again that's fine. It's just the way you raised the matter sounded like a complaint, so I was explaining why we couldn't do things that way before. I have in fact said on a number of occasions that I agreed that it's a good idea. Where I disagree with you on this is, again, the assumed cause. It's a mistake to say it's a red tape problem, because it's a straightforward access problem. By all means let's keep the ideas coming for solving access problems, but I'm just trying to stop the discussion straying towards ideas for dealing with red tape.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on May 11, 2006 17:45:32 GMT
This... You may not think it's important that I point that out, but you're making your arguments appear confusing, self-contradictory, and without foundation. You were complaining that the problem wasn't the time frame but bureaucracy, now you're complaining it wasn't bureaucracy but the time frame. Fair point, but I actually feel that ouy're taking the different quotes somewhat out of context. One of them refers to the added two minutes it takes you to send articles on to Will, the other refers to the two or three weeks it takes for Will to get an opportunity to upload the article, and the perceptions that are therefore generated. We're sending the article to someone, who is then sending it on, making the two weeks seem like the article is bouncing around waiting for someone to deal with it. If it was sent straight to Will it would take an equal amount of time to go up, but at least it was only one stop. Ideally, I want to remove BOTH factors by letting people deal with the uploading themselves. And if we let them do that, why not give them the power to overhaul the site entirely? We've already agreed it's a mess. Again that's fine. It's just the way you raised the matter sounded like a complaint, so I was explaining why we couldn't do things that way before. I have in fact said on a number of occasions that I agreed that it's a good idea. Where I disagree with you on this is, again, the assumed cause. It's a mistake to say it's a red tape problem, because it's a straightforward access problem. By all means let's keep the ideas coming for solving access problems, but I'm just trying to stop the discussion straying towards ideas for dealing with red tape. The red tape issue is a knock-on effect from the access problem, but it underlines the vunerability of the site. What if your PC had packed up in January? With no staff cover at all, this place wouldn't have seen March. And there'd have been bugger all anyone could do about it. The fact is, while Will's access is so limited we have to dole out more powers to the regular members. You already agree with the bulk of my plans, it's simply the reasoning behind it you object to. We can't be deffering responsibility for updating the main site upward. People should be given the right to alter it and upload their own work, because with that right members will take on the responsibility. Just out of interest, what does anyone else think of this? Mod? Will? Thanatos?
|
|
|
Post by modeski on May 12, 2006 3:23:00 GMT
I've been scouting around the 'net for alternatives, and came up with this solution. modeskitestblog.wordpress.com/Basically, we remake www.thecritique.tk into a blog-style site, with the articles being posted onto that site, and discussion remaining on the forum. It's simple to create a url redirect from www.thecritique.tk to (say)http:// thecritique.wordpress.com (they offer free blog hosting), and we will be able to fully customise the site with ease. Articles will automatically be put into a list down the right hand side, and archived monthly (with links to each month's articles). If members want to post an article, then there a two options: 1. They could submit it to admin members for posting on the site. Admins can share the password between them, meaning if an author can't contact Will, they can email HStorm or Nas; 2. WordPress allows you to set authors, so people could be assigned distinct identities and passwords to allow them to post and alter their own content. Options are there to add links on the right (as I've done with a link to the forums), and it is entirely optional whether we allow people to leave comments on articles on the main site, or leave all discussion to the forum. I think that this system has a number of benefits: - The site's coding is already done - When signing up, there is the option to put the site on google - Design templates are easily interchangable - All updates/admin are controlled through a web-based interface - Articles are automatically archived and linked on a single page - Different level of access rights are easily assigned - Readers can comment directly on each article. - We can restrict comments to registered users, thus giving us information on who to market forum membership to. What does everyone think?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on May 12, 2006 11:24:08 GMT
I've seen sites like that one in action before, such as the bizarre e-bay items site, and they work extremely well. We could have small articles in the regular blog-bits, and then link into the larger ones through the site navigator.
Frankly, the current .tk has to be replaced. My own joke-site (the national APEX league) is in much better shape, even though it's only half-built and I've not got time to finish it off, simply because it's not stuck in the dark ages of HTML. And I think Mod's suggestion would fit the bill nicely.
At present the site relies too heavily on one or two individuals with no time to work on it, and this would entirely deal with that.
[edit: curse this sticky 'w' key]
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 12, 2006 14:42:11 GMT
It's generally a good idea, but there will remain the problem of, when there are quiet spells with no new articles coming in, it'll still look stale and dated. We have to recognise that the problem with the articles isn't limited to how easy it is to get them online, but also the more severe difficulty convincing people to write any to begin with. I understand that the ease of getting them uploaded will make the task more enticing, but it still requires greater and more regular input from everyone.
Will, Thanatos, Liquidus (and any others), would you all be prepared to offer more material if such a system became available?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on May 12, 2006 15:53:19 GMT
I'd agree with that, but we must also begin to differentiate as well. The present 'articles' are all large-scale, and represent a concerted and dedicated amount of work in and of themselves. This is partially why people aren't making them; agreeing to do an article is quite a large-scale commitment, almost akin to marriage. Well, probably not that big, but as close to it as I'm willing to get.
If we term the impressive, multi-paged, heavy-weight pieces we currently have not as articles but as features, and ask less of people for the new-style mini-articles (a paragraph or two discussing a current event or somesuch, or concisely reporting something or other) then it immediately becomes much, much less of an imposition. I'll happily bang out two or three a week myself; I'm sure both HStorm and Mod would gladly do the same.
But would you guys, Will, Thanatos, Liq? Can you please give us some feedback on this? We're trying to revitalise the site, so could we please have your opinions at least? Will, you should definately be contributing to this thread, since a lot of this is going to need your help and permission.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on May 12, 2006 22:39:10 GMT
I for one would be more than prepared to offer more material for a new system. I really like the idea of renaming the current large articles as features. That way, we can have (say) 500 words for an article, but the current 1500-word mammoths would be features.
Ideally we'd have surplus of features, in that we could release them once a month, or every three weeks etc. Wishful thinking perhaps, but at least if we all agree to chip in something more substantial more often, the site would appear more active.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 13, 2006 11:22:36 GMT
I think the basics of a good plan are taking shape.
Should be said that, in a sense, we already have these 'mini-articles' in the form of many of the posts on the forum (especially some of the ones that start off threads), but it would do no harm at all to have them in more than one place.
It might also help to use these mini-articles as kind of 'news reports' to, in turn, broaden the scope of the site. For one example, it occurs to me that the likes of Modeski, and Mond if he ever chooses to return, are in a great position to give a far wider and more detailed perspective on Antipodean events, which are almost always completely overlooked by the UK media when they don't involve Kylie Minogue. So how about a weekly 'news column' to catalogue events Down Under? ("Alec Downs' Letter From Australia" you can call it.)
|
|
|
Post by modeski on May 14, 2006 0:47:02 GMT
That's a great idea, actually HStorm. I'd have no problem with doing a weekly newsletter from down under. Awesome.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on May 15, 2006 10:49:35 GMT
Alright, so this all sounds positive. Admins - what happens now? Anything confirmed?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on May 15, 2006 13:09:26 GMT
Just waiting for Will to pass judgement. I suggest we make our positions clear on this: Everyone plaese note whether you're for or against.
FOR.
|
|