Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
K5 Works In Progress

By anonimouse in Meta
Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 08:10:46 PM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

The edit queue is a Good Thing (TM), but has several flaws.

This article proposes the idea of Works In Progress for subscribers. Subscribers would be able to have a small number of Works in Progress, which could be commented on in the same manner as Edit Feedback operates at present.


Edit feedback: Flaws
Edit Feedback mode is a good idea, but has several flaws; stories may only remain for 2 hours, which for a complex article may not be enough time to receive comments, especially if people you would like to comment live in different time zones.

In addition, the Edit Queue is often spammed by trivial and stupid (in the eye of the reader) articles, which mean it has a lower Signal to Noise ratio than is desired,

Works In Progress: How it would work
Subscribers to K5 would be entitled to maintain up to n Works in Progress, which could be commented on and changed as per stories in Edit Feedback mode. (A suggested value is n=3, but I'm not hung up on that). Instead of being time limited to 2 hours, Works In Progress can remain for as long as the author wants them. When the author judges a story is complete, he can chance his arm and move it onto voting, complete with all comments accrued so far.

Other advantages of this is that it is a huge incentive for people to subscribe, and be busier on K5. People will want to hotlist authors of good articles, to check on updates to articles they are composing. Authors can also post diary entries 'advertising' updates to their Works In Progress, soliciting more comments. And rusty would get more money [ if he hasn't enough already :-) ].

Discussion is invited

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Works in Progress
o Good Idea 68%
o Bad Idea 31%

Votes: 133
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by anonimouse


Display: Sort:
K5 Works In Progress | 62 comments (58 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden)
How about (4.20 / 10) (#1)
by psychologist on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 08:01:19 AM EST

Simply making some diaries to be editable? That way, there will be no queue that can be spammed. And maybe the diaries are forced to always have "Edit Mode Diary" prepended to their title, so that people don't comment on some text that will suddenly disappear.

Editable diaries (4.50 / 2) (#4)
by anonimouse on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 08:55:35 AM EST

I wanted a means of having authors be able to move their completed stories to the main sections, not just diary entries. Works In Progress could be eventually moved to a users own diary if he/she doesn't think it rates a run in the main K5 sections.
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]
I am rating your comment a 4 (2.00 / 2) (#19)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 02:38:55 PM EST

I think people should work on stories in their diaries but I don't think any changes with the system are necessary.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
Couple other ideas... (4.66 / 3) (#3)
by spacejack on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 08:33:08 AM EST

Maybe just separate the 2 queues. People will still be able to spam the edit queue, but for those who find the troll articles too offensive, they can just read the stuff in the final queue.

Or maybe the edit queue should be visible only to trusted users (and the article in progress visible to the author if they aren't trusted).

invisible queues (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by rhyax on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 11:18:23 PM EST

i'm not a fan of invisible queues, that is too much like slashdot. part of the appeal of k5, i think, is the near-equality we all have.

[ Parent ]
Trusted users kill stories in edit queue? (4.00 / 2) (#5)
by El Volio on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 09:59:14 AM EST

Another solution (or one that could be integrated into yours) is giving trusted users the ability to kill spam while it's in the edit queue. A distinction should be made that such a vote is only for spam (like a 0 on a comment) and not because you just think it's poorly written or some other reason — in other words, very different from a normal -1. That would, IMHO, seriously reduce the spam in the edit queue.

Then again, so far the spam there hasn't gotten ridiculous. If the edit queue filled up with 20 submissions, that might be a problem, but so far, I don't think it's been a real issue, irritating though it occasionally may be.

Wouldnt it be simpler (2.75 / 4) (#7)
by Hast on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 10:14:13 AM EST

to ban tumeric

[ Parent ]
i think you mean.. (4.00 / 2) (#8)
by infinitera on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 10:20:57 AM EST

minus273.

[ Parent ]
I've got a list... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by kitten on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 12:16:04 PM EST

...they'll never be missed.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
If he votes +1FP for this (4.00 / 1) (#30)
by anonimouse on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 04:48:55 PM EST

...I'll know it's a bad idea! :-)

Actually turmeric seems to be improving with a few of his attempts lately, sometimes he seems almost serious and I've actually voted a few of his up recently...
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]

Hmm. No, let us HIDE articles (4.80 / 5) (#10)
by awgsilyari on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 12:13:49 PM EST

A distinction should be made that such a vote is only for spam (like a 0 on a comment) and not because you just think it's poorly written or some other reason -- in other words, very different from a normal -1. That would, IMHO, seriously reduce the spam in the edit queue.

In order for that to approach fairness, there would have to be a log of delete events so that everyone can go verify that there is no abuse. And now you're stuck reading through spam again, verifying that someone's article wasn't maliciously deleted.

The same problem comes up with "real" email spam. You have some sort of automatic filter, but you still have to check it occassionally to make sure it didn't accidentally capture a legitimate mail. And now you're reduced to reading through all your spam again, so the filter has saved you nothing.

It's a crap problem, but I don't think you should solve it by allowing people to DELETE edits. Instead, give them the option to HIDE a particular article (for that user only). That way, people can ignore the crap once they recognize it as crap, but they can't possibly abuse this priviledge.

If enough people hide the article, then at some point you could decide to delete it. This would in essence let us "vote" on the edit queue, something we can't do right now. Except there is only ONE kind of vote: "Hide it."

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com
[ Parent ]

Ko4ting ... (4.75 / 8) (#6)
by Kellnerin on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 10:12:30 AM EST

The K5 wiki is one way to accomplish this, though it's not ideal. There's a story collaboration area there, but some people may wish to have strong control over changes made to their article (rather than opening it up to all and sundry) and of course it's a wiki, so it's a completely different system than K5 and you can't leave comments in the same way, etc. Not to mention the significantly lower traffic there which makes it harder to get good feedback.

The edit queue on K5 could be a lot more useful than it is now, and these are good ideas in that direction, but I have some quibbles. The new queue might not be so fun to spam as the current one (who knows, I don't really understand the attraction in the first place), but there should probably be ways to deal with abuse (the infamous edit queue "spam" button). I also think that there should be a limit to how long things hang around in the W-i-P queue. 24 hours should be plenty of time to get feedback, if people feel like giving any, though stories shouldn't necessarily be bumped straight into voting when that time expires. They should just be hidden from all but the author, who can continue to edit if desired, and then re-submit either for more editing, or straight to voting.

And, I'm always a bit suspicious of any scheme that proposes to limit something to subscribers, or worse, trusted users. Is there any particular reason for this (other than the possibility of more revenue)? Would non-subscribers be able to read and comment, just not submit Works-in-Progress?

--I'm pregnant. I'm stealing your pickle. -iGrrrl --

i think wikis are ideal for W-i-P (4.50 / 2) (#9)
by infinitera on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 10:59:08 AM EST

Then again, I've been saying that for years. ;) What do I know? If only wiki format and autoformat were compatible, it'd be the coolest way to write stories together, or to cobble one up over time; it's the least amount of effort on the part of the user, when given the wiki interface.

[ Parent ]
sounds great! (1.83 / 6) (#12)
by Shren on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 12:28:03 PM EST

go code it.

Blow it out your ass (n/t) (1.33 / 6) (#16)
by theElectron on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 01:18:17 PM EST



--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]
i thought that's what we paid rusty to do (4.57 / 7) (#20)
by Delirium on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 02:42:56 PM EST

:P

[ Parent ]
Time limits (5.00 / 12) (#14)
by carbon on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 12:57:05 PM EST

Perhaps voting on the edit queue could affect the time limit before its forced into the voting queue. Everyone, or perhaps only trusted users, could vote on a given edit queue story, one of:

- Ready for voting
- Needs more editing
- Abstain

This way, both troll articles and very good articles could come into voting (and then to /dev/null or the FP) very quickly, while articles that are legitimate but still need changes could persist for a long time.


Wasn't Dr. Claus the bad guy on Inspector Gadget? - dirvish
Disagree (4.33 / 3) (#26)
by anonimouse on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 04:03:07 PM EST

I still think the author should have the final say on when to launch his article into voting - it's his/her baby, so he should get to crack the champagne bottle...
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]
i like this idea (4.00 / 1) (#35)
by rhyax on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 11:14:58 PM EST

I think this is a better idea really. the system of everyone having three stories in progress is extreme. that is too many things to look at. i don't have 5 hours a day to spend on k5.

the problem is signal to noise will not be solved if you allow the author to keep his story there for as long as he wants. I do agree that he should have more say than other people but not veto privilege.

perhaps it could say something like "The author thinks this needs more editing, your vote?" or "The author thinks this is ready for voting, what do you think?" That way the author's views will be clear, but if he's being a troll it doesn't matter that much.

[ Parent ]

No (4.66 / 6) (#17)
by Psycho Les on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 01:46:32 PM EST

Because people will start discussing the unfinished story and they will also get bored with it if it's too long a time in the queue.

Editorial comments only (5.00 / 4) (#25)
by anonimouse on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 04:01:02 PM EST

Maybe permitting editorial comments only to Works In Progress would erase your objections?
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]
Just put it in your diary (3.00 / 4) (#18)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 02:35:30 PM EST

Repost with changes as necessary. Many stories start out in the diary.

If we did what you suggest, people would make topical topics and the story wouldn't get for like a month.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

Not being posted for a month (4.00 / 1) (#24)
by anonimouse on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 04:00:10 PM EST

Since each person has his own personal workspace, not being posted for a month may not be a bad thing.  Diaries are still a bit of a ghetto, but supporters of an article still get tired of seeing the same thing posted five or more times in someones diary.
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]
My point is that topical comments would sit (4.50 / 2) (#27)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 04:30:50 PM EST

for a month.

It's okay to post the same diary over and over. Just write Blah-Blah revision X. Anyone uninterested doesn't read it. On could say the same thing about a story many times in a work in progress section. I bet there would be some people who would leave their stories there forever without making changes. They'd just forget about their stories.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]

Editable Stories (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by anonimouse on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 04:39:20 PM EST

Since  each users Works In Progress would be in their space, like diaries, the fact they didn't complete something wouldn't be a problem. I'd also deliberately keep the number of Works they were allowed to have at any one time small, so forcing them to delete or force onto voting storis they didn't want to play with any more, in order to write a new one.

The edit queue would show only recently changed Works In Progress, so people who weren't interested enough to post stories could leave them for a month if they felt like it, and it would only bother anyone who wanted the story in the main section.
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]

+1. Good idea, but.. (4.50 / 2) (#21)
by kwertii on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 03:31:46 PM EST

Having a work indefinately in progress will cause people to just keep it there forever, and by the time it actually gets posted, there will be a tremendous amount of substantial discussion already.

At the same time, I think 2 hours is waaaay too short for something to be in the edit queue.

How about having a default base edit queue time of, say, 3 hours, and then extending that time based on the volume and proportion of editorial comments posted?

That way, if a large number of people post editorial critiques, the author will receive ample time to implement them.




----
"He lives most gaily who knows best how to deceive himself." --Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Substantial discussion (4.00 / 1) (#23)
by anonimouse on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 03:58:25 PM EST

One of the aims of my suggestion was to preserve the substantial discussion. Currently some people will have to submit an article  two or three times before it makes the grade, and each previous time the discussion will have been lost. I do not see more discussion as a bad thing.

A possibility is to only allow editorial comments to Works In Progress, with topical comments only being permitted when it hits voting.....
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]

i think substantial discussion would take away.. (4.75 / 4) (#28)
by infinitera on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 04:36:59 PM EST

from a work in progress. It's constantly changing/being improved/incorporating new elements. Such topical comments would consistently become outdated.

[ Parent ]
an interface problem (3.85 / 7) (#22)
by dr k on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 03:37:19 PM EST

Edit queue stories could be left in an edit queue for a lot longer if they weren't so aggravating for some people. Which means maybe they shouldn't be in the same list as stuff being considered for moderation. Simply create a new link and separate the moderation queue from the edit queue.

I, for one, see no problem with an edit queue that could potentially contain hundreds of stories. If someone thinks that sounds awful, then I think they misunderstand the whole concept of editing.


Destroy all trusted users!

Solution (1.00 / 2) (#56)
by dipierro on Sun Dec 29, 2002 at 06:30:24 PM EST

Let people rate a story -1 before it leaves the edit queue. Of course, I'd like to set my own personal thresholds for story acceptance/decline. Keep everything, let us choose what we want to see. That would be the ultimate solution.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (3.00 / 4) (#61)
by dr k on Tue Dec 31, 2002 at 06:20:43 PM EST

What exactly is the point of a pre-emptive -1? "I know this story is in edit mode, but I have used my psychic powers to conclude that no amount of revisions will make me want to read this story, so I give you -1 in advance."

One of the many problems with the ratings/moderation system is that most people have a dysfunctionally exaggerated sense of self-importance. You want to be able to mark your approval/disapproval onto every single paragraph that gets put into the k5 database. Because you are just that much smarter, and have that much better taste than everyone else. Just get over it. If someone wants to leave a troll in the edit queue, why the fuck should it be a concern of yours, especially when there are hundreds of other discussions going on elsewhere on the site?

(I have intentionally exaggerated your comments to make a point. From now on, anyone who makes a suggestion that we should be able to vote stories out of the edit queue will be labelled a Moderation Nazi.)


Destroy all trusted users!
[ Parent ]

right (3.00 / 2) (#62)
by dipierro on Wed Jan 01, 2003 at 12:30:30 PM EST

What exactly is the point of a pre-emptive -1? "I know this story is in edit mode, but I have used my psychic powers to conclude that no amount of revisions will make me want to read this story, so I give you -1 in advance."

Exactly.



[ Parent ]
why some sort of time limit is needed (4.66 / 3) (#31)
by martingale on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 06:23:43 PM EST

Obviously, the edit queue is a target for spamming, so that's one obvious reason for having a time limit of some sort. But even without spamming, there's the issue of permanently unfinished stories.

So you start writing your story but something happens and you don't finish it. You leave it in the queue for a day or two and write another chunk. Then you go away on a holiday and upon return, write another chunk. That's an (involuntary) kind of abuse of the queue, because it gets filled with moribund wretches which everyone knows aren't going to be finished or even modified any time soon.

The advantage of a time limit is that k5 readers who suggest edits know that their efforts will be acted upon promptly (or not at all), which motivates the giving of help.

The problem of timezones is definitely an issue though. Perhaps the two hours can be replaced by a minimum number of page views, I don't know.

Not at all (4.00 / 1) (#32)
by anonimouse on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 06:48:31 PM EST

Only recently edited items will appear in the edit queue, so if you leave an article to languish it won't feature.
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]
I don't get it (4.50 / 2) (#33)
by martingale on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 06:57:03 PM EST

I thought the proposal was that each subscriber would have up to n stories permanently in the edit queue, for people to comment on. If the stories get hidden after a couple of hours anyway, how is this an improvement over the current edit queue?

[ Parent ]
improvement (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by Ubiq on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 08:54:26 PM EST

...because if the article is changed, it goes back to the top of the edit queue again. That way, actively edited articles will get attention.



[ Parent ]
People will be able to have (4.00 / 1) (#46)
by anonimouse on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 07:50:30 PM EST

A number of articles in the edit state, but the edit queue will, like the diary page, only show the most recently changed 15 or so, with less detail for older stories.

You will always be able to see stories in an edit state, regardless of when it was last changed however.
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]

I see, could be interesting [n/t] (3.00 / 1) (#47)
by martingale on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 09:14:36 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Not bad but you still need more control (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by HidingMyName on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 09:29:51 PM EST

There are several issues that might bear looking at:
  • Rate control should be practiced on misbehaving accounts to prevent crap flooding. Otherwise a bonehead could monopolize the edit queue. By updating a bunch of offensive stories all saying the same stuff.
  • An active approach might be needed to limit multiple account abuse. However, that is an administrative problem, and perhaps is beyond the scope of this article.
  • People might not look at the edit queue and give feedback if they feel that the stories are not likely to be posted soon.


[ Parent ]
+0 (3.75 / 4) (#37)
by dirvish on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 01:20:37 AM EST

I am not a subscriber, probably never will be, so I will abstain.

Technical Certification Blog, Anti Spam Blog
case study (4.66 / 3) (#38)
by Kellnerin on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 08:28:56 AM EST

It feels like this article, itself, should be a Work in Progress. After reading through some of the author's comments, I've seen a lot of questions, some answered and some not, which suggest that the author didn't manage to describe his idea clearly enough in the original article. What exactly is this W-i-P space? How does it relate to the edit and voting queues? Who gets to use it, and how does it work?

If this article went through the proposed process, assuming it were edited to address the issues that have come up in discussion, would end up with a fair amount of topicial comments that don't make much sense anymore. Anything considered a Work in Progress shouldn't generate topical discussion -- this is often a complaint in the current queue, where the bulk of the discussion attached to a story can happen before it's even posted. It's hard to stop people from wanting to comment topically, but in the case of W-i-P in particular, it doesn't make sense to comment on an article that may still change substantially.

--I'm pregnant. I'm stealing your pickle. -iGrrrl --

Idea refinement (4.00 / 1) (#45)
by anonimouse on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 06:58:19 PM EST

The following provides more detail on how it would work, taking into account comments posted so far:

a) Every subscriber gets 3 Work In Progress slots, non-subscribers get one
b) The edit queue is replaced by a function that only shows recently changed Works In Progress. A particular users Works in Progress may be accessed from the User Info page
c) Only Editorial comments may be submited to a Work In Progress
d) When a User decides the article is ready, he can move it from his Work In Progress slot to the voting queue. At this point people are free to submit both editorial and topical comments.
e) Voting operates in the normal way
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]

Bettter might be to reward good behavior (4.75 / 4) (#39)
by HidingMyName on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 08:58:20 AM EST

I thought about this, and some function of story rating and/or comment scores is probably the way to go. That way, people who have rejected stories or are spouting crap are discouraged from over frequent posting of stories, while people who are making desirable contributions are rewarded. I'm not sure what the exact form of the function should be. However, some desirable properties might be:
  • Poor behavior should limit edit queue time while good behavior allow for longer edit time.
  • Actually using the longer edit time should reduce accumulated good behavior bonuses (just to prevent people from letting stories languish on the edit queue for too long).
  • Accounts with poor behavior should be limited to a single story in voting/edit at any time, people with good behavior might be granted more license.


Good ideas (4.00 / 1) (#52)
by labradore on Sat Dec 28, 2002 at 10:38:41 AM EST

But what constitutes good behavior? Also, what portion of good behavior is measurable by comment and story ratings? Is this really a call for a third kind of rating/moderation?

[ Parent ]
Start simple using what we have got (4.00 / 1) (#53)
by HidingMyName on Sat Dec 28, 2002 at 03:30:25 PM EST

I'm a big believer in stepwise refinement and using information that scoop could track without major modification.

I think we should start with a weighted average of ratings for stories. Postings could be added into the mix later. Age of the account probably should be considered (since new accounts are often subject to abuse). Let me think a little longer before posting a candidate function, I don't want to make a lame recommendation. Posting an occasional lame story should not penalize someone, but repeated lameness should be a problem. Lameness of a story may be measured like:

Story Lameness = (Votes Against)/(Votes For + Votes Against + Votes Abstained)

or a quality metric could be established similarly:

Story Quality = (Votes For)/(Votes For + Votes Against + Votes Abstained)

Votes for could be weighted, so that FP votes count more (for an initial guess, an FP vote could count as 2 section votes). The speed with which a story gets voted down could be a factor as well.

[ Parent ]

bad idea (none / 0) (#58)
by rhyax on Mon Dec 30, 2002 at 09:47:33 PM EST

This will only work to homogenize the people that post. What you are really saying is "Only people who posted in the past and who were good can edit" K5 has a large group of people willing to vote on whether something is good or not, there is no reason not to let humans do it when they are there, willing.

Let people say if they think something is ready for voting. say 70% of voters have to think it's ready for voting based on at least 50 votes. The votes are changeable (so it can need editing, then after edited you would change your vote.) The authors views are noted, and possibly weighted, but certainly not in such a way as to outweigh many other non-authors.

A system that rewards people for past behavior will cause a certain level of homogenization. It's a necessary evil for something (trusted users) but to link it to posting, I think, is a step too far.

[ Parent ]

Idea (4.75 / 4) (#40)
by elzubeir on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 11:39:28 AM EST

This is a pretty good idea but poorly developed. As many people have already commented, there is an 'idea' but not much thought put into all the variables involved.

Also, I would like to add my voice to the others who agree that 2 hours is just and simply not good enough. Often an article one would not want to submit for a vote yet goes into vote and then gets voted down for things the author would have fixed anyway.

Development (4.50 / 2) (#44)
by anonimouse on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 06:12:56 PM EST

The fact that this article only shows the outlines of the idea is proof that some sort of longer queue is needed. In the two hours I had the article up for editing changes, not one comment was posted. Maybe I just chose a quiet time, but if quiet times  exist then there is a need to support longer article development
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]
Regardless of what solution is adopted (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by HidingMyName on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 09:15:44 PM EST

I wish K5 would show the remaining edit time after I submit a story for edit or post a revision. That would be helpful to the author. My first story on K5 got posted without some useful edits because I didn't realize the 2 hour edit window and went to work for 3 or 4 hours.

[ Parent ]
"...As long as the author wants them..." (4.40 / 5) (#42)
by jayhawk88 on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 03:59:28 PM EST

No. I really don't need to see a dozen of the same In Progress stories for weeks on end because a bunch of authors are too busy playing Sims Online to finish them. A significantly longer time period to subscribers is fine, but letting them sit there forever is simply a different type of Q spam.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
You wouldn't see them (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by anonimouse on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 06:09:09 PM EST

The edit queue would only show recently changed entries, and people who didn't mod their stories would be at the back of the queue. Only if you went to the list of a specific person would you see all their Works In Progress
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]
OT: K5, what a change! (3.50 / 4) (#49)
by Shovas on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 09:19:27 PM EST

From obliterating commentary relating to the Scoop Engine, and "resectioning" them to Scoop.Kuro5hin.org, dumping stories On quality, archival, persistency and their relation to the Kuro5hin philosophy, ignoring pleas on comment and story persistency, to rallying around a request for a massive code write to support a Word In Progress "bin." My, K5, how you've changed your ways! Perhaps I'll resubmit my stories under this new kinder, gentler Kuro5hin machine gun hand. I see K5 introspection stories are back en vogue.
---
Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
---
Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
Don't get your hopes up (4.00 / 1) (#51)
by anonimouse on Sat Dec 28, 2002 at 04:13:57 AM EST

This story literally crawled up into the sectional pages, so unless your idea is sufficiently good or unusual I suspect it'll still get binned.
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]
heh I wasn't serious anyway, (4.00 / 1) (#54)
by Shovas on Sat Dec 28, 2002 at 05:58:51 PM EST

The K5 crowd is much, much too fickle to be writing border-line stories.
---
Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
---
Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
[ Parent ]
How about if we vote (4.00 / 2) (#55)
by squigly on Sun Dec 29, 2002 at 01:37:49 PM EST

Not quite sure about how the specifics of the voting mechanism should work, but how about when in the edit queue, we have a choice:
  1. Keep in edit queue.
  2. Move from edit queue to voting queue.
Possibly allowing for people to change their minds.  

If it is spam, then it can be moved from the edit queue to the voting queue, and go down quickly.

If the author can be expected to fix a few issues,  but may take some time over it, then we can keep it in the queue for a little longer.

If it is fine, then it will go straight to the vote queue to be accepted or rejected.

Don't like this (none / 0) (#59)
by anonimouse on Tue Dec 31, 2002 at 06:13:03 AM EST

I always think it is the author who should have the say on when an article should move from editing to voting; for one thing no one online knows whether the author has any new thoughts to put in their article, and thus improve it.
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]
Of Course... (4.00 / 1) (#57)
by artsygeek on Mon Dec 30, 2002 at 05:14:54 PM EST

Folks can mock-up their stories in their diaries...and once a story has been commented on throughly in diary (and they can add addendae to it through commenting)...the person can put it in the edit queue for final revision, then off to voting.

Diaries not very suitable (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by anonimouse on Tue Dec 31, 2002 at 06:16:27 AM EST

Diaries have their limitations; for one thing, comments from older versions of the draft are in the previous or older diary and thus lost. Peoples diaries are better reserved for day to day events or sounding off about something.
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]
K5 Works In Progress | 62 comments (58 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!