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]
Author Editing in the Queue

By rusty in Site News
Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:27:03 PM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

Well, it's only about two years later than it should be, but thanks to theantix you can finally now edit your own stories in the queue. There's a new option in the "submit story" form that you can check to request editorial feedback. If you choose to, your story will be submitted in "editing" mode. While it's in editing mode, anyone can comment to point out errors or make editorial suggestions. But now you, the author, can actually make changes in response to these suggestions. When you feel you're done editing, or when the maximum editing time (currently two hours) is reached, the story goes into voting as usual, and you can no longer edit. You can also cancel a submission entirely at any time during editing or voting. Also, you may only have one story in editing at a time, to discourage people from submitting a lot of stuff they know will hang around for at least two hours.

Update [2002-4-18 15:55:34 by rusty]: Ok, that should be enough play testing. Thanks everyone. Now, let's see some actual stories again, eh? :-)


Stories that are in editing mode will show up in the queue highlighted in blue, to easily distinguish them from stories you can vote on (gray) or stories you've already voted on (white).

I strongly encourage authors to take advantage of the editing period, as I will not be very pleased to get emails asking me to fix errors in stories that didn't go through editing. If you reach the time limit, and missed a problem, you are still welcome to email help@kuro5hin.org, as we all make mistakes now and then. But hopefully most problems can now be found and fixed by the community.

I also encourage everyone to vote with the assumption that a story in voting is the final form a story will take. Up to now, voters have generally been pretty forgiving of mistakes that will probably be fixed by an editor, and with good reason. With this change, that should not be necessary, since problems in a story could have been fixed before voting starts.

I know some of you are going to want to try out the new stuff. All I ask is that if you are just posting a story to see how it works, please don't leave it sitting around for the whole two hours. Try it out, and when you've got the sense of it, cancel your own submission. Everyone will thank you for it.

This is, as usual, brand new code, so if you notice something that doesn't seem to be working right, let me know.

Sponsors

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

Login

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o theantix
o Also by rusty


Display: Sort:
Author Editing in the Queue | 133 comments (133 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Hooray! (3.00 / 2) (#1)
by imrdkl on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:44:44 PM EST

I think this will be a Good Thing. Reduced embarassment, and bad feelings, and improved story quality coming into (and out of) the queue.

Ha ha (4.80 / 5) (#2)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:46:01 PM EST

Fantastic. Bug number one was that you couldn't post an editorial comment to a story that was in editing mode. There is no "off" position on the genius switch. This should be fixed now. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
be careful rusty! (3.00 / 2) (#4)
by jeffy124 on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:48:21 PM EST

you want to make sure scoop's software testing practices arent that of certain corporations ;)
--
You're the straw that broke the camel's back!
[ Parent ]
Just a thought (3.00 / 2) (#27)
by Khalad on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:03:27 PM EST

But since non-editable stories are now "final" you could just make all comments to editable stories editorial and comments to regular stories in the queue topical only. That just seems like the right thing to do now.

You remind me why I still, deep in my bitter crusty broken heart, love K5. —rusty


[ Parent ]
Errm... (4.50 / 2) (#60)
by Ni on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:24:02 PM EST

I'm not sure I agree with this, I often browse editorial comments before voting to see if someone noticed something serverly wrong with the story (ie, clearly factually inaccurate, amazingly mis-categoried, etc), in case my opinion is swayed. For better or for worse, I'm sure I can't be the only k5 user who does this.


<mrgoat> I can't believe I just got a cyber-handjob from ni.
[ Parent ]
Editorial comments in post-edit queue (none / 0) (#118)
by I am Jack's username on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 06:36:23 PM EST

> [make] comments to regular stories in the queue [and not in the edit state,] topical only - Khalad

I'd still like to make editorial commets after the 2 hours since I might have missed the time limit. These suggestions could then be fixed after an email to the editors, and wouldn't show up with the topicals after the story is posted.
--
Inoshiro for president!
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

ouch (none / 0) (#117)
by jeffy124 on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 04:37:59 PM EST

rusty, you're officially brown-bagged
--
You're the straw that broke the camel's back!
[ Parent ]
um. (4.83 / 6) (#3)
by Defect on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:46:20 PM EST

Am i the only one seeing plenty of potential for abuse? Is there any way enough users can override a story that's in the edit queue? Otherwise i could submit an empty story with merely "you're all fucking retards" in the subject and it would stick around for at least two hours.

And you know that's something someone like me would do, too.
defect - jso - joseth || a link
Or... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:09:07 PM EST

Or until one of the admins noticed it. Basically, I'm not going to not add a feature because someone could use it to piss in the pool. Abuse of that kind will be strongly discouraged (like, as in "No more stories from you, Mr. Pool Pisser!"). But honestly, I don't think it'll be a huge problem.

The problem with putting in a "vote this down before voting" vote is that then a relatively small number of people could cancel a story unopposed. If there was a "keep this" and a "dump this" vote, well then we're just in voting already and what's the point?

It seemed like it was worth giving it a try in this relatively open manner before we started reacting to problems that may or may not occur.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Give it a couple weeks (4.00 / 3) (#37)
by wiredog on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:11:53 PM EST

I suspect that, for the first couple of days anyway, people are going to treat it as The Return of Bubba.kuro5hin.org and play around with it.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
Poor Bubba (none / 0) (#42)
by joeyo on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:20:29 PM EST

He is missed... *sniff*
--
'We have found and closed the thing you watch us with.'
[ Parent ]
Time until Admin Notice (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Osiris on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:31:45 PM EST

This is apparently already rather large, as there are two stories there now which need to be done away with, and nothing has been done with them. I think if an admin needs to go in and delete someone's story because they're abusing the two hour editing queue to make their crap stick around, that account should be deleted permanently.

[ Parent ]
you were saying? (2.50 / 2) (#50)
by speek on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:52:28 PM EST

Apparently pool-pissing is too much fun. What's the problem with allowing normal voting from the get-go?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Bait and switch (none / 0) (#80)
by X3nocide on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 09:36:33 PM EST

Well if we just let votes and editing occur independently, then I could write a "puppy-dog" article that everyone loves then at a crucial moment edit the whole thing to a goatse style FU.

Obvious solution: reset all votes on editing

not so obvious problem: rescuing poorly recieved articles requires a simple edit to reset the votes

Next step: reset all "+1" votes on edit

next problem: do you risk losing all your +1 votes to fix a typo? I'm sure you could continue down this path for quite a while.

pwnguin.net
[ Parent ]

possible solution (none / 0) (#102)
by speek on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 09:12:59 AM EST

Allow users to change their vote on a story? Require any story to stay in queue for at least X hours after editing period ends, allowing voters to go back and change their vote if the story has dramatically changed.

Not perfect, since a lot of people will never check, but some will, and besides, the time period will allow crap to get booted before going to the front page.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

For a while I thought that... (4.50 / 2) (#53)
by leviramsey on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:05:04 PM EST

...a minimum time in the queue was a good idea, to prevent a few people from killing an article. I now see this as not a good solution to the problem.

I've come to the conclusion that setting a minimum vote turnout to drop a story from the queue is a better idea. The threshold could be set to 5% of the number of accounts who have loaded a page in the past two weeks, or something similar (a raw account percentage will eventually lead to problems, as some number of accounts fall into general disuse).

With the safeguard of this "quorum", the kill threshold could, conceivably be increased to -10 or even -5.

On a slightly different note, K5 seems to have had a habit of going down over the past weeks. Is it because of the influx from Slashdot? Or is it simply collapsing from the weight of E r i c's spamming?



[ Parent ]
Voting, downtime (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:08:20 PM EST

The voting/spamming thing, just wait and see for a few days how it goes. I'm not committed to this as a final system, but I want to see if it's actually a big problem before I go to a lot of trouble creating more security.

The downtime-- there's a bug somewhere in scoop (I think) that's making it occasionally hang. It only really shows up on a site as heavily loaded as K5, and we're having a hell of a time tracking it down. Hopefully it will be found and fixed soon.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure though (4.66 / 3) (#59)
by leviramsey on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:18:06 PM EST

...that depending on the admins to due the janitorial tasks is the way to go. Part of Slashdot's problem is too much depends on the editors. K5 has worked great until now, I would argue, partially because of the hands=off admins. Depending on the admins to police the editing queue is not an ideal solution, imo.



[ Parent ]
No, it isn't (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by rusty on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 12:15:31 AM EST

No, admin policing is not a great idea. See my reply above this one for more detail, but basically this is kind of a "worse is better, just get something in there" solution. We've spent literally years pondering over the perfect way to do it, and this one at least works for now.

I totally agree that relying on admin police is no way to run a circus. Besides which, it's more work for me, and I'm all about Applied Laziness. If it seems like there are problems with the current implementation (and, if history is any judge, I'm sure there will be) then we'll figure out what needs to be fixed. I was basically just saying that for now, the worst thing that happens is there's an extra blue line in the mod queue for a couple hours. If it gets to be a nuisance, we'll work out something.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Slightly different voting (none / 0) (#83)
by QuickFox on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 11:14:07 PM EST

Here's a suggestion if you want to allow more than two hours for editing, or if spam becomes a problem.

Allow voting from the very start, but also allow people to change their votes to adapt to changes in quality (just like we can change our comment ratings).

When a story in edit mode has a high score (perhaps 40), disable positive votes and only allow negative. As soon as someone votes it down to 39, allow all votes again. Remove this limit when the story leaves edit mode. This way, if someone posts a good story and later replaces it with spam, there's plenty of margin for voting it down.

If the story reaches -20 in edit mode, hide it as usual.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.



[ Parent ]
Thought about that (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 11:49:50 PM EST

We considered doing it that way, roughly, and it's still not a bad idea. Ultimately, we decided to do it this way because it was relatively easy, didn't require a whole lot of retooling, and would at least get editing in there. Kind of a "worse is better" approach, since we've been stewing over the "perfect" way to do it forever without getting anything done. This way, we've got something, and can figure out what the problems are later.

But yeah, a "vote now, change later", while it does have potential problems of it's own, could be one way to go. I'm not convinced yet that it'll be an issue, but we should certainly consider all the options and keep an eye on how the current system is working.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

You did (5.00 / 4) (#52)
by whojgalt on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:55:12 PM EST

and its been in the queue since yesterday.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you can't see it from the car, it's not really scenery.
Any code more than six months old was written by an idiot.
[ Parent ]

The poll? (4.50 / 2) (#5)
by kuran42 on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:49:16 PM EST

Seems to stay with the story but the fields aren't filled in when you go to edit it.

--
kuran42? genius? Nary a difference betwixt the two. -- Defect
Annnd (4.50 / 2) (#16)
by wiredog on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:54:06 PM EST

If you enter new fields, or replace the old ones with correct spelling, the votes disappear.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
Bug or Feature (4.75 / 4) (#20)
by Woundweavr on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:57:43 PM EST

Is that really bad? You could have a poll like "Do you like candy? Yes No Sometimes Nazis!" and it could be Changed to "Do you rape children? Hourly, Daily, Weekly, No".

[ Parent ]
Good point (3.00 / 3) (#24)
by wiredog on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:01:56 PM EST

Hadn't thought of that.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
Yeah, polls are screwy (4.00 / 1) (#31)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:04:56 PM EST

Basically, right now, if you don't change anything, your poll stays the same. If you do change something in the poll fields, it makes a whole new poll.

This is clearly a problem. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Suggestion... (4.88 / 9) (#6)
by Ranieri on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:49:39 PM EST

Since stories in edit mode aren't technically "moderatable" i suggest either removing them from the red "moderate submissions" number or add them separately (e.g. in blue).
--
"Look, Hoagie, it's a hamster! Just what I need for dissection lab tomorrow!"
Definitely an idea (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by DrJohnEvans on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:00:52 PM EST

The editing period is a wonderful idea, but I do think some sort of distinction between it and the moderating period in the right-hand user menu. I see a red number to my right, and instinctively think that there's a story upon which I can vote-- only to find that it's a story in editorial mode, upon which I may have already commented.

Perhaps a style such as this:

Moderate Submissions (2+3/8)
with the appropriate colours (blue and red, I'd assume) highlighting the 2 and 3, signifying stories in the two modes.



[ Parent ]

How about a seperate section? (5.00 / 4) (#28)
by binarygod on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:03:52 PM EST

Stories which are editable should appear in a separate part of your user panel (the bit which says Moderate Submissions etc) possibly called Edit Submissions or some such. This is firstly because, as the previous commenter suggests, they are not strictly moderatable, and secondly because it will differentiate between work in progress and complete submited stories, as some people would prefer not to participate in editing discussions and would rather comment and vote on finished articles. Also it will mean that the moderation queue doesnt get over long with people posting half finished stories which are not complete. Perhaps if we where going to be radical all stories should have to be editable for a certain period of time. This will mean, basic spelling error, deadlinks, wrong section or generally wrong bits can be removed before the story is submitted to voting...this will remove many of the "you have spelt x wrong" or "this should be in MLP" style comments, and therefore inprove the quality of all articles in the queue.

[ Parent ]
2 hours of trash (4.77 / 9) (#7)
by Woundweavr on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:51:01 PM EST

The problem with this is there is no method of getting rid of obvious crap in the queue. For instance, someone can just keep submitting spam/crap to the edit queue and it'll be there for 2 hours. Perhaps "-1 - Obviously Crap" should be an option and after some threshold the story gets killed. This should be the equivalent of a 0 in severity however, and probably available to TU only.

In fact, more than slightly OT, perhaps this could help with the non-diary mojo issue. Make two types of TU, overall TU and non-story TU (or whatever). Both can zero, but non-story TU, ie people who would not be TU without the diaries, can't -1 an editting story.

2 hours of low s/n - problem? (none / 0) (#109)
by miller on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 12:33:05 PM EST

Personally I think that two hours is too short, since I don't get the time to check the site that often any more. So what if users can post one entry of crap to it? They can post 10 to the diaries in the same time.

If I was implementing this system, I'd have the edit and moderation queues separated out, so users know the edit queue is likely to be about as random as the diaries, while the moderation queue is likely to contain stuff worthy of people with little time.

Consider that the original reason for the queue was to keep the crap out of the main sections - so there's expected to be some crap in the queue. It doesn't reflect badly on the quality of the site, since each queue is supposed to be more crap than the one it feeds. If it's not, it's not working.

It'd be nice if stories didn't move out of the edit queue until enough people had said it was good enough, but of course that would leave no way for crap to ever leave the edit queue if the author left it there. I'd like to see a '-1: edit this (again)' vote in the mod queue if there's only two hours for the people who might vote on a story to suggest changes though.

--
It's too bad I don't take drugs, I think it would be even better. -- Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]

Not the only reason... (4.00 / 1) (#114)
by Woundweavr on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 12:57:58 PM EST

Consider that the original reason for the queue was to keep the crap out of the main sections

But we don't want the queue cluttered unnecessarily with things that will never make it to section or front page. Its just more noise. I'd even say most of the people who visit K5 regularly read stories from the queue, while the front page is more a display case and a place for casual readers. A second queue for editting might work, but it'd mostly be a cosmetic change. It would still exist in a queue with no way to reduce the pure noise without an editor (and we want to reduce their workload whenever possible).

[ Parent ]

Not cosmetic (none / 0) (#115)
by miller on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 01:35:11 PM EST

If we were to separate out the queues, the mod queue would actually become less cluttered. While most logged in users do visit the mod queue regularly, they wouldn't be forced to visit the edit queue, with it's potential crapload of crap.

I'm not proposing the edit queue lose its current timeout completely, not without something to replace it at least. That's a decent way to reduce the pure noise without an editor.

--
It's too bad I don't take drugs, I think it would be even better. -- Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]

Prrrrroblem? (4.83 / 6) (#8)
by xriso on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:51:22 PM EST

The editorial comments (the ones that actually matter) are not showing up with "Mixed (Default)"
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
Oops (none / 0) (#11)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:52:22 PM EST

Bug. Will fix, thanks.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Question about comment preferences. (none / 0) (#25)
by synaesthesia on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:02:19 PM EST

What is the difference between 'Mixed (default)' and 'All Comments'?

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
Answer (4.00 / 1) (#29)
by Woundweavr on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:04:13 PM EST

When a story has been accepted (ie its on the FP or in a section) Mixed won't show editorial comments. All will show them no matter what.

[ Parent ]
Mixed... (none / 0) (#82)
by J'raxis on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 10:48:47 PM EST

I’ve always thought that should have a better name like Relevant or Appropriate. It’s rather vague.

— The Raxis

[ J’raxis·Com | Liberty in your lifetime ]
[ Parent ]

Well, there's no guarantee of that, is there? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by joshsisk on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 10:04:41 AM EST


--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
Orphaned comments (4.33 / 3) (#9)
by kuran42 on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:52:04 PM EST

What happens to 'em? Are they counted towards mojo?

--
kuran42? genius? Nary a difference betwixt the two. -- Defect
Only allow editorial comments? (4.60 / 5) (#17)
by wiredog on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:55:24 PM EST

That really should be the default if it's in edit mode.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 4) (#21)
by Torgos Pizza on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:58:57 PM EST

If there are still being edits being made, topical comments shouldn't be allowed. This would avoid confusion later when a topical comment is made, and a edit is made to the article where the topical comment would no longer apply.

I intend to live forever, or die trying.
[ Parent ]
Looks like they're deleted, unfortunately. (none / 0) (#76)
by wiredog on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 08:12:15 PM EST

Even if they didn't count towards mojo, there were a couple I wanted to hold on to. Oh well. Such is life.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
Can you change... (4.80 / 5) (#10)
by Khalad on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:52:04 PM EST

...that godawful shade of blue? It's making my eyes bleed.

You remind me why I still, deep in my bitter crusty broken heart, love K5. —rusty


I was just going to say that. (none / 0) (#13)
by tiamat on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:53:19 PM EST

Can you match the blue to the other nice blue we have around here? The logo blue?

[ Parent ]
Problem. (4.00 / 2) (#35)
by DrJohnEvans on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:09:15 PM EST

Painting editorial submissions in K5's logo colour adds an official air to the submission... for worthless pieces of junk (like the ones in the queue right now), it gives them an undeserved piece of subtle credibility. It makes them look like they've been accepted and approved by the community-- which they haven't yet been.

Ah, the wonderful subtleties of UI design. Especially the subliminal bits.

[ Parent ]

Too dark (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:11:06 PM EST

The logo blue is way too dark. Lemme see if I can find a paler shade than what we have... Suggestions for hex codes more than welcome.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
What about (4.50 / 2) (#38)
by wiredog on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:13:59 PM EST

Hot Pink. It'd definitely stand out.

Or slashdot green.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]

Though the yellow is nice. (4.00 / 2) (#41)
by wiredog on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:18:51 PM EST

I still want Hot Pink, dammit!

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
Gray (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Khalad on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:16:56 PM EST

You could gray them out. I dunno, #666?

You remind me why I still, deep in my bitter crusty broken heart, love K5. —rusty


[ Parent ]
Nevermind, I'm stupid. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Khalad on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:20:31 PM EST

Everything already is gray.

You remind me why I still, deep in my bitter crusty broken heart, love K5. —rusty


[ Parent ]
Love the highlighting (3.00 / 2) (#12)
by wiredog on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:52:55 PM EST

Makes it stand out very well.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
Minor Bug (3.00 / 2) (#14)
by Woundweavr on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:53:33 PM EST

When it edit mode Voting History still shows up. Nothing really bad about it but its kinda irrelevent until it leaves the editting stage.

Suggestions (4.80 / 5) (#15)
by President Steve Elvis America on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:53:56 PM EST

I think it's a good idea. However, you might want to change the number beside "Moderate Submissions" to be like (0/2/4) to show 0 stories to moderate, 2 in editing mode, and 4 total. That would help I think.

Another suggestion would be to only allow editorial comments, since there's no reason for people to discuss the topic while the story is being written, unless it's about the story.

Sincerely,

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

And similarly (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by Khalad on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:56:49 PM EST

If the poll can be edited don't let people vote until the story is out of edit mode.

You remind me why I still, deep in my bitter crusty broken heart, love K5. —rusty


[ Parent ]
I missed a wonderful opportunity (2.50 / 4) (#19)
by wiredog on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 02:57:15 PM EST

Thanks to fast typing I got the first editable story into the queue.

And I didn't even think to title it "First Post". Damn.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"

UI issues (4.00 / 1) (#23)
by aphrael on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:01:42 PM EST

  • Would it be possible to get editable stories to show up in a seperate *box* from votable stories? The UI right now is a little bit confusing.
  • The shade of blue is bad; it's too similar to the default link color in IE6, and is painful to look at. Could you tone it down to cyan or something? :)

Lest it seem like i'm just whining, though, thank you thank you thank you thank you! :)

the new cyan is ugly! :( [nt] (none / 0) (#91)
by infinitera on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 01:19:04 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Good God on a Pogo Stick! (2.00 / 5) (#26)
by wiredog on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:02:41 PM EST

It's The Return Of Bubba!

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
Bubba was never gone. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
by losthalo on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 08:10:01 PM EST

Those places where there was only one trail of footprints? There Bubba carried you on his back.

Losthalo

[ Parent ]
error (4.77 / 9) (#30)
by Arkady on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:04:23 PM EST

Just look at the two pices of dreck sitting in the queue right now, with no mechanism available for disposing of them.

The implementation here made a major error: articles on editorial hold are mingled into the main queue, rather than being shunted off to the site into an editorial queue (with a note on the queue page that there are articles in the editorial queue). This means the two worthless pieces in the queue right now will sit there without the readers being able to dispose of them. What a wonderful opportunity for spamming and trolling you've created ...

Bad rusty; no donut! ;-)

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


I agree (1.80 / 5) (#32)
by binarygod on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:07:13 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Or at least... (4.00 / 3) (#46)
by anno1602 on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:22:08 PM EST

... let me vote on a story although it is in editorial. There are cases where this is justified (evidence currently in the queue).
--
"Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit." - Murphy
[ Parent ]
Another idea: editorial queue voting. (5.00 / 5) (#49)
by i on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:47:26 PM EST

It should be separate from regular voting. The votes should be
  • "+1, Increase editing time by X minutes"
  • "0, just right"
  • "-1, Decrease editing time by X minutes"
Users should be able to change their votes. X is a scoop parameter, obviously.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
"just right" (4.00 / 1) (#56)
by fluffy grue on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:12:23 PM EST

If the story is "just right," then why not decrease the editing time? :)

Aside from that nitpick (similar to "voting 'abstain' is a vote, which means you didn't abstain! *coredump*"), I do think that's a reasonable way of handling it.
--
"...but who knows, perhaps [stories about] technology and hardware will come to be [unpopular]." -- rusty the p
[
Parent ]

Not the story. (none / 0) (#57)
by i on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:13:39 PM EST

Editing time is "just right" :)

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
Ah (none / 0) (#61)
by fluffy grue on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:26:15 PM EST

That makes sense. :)
--
"...but who knows, perhaps [stories about] technology and hardware will come to be [unpopular]." -- rusty the p
[
Parent ]
"This is spam" voting (4.42 / 7) (#51)
by mech9t8 on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:53:05 PM EST

Maybe just a "kill it, it's obviously a troll" voting option during editing. (Perhaps restricted to trusted users, like voting 0 on comments.)

--
IMHO
[ Parent ]
Meta-editorial comment (4.50 / 4) (#33)
by Joe Groff on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:07:39 PM EST

The "Please Help" box contains the following text:
Please Help. The author of this story has requested editorial help from you, and the rest of the community. Please read, and post your editorial suggestions below. The author can edit at any time, so some suggestions may already have been fixed when you read them. After editing, the story will continue on to voting as usual.
This suffers from excessive comma usage. Remove the commas after "The author of this story has requested editorial help from you" and "Please read". The "Help" in the first sentence probably doesn't need to be capitalised either.
--
How long must I travel on
to be just where you are?

Fixed version (none / 0) (#40)
by wiredog on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:17:50 PM EST

Please Help. The author of this story has requested editorial help from you and the rest of the community. Please read and post your editorial suggestions below. The author can edit at any time so some suggestions may already have been fixed when you read them. After editing the story will continue on to voting as usual.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
Not quite. (none / 0) (#45)
by aphrael on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:21:00 PM EST

Now you have too *few* commas. Try this:

Please Help. The author of this story has requested editorial help from you and the rest of the community. Please read and post your editorial suggestions below. The author can edit at any time, so some suggestions may already have been fixed when you read them. After editing, the story will continue on to voting as usual

[ Parent ]

my suggestion (none / 0) (#47)
by fn0rd on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:27:10 PM EST

Please Help. The author of this story has requested editorial help from the kuro5hin community. Please read and post your editorial suggestions below. Because the author can edit at any time, some suggestions may already have been applied while you were reading the article. After editing, the story will continue on to voting as usual.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

My Suggestion (4.75 / 4) (#65)
by theElectron on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 06:55:33 PM EST

Please Help STOP
Author of story requests editorial help from you, community STOP
Read, post editorial suggestions below. STOP
Author can edit at any time. STOP
Suggestions may have been fixed when you read them. STOP
After editing, story will continue to voting. STOP

--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]
Telegraph help (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 06:56:32 PM EST

I like it. It lends that air of urgency and wartime derring-do.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Further revisions (none / 0) (#100)
by gnovos on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 06:46:41 AM EST

Just help this guy, would ya?

A Haiku: "fuck you fuck you fuck/you fuck you fuck you fuck you/fuck you fuck you snow" - JChen
[ Parent ]
I liked the lavender (3.00 / 1) (#44)
by fn0rd on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 03:20:52 PM EST

but that yellow was b-a-a-a-a-d stuff... light blue is ok, how about a nice light green though? or a bricky pink?

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad

It's an improvement (4.57 / 7) (#55)
by DrJohnEvans on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:09:52 PM EST

The "(0/3/5)" format is definitely an improvement.. it is a little illogical, however, since moderation is placed before editing, and their order is the other way 'round.

Also, as fraction notation, it's a little ambiguous. Perhaps it'd be best to seperate the editorial number altogether? For instance: (0/3) (5)? (3+0/5)? (3-0-5), to get rid of the / altogether? Or perhaps a second "Edit submissions", as was mentioned earlier?

Three cheers for formatting minutiae!

faq? (4.00 / 2) (#58)
by ish on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:14:33 PM EST

given this rather substantial change in part of the UI and because it will prompt other questions, are there plans to update the faq? need any help?

-ish

FAQ (5.00 / 2) (#64)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:33:24 PM EST

The FAQ needs quite a bit of overhauling, really. Help is always welcome.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Just tried to submit a story (4.00 / 1) (#62)
by mami on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:29:05 PM EST

and wanted to use the author editing option, but couldn't find it. Is it already implemented for us to use ?

Yes (none / 0) (#63)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 04:32:45 PM EST

Right under the title field in the submit form. It's a checkbox, labeled "Request editorial feedback before voting".

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Suggestion: Checked by default (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by QuickFox on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 07:10:58 PM EST

In my opinion that checkbox should be checked by default, because normally people should use this feature. Those who do not want the feature should make an active choice by unchecking the checkbox.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.



[ Parent ]
I agree (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 07:34:00 PM EST

And so, now, it is.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
oops (none / 0) (#116)
by mami on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 03:18:20 PM EST

I guess I expected to see the box with "Help etc." also in the preview mode. My fault. Sorry. Good to have it checked by default.

[ Parent ]
Not a great idea, IMHO (3.00 / 1) (#69)
by DarkZero on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 07:40:43 PM EST

I just looked at my first story that's up for editing. Unfortunately, it was an MLP that was very well written (grammatically speaking), but otherwise a total piece of crap. And now a quick, well deserved vote down has been replaced with waiting awhile and reminding myself, "I'll have to vote that down in two hours..."

What we had (no editing) wasn't great, but I don't think this is any better...

What would be better? (none / 0) (#71)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 07:50:53 PM EST

I don't think it will kill anyone to wait a little while to beat down on crappy MLPs. And hey, there's always the chance that when it gets to voting, it won't be crappy anymore. Let's see how it plays out a little before we decide either way.

Did you have an alternative you think would work better?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

I don't see the harm of ... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 08:40:37 PM EST

... a "this is a bad story idea from the outset, and no amount of editing will make it any better" voting option, while a story is in editable mode.

Not that I'm complaining. We have some ability to edit stories in the que. That is a win. Thanks rusty and gang.



[ Parent ]

Mark edited articles, allow change of votes (none / 0) (#106)
by Khendon on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 10:34:09 AM EST

How about allowing voting straight away while still allowing editing, mark the fact that they've been edited in the submission queue, and allow people to change their votes?

[ Parent ]
License Check (4.00 / 2) (#70)
by underscore on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 07:50:00 PM EST

Now, let's see some actual stories again, eh?

As a Canajen I'll assume the mantle of editor and citizen of a country that still has royalty as a head of state, and, note your use of term: "eh?". Loose use of this term requires canajen citizenship or a License pre the EULA. Should you fail to meet the terms of the License well then... All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

OK... I've already been out blading and it appears I still have way too much time on my hands.

Nice New Feature... submissions to follow


a geek possessed of animal cunning
is a most fearsome adversary

Not enough testing (3.00 / 1) (#72)
by DesiredUsername on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 08:01:19 PM EST

What happened to my story? I didn't get an email and it's not in the queue.

Play 囲碁
Timestamp (5.00 / 4) (#73)
by Khalad on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 08:03:48 PM EST

Can you add a "Last Edited" timestamp or some such thing? Right now it's hard to spot edits without re-reading the full article.

You remind me why I still, deep in my bitter crusty broken heart, love K5. —rusty


Yes, or even just a "newly edited" flag (3.00 / 1) (#74)
by FreeBarking on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 08:08:12 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Warn potential troublemakers (4.00 / 2) (#78)
by Detritus on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 08:54:30 PM EST

Perhaps a warning should be added somewhere cautioning against posting useless junk & trolls (yeah, rusty can remove them, but he's gonna get bored pretty soon). For example, take away posting prileges for a month for anyone who does such a thing.

Better yet: give trusted users a way to take off the story themselves (only let them vote on "Is this story an actual story or just spam?"). They only vote if the story is crap, otherwise they wait two hours and vote with the rest of us.


Kings and lords come and go and leave nothing but statues in a desert, while a couple of young men tinkering in a workshop change the way the world works — Havelock Vetinari
that's abuseable (4.00 / 1) (#88)
by infinitera on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 12:51:13 AM EST

Any clique of trusted users could just prevent stories from coming up to a vote.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 0) (#89)
by rusty on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 12:57:44 AM EST

I don't like that idea much either.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
maybe if it's like comments? (none / 0) (#90)
by infinitera on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 01:09:55 AM EST

Story in editing, get's hidden, can get unhidden by other trusted users, but can also expire in that state (longer time though, so more trusers can weigh in)?

[ Parent ]
soft security (none / 0) (#93)
by infinitera on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 01:22:37 AM EST

Can't help but feel I'm missing something - a community protecting itself from spam shouldn't be that hard.

[ Parent ]
It's not. (none / 0) (#96)
by vectro on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 03:22:15 AM EST

We have a system that protects itself from spam quite well. No need to change it.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
Eh (4.00 / 1) (#101)
by Woundweavr on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 09:11:08 AM EST

A group of 20 or 30 users can prevent a story from seeing the light of day is now too. If the threshold is extreme enough, and abuses of the system are monitored, it doesn't seem like it would be detrimental.

[ Parent ]
This change shouldn't apply to diaries, should it? (none / 0) (#79)
by Detritus on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 09:28:57 PM EST

There is a "Request editorial feedback before voting" option on the New Diary Entry form. There is no voting in the diaries, so the option shouldn't appear there, right?


Kings and lords come and go and leave nothing but statues in a desert, while a couple of young men tinkering in a workshop change the way the world works — Havelock Vetinari
No (none / 0) (#81)
by rusty on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 09:50:22 PM EST

You're right, it shouldn't. Thanks.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Nice (none / 0) (#85)
by jaymagee on Thu Apr 18, 2002 at 11:55:11 PM EST

good work, Rusty. had this problem earlier today. Somebody had a minor error that I really did not want to be in the real story. It was a mis type of where a researcher was from. So, I voted -1 just to delay the story a little longer, until he had time to fix it. Mistake got fixed, but I still felt bad about voting him down. Now it can be fixed in editing, without guilt, or the feeling that you need to prevent a story from being seen until it is correct.
Making a better humanity, one genetic change at a time.
Yup (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by rusty on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 12:11:07 AM EST

And I fixed that error. So I'm doubly glad of this. You all can finally fix your own stupid mistakes! ;-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Better idea for junk in queue. (3.20 / 5) (#92)
by RegisteredJustForThisComment on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 01:20:37 AM EST

Instead of having editors deleting crappy editing-status stories from the queue, which is rather Paul Dunneish, why not allow editors to simply take stories out of editing status into normal status, so they can be voted down properly?

That way, nobody can really complain about an editor deleting his story. You're going to have cries of censorship if you just start randomly deleting stories, but if you just move the hopelessly crappy stories into normal voting status where the can be voted down normally, nobody really has any business complaining. It wasn't the editor who got rid of their story, it was the voters, the editor just sped up the process. You'll get fewer accuasations of censorship that way.

When the kiddies get tired of playing with their new toy, I doubt you'll have need of a more elaborate solution than that.

That is (none / 0) (#95)
by rusty on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 03:14:51 AM EST

That's a good idea. I'm hoping it's not an issue much. I'm willing to let some things sit for two hours -- I think you'll all probably survive. But if something looks like it's purely there to be obnoxious, we could just promote it along a little quicker to voting.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Edit queue for TUs (none / 0) (#119)
by I am Jack's username on Sat Apr 20, 2002 at 06:55:57 AM EST

While this is novel and amuses the trolls:
[12:46:54] <IamJacksUsername> How about only allowing TUs to add stories to the edit queue?
[12:47:14] <harb> IamJacksUsername : That would go against what k5 is supposed to be about?
[12:47:22] <IamJacksUsername> and killing their mojo if it gets voted down emphatically
[12:48:09] <IamJacksUsername> harb, how? it's like 0 comment votes, reducing the time crap is visible
[12:49:14] <harb> IamJacksUsername : Open queue. Democratic in theory. shrug.
[12:49:52] <IamJacksUsername> Users can still post to the queue, they just can't have it stay there for 2 hours if they aren't TUs
--
Inoshiro for president!
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
Only two hours? (4.50 / 4) (#94)
by Mysidia on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 03:14:13 AM EST

When you feel you're done editing, or when the maximum editing time (currently two hours) is reached, the story goes into voting as usual, and you can no longer edit.

So the submitter has to sit there obsessive-compulsively reloading their story, waiting for someone to post editorial comments so they can fix things?

2 hours is plenty of time for people to notice and put their editorial word in, but IMO the submitter should get a chance to edit and then finally put it up for a vote at their leisure

Maybe limit it to 2-hours visible through the "moderate submissions link", and after that it goes up for a vote when the submitter clicks the 'put it up for a vote now' button

This is very cool, BTW.



-Mysidia the insane @k5+SN
editing time (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by Kellnerin on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 10:11:03 AM EST

So the submitter has to sit there obsessive-compulsively reloading their story ...?

You mean they don't already?? It does make sense, though, to hide the story from the queue after the editing window is over but not open it for voting until the author has had a chance to make any changes. Not everyone can babysit their story for two hours after submitting.

Also, it would be nice if authors would reply to editorial comments if they've changed something; that way there aren't lots of comments attached to a story talking about something that's been edited out, and thus don't make sense anymore. Or, in the more-work-for-coders, less-work-for-users category, make a button the author can check when they've made the change requested, and make the comment highlighting a different color to show that it's no longer relevant. (Actually, scratch that last idea, we could never decide on another color. Just reply to comments, people.)

--sometimes you pick your gods, sometimes the gods pick you -odin--
[ Parent ]

Good idea (none / 0) (#113)
by rusty on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 12:46:42 PM EST

It does make sense, though, to hide the story from the queue after the editing window is over but not open it for voting until the author has had a chance to make any changes.

That's a good idea. Maybe it could be an option. Automatically promote to voting, or hold for author review. I'll try to get someone on that. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Eek! Change the color! (none / 0) (#97)
by moeffju on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 05:05:21 AM EST

The current cyanish blue sucks badly, IMO.

I'd be all for the idea of having a "secondary" editing queue, however.

We tried a bunch... (none / 0) (#111)
by rusty on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 12:41:58 PM EST

We tried out a bunch of different colors, and the current blue was the best one so far.

I'm thinking about maybe making it a separate list, in which case the color wouldn't matter so much. But I'll see if Driph can come up wih a better color.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Seperate List (none / 0) (#124)
by theantix on Sun Apr 21, 2002 at 06:31:09 AM EST

I originally wanted a seperate list as well, but the code is not structured well for something like that. You would have to rewrite the ListStories module, or add a new layer of complexity to a module that is probably too complex as is.

Long term, we probably want to refactor the way that it works before adding too much new to it.

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
[ Parent ]
We Experience Time Differently Here In Yoorp... (4.66 / 3) (#98)
by the trinidad kid on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 05:14:43 AM EST

I put stories in on the night shift, nothing happens, nobody posts.

I come back in the morning (my time) and 19 stories have gone through to front page and sections. I get to vote on all the 'slow deaths'...

Your 2 hours for comments are just a blink of an eye in slow time Yoorp, aint nobody here but us chickens, aint gonna be no comments in 2 hours...


Something to consider (none / 0) (#112)
by rusty on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 12:44:25 PM EST

That is something I want feedback on. The time can change, if two hours is too short, or too long, or whatever.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Edititing time (2 hours?) (none / 0) (#120)
by RadiantMatrix on Sat Apr 20, 2002 at 05:59:23 PM EST

Two hours seems a bit short if only because the only people seeing a submission in 'edit' mode are people who share your sleep schedule. I'd like to see at least 24 hours of 'edit queue' time to give all the daily readers of K5 a chance to see a story in edit mode, and some time for the author to change it.

As much as I love K5, I don't have time to sit and reload every 10 minutes for two hours just to make a story a little better.

--
$w="q\$x";for($w){s/q/\:/;s/\$/-/;s/x/\)\n/;}print($w)
[ Parent ]

The two hour theory (none / 0) (#121)
by rusty on Sat Apr 20, 2002 at 08:46:34 PM EST

The two hours is based on the premise that chances are you'll only get original editing input from maybe 4 or 5 people. Like, one or two should suffice to catch all the typos and grammar goofs, and maybe three or four others would suggest additional information or links. I've watched, and that's how it tends to look to me. So I figured that, since there is virtually no time when there are fewer than five people actively reading stuff, it wouldn't need to have a really long time for editing.

My suggestion is, if you want a lot more editing time than two hours, you should probably be starting in a diary anyway.

Maybe one day we'll have a real "stories in progress" area. That would be a better way to handle the case of stories that need extensive work, anyway,

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

This has been suggested... (none / 0) (#122)
by RadiantMatrix on Sat Apr 20, 2002 at 09:13:20 PM EST

Maybe one day we'll have a real "stories in progress" area. That would be a better way to handle the case of stories that need extensive work, anyway,
This has been suggested before -- by me, in fact. :) Now if I only had the time amongst all my other doings to code this into scoop in a reasonable fashion, the question becomes "would you put it on K5?"

--
$w="q\$x";for($w){s/q/\:/;s/\$/-/;s/x/\)\n/;}print($w)
[ Parent ]
If it was done right :-) (none / 0) (#123)
by rusty on Sat Apr 20, 2002 at 11:45:08 PM EST

If I thought it was done right, I sure would. I think that would be a cool thing to have.

You'd need to add something to track "contributors" to an article, besides the author of record. And probably some way for people to designate "working groups", like to make an article-in-progress open to all, open to some, etc. Revision history would be nice. None of this is undoable though, certainly.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Relates to ScoopWiki proposal (none / 0) (#125)
by Eloquence on Sun Apr 21, 2002 at 03:53:54 PM EST

See here. I still want to work on this in the near future, but internationalization should be first IMHO.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]
i18n (none / 0) (#126)
by rusty on Mon Apr 22, 2002 at 02:52:16 PM EST

The innternationalization will be part of the block overhaul/themes thing. Someone is already working on block categories (i.e. making blocks work more like vars), which will eventually make it possible to pull all html and display text out of the code, and into blocks. Then adding themes on top of that, internationalization is just a theming issue.

If you were thinking about working on it, now's probably a good time. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

HTML/CSS (none / 0) (#99)
by boxed on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 06:32:41 AM EST

The HTML generated is pretty bad. You should set the colors of the cells in the moderation page through CSS. This has the huge advantage of users being able to have customized k5 pages with changed colors through a simple override in the browser. (I know I do this.)

Kewl (none / 0) (#105)
by Gord ca on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 10:31:26 AM EST

I think this is great. K5 just keeps getting better and better. Unlike another site (/.) that posts minor updates every couple years, which nobody uses...

If I'm attacking your idea, it's probably because I like it
The FAQ (none / 0) (#107)
by psr on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 10:42:15 AM EST

I don't know if its being worked on yet, but the FAQ still says

"* Once you hit that SUBMIT button, it goes into the queue and you cannot edit it in any way - so make sure it is right the first time."

Some one ought to change that.

psr
-- Feed the Noise back into the System.

A suggestion (none / 0) (#108)
by joecool12321 on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 12:22:07 PM EST

Because Rusty is next unto god, I know he spends every moment tweaking code for each individual user. But one drawback of the current editing system is if the story's superb, it doesn't need to be edited, but I can't vote on it. Plus, I'm not that great of an editor anyways. Would it be possible to have a user-define "edit mode" where we can choose to either vote or to edit? I don't know if it would work with the code, or even if it's something that's theoretically useful.

I do recognize the drawbacks of the, "Hey, that's not the story I voted for," aspect. Maybe there's nothing we can do about it.

--Joey

I think probably not (none / 0) (#110)
by rusty on Fri Apr 19, 2002 at 12:40:29 PM EST

f the story's superb, and nothing needs to be done at all, post an editorial comment saying so. If you can convince the author it's done, you get to vote sooner. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
A proposal for some community control (4.00 / 1) (#127)
by rusty on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 06:31:00 PM EST

[Re-posted from a doomed story in the queue about this issue]

While I don't particularly like this story, I can see that we need something to reassert some level of community control. Personally, I'm not convinced of the practical utility of it, but the social utility is pretty clear.

So, my thinking is this:

  • Edit stories will have one voting option: "Spam -- Dump it", which will be clearly labeled as being ONLY for stories you think are submitted just to be annoying. I.e. things that are totally unfixable.
  • There will be a "quorum" number of viewers of a story. On K5, it might be, say, 300 individuals.
  • When the quorum count is reached (300 unique people have loaded a story), the system will start checking "Dump it" votes. There will be a threshold, probably something like two-thirds.
  • So, if 300 people have looked at a story, and 200 have marked it spam, it will be removed. This continues as long as editing continues, each "Spam" vote will trigger a re-assessment of the threshold.
  • If the threshold is never reached, a story proceeds to voting as normal, and all votes are wiped clean. Normal voting ensues.
The idea is that there be some means to clear out spam, but that it require a lot of input, and a very high level of agreement.

Additionally, with this mechanism, we could raise the maximum editing time quite a bit, because th time limit would no longer be necessary for spam-control.

____
Not the real rusty

great idea (none / 0) (#128)
by nodsmasher on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 06:56:24 PM EST

also 2 ideas
1. name it un salvigavle (spelled write) insted of spam, thus if you see a story as going no where even if its edited, you can save your self from having to deal wiht it
2. you could get rid of the limet to 1 story in the edid per person (though this might still be good to prevent general congestion)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
Un salvigavle (none / 0) (#131)
by rusty on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 07:45:07 PM EST

Unsalvageable? Like that spelling? ;-)

Maybe. Something like that anyway.

I don't think removing the one-per-person limit is a good idea. Partly that was to cut down on abuse, but mostly it was to encourage people to pay attention and finish something before they move on to something else. You can have as many stories in voting as you want. It only applies to editing, and I think sends the right message, regardless of voting or not.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

why not (none / 0) (#132)
by nodsmasher on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 07:55:38 PM EST

extend the one per person limet to story's in the queue?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
Reposts (none / 0) (#133)
by wiredog on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:34:42 AM EST

If a story gets through edit and goes to voting, and then something horridly wrong turns up in it, the author can fix what's wrong and re-post. He then puts a comment in the original story saying "reposted, dump this one". So the author needs to have the ability to have two stories in the queue.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
separation (none / 0) (#129)
by chipr on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 07:05:06 PM EST

There was a proposal elsewhere to run edits through a separate queue. Although I'm not sure it's necessary to go this far, it would be nice if the voting articles and editing articles were displayed in separate groups.

[ Parent ]
Work/reward issues (none / 0) (#130)
by rusty on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 07:42:39 PM EST

I'm told that would be a lot more work than it ought to be (or seems like it would be). I can see the argument for doing it that way, but on the other hand, I think there are also more important things, so it does matter how difficult it is to do.

If I get a chance, I'll try to see how tough that would be to do.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Author Editing in the Queue | 133 comments (133 topical, 0 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!