New article patrol
-
I've seen a few threads as of late complaining about the quality of newer articles. I'll agree that, by numbers alone, there are a lot more stinkers around than there used to be. I think that this means it is time to get rid of the '10 latest articles' section and replace it with a '10 latest good articles' section. The signal-to-noise ratio has gotten such that this is simply a necessity. This will require that a new group of CP volunteers will have to be created for the sole purpose of reviewing articles and deciding which ones get front page billing. We already have volunteer editors and site maintainers, and I am confident that some of the high calibre, well-known CP members can do an excellent job with this. When an article was positioned for possible review (ie it is added or updated significantly), the reveiwing team would look it over, rate it internally, and decide whether or not to give it front billing. In addition, the reviewers would comment on why something was good or bad, which would make the ratings actually useful. I like this system much more than the current '10 latest articles' system because some filtering is performed, and I like it better than the 'Top 3 rated articles' because it will be more than 3 articles, and the ratings will come from a panel of known and well respected CP members (instead of random anonymouse twerps). What are your thoughts? -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
-
I've seen a few threads as of late complaining about the quality of newer articles. I'll agree that, by numbers alone, there are a lot more stinkers around than there used to be. I think that this means it is time to get rid of the '10 latest articles' section and replace it with a '10 latest good articles' section. The signal-to-noise ratio has gotten such that this is simply a necessity. This will require that a new group of CP volunteers will have to be created for the sole purpose of reviewing articles and deciding which ones get front page billing. We already have volunteer editors and site maintainers, and I am confident that some of the high calibre, well-known CP members can do an excellent job with this. When an article was positioned for possible review (ie it is added or updated significantly), the reveiwing team would look it over, rate it internally, and decide whether or not to give it front billing. In addition, the reviewers would comment on why something was good or bad, which would make the ratings actually useful. I like this system much more than the current '10 latest articles' system because some filtering is performed, and I like it better than the 'Top 3 rated articles' because it will be more than 3 articles, and the ratings will come from a panel of known and well respected CP members (instead of random anonymouse twerps). What are your thoughts? -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
Russell Morris wrote: What are your thoughts? I think a more distributed (i.e. not hand picked reviewers) system needs implementing. CP has this amazingly unique system which allows anyone to post any article and have it viewable to 100,000 members, and millions of others. The editors already "filter" in a way by editing and promoting to categorised status only those articles they deem worthy. That works fine and does not go against CP's open system because it is not rating, it is editing. Sure it is a tacit nod of approval, but still not a direct rating. But to appoint a "rating and review board" seems to me so against the whole power of 100,000 members and millions of visitors. We need to harness them more effectively. Out of 100,000 you will get trends and worthy articles will rise through good ratings. I agree though that the Latest 10 list needs to be suplemented with a longer Latest Top 10 list. We must not remove the Latest 10 though because for ratings to work you need people to read and rate the articles. i.e. be informed that there is a new article. It is a tough one to crack. No other site has managed it. Though /. and K5 have reasonably well working systems IMO, not perfect, but good enough to work from.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
I've seen a few threads as of late complaining about the quality of newer articles. I'll agree that, by numbers alone, there are a lot more stinkers around than there used to be. I think that this means it is time to get rid of the '10 latest articles' section and replace it with a '10 latest good articles' section. The signal-to-noise ratio has gotten such that this is simply a necessity. This will require that a new group of CP volunteers will have to be created for the sole purpose of reviewing articles and deciding which ones get front page billing. We already have volunteer editors and site maintainers, and I am confident that some of the high calibre, well-known CP members can do an excellent job with this. When an article was positioned for possible review (ie it is added or updated significantly), the reveiwing team would look it over, rate it internally, and decide whether or not to give it front billing. In addition, the reviewers would comment on why something was good or bad, which would make the ratings actually useful. I like this system much more than the current '10 latest articles' system because some filtering is performed, and I like it better than the 'Top 3 rated articles' because it will be more than 3 articles, and the ratings will come from a panel of known and well respected CP members (instead of random anonymouse twerps). What are your thoughts? -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
I like this idea. Instead of replacing the top 10 latest with the top 10 greatest, we need to see both. I don't think we need a panel of experts to rate the articles though. Just let CP's rating system work.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
I've seen a few threads as of late complaining about the quality of newer articles. I'll agree that, by numbers alone, there are a lot more stinkers around than there used to be. I think that this means it is time to get rid of the '10 latest articles' section and replace it with a '10 latest good articles' section. The signal-to-noise ratio has gotten such that this is simply a necessity. This will require that a new group of CP volunteers will have to be created for the sole purpose of reviewing articles and deciding which ones get front page billing. We already have volunteer editors and site maintainers, and I am confident that some of the high calibre, well-known CP members can do an excellent job with this. When an article was positioned for possible review (ie it is added or updated significantly), the reveiwing team would look it over, rate it internally, and decide whether or not to give it front billing. In addition, the reviewers would comment on why something was good or bad, which would make the ratings actually useful. I like this system much more than the current '10 latest articles' system because some filtering is performed, and I like it better than the 'Top 3 rated articles' because it will be more than 3 articles, and the ratings will come from a panel of known and well respected CP members (instead of random anonymouse twerps). What are your thoughts? -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
Yes, I think something like this is order. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.