On article approval [modified]
-
some comments made in the lounge that should be here instead[^]. It is very frustrating to see an article appear in the "new articles" list only hours or even minutes after you have commented at length in a post with a vote, AND reported the article as substandard. It appears that a single gold member can "release" an article to the "new, unedited" state even if others have reported the article and it has several down-votes and comments about low quality (I try to make suggestions for improvement, but sometimes am so appalled that I can't find much positive to suggest). Since the act of approving the article seems to scrub all previous posts and votes, this leaves me with the feeling that I have just massively wasted my time. Some suggestions that would make reviewing seem a more worthwhile activity: 1. If the article is already reported, remove the "make this available button". 2. failing the above, require the "approver" to justify releasing the article. 3. Retain the existing posts and article score until the article has been screened by staff / editors. Don't reset on approval, don't reset on update. 4. instead of marking the "new" article just "unedited", mark it "pending editorial approval" so that we can at least know that a piece of garbage may yet be mortal.
modified on Monday, February 2, 2009 3:47 PM
-
some comments made in the lounge that should be here instead[^]. It is very frustrating to see an article appear in the "new articles" list only hours or even minutes after you have commented at length in a post with a vote, AND reported the article as substandard. It appears that a single gold member can "release" an article to the "new, unedited" state even if others have reported the article and it has several down-votes and comments about low quality (I try to make suggestions for improvement, but sometimes am so appalled that I can't find much positive to suggest). Since the act of approving the article seems to scrub all previous posts and votes, this leaves me with the feeling that I have just massively wasted my time. Some suggestions that would make reviewing seem a more worthwhile activity: 1. If the article is already reported, remove the "make this available button". 2. failing the above, require the "approver" to justify releasing the article. 3. Retain the existing posts and article score until the article has been screened by staff / editors. Don't reset on approval, don't reset on update. 4. instead of marking the "new" article just "unedited", mark it "pending editorial approval" so that we can at least know that a piece of garbage may yet be mortal.
modified on Monday, February 2, 2009 3:47 PM
I more or less agree with everything you said but as a quicker-fix how about simply noting next to the "make available" button that the article has been reported as needing work, or some other non-pejorative phrase (in case the report is the problem, not the article, no-one feelings have been hurt)?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
I more or less agree with everything you said but as a quicker-fix how about simply noting next to the "make available" button that the article has been reported as needing work, or some other non-pejorative phrase (in case the report is the problem, not the article, no-one feelings have been hurt)?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Given that thew "makers available" of some of the junk seem not to care that the article has negative comments and suggestions for improvement, I don't see how that would help. Needs a "neutral observer" (or better yet, concerned staff) to decide if the report or the article is the issue. Since the reports are visible only to submitter and staff, It would be interesting to know if frivolous or unfair reports are an issue.
-
some comments made in the lounge that should be here instead[^]. It is very frustrating to see an article appear in the "new articles" list only hours or even minutes after you have commented at length in a post with a vote, AND reported the article as substandard. It appears that a single gold member can "release" an article to the "new, unedited" state even if others have reported the article and it has several down-votes and comments about low quality (I try to make suggestions for improvement, but sometimes am so appalled that I can't find much positive to suggest). Since the act of approving the article seems to scrub all previous posts and votes, this leaves me with the feeling that I have just massively wasted my time. Some suggestions that would make reviewing seem a more worthwhile activity: 1. If the article is already reported, remove the "make this available button". 2. failing the above, require the "approver" to justify releasing the article. 3. Retain the existing posts and article score until the article has been screened by staff / editors. Don't reset on approval, don't reset on update. 4. instead of marking the "new" article just "unedited", mark it "pending editorial approval" so that we can at least know that a piece of garbage may yet be mortal.
modified on Monday, February 2, 2009 3:47 PM
I have another suggestion: The required number approvals should be somehow based on the number of votes from gold* members, but at least a # of minimum approvals. Here are some examples: Approvals required and no votes from any gold members so far: 3 Approvals required and two negative** votes from gold members so far: 5 Approvals required and four negative votes from gold members so far: 7 Approvals required and >= 2 positive*** votes from gold members so far: 1 * = gold member or higher (platinum, ...) ** negative = 1 or 2 vote *** positive = 3+ vote Sounds a bit complicated, but I think this system is quite okay, but might still need some tweaking. regards
-
some comments made in the lounge that should be here instead[^]. It is very frustrating to see an article appear in the "new articles" list only hours or even minutes after you have commented at length in a post with a vote, AND reported the article as substandard. It appears that a single gold member can "release" an article to the "new, unedited" state even if others have reported the article and it has several down-votes and comments about low quality (I try to make suggestions for improvement, but sometimes am so appalled that I can't find much positive to suggest). Since the act of approving the article seems to scrub all previous posts and votes, this leaves me with the feeling that I have just massively wasted my time. Some suggestions that would make reviewing seem a more worthwhile activity: 1. If the article is already reported, remove the "make this available button". 2. failing the above, require the "approver" to justify releasing the article. 3. Retain the existing posts and article score until the article has been screened by staff / editors. Don't reset on approval, don't reset on update. 4. instead of marking the "new" article just "unedited", mark it "pending editorial approval" so that we can at least know that a piece of garbage may yet be mortal.
modified on Monday, February 2, 2009 3:47 PM
Rob Graham wrote:
1. If the article is already reported, remove the "make this available button".
I agree, although I am a little concerned about possible abuse.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
-
some comments made in the lounge that should be here instead[^]. It is very frustrating to see an article appear in the "new articles" list only hours or even minutes after you have commented at length in a post with a vote, AND reported the article as substandard. It appears that a single gold member can "release" an article to the "new, unedited" state even if others have reported the article and it has several down-votes and comments about low quality (I try to make suggestions for improvement, but sometimes am so appalled that I can't find much positive to suggest). Since the act of approving the article seems to scrub all previous posts and votes, this leaves me with the feeling that I have just massively wasted my time. Some suggestions that would make reviewing seem a more worthwhile activity: 1. If the article is already reported, remove the "make this available button". 2. failing the above, require the "approver" to justify releasing the article. 3. Retain the existing posts and article score until the article has been screened by staff / editors. Don't reset on approval, don't reset on update. 4. instead of marking the "new" article just "unedited", mark it "pending editorial approval" so that we can at least know that a piece of garbage may yet be mortal.
modified on Monday, February 2, 2009 3:47 PM
This has progressed in the queue. Just wanted you to know we're listening.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP