SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Myself and other submitters have noticed that articles are being edited to change the tone and intent of our stories.
Soylentil McD has suggested that "Minor edits, spelling corrections, and such, are no problem and to be expected." but "I think soylent editors should adhere to a policy of not putting words in the submitter's mouth".
I agree with that. If the editors want to add their own two cents, they can respond inline like the rest of us. Their role here is to be responsible, not privileged.
The stories we submit are a reflection of our enthusiasms and beliefs, the tone and character of those posts is as much part of the submitter's story as the actual content. The community is what makes sites like SN and Slashdot before it, an eclectic community with a wide range of opinions, styles and passions will always be more active and interesting than a bland monoculture. SN's editors should embrace and encourage that diversity, not sabotage it to appease some corporate interests.
So what do other Soylentils think? Should the submissions be allowed to stand as a clear reflection of the community's intent, or should the editors change our submissions to suit their perception of suitability?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 25 2015, @01:05PM
More work than the checkbox/email thing
Actually, it would be easier from the editor's point of view as the email was a separate program. Using a web page makes the transfer of links and listing submitter names much easier.
We would much prefer to be able to give feedback, no matter how it is implemented, although it is a bit more work for us. Some submitters are deterred from submitting again after having a rejection. Being able to explain what the problem is, which might be nothing to do with the quality or content of the actual submission, helps encourage the community to submit. Regardless of the reason for rejection, any feedback helps build the relationship between submitters and editors which, as you have pointed out, is a welcome thing.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday May 25 2015, @01:20PM
Actually, it would be easier from the editor's point of view as the email was a separate program. Using a web page makes the transfer of links and listing submitter names much easier.
I meant that it would (probably) be more work to implement than a checkbox that adds a note that the submitter is willing to be contacted. If not, though, that's even better.
As for editor effort, I think it's likely obvious to anyone that it's more work to reject-with-reason than just reject quietly, though it seems like it would be less taxing overall than trying to rewrite interesting submissions because they need massive overhauls to become useful. Editing is hard enough without trying to replace huge chunks of the writing while doing it.
Being able to explain what the problem is, which might be nothing to do with the quality or content of the actual submission, helps encourage the community to submit. Regardless of the reason for rejection, any feedback helps build the relationship between submitters and editors which, as you have pointed out, is a welcome thing.
However it's done, I think it will be an overall positive for all, so I look forward to seeing what gets implemented. Every improvement to the submission process helps, no matter how minor. For example, when I sent my first submission, there was no indication of acceptance vs rejection, so when it disappeared, I thought it got rejected only to see it show up a few days later on the site. Since then, I've noticed a nice little pending story list that includes upcoming display times and all, and it helped a lot. Anything that makes the submission process more user-friendly helps encourage more submissions, and that's awesome.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Monday May 25 2015, @04:02PM
You could just include an email form on the web page that only editors could see and it could be in the same place where you approve the submission or deny the submission. SendMail is a hellovadrug...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 25 2015, @04:17PM
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Monday May 25 2015, @04:47PM
I kind of figured that but the statement was that email was a separate program and it doesn't have to be as there are a variety of elegant solutions available IF you opt to go that route. The idea of a check box asking for permission to respond via email (checked as default) is not an entirely bad idea and one needn't use an email client to send messages as it can be included on the page where the submission is checked or authorized for publication. That was my small suggestion though I probably could have worded it better.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 25 2015, @08:17PM
Sorry, I obviously misunderstood your earlier post.
However, if people are going to complain about us using the very email that they put on their submission then I fear that any effort down this route could turn out to be wasted. I like the idea of feedback being provided if wanted, but not being forced upon submitters who do not. Using either our own messaging system or a simple feedback web page could achieve this, and the latter appears to be the simpler of the two (based on nothing more than a gut feeling!). It would also enable us to provide feedback to ACs - they should at least recognise their own submission titles even if we edit them, and who remain unidentified and thus unable to receive emails.
There may yet be more (and better) suggestions on how we might provide feedback so thanks for your input - all comments help us to identify the possible options so that we can make the best choice.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Monday May 25 2015, @08:40PM
The messaging system should work though I haven't read the /. code base in a LONG time. I played with it some time around five years ago - maybe as far back as ten? Anyhow, one additional thought (if you go with the messaging system), would be to include a prominent note on the main page that shows they have feedback in their message queue and to not simply show it in the new messages section. My thinking is a note that is in a bright color at the top of the page - perhaps floating as they scroll - a note and a link stating that their submission has feedback. I am envisioning something akin to the fairly new notices you see on sites that say they are using cookies and asking if you opt to select them. Many of those are at the top of the page with a yellow background and a link to accept or deny the cookies.
Either way, I agree, the messaging system is probably the best way to go about this as email is not really the best solution with the modern web.
To wit: If you check out the eye tracking of people viewing web sites the average person would potentially miss/not notice a new message notice on the right hand side in a timely manner. Placing the message prominently at the top would alleviate this problem and would be immediately picked up. For more on eye tracking and website usability see Jakob Nielsen. The best place, that I know of, to find his reports is here: http://www.nngroup.com/topic/eyetracking/ [nngroup.com] It is worth bookmarking the site. *nods*
Disclosure: I have no financial or personal interest in the linked site but have found it useful enough to share in instances such as this. The study of human behavior goes a long ways towards making a usable site and some functions are more important than others such as this topic - in my humble opinion.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:50AM