SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This is a topic that comes up all too often in comments, lambasting editors or praising them.
As it stands, editorial is a black box, they accept submissions, fettle them, then they appear as stories. Recently, the Original Submission link appeared on stories so you can see what went in and what appeared out of that black box, yet still the complaints come.
Just how much transparency is necessary? (This is an open question not rhetorical)
I like to believe that SoylentNews is the people that form it as a community, and the editing should reflect that.
Should we adopt some version control for subs so everyone can see who edited what through the pipeline that goes from sub to front page?
Thoughts on a postcard please.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
META: Editorial Transparency - What do you want?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 93 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Language is a virus from another planet.
-- William Burroughs
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Friday May 29 2015, @05:03AM
The number of problematic editing actions seems pretty small to me. Aside from one recent story, this whole thing seems blown out of proportion. This is our second or third meta thread about that story and the editing process for heaven's sake! Even the originating problem was addressed in the same story thread, and I think that's where it should have stayed. How many accepted submissions are drawing complaints from the submitters?
Adding the line break and text with a link seems to draw excessive attention to this minor issue. The User [soylentnews.org] writes [soylentnews.org] format would tuck away the editing process instead of drawing attention to it, which in its current form seems excessive and distracting. After all, newspaper sites don't have a "read the unedited submission" link on the bottom of each article, nor do magazines or anything else I can think of short of Wikipedia. If you're editing the submissions to add the current format, it doesn't cost anything to make this change. I'm not even sure any change from the longstanding format was needed in the first place.
That being said, it's great that the benevolent dictator and staff here are open to feedback. Thank you to all the volunteers for their work on this enterprise.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by khchung on Friday May 29 2015, @05:15AM
Agreed this is blown out of proportion. The way it used to be is fine. There will always be people who don't like how his submission got edited, but it is the editors' job to edit, and I absolutely thank the editors for doing their job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:17AM
Actually, I'm rather happy with the new format. There were more problems than the one: see for example https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/05/11/1456240 [soylentnews.org], where an editor posted a blatantly false and inflammatory statement about Google. The editors had grown pretty snarky around that time, but the new editorial control has helped immensely, and the new format isn't that intrusive.
The editing here has gotten better than Slashdot's, and quickly, not that it's a high bar to reach. The comments, of course, are another matter...
(Score: 4, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Friday May 29 2015, @05:29AM
The editor in your example fixed the story and commented to that effect barely a half hour after it was posted. The whole story got all of three on-topic posts. So again, how big is this micro problem?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ticho on Friday May 29 2015, @06:50AM
Fully agree here. Please, let's not let few loudmouth conspiracy theorists ruin regulate this site into oblivion!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:27AM
GungnirSniper has it spot on and I agree totally. It is a good sign that the SN crew are taking criticism seriously, but you have to remember that this is the internet, where criticism is infinite, and get on with your business.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday May 29 2015, @07:14AM
Adding the line break and text with a link seems to draw excessive attention to this minor issue.
Exactly. We've tied our selves in knots for one malcontent. Lets go back to the way it was and trust our editors.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday May 29 2015, @01:31PM
While I agree about the editing being decent enough, I applaud the staff for actually listening and opening a dialogue. It shows they really are listening to the community.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Friday May 29 2015, @08:21PM
Agreed. My guess is the Eds are reacting to one or two very whiny people.
These are the people who will never, ever be satisfied. Nothing that the Eds can do will be enough.
Hell, even if you let these people post anything they like, with no editing, at any time, they would still complain.
So Editors, take your cues from the 99% of people who are happy with what you're doing. The less than 1% that complain endlessly will just consume your time and energy without contributing anything of value.
And, to the one or two people complaining: slashcode [github.com] is Open Source - go start your own web site. If you do it right it can be very successful.
DM me if you need me to point you at an example.
(Score: 2) by juggs on Sunday May 31 2015, @02:36AM
It is all too easy to allow focus to be drawn by the noisy 1%, that was my mistake right here. It's also easy to forget that if the other 99% aren't jumping up and down screaming, thinks are most likely A-OK.
Still, it is good to see some affirmation for the Editors that put time in every day to keep the front page populated.