SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We're pretty used to fluctuations in the number of editorial staff available at any one specific time. There have been several periods since our inception when 2 editors had to keep the site going for extended periods of time. LaminatorX even coined a term for it - 'ironman editing'. It is in exactly that situation that we now find ourselves again. Combining one's personal and professional life with the task of being an active editor without a break is hard work and not without its costs.
The last time that I was this involved was during the second half of last year. In the end, I had to take a 2 month break which necessitated medical treatment and prolonged rest. I am beginning to feel the same as I did then, and I cannot keep going at this rate. So I have a plea - all those who are authorised Soylent editors, please consider if you can make a small but sustained effort to help keep this site active 24/7. I know that you all have demands on your time but if you find yourself able to process a couple of stories a day, particularly at weekends, then it would go a long, long way to helping us overcome this current manning problem.
Over the last 2 weekends, the effort of being an editor has been severely tested by a very small number of our community swamping several worthwhile stories with, in my opinion, childish behaviour. I have decided that I am not able to continue to work 7 days a week at this level of intensity. If we cannot muster enough editors to keep the site active 7 days a week then I will stop editing at the start of my weekend and return the following Monday morning. I, too, need to rest and spend time with my family.
There are some others who do contribute to the editorial task - and to them the current active editors are extremely grateful - but they have their own roles to play in the team and it is not fair that they should have to shoulder the extra burden. I hope that someone out there will be able to make the not insignificant effort that is now needed.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by drgibbon on Thursday March 12 2015, @09:13PM
Perhaps just slow down? I don't have too much of a problem with SN being a slow-paced site. I think it already attracts some interesting comments, so maybe just take it a bit easier. Bring on some more eds if that's necessary, I'm sure there's people willing to help out.
Certified Soylent Fresh!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Thursday March 12 2015, @09:39PM
Even more: If the site moves a bit slower, maybe it helps to slow down some of the discussions as well and to keep interesting topic in view a bit longer. I sometimes have the feeling the discussions are superficial because people are too much in a hurry to move to the next topic already.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SrLnclt on Thursday March 12 2015, @10:31PM
I actually like the speed of articles right now. IMHO only having 4-6 articles in a 12 hour period compared to 8-12 of them might actually decrease user involvement. Not every article is going to be of interest to everyone. I may find some privacy vs. security articles interesting, while the reoccurring debate about systemd doesn't do much for me. You might be sick of the former and passionate about the latter. If a user is only interested in a couple articles per day, that person may be less likely to comment, and more likely to spend their time on other site(s).
As others have stated previously, if this is a problem with the quantity of active editors then maybe we need to ask the community for a few more editors. SoylentNews is people after all.
(Score: 3, Informative) by LaminatorX on Friday March 13 2015, @01:22AM
As a general rule, we vary post speed in response to submission volume. If we've got a ton of stories, we'll have them go live every 90 minutes or so. If we're low, it may stretch out to every three hours. It varies a bit as well by time of day, but that's the basic idea. We like to give each story time to shine, but also give people a reason to keep coming back.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 13 2015, @03:57PM
Perhaps just slow down?
This. Just set a specific period of time. Be clear what the hours of operation are. DO NOT DEVIATE. Maybe new stories only go up every 4/8 hours? Maybe set aside a story discussion area other than 'the queue'. Or even if you have already edited a story set a timer for it to go up so it looks like more work is going on. Maybe 'goes up in 5 hours' or something. That way you do not have to babysit the queue... Automate the boring tedious work.
Many startups fall into the trap of 'if I dont do this it will not get done'. Yes it will. Just not right now. You will burn yourself out then drop it eventually because there will be some awful comment that makes you snap. You will end up burning the candle on both ends and feel like you are letting everyone down. It is because you are not setting expectations up front. Automate as much as you can. Computers are very good at that.
Most 'breaking' stories can wait. There are plenty of websites out there to cover this sort of thing. This is not the only place we come for news. It is OK to kill a story because it has been sitting too long or is just bad quality. It is OK for the queue to 'go empty'. Just throw up a story that it is empty and it will fill up fast enough...
Basically work smarter not harder. Pretty much this is a leisure site. Almost everything can wait. You do not need 6 nines of uptime. 98% of the time is fine. Make it clear to everyone this is YOUR spare time and is taking away from other projects you may like to work on. It is one of the reasons I have not volunteered. As I have about 10 other projects I am working on. One of them includes playing the latest in the cities series on steam. I have portioned out my time to what I feel I like. Because it is *my* free time. Take re-ownership of your life. It is already yours. You have let other things control it.