Kindly asking for a new report page for the Member Pages

[Cyprus]

Seems like a no brainer to me.
Announcement about 'is this a question-post in a forum' could come up with the 'this article will be published after review' notice.
The sorting team could do these first thing instead of adding more content to be sorted later.

I'm not sure that would be good for the forum, overall.

I sense it could decrease user rentention rates if users experience too many roadblocks with publishing their content.

 

[Nifty-Chicken]

Though I think the response should be in the article comments, not a personal message.

The issue is that they may not ever see it there, but they would get more notifications / alerts if it's via PM.

So, you would make a page with sections (chosen when the sub categories are defined)
Would it be possible to drag and drop a url into the one of the sub categories.
What would be helpful is the deletion (hide from view) of the article in old section when the url gets entered into the correct sub category.
If so we could work our way through and at least have a data base of sorts with the articles in the appropriate sub heading. I think there are a few of us willing to put some work into this.

Lots of great questions, but while I'm not 100% sure on how we'll do it, we'll make sure it's in an orderly way so there isn't duplication of effort, etc.

Seems like a no brainer to me.
Announcement about 'is this a question-post in a forum' could come up with the 'this article will be published after review' notice.
The sorting team could do these first thing instead of adding more content to be sorted later.

Once we clean things up, I'd be open to this... but ONLY if we have super active peeps monitoring things in a way that the authors are getting a turn-around within 24 hours or less. IMO, it's usually easier (and better) to remove the stuff that isn't a good fit thank approve the stuff that is. We tried this once with forum posting and it was a disaster Fortunately, this is a different animal, so it might work out better.

I'm not sure that would be good for the forum, overall.

I sense it could decrease user rentention rates if users experience too many roadblocks with publishing their content.

Yeah, that's the problem we run into. Lots of things require balance and then trying to figure out unforseen unintended consequences.

Thanks for all the great discussion, hopefully we'll get things going soon!

 

[aart]

I'm not sure that would be good for the forum, overall.

I sense it could decrease user rentention rates if users experience too many roadblocks with publishing their content.

....or removing the instant gratification may help people think before they type and hit send. Articles should be held to a higher standard than threads or posts, IMO.

 

[casportpony]

The issue is that they may not ever see it there, but they would get more notifications / alerts if it's via PM.

Okay, then. Then how about posting on the article first with the standard "this is the article section" stuff and an "I'm send you a conversation too" message, then send them a message. That way other members will see it and the author will not get bombarded.

 

[Shadrach]

Okay, then. Then how about posting on the article first with the standard "this is the article section" stuff and an "I'm send you a conversation too" message, then send them a message. That way other members will see it and the author will not get bombarded.

That's a good idea.

 

[Cyprus]

Okay, then. Then how about posting on the article first with the standard "this is the article section" stuff and an "I'm send you a conversation too" message, then send them a message. That way other members will see it and the author will not get bombarded.

That's a really great idea, Kathy.

 

[Nifty-Chicken]

Okay, then. Then how about posting on the article first with the standard "this is the article section" stuff and an "I'm send you a conversation too" message, then send them a message. That way other members will see it and the author will not get bombarded.

That would be a good way to keep track of things!

It would also give us a date that we know the member was contacted and we can then determine "ok, it's been long enough, we can just delete the article"

 

[Shadrach]

I would like to suggest a couple of other changes while someone is at it.
Currently one can review an article, rate an article, like an article and comment on an article. There are various combinations.
It would make the ranking of article much simpler and more relevant if there was just say review and maybe a like option.
I know that many of the articles get rated without even being read. If the article is not worth reviewing then it's not worth rating either.
I agree with aart that an extra bonus should be given for those that can be bothered to review. It may also help stop some of the spite ratings I've seen people do.
It would also seem to make more sense to do away with ranking by views. A really appalling article gets ranked purely because it's been there a long time and has nothing to do with the quality of the article.
It would also make sense to have a single default view. For example, when one opens the article page the default view is by views. Click on Members Pages and the default view is by Rating. Click on Learning Center and the default view is by views again.

 

[Nifty-Chicken]

It would make the ranking of article much simpler and more relevant if there was just say review and maybe a like option.

We'll look into this.

I agree with aart that an extra bonus should be given for those that can be bothered to review. It may also help stop some of the spite ratings I've seen people do.

What are some more examples of "bonuses"?
If you see "spite" ratings, report them. This is in violation of our rules.

It would also seem to make more sense to do away with ranking by views. A really appalling article gets ranked purely because it's been there a long time and has nothing to do with the quality of the article.

We'd LOVE to completely transition over to rank by ratings, but in some sections we don't have enough ratings yet to transfer over.

It would also make sense to have a single default view. For example, when one opens the article page the default view is by views. Click on Members Pages and the default view is by Rating. Click on Learning Center and the default view is by views again.

Yes, we'd like to do this too. Once we have enough reviews in each section, we'll be inclined to do this.

 

[aart]

If you see "spite" ratings, report them.

What are 'spite' ratings?
Examples?