Feedback Learning Center Cleanup?

[perchie.girl]

Ok, regarding the quality of the articles in the Learning Center, I think we need to focus our efforts on:

1. Making sure the articles in the LC are ones we feel confident should be in there (how we verify quality is going to be a challenge).
   
2. Once we determine which ones don't meet our requirements, we move all others back into Member Pages.
   
3. For the articles that are up-to-quality, we make sure the formatting (text, images, etc.) is all clean, that there's a good cover photo, and well-written snippet.

... so, how do we do all that?

(anxiously waiting some really amazingly fantastic ideas)

You need an editorial staff.... unfortunately.. people well versed on the subject who can keep an open mind.... not an easy task to do.... Picking the editors...

deb

 

[casportpony]

I think together we can all make the learning center top notch!

 

[Pyxis]

Ok, regarding the quality of the articles in the Learning Center, I think we need to focus our efforts on:

1. Making sure the articles in the LC are ones we feel confident should be in there (how we verify quality is going to be a challenge).
   
2. Once we determine which ones don't meet our requirements, we move all others back into Member Pages.
   
3. For the articles that are up-to-quality, we make sure the formatting (text, images, etc.) is all clean, that there's a good cover photo, and well-written snippet.

... so, how do we do all that?

(anxiously waiting some really amazingly fantastic ideas)

Perhaps articles could be read and judged on several categories? Correct info being the most important one - if an article has bad or incorrect info it should definitely be removed. But other things should be judged too, like readability - if the info is good but it's a nightmare to try to read or is really confusing, the info doesn't flow well, it's structured poorly, etc, then maybe it shouldn't be in there. Spelling and grammar should probably also play a role, because it just doesn't look professional or read well when an article is riddled with mistakes.

I don't think build articles like incubators and brooders necessarily need to be judged, because those are just instructions for how to make things, and they can't really have 'wrong' info, and if they're hard to read, people will just disregard them and choose another build guide to follow, so that may cut down on the workload.

I think getting a group to look through them is a good idea. Of course, each article could take awhile to fact check, especially if someone knowledgeable in the subject at hand wasn't in the review group. But everyone could certainly comment on the readability aspect easily enough.

 

[venymae]

Oh I do hope this happens!!! I agree there are a lot of crazily formatted half written articles. I too have been frustrated.

(I actually wrote my own article once because I couldn't take how disorganized the info was that I needed in an article of the same/similar topic)

 

[casportpony]

Can we add a "Chicken Behaviors and Egglaying" category?

 

[Kusanar]

I don't think build articles like incubators and brooders necessarily need to be judged, because those are just instructions for how to make things, and they can't really have 'wrong' info, and if they're hard to read, people will just disregard them and choose another build guide to follow, so that may cut down on the workload.

Actually, there is a lot of electricity involved with incubators and brooders, might want to check and make sure the advice won't burn someone's house down... other than that I agree.

 

[WVduckchick]

Maybe do a general poll of which specific areas folks think need the most improvement, reorganization, etc, to get a focus on where to start??
Then do individual threads for suggestions for each area. That way, those most knowledgeable members in that subject could weigh in.

 

[The Farmers' Daughter]

Perhaps articles could be read and judged on several categories? Correct info being the most important one - if an article has bad or incorrect info it should definitely be removed. But other things should be judged too, like readability - if the info is good but it's a nightmare to try to read or is really confusing, the info doesn't flow well, it's structured poorly, etc, then maybe it shouldn't be in there. Spelling and grammar should probably also play a role, because it just doesn't look professional or read well when an article is riddled with mistakes.

I don't think build articles like incubators and brooders necessarily need to be judged, because those are just instructions for how to make things, and they can't really have 'wrong' info, and if they're hard to read, people will just disregard them and choose another build guide to follow, so that may cut down on the workload.

I think getting a group to look through them is a good idea. Of course, each article could take awhile to fact check, especially if someone knowledgeable in the subject at hand wasn't in the review group. But everyone could certainly comment on the readability aspect easily enough.

Brilliant.
I can't tell you how many times I have stopped reading an article and moved on because it was too difficult to follow.

 

[Kiki]

Brilliant.
I can't tell you how many times I have stopped reading an article and moved on because it was too difficult to follow.

I really agree here..it's hard to read some when they are not "neat" looking.

 

[The Farmers' Daughter]

There are currently 476 articles in the LC.
Everyone could spend a few minutes reading through all of them and make notes on a google sheet?

Assign a section for a group of 5 or so to read through and discuss?

Not a bad idea.