Between the points made in this thread and the SO's response in this one:
I am really starting to think the new system of submitting news is just not working. I know it was done to lessen some of the burden from the Mods and
give members more input to the system, but there seems to be a serious lack of understanding and perception between the members and the administration
(or some of them).
After reading SO's list of stories he found possibly more suitable in regular threads, then going directly to ATSNN News tab to find at least 2 of
them listed under hot topics, I then went to the submit news tab and read the three buttons there to find more clarification. What I found was more
format criteria (then content criteria) and more confusion from what little content criteria I could find as compared to what SO's take on content
worthiness may be.
We need a clearly defined content criteria from administration, and I specifically say from administration to avoid a big debate over this, since in
the end it must come as a mission statement from them, it's their board and that is what will ultimately decide what rules, so why argue it. Then we
need a way to submit news (and I don't think the current voting works for various reasons) where the criteria can be upheld. If it's too much for
the few to handle, then maybe members need to be picked to to handle the load. Either way, I still think you would run into a perception problem.
I don't know in the end what the final solution would be to resolve all the problems that seem to be occurring at this point, but I think it's time
to admit the current system has some serious flaws.
One thing I can think of that might work, (though what do I know) would go something like this. ATS appoints an anonymous group of news reviewers
similar to the way the debate voting was handled. This group must be somehow well versed in what the criteria is. Upon susbmission of a news story,
the member places the story in an appropriate forum on the regular boards, while a request goes to the reviewers to consider moving it to ATSNN. The
reviewers are alerted via U2U to review the story and vote and as soon as (if) a majority number of votes are reached to upgrade, an online Mod is
alerted to move it. Well, maybe this process is to complicated to program, I don't know, but it's just a thought. If the reviewers can see the votes
and know the number that needs to be reached they would be able alert an online Mod that a story is ready for moving via the suggestions tab. The Mod
who moves it picks the appropriate place on ATSNN for it. You could still maintain the part where after a certain number of stories get upgraded a
member automatically gains reporter status.
Meanwhile, everyone submitting needs go with the flow and not wah wah about the news worthiness of their story, it is on the boards and can be
discussed as much as member interest holds it, the only difference at that point is how many points are earned because it is in one place instead of
another and whether or not it appears on the front page. But in all honesty there are so many submissions coming through, few are hitting that anyway.
Members must also not expect specific explanations as to why their story failed to reach ATSNN, it just can't be done, move on and keep trying till
you get it right. Reading enough ATSNN stories should provide the clues you need to improve your submissions.
Bottom line, regardless of the process, it is the criteria for where it belongs that needs to be more clearly defined and managed, and these things
are just not going to be held to by voting of the general population, it's an impossible expectation.
[edit on 3/20/2005 by Relentless]