Well, all things considered, I am happier with this more evolved voting system. It seems that many suggestions made were considered and implemented
nicely. At least the authors now get a reason right away when a no vote is cast. That was something that bugged me for a long time.
Quality appears to be improving in ATSNN articles, as more and more of the newer members (oops, i mean contributors) get the hang of it.
Interestingly, to do accurate voting, one needs to understand the ATSNN submission guidelines, and that in itself should redirect voters/contributors
back to them. Which in turn reminds them of the guidelines for their own submissions and improves them.
The only issue left I that I feel is still improvable is the the no vote because of a repeated story. This still does not prompt the contributor to
search for duplicates prior to posting, and instead places the burden on the voters (and the senior staff). I really feel this is the responsibility
of the author, and maybe that's because I used to do extensive ATS searches prior to writing any stories, so I was used to it. But on second thought,
maybe it is fair that the task of bringing a story to ATSNN be split up between the author and the voter. Certainly makes the job easier on the
author.
I am curious: Has the repeated story problem gotten any better, or worse since the newest changes have been made?
In any case, I have renewed hopes for ATSNN with these changes, and maybe I'll even start submitting again (not that anyone cares). The new
contributor page and links to all authors submissions are nice touches, too.
