Recruiting Editorial Team

Site Management
1

Based on discussions in other threads, it seems the way forward on content is to gather together a team of “editors” who can take on a few tasks;

  1. create content guidelines (general format/content rules of what makes it to the “front page”)
  2. create process for content submission and review
  3. review and promote member articles to the front page
  4. take responsibility for driving content

Number 4 is particularly important to me - I think that there are some big things going on, headlines that we could all be posting and talking about, but because nobody is responsible for doing it, nobody is doing it. It’s a kind of Bystander Effect problem.

So, who wants to join the Editorial Team?

10 Likes
2

I’ll get in on that action.

8 Likes
3

I’d like to.

7 Likes
4

I’ve been trying to keep stepped back from that kind of thing, but given that I’ve been more-than-somewhat vocal on this, I may have to put money where mouth is.
If I can be of help, I will.
(I’m hot on process and guidelines (and implications and boundary cases), at the least, and have a history of being used as a proofreader.)

8 Likes
5

I’m in.

7 Likes
6

Ex-trade magazine editor from a time long ago in a place far away (well, slightly more than 30 years and 200 km). If you’re stuck at any time, give me a shout.

7 Likes
7

Cool - thanks to everyone for joining up. I think more will wander in as this rolls on, but to kick things off, I thought we’d tackle the question of guidelines. Specifically, what the format of “front page material” might look like. Even though we’re still in BBS mode, I think we can still have some guidelines about how things should be formatted.

For instance, we probably need to spell out what a blog post looks like, and probably have different formats for different types of content (i.e. opinion piece). A blog post might have the following guidelines;

Headline: must be relevant to the subject (no vague headlines)
Body: Must include either one quote or one paragraph of original writing about the content from the reference piece (if blog) and one paragraph of opinion about that content
Voice: accentuate the positive, eviscerate the negative
Pic: must include a pic of something
Link: must link to source material

I’ve never done this before (written guidelines) so anyone feel free to step in with other ideas

5 Likes
8

I would lean against requiring a pic. Suggest it, yes. But some entirely worthy discussions just don’t lend themselves to pictures.

7 Likes
9

You’re not wrong.
But from a design perspective, the picture can really help- else we end up with a front page that’s just a giant block of text. Ain’t nobody want that.
Pics need to be cleared, though. Credited as well.

10 Likes
10

This might also be a good time to address the question of what platform we intend to use. Wordpress?

With respect to formatting, I prefer templates to rules and requirements. To start off, it’s probably enough to say “format your post as though you were posting on BB,” but we could build our own templates for specific post types (while allowing for permutations that do not fit neatly into one category). People would understand from the templates what’s expected of them, but still be at liberty to deviate if, for some reason, their post calls for it.

Where people are going need written rules and guidelines isn’t in the basics, like linking to your source, but in the specifics: How much can you excerpt from an article? What type of images can be used? How should they be credited? formatted? What constitutes fair use? What are the rules regarding profanity and explicit content? Can I embed a clip from a bootleg or other copyrighted content? What plugins are available for a/v content and how can they be employed?

In general, I think we should avoid trying to plan too much in advance—keep it casual, so to speak. In my experience, when going into something new, it’s really hard to know what is going to be important or how people are likely to behave and your early assumptions can lead to major headaches later. I think it would be more efficient and more fruitful to just let things run at first and apply controls only where they prove to be necessary. Don’t get me wrong—I do want the site to look professional—but professionalism is something that we’re going to have to learn through experience. It can’t be prefabricated.

Voice should really be up to the author. Some people write negativism very well (think Hunter S. Thompson).

6 Likes
11

Discourse can handle blogs and articles too, if I am not mistaken.

1 Like
12

I’m great at copy-editing, but that doesn’t seem to be a part of the plan here. But if it’s found to be necessary, I’d have no problem doing it.

6 Likes
13

You could offer it as something extra provided by request. Maybe we create a category for people to ask for copy editing help?

2 Likes
14

shrug Up to them. Just letting y’all know I’d be happy to do it.

3 Likes
15

Now, see, I assumed from the previous discussion that we would be doing at least some of that - ‘light touch’, sure, but we need to keep the content quality up, at least subeditting for errors, typos, mangled grammar.

I do think that this should be a decision made, not just assumed - especially if we are making a public facing website to host these articles a la the other place, or content sites.

Because then, it’s that that we get measured on, and all this is the comment system. I think we need to decide what we are doing.

Sure plans change and we adapt accordingly, but we all have a different version of this in our heads, and the implicit assumptions in each of our heads are very different (which means that some decisions are being made by virtue of prior assumptions that that’s going to be the case, and because that isn’t explicit, the same happens.) We’re seeing examples of that here right now.

Let’s pin down each step, one at a time. Starting with what we aim to do -

  • Professional website with photos, a house style and affiliate links, driving traffic to the board?
  • Chaotic site, with random content and variable content, but with ‘gems in the rough’ that catch people’s eye and give boarders a voice?
  • Somewhere between? (And if so, what?)

Don’t misunderstand me, please -we’ve got lots of enthusiasm, lots of talent to tap and that’s great. No, that’s bloody wonderful!

But even if (especially if) the aim changes and evolves, I think that knowing that ask, and making it explicit is needed, so that we’re at least all talking about the same thing.

I know I love to talk details, (I do!) But we need to define the big aim - least we be diggin’ into slippery sand, me hearties.

[Editted for clarity, because of course I did.]

5 Likes
16

I agree, but I think there could be some general principles stated to try to have some common similarities, at least among the core group. Also notice that I said eviscerate the negative - I intended that to mean that people could really lay in to something that was wrong (ie religious tests for adoption). Maybe I was too subtle in my wordplay.

I don’t think it can, actually. @LockeCJ is looking in to something that kinda does it, but it’s not very blog-like. At least what I’ve seen. The challenge is to keep everything on the same platform if possible so it’s easy to use for everyone, but also to twist it enough to make it look good on the front page.

2 Likes
17

Possibly - I assumed you wanted to really eliminate the negative, as per the song - i.e., be upbeat and positive, the opposite of where we come from seems to be going. That does make more sense now. :nerd:

3 Likes
18

Sam’s blog appears to be done in Discourse. Personally I would tweak the aesthetics of it a bit, but I think it looks like a great start.

https://samsaffron.com/

3 Likes
19

Organic is the term I’d use. Contributors post anything they think will be of interest to the community, and the community offers feedback. Based upon this feedback, they gradually hone their style and content to better suit the audience. The contributors are like organisms, evolving to maximize likes and lively discussion. As they learn from one another, gravitating toward what works best, a unique voice (or “house style”) emerges organically. If we go this route, it’s important that we think in terms of feedback rather than guidelines.

As I’ve argued elsewhere, this is a site we set up for ourselves. There’s really no reason we have to act like an online magazine, pandering for traffic, which we then struggle to monetize through affiliates links and other native advertising. We have the opportunity here to do something really different; to create a refuge from the Amazons and the Facebooks who have commercialized every aspect of our online social lives.

I favor a Taoist approach. The less we try to control, the more we maximize the possibilities of this site. If we demand conformity to what every other site on the web is already doing, then that really just leaves us with one possibility—and a remote one at that.

5 Likes
20

To be fair, my point is that we don’t have to do that. Where I think we disagree (and it happens with the best of us :wink:) is that to make sure we don’t get taken there on the current, or spin in eddies, we have to know which direction we are initially aiming for, so we can actively move in the current, even as we adapt, as opportunities in the flow present themselves.

2 Likes