#editorial | Logs for 2014-04-17

« return
[00:33:39] -!- mrcoolbp has quit []
[02:51:40] -!- mattie_p [mattie_p!~mattie_p@Soylent/Staff/Editor/mattiep] has joined #editorial
[02:51:40] -!- mode/#editorial [+v mattie_p] by SkyNet
[02:52:26] -!- mattie_p has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
[02:53:45] -!- mattie_p [mattie_p!~mattie_p@Soylent/Staff/Editor/mattiep] has joined #editorial
[02:53:45] -!- mode/#editorial [+v mattie_p] by SkyNet
[07:34:49] -!- bspar_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
[07:41:27] -!- bspar [bspar!~dimwit@hfdw-901-98-419-7.tampfl.fios.verizon.net] has joined #editorial
[07:47:37] -!- bspar has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
[08:01:01] -!- bspar [bspar!~dimwit@hfdw-901-98-419-7.tampfl.fios.verizon.net] has joined #editorial
[08:25:11] -!- bspar has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
[08:25:19] -!- bspar [bspar!~dimwit@hfdw-901-98-419-7.tampfl.fios.verizon.net] has joined #editorial
[14:21:25] -!- Bytram|away [Bytram|away!~pc@Soylent/Staff/Developer/martyb] has joined #editorial
[16:16:00] <mattie_p> minimise or minimize? OP has the s, amerenglish uses z
[16:20:46] Bytram|away is now known as Bytram
[16:20:58] <Bytram> mattie_p: Hi there! So good to SEE you!
[16:21:14] <Bytram> mattie_p: can you give context or a link?
[16:21:15] <mattie_p> hey Bytram/MartyB!
[16:21:21] <mattie_p> its in a sub
[16:21:29] <mattie_p> http://soylentnews.org
[16:21:30] <Bytram> is it still in the queue?
[16:21:41] <Bytram> on my way, brb
[16:21:51] <mattie_p> I'm editing now, just want to know should I stick with the british or american?
[16:21:57] <mattie_p> also, endeavour
[16:22:09] <Bytram> ok, let me reead...
[16:23:03] <mattie_p> tonnes
[16:23:11] <Bytram> following link in submission; also note: tonnes
[16:23:14] <Bytram> LOL!
[16:23:20] <mattie_p> yeah, just saw that
[16:23:29] <mattie_p> I'm fine with leaving it all in as-is
[16:23:36] <mattie_p> they are technically correct spellings
[16:23:41] <mattie_p> I just know I'll get comments
[16:23:52] <paulej72> mattie_p: I would suggest that we use both, but stick to the same conventions in a single story. Or we base it on who edited it first and which English they use.
[16:24:49] <Bytram> hmmm, good question. is there anything in the editorial guidelines?
[16:25:41] <mattie_p> looking now
[16:25:53] <Bytram> An idea, if there were a link were to a story at the BBC, then one would understand the use of britishisms.
[16:26:06] <mattie_p> Right now I left in everything as-is, just edited in the fact that progress has, in fact, been stalled due to the crisis
[16:26:18] <paulej72> guidelines, we don’t need no stinkin guidlines :)
[16:26:21] <Bytram> am searching the beeb, hold on...
[16:26:37] <mattie_p> the submitter kind of missed that fact in their celebration of the progress
[16:26:58] <mattie_p> in the queue now anyway, we've got a little while to work this: http://soylentnews.org
[16:27:59] <mattie_p> I don't see anything in the editor wiki area, so I'll just run with it
[16:28:25] <Bytram> hrm, I found nothing t the beeb, but I have an idea!
[16:28:56] <mattie_p> doh, Laminator posted as-is
[16:29:03] <mattie_p> without the update!
[16:29:06] <Bytram> in the blah-blah-blah dept area, maybe use a british reference e.g.
[16:29:15] <Bytram> cricket, tea & crumpets, etc
[16:29:29] <mattie_p> I'm quick-editing his to reflect my changes
[16:29:32] <Bytram> can you un-submit?
[16:29:45] <Bytram> that sounds better.
[16:31:41] <Bytram> another idea is to indicate that some part of the story is quoted from the article and thus allude to the use of non-amerenglish.
[16:33:04] <Bytram> mattie_p: I've got it... hold on
[16:33:14] <mattie_p> anyway, its live now anyway
[16:33:29] <mattie_p> http://soylentnews.org
[16:33:44] <mattie_p> Since LaminatorX's was already posted I had to make changes quick
[16:34:07] <Bytram> understood
[16:45:41] <mattie_p> looks like it doesn't matter, we're arguing over wether it should be "Ukraine" or "The Ukraine." in the comments, not the minimise
[16:48:17] <Bytram> kewel!
[16:49:49] <Bytram> it's a bit tricky to get all the definitions and subordinate phrases into the right order without also having misplaced modifiers.
[16:50:25] <Bytram> brb, afk
[17:05:22] <Bytram> I'm back.
[17:50:24] -!- n1 [n1!~nick@Soylent/Staff/Editor/n1] has joined #editorial
[17:50:24] -!- mode/#editorial [+v n1] by SkyNet
[19:10:52] <n1> Bytram
[19:10:59] <n1> is there anything else you'd like to know?
[19:11:37] <n1> you'll find your way as you go, one thing to remember though... if you hit save on a submission and it takes you to the stories list
[19:11:52] <n1> do not hit refresh on that page as it may duplicate the story for some reason
[19:12:15] <n1> the stories page you see after saving is not the same as the stories page you see in the menu
[19:16:42] <Bytram> I'll try to be careful; thank you SO MUCH for the tips and hints!
[19:16:51] <n1> in the stories list
[19:17:12] <n1> the stories that are red have not been double checked and signed off by a second editor
[19:17:23] <n1> the stories that are green have been checked by another editor
[19:17:30] <n1> the yellow ones are yours that have not been double checked
[19:17:56] <n1> so if you see red ones in the queue, check them over, and edit as necessary or just hit update if all is good, and it will make them green
[19:20:04] <paulej72> I fixed one of Lam’s this morning as it had some funcky line breaks. I even did it from my iPad
[19:21:15] <n1> it really helps having someone else look over things
[19:21:40] <n1> it's always wrong for someone, but when you spend a lot of time looking for certain things, you become oblivious to other things
[19:21:52] <n1> especially if you're like me and seem to get here an hour before the queue is empty every time lol
[19:23:28] <Bytram> yup.
[19:23:30] <n1> the quality of submissions is all over the place, some take a couple of minutes to get ready, others take forever it feels
[19:23:34] <Bytram> afk brb
[19:24:12] <n1> im going to the shop, if you want to do another story when you get back Bytram, feel free but set it to publish at 22:** some time
[19:29:12] <Bytram> n1: okay, don't know if I'll post another story, but I'll keep my eyes peeled and take things slowly.
[19:29:31] <Bytram> n1: thanks a nuch for all your help!
[19:30:28] <Bytram> s/nuch/bunch/
[19:38:27] -!- janrinok [janrinok!~janrinok@Soylent/Staff/Editor/janrinok] has joined #editorial
[19:38:27] -!- mode/#editorial [+v janrinok] by SkyNet
[19:38:39] <janrinok> hi guys
[19:39:04] <Bytram> janrinok: hiya!
[19:39:29] <janrinok> Bytram: hi, hows things?
[19:40:09] <Bytram> doing all right; first day off after 6-in-a-row. slept in and then got promoted to SN editor. =)
[19:40:46] <janrinok> congratulations! (although I'm not sure that 'promoted' is the term to use....)
[19:41:58] <Bytram> LOL!
[19:42:30] <Bytram> For starters, I'll try and stick with just minor story edits and typo fixes.
[19:43:22] <janrinok> that should keep you busy - just doing the typos on mine is a major job!
[19:43:24] <Bytram> n-one was kind enough to walk me through some of the "niceties" of the SN UI. :/
[19:43:43] <Bytram> does not appear to have been designed for mere mortals.
[19:44:15] <janrinok> Have you seen my (unfinished) bit on wiki re editing?
[19:44:45] <Bytram> cannot say that I have.
[19:45:22] <janrinok> http://wiki.soylentnews.org
[19:45:32] <Bytram> on my way
[19:45:51] <janrinok> whenever - it is still a draft and as I say unfinished.
[19:45:56] <Bytram> ok
[19:46:23] -!- n1 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
[19:50:54] <Bytram> janrinok: am about half-way through... NICE!
[19:52:44] <janrinok> well, its a start
[20:00:23] <Bytram> it's an EXCELLENT start! I'm finding it most helpful!
[20:00:50] <janrinok> thx - that's the encouragement I need to do some more - perhaps this weekend.
[20:02:29] <Bytram> ur welcome! I noticed a couple, minor, typos that I'm fixing as I go. They only stick out on the first read, if you know what I mean?
[20:04:13] <janrinok> happy for you to correct them - although changes in meaning or intent should go on the discussion pages so that we don't end up with a free-for-all during the editing of the wiki. ;-)
[20:04:36] <Bytram> janrinok: agreed!
[20:04:51] <Bytram> got a question for you re: terminology BET/MET
[20:05:08] <Bytram> Basic Editing Page ... wouldnt that be BEP?
[20:05:15] -!- nick [nick!~nick@Soylent/Staff/Editor/n1] has joined #editorial
[20:05:15] -!- mode/#editorial [+v nick] by SkyNet
[20:05:22] <Bytram> Main Editing Page ... MEP ?
[20:05:52] nick is now known as n1
[20:05:56] <janrinok> yes - now why haven't I noticed that!
[20:06:01] <janrinok> hi n1
[20:06:05] <n1> hey janrinok
[20:06:10] <Bytram> meats be!
[20:06:22] <n1> whats going on
[20:06:35] <Bytram> janrinok: LOL! Okay to change them all to BEP/MEP?
[20:06:36] <janrinok> They used to be called templates - and the terminology changed!
[20:06:44] <janrinok> Yes change away
[20:06:54] <Bytram> no worries! will do!
[20:07:11] <janrinok> Bytram is just proof reading the wiki bit about editing.
[20:07:23] <janrinok> n1: ^
[20:07:51] <n1> got a thought on your kim dotcom story, janrinok
[20:07:56] <janrinok> go
[20:08:35] <n1> include a second source/reference article
[20:09:31] <n1> I just have a feeling using RT as an only source on stories will lead to us being accused of being tools of Putin or something like that.
[20:10:34] <n1> I know the story is elsewhere, so to include an additional source seems like a good idea. I don't think it's critical but it just leaves it open if we only use RT as a source
[20:10:37] <janrinok> I haven't got a bias for or against RT. It is a factual report on the procedings in a court. I didn't, and still don't, think it is contentious
[20:10:50] <n1> Oh, i totally agree
[20:11:25] <Bytram> not contentious, in itself, but a 2nd source removes the *appearance* of bias.
[20:11:31] <n1> I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it, but as i recall a lengthy discussion about The Independent being an 'irrelevant, fringe publication'
[20:11:43] <n1> RT is like 100x worse by comparison
[20:11:52] <n1> thats my opinion, Bytram
[20:11:53] <janrinok> I'll use the NZ herald which is almost the same.
[20:11:57] <n1> yeah
[20:12:02] <Bytram> good
[20:12:16] <n1> i doubt there will be any more information, and i actually quite like RT's coverage on many things
[20:12:27] <n1> but some people will have a very different opinion
[20:12:40] <n1> this story isn't one where it's crucial, but it's something i've pondered before
[20:13:34] <Bytram> janrinok: re: wiki - in several places I see "I" as in "I recommend that you use the MEP as much as possible." ...
[20:13:55] <Bytram> maybe change those to be "We recommend..."??
[20:14:53] <janrinok> Bytram: its not been approved by LamX or anyone else for that matter. I didn't want to quote them without permission.
[20:15:12] <janrinok> n1: done
[20:15:24] <Bytram> okay... then I'll leave it as is.
[20:17:18] <n1> janrinok, having a closer read it seems that the submission has been copy/pasted from the RT source, just with bits deleted.
[20:18:06] <n1> i've noticed on nearly all of the submissions from Blackmoore they're like that
[20:18:56] <janrinok> I don't have a problem with that, because it says 'RT reports....'. The submitter is not claiming to have written it.
[20:19:21] <Bytram> as long as it's called out, then that should generally be okay.
[20:19:36] <n1> I would have <blockquote> the text
[20:19:51] <n1> because to me it implies that RT is reporting it, and here's the submitters take
[20:20:01] <janrinok> If someone doesn't like RT as a source, then they are free to ignore that particular story.
[20:21:11] <janrinok> No, I don't agree, I do the same thing frequently. We agreed that the part after xxx writes is taken as quoted from the submission, and Blackmoore has said that he is quoting RT.
[20:22:02] <n1> I don't mind, just my opinion and basing it on what i've been doing
[20:22:14] <janrinok> But I haven't got any strong views either way.
[20:22:17] -!- mrcoolbp [mrcoolbp!~mrcoolbp@Soylent/Staff/mrcoolbp] has joined #editorial
[20:22:17] -!- mode/#editorial [+v mrcoolbp] by SkyNet
[20:22:50] <n1> if thats how we're supposed to do it then fine, but on all the ones ive done like it.. it's xxx writes: The BBC is reporting that blah blah blah. <blockquote> quote
[20:25:11] <janrinok> True, and that is not wrong. But you cannot have 2 sources both using the same blockquote, because they are not both saying those exact words. Now if there was disagreement between the 2, I would do exactly as you suggest, and each source would have its own blockquote. In this case, I do not think that Blackmoore is misrepresenting what RT have said and he has attributed his submission to them.
[20:25:48] <n1> I understand and agree
[20:25:57] <n1> Different editing styles ;)
[20:26:13] <Bytram> so, "RT reports that Kim Dotcom can have seized assets returned New Zealand High Court: <blockquote> ... ???
[20:27:06] <janrinok> Yep, and neither is right or wrong, not all TFS will look the same - or life would be pretty dull on the front page :) in my view.
[20:27:38] <n1> I would have gone with something like "RT, among others are reporing Kim Dotcom..." followed by the block quote.
[20:27:53] <Bytram> n1++
[20:27:53] <deadbeef> karma - n1: 3
[20:27:59] <janrinok> Bytram: No, the alternative style is RT reports <blockquote> and so on which leaves the text taken from RT indented and clearly obvious.
[20:28:15] <n1> without the spelling error, obviously
[20:28:37] <Bytram> I see what you did. Ok.
[20:28:38] <janrinok> n1: keep the spelling errors in, Bytram needs the practice when checking our stories.....
[20:28:45] <n1> lol
[20:29:05] <janrinok> I've already told him that I will keep him busy enough on my own..
[20:29:43] <n1> between the two of us, i'm sure we can make him regret asking to be able to edit ;)
[20:29:49] <janrinok> rofl
[20:30:04] <Bytram> eye Kann Handel speeling air ors know wary!
[20:30:30] <n1> heh
[20:30:45] <janrinok> lol
[20:31:00] <n1> if the submissions were written like that, it would slow my reading down enough i'd probably be better lol
[20:31:18] <janrinok> I think that I'm beyond all redemption now.
[20:31:43] <n1> i assume you didn't need to come here for that to be the case, janrinok ;)
[20:32:16] <janrinok> I came here _because_ I'm beyond all redemption.
[20:32:31] <n1> that seems more accurate heh
[20:33:01] <Bytram> have some fun: https://en.wikipedia.org and the full version at: http://ncf.idallen.com
[20:33:16] <n1> janrinok, how are the guests?
[20:34:17] <janrinok> Bytram: Another thing to remember is, that not all stories will fit into a single template. You will find yourself from time-to-time having to make something up to fit. The aim is to the make it accurate, informative and readable. If you can claim to have achieved that then any debates about layout are, IMHO, secondary but still important.
[20:34:47] <Bytram> janrinok: point well taken; thanks!
[20:35:20] <janrinok> n1 They have been very helpful in getting some jobs around the house done but have taken up time elsewhere so I think that I am breaking out about even at the moment.
[20:36:30] <janrinok> time for a cup of tea.....
[20:36:32] <janrinok> bgrb
[20:36:38] <janrinok> oops - brb
[20:39:22] <Bytram> hmm, tea? reminds me I should eat. later guys!
[20:39:55] <n1> janrinok, there was discussion the other day about due to the length of some of the submissions, some of it being put into the 'extended copy' box
[20:40:11] <n1> so it doesn't take up too much space on the main page
[20:41:07] <n1> i should also work on dinner myself
[20:41:09] <n1> take it easy Bytram
[20:42:02] -!- mrcoolbp has quit []
[20:42:36] <Bytram> n1: great point!
[20:43:02] Bytram is now known as Bytram|away
[20:44:20] <janrinok> n1: back now, yep go ahead
[20:52:41] <n1> did you see that, about when the submissions are into several paragraphs or long for another reason
[20:52:52] <n1> use the 'extended copy' option for what you don't want to appear on the main page
[20:53:33] <janrinok> Yeah, I had this discussion yesterday. Nobody can define what is 'too long' or how long is acceptable.
[20:54:15] <n1> yeah, i'm just using my judgement on it
[20:55:30] <janrinok> mrcoolbp was saying that it was suggested, agreed upon, but that no-one has yet defined _when_ it should be used. I've used it a few times myself but it really is a wet finger in the wind job. Are we looking at computer screens size, smartphone size or whatever?
[20:56:33] <n1> i dont think we can ever define exactly when
[20:57:12] <paulej72> if it look like shit on an iPad it is too long
[20:57:23] <n1> because every story is different, my personal point would be if there's more than one paragraph and either is more than 8 lines on my screen, i'd break the second one into extended copy
[20:57:40] <n1> paulej72, well if someone would buy me an ipad to check, that would be fine ;)
[20:57:43] <paulej72> smaller is better
[20:57:44] <janrinok> As I've never actually held or seen an iPad, I'd better resign from being an editor.
[20:58:26] <paulej72> ok let me rephrase: if it looks ly shit on MY iPad it it is too long
[20:59:08] <janrinok> I've got 8 computers, using 12 screens and the smallest is 1240x780, the largest 3800xsomething obscure..... There is plenty of real estate when I view the stories.
[21:00:04] <paulej72> good news is I fially figuured out what changes the txt size on small devices.
[21:00:09] <janrinok> lol
[21:00:56] <paulej72> It is featrue not a bug. Auto resizing of text in Webkit browsers for elements that are larger than the screen width
[21:01:59] <paulej72> there is a hack to fix it but it requires that use at media screen sizes to set it. I am looking into it.
[21:03:06] <janrinok> n1: I don't think it is good idea to arbitrarily divide an article based on line count. You have to be able to explain what the article is about, why it is important, and entice someone to read it. If that takes more than 16 lines then so be it. Some topics do, most don't.
[21:04:40] <janrinok> n1: I agree with you that every article should be viewed in isolation before making any decision on where to break it.
[21:05:17] <Bytram|away> at the moment, the RSS feed only includes the headline; there is talk about updating it to include story text. I would suggest a split of content so that the "extended copy" text would not appear on the RSS feed.
[21:05:41] <janrinok> paulej72: I suspect that should have read 1280x760, but it's been a long hard day again.
[21:06:32] <paulej72> yes I know
[21:10:34] <n1> janrinok, i wouldnt make it an arbitrary line. but i know what you mean
[21:10:44] <janrinok> yep
[21:14:21] <janrinok> Bytram|away: The RSS feed from the 'other site' is only the heading. Again I seem to have a problem in summarizing a potentially complicated article into a few words that look good on a small screen. To me, its equivalent to trying to read a newspaper that has 1" square pages. I wouldn't even try to do it. That's obviously the luddite in me coming to the fore.
[21:20:50] <Bytram|away> janrinok: point well taken; I offered the RSS feed's being augmented with story text as an idea to guide where it might be helpful/useful to use the Extended Copy field. That's all.
[21:22:46] <paulej72> for the rss feed, I would do that as the first x chars of the story. It is a feed and does not need to be complete. just a taste.
[21:26:00] <janrinok> Bytram|away: I'm not against the extended field - I have used it several times. But whenever it is mentioned on one of these channels it seems to be as a suggestion that the article 'is too long'. Without some defining what the length of a good article is, it is impossible to say something is too long other than as a personal taste judgement call. Before it becomes a 'rule' then we have to know what we are trying to achieve and what
[21:26:37] <n1> i just do what i'm told
[21:27:33] <janrinok> paulej72: So would it be acceptable, say, for the first line to be an extended title with perhaps a few more bits of information in it?
[21:28:57] <Bytram|away> janrinok: You mean like on ArsTechnica's main page? Sort of like a sub-title / meta-explanation / tease?
[21:28:59] <janrinok> n1 likewise. But its been quoted to me probably half a dozen times in the last week, and I get the feeling that I missed a discussion and decision that I am supposedly not following.
[21:29:12] <paulej72> janrinok: not sure
[21:29:48] <n1> I assume mrcoolbp is making the decisions somewhere, i get told after it happens
[21:30:07] <n1> just with the usual rule, we only find out when we're doing it wrong
[21:30:10] <janrinok> I don't know, because it appears that we are all equally in the dark but each one of us knows that 'something' has to be done to meet the unknown requirement.
[21:30:10] <n1> otherwise no news is good news
[21:30:26] <n1> anything i pass on has always come from mrcoolbp
[21:30:54] <janrinok> good source but I have to follow LamX as well.
[21:31:19] <Bytram|away> I'm thinking it's along the lines of what works for setting "Orphan text" and "Widow text" in a word processor... Don't want to do a "read more" and find just one sentence. :/
[21:31:27] <n1> I would too, but as he's not here and mrcoolbp appears to be up the hierachy
[21:31:42] <n1> thats all i can go on
[21:31:53] <janrinok> He was on briefly last night - he's OK
[21:33:25] <Bytram|away> a quick glance at the main page today suggests that most stories fit in a couple of paragrahs. The one outlier atm is the one about Chernobyl Cover Completion
[21:33:51] <Bytram|away> okay, I *really* need to make something to eat!
[21:36:07] <janrinok> Bytram|away: I don't think that the Widow/Orphan text is what they have in mind. 'They' want a shorter, snappier, summary in the main field, with the nitty gritty for those who want it in the extended field. But many of our stories don't divide conveniently into that format. The important point is only clear when someone has read and understood the extended field. (IMHO - but I'm guessing quite a bit here)
[21:37:38] <janrinok> Bytram|away: I should just leave you to eat your meal in peace - so I will, sry.
[21:37:59] <n1> the main summary should have the core bits of information and stand on its own, the extended should add to it
[21:38:23] <n1> but where that line is and how to get it, will always be vague i think, and even if there was a 'rule' there would be exceptions within days i think.
[21:38:43] <janrinok> Yes, I suspect that you are right.
[21:42:30] <n1> so hungry
[21:42:41] <paulej72> Chernobyl is a bit long for my tastes, but notice it is a LamX one. He seems not to use the Extended copy.
[21:42:52] <janrinok> I thought you went to eat about the same time as Bytram?
[21:43:06] <n1> i went to start cooking but got distracted
[21:43:12] <janrinok> Perhaps he missed the meeting......?
[21:43:13] <n1> im not about 8 minutes away from eating
[21:43:37] <n1> i think LamX has not been included in any of the instructions ive had from mrcoolbp
[21:44:15] <janrinok> n1 would they be verbal instructions? or have I also missed an email or something?
[21:44:24] <n1> extended copy and the linking of profiles, the grey area if we're including or excluding emails in the 'writes'
[21:44:26] <n1> verbal
[21:44:45] <paulej72> as in IRC verbal
[21:44:49] <n1> yea
[21:45:03] <janrinok> I _did_ miss a discussion and decision!
[21:45:07] <n1> he's not usually here for that long, just to pass on what ever it is
[21:45:08] <paulej72> depending on the channel it would be in the logs
[21:45:17] <n1> janrinok, if you did, I did also
[21:45:25] <janrinok> lol
[21:45:37] <n1> i think they forget about us most of the time heh
[21:47:12] <paulej72> I think both the extened copy and linking to the users profile were suggestions that should be done but not must be done, but for people using phones to view the site, smaller copy text is better I hate seeing jsut a wall of text that is just one story.
[21:47:45] <janrinok> paulej72: so perhaps we need 2 different output formats?
[21:48:00] <paulej72> When I redo the subs some more, I add in the automtic linking to a user’s profile
[21:48:31] <mattie_p> well, I did 2nd edit on the Chernobyl story, was in a bit of a hurry to get it done because it was missing some data and also had "the ukraine"
[21:48:43] <janrinok> Yes, so do I but only for those who haven't provided a contact link in the submission.
[21:49:02] <paulej72> No I do not think we need two different formats just keep in mind long summaries can be broken up if possible.
[21:49:46] <paulej72> The contact link suff is aready done, I just have to fix the case when the link is not present to link to the profile.
[21:50:21] <paulej72> the user will always link to somthing then.
[21:50:29] <mattie_p> that will be useful
[21:51:27] <janrinok> This will need further discussion. One of the first decisions at our first editors' meeting was to agree that we would not keep the media's love of one sentence paragraphs, but try to construct an improved document with paras of reasonable length. If we now need to plan for paragraphs to be broken up then we need to go back to shorter paragraphs.
[21:51:45] <janrinok> mattie_p: Hi - hows thinks ?
[21:51:51] <janrinok> things?
[21:51:54] <mattie_p> pretty good, how about you, janrinok?
[21:52:00] <janrinok> getting by thx
[21:52:36] <janrinok> is your daughter making good progress?
[21:52:56] <mattie_p> she is home now! came home Tuesday and recovering at home now.
[21:53:14] <janrinok> Great news. You must be much happier to have her home again.
[21:53:38] <mattie_p> yes, and relieved that I can sleep in my own bed at night, rather than on a hospital pull-out cot
[21:54:06] <paulej72> janrinok: I would not break up paragraphs for showing on a small device. I jsut think that an article like Chernobyl has 4 paragraphs right now that are resonable lenght, but the summary could be jsut two with the other two in the extened copy
[21:54:09] <janrinok> My best to you, tonya servo and the children. I'm pleased that things are going well.
[21:54:27] <janrinok> paulej72: Ok, got you.
[21:54:29] <mattie_p> thank you
[21:56:33] <paulej72> janrinok: I would break a paragraph for sending to RSS as that should not be flooded with extra info. we want to get the user to click on the site and read the rest and possibly comment. the first part of the summary would be teaser text. how long that is would need to be tested to see what works best, But think of twitter and its 140 chars.
[21:57:18] <n1> Headline + short summary for rss + long summary?
[22:01:17] * janrinok now I have to think of Twitter - something else I have never seen nor used.
[22:01:43] <n1> i think with this secondary shorter summary, we're going to end up having the headline, short summary and first line of the full summary
[22:01:45] * janrinok uses his phone to make phone calls
[22:01:47] <n1> all basically being the same thing
[22:02:05] <paulej72> n1: we would need to have a seperate field for the rss summary. I could do that, but I would also default to using the summary copy if missing.
[22:02:18] <n1> if it's a seperate field that will only show up on the rss feed
[22:02:20] <n1> i think thats good
[22:02:52] <janrinok> Ah ok, so it could be an extra field that you scrape for the RSS?
[22:03:08] <n1> i think thats the right approach, paulej72
[22:03:13] <janrinok> ditto
[22:03:29] <paulej72> yes and if that field was not populated then scrape the summary for some text
[22:04:21] <n1> that would be a good feature, although i'm pretty sure a short summary would be easier to come up with than the dept heading most of the time ;)
[22:05:01] <janrinok> Yeah, I'm not a lover of the dept header - but LamX really enjoys thinking them up!
[22:05:15] <n1> it's 50/50 for me
[22:05:16] <paulej72> I am also toying with the idea that the author byline would be a sperate field that would be automatically put into the final summary view. The edit window would just have the body text of the summary nothing else
[22:05:25] <n1> sometimes i enjoy it and think of one up really easilty
[22:05:34] <n1> other times i can be staring at the thing for 20 minutes thinking ehhhhh
[22:06:02] <n1> although i've left it blank for 'too serious' stories a couple of times
[22:06:45] <janrinok> paulej72: they seem like reasonable ideas to me - I was obviously under the wrong impression that we were expected to rewrite our summaries to meet several different requirements.
[22:06:46] <paulej72> I-can’t-think-of-anything-as-I-have-had-too-liitle-bacon-today
[22:06:54] <n1> paulej72, in that instance what would happen with merging and such?
[22:07:40] <paulej72> n1 not edge cases, I can’t handle them :(
[22:07:46] <janrinok> n1 yes, I've left if empty if writing anything flippant seemed inappropriate.
[22:07:47] <n1> heheh
[22:08:26] <mattie_p> you don't have to have a flippant dept, I chose what I think is a decent one for chernobyl
[22:08:27] <n1> i like the merge feature, as it can be used to accept stories that come in a little too late, if there's one already in the queue
[22:08:42] <n1> and then edit the original submission to include any additional information and credit the person a bit too late
[22:09:05] <mattie_p> I think you can only merge subs, not a sub and an approved story tho
[22:09:16] <n1> mattie_p, indeed
[22:09:21] <n1> but it goes through as 'accepted'
[22:09:24] <n1> and then i delete the merge
[22:09:38] <mattie_p> yeah, I did that once or twice
[22:09:39] <n1> it's not perfect, but it stops people from getting put off from submitting again
[22:09:55] <n1> then manually edit the original story already in queue
[22:10:41] <janrinok> n1 nice technique - I'll include it in the wiki
[22:11:47] <n1> paulej72, is there a method to leave a reason for rejection on the road map?
[22:11:55] <n1> im sure it's been asked several times before
[22:12:58] <janrinok> got to go, cu tomorrow probs
[22:13:09] <n1> take care, janrinok
[22:13:13] <n1> :)
[22:13:23] <mattie_p> later, janrinok
[22:13:32] <janrinok> cheers all
[22:13:35] -!- janrinok has quit [Quit: leaving]
[22:43:15] <n1> i'm out, but i will be editing from the shadows in an hour or so