#editorial | Logs for 2015-05-28

« return
[02:35:29] -!- cmn32480 [cmn32480!cmn32480@Soylent/Staff/Editor/cmn32480] has joined #editorial
[02:35:29] -!- mode/#editorial [+v cmn32480] by SkyNet
[02:54:44] cmn32480 is now known as cmn32480|sleepin
[05:55:28] -!- cmn32480 [cmn32480!cmn32480@Soylent/Staff/Editor/cmn32480] has joined #editorial
[05:55:28] -!- mode/#editorial [+v cmn32480] by SkyNet
[05:58:17] -!- cmn32480|sleepin has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
[06:14:29] -!- cmn32480 has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
[11:03:17] -!- Tachyon [Tachyon!~Tachyon@xuco.me] has joined #editorial
[11:06:05] -!- Tachyon_ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
[11:54:24] <takyon> http://www.thefreedictionary.com
[11:54:24] <Scruffy> ^ 03transferrable - definition of transferrable by The Free Dictionary
[11:56:28] <takyon> http://soylentnews.org
[11:56:29] <Scruffy> ^ 03Error
[12:32:55] -!- janrinok [janrinok!~janrinok@Soylent/Staff/Editor/janrinok] has joined #editorial
[12:32:55] -!- mode/#editorial [+v janrinok] by SkyNet
[12:33:13] <janrinok> hi guys
[13:26:23] <CoolHand> hey janrinok
[13:26:42] <CoolHand> Bytram: ping
[13:27:23] <janrinok> hi CoolHand
[13:28:43] <CoolHand> I noticed on Bytram's stories that he doesn't have the original link.. should I add that? (I 2nd'ed all three but just realized on this last one that it was missing)
[13:28:52] <janrinok> yes please
[13:29:04] <janrinok> I'll help if you want
[13:29:18] <janrinok> which one should I do?
[13:29:55] <CoolHand> u can do white house backs oracle if u want
[13:30:11] <janrinok> I've started the wooden chips
[13:31:49] <janrinok> Bytram: ping
[13:33:39] <janrinok> Done the first and last
[13:34:12] <janrinok> I've not touched the one that you have open
[13:34:38] <CoolHand> the setting the standard for phones - asus zenfone?
[13:34:48] <janrinok> you've got that one, yes?
[13:34:58] <CoolHand> yep
[13:44:32] <CoolHand> janrinok: so "TingModel"...
[13:45:06] <CoolHand> another HughPickens identity.. the TingModel sight is linked, but are the stories good? they don't seem to be too bad of adverts..
[13:46:04] <janrinok> the TingModel.com which is linked to the sub appears to be pointing at HughPickens own financial analysis site. It has nothing to do with the content. Stories are good thought
[13:46:09] <janrinok> though*
[13:46:21] <CoolHand> ok, that's what I thought, just wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand your comment
[13:47:02] <janrinok> we have to be particularly careful now. With a link to the sub on each story, and bad links to sex sites, politics or whatever will now be on the front page!
[13:47:29] <CoolHand> good point
[13:48:10] <paulej72> They already were bascially. anyone can look at the subs in the subs queue
[13:48:12] <janrinok> my own view is that if the link doesn't belone - kill the story. Once people realise we will have trolls and spam all over the place
[13:48:33] <janrinok> yes but only a few did that. Now anyone can push any agenda onto the front page
[13:48:49] <CoolHand> only if we publish it
[13:48:56] <paulej72> Only if we publish the story in some form
[13:48:58] <CoolHand> so yeah, if it's has that cr@p, then just kill it.. imho
[13:49:45] <janrinok> yes, but a good story with one hidden link could cause havoc - imagine it opens something NSFW
[13:50:23] <janrinok> If we publish the story the link goes in anyway - so the only way to stop it is not to publish
[13:51:43] <janrinok> when people complain that their story is not being used then we have to explain why - but at least we will get the message out
[13:52:15] <janrinok> feedback is becoming more important
[13:59:01] <CoolHand> any news on the page you were talking about with denied submissions?
[13:59:18] <janrinok> I'm not sure that it has even started
[14:06:56] <janrinok> CoolHand: so you are posting those stories?
[14:11:22] <janrinok> CoolHand: I've changed the sub link to papasfritas email as indicated in the submissin. The TingModel.com link does not belong, IMHO
[14:12:56] <janrinok> CoolHand: If he wants to push his financial site he can do it elsewhere
[14:12:57] <CoolHand> ok.. I was planning on publishing the other later..
[14:13:37] <CoolHand> I thought that was why it had a homepage link, to publicize one's site.... it's one of his sites. I don't have an issue with it (but others probably would...)
[14:14:09] <janrinok> He has included links to newspapers, mining publications and others in the last 12 months
[14:14:52] <janrinok> He submits to both ourselves and /. - they don't seem to care what they publish in the way of third party links
[14:15:13] <janrinok> at what point does a link become unacceptable?
[14:15:30] <janrinok> I'm using the yardstick of it isn't part of the story
[14:17:15] <CoolHand> well, if the link was *in* the story, I'd see that more.. if one can promote oneself as part of putting in a well written submission, I see that just more as a way to encourage submissions. people don't have to click on the submitter's link to get the story..
[14:18:05] <CoolHand> but, this is just my personal opinion, and what I thought. if there is already a de-facto policy, I will follow it :)
[14:18:24] <janrinok> well, let me put it another way. How would you document it in the editorial guide. What would you say a new editor should do. How would he know that Hugh Pickens == papasfritas == ting model.com?
[14:19:30] <janrinok> If we are going to start putting links to uneditable submissions on the front page, we need to have a robust documented procedure for what is acceptable and what is not.
[14:20:31] <janrinok> How much research should a new editor do to ascertain whether a link to tingmodel.com, which indicates that it is HughPickens, but is submitted on the account of papasfritas do?
[14:22:18] <CoolHand> ? I'm not sure it matters.. (other than being comfortable with the submitter's style - but really every submission should be judged on its own merit). As long as the article isn't an advertisement, or have advertisement links, I'm pretty much ok with it. If someone wants to put Microsoft.com as there homepage, but otherwise has a great article on climate change science or something.. i'm ok with that - personally.. not trying to argue
[14:25:18] <CoolHand> It was my understanding that it *was* a little carrot for submitters, but it seems I may have been mistaken on that.. :)
[14:25:50] <janrinok> I'm not comfortable with that. A person's individual homepage is one thing, a commercial company quite another. What if the company was a shop selling sex aids? A company selling pornography? The Republican Party front page. Should we be giving them advertising space?
[14:26:35] <janrinok> I have nothing against any of them, but our front page is not the appropriate place for it.
[14:27:49] <janrinok> What happens if you click on the link at work and something NSFW pops up? Who do you think the community will blame. My guess is the Editors - and it will be loud and clear, and deserved in my view.
[14:28:49] <janrinok> So we need a simple procedure and rule that any of us can follow and that has the backing of everyone. I would tend to err on the side of caution rather than make it a free for all.
[14:29:00] <CoolHand> For quality submissions? I'd probably use common sense and nix out NSFW and political stuff if the article was aobut politics.. but I"m beginning to see your point.. :)
[14:29:38] <janrinok> If you make a complicate rule - it will get misconstrued or abused. KISS.
[14:29:44] <janrinok> complicated*
[14:29:57] <CoolHand> so a policy would be any *personal* website that is not NSFW..
[14:30:18] <janrinok> I could go with that, or their usual email address
[14:31:44] <janrinok> but I am only one editor. So, while the dust settles and we sort things out, we need to be careful. I can draft or suggest changes to NCommander or mrcoolbp, and between them and the editors we can come to some acceptable standard that we are prepared to live with.
[14:32:43] <janrinok> The community thought that adding a simple link to the sub would be a minor change, and to them it might be. But there are all sorts of knock-on effects that we need to consider.
[14:32:54] <CoolHand> well, we should maybe *define* and *publish* a standard somewhere, so that submitters know beforehand and don't get upset.. could put a link to it there above the box defining the policy
[14:33:31] <CoolHand> (just trying to head off another big hulabaloo) :)
[14:34:14] <janrinok> we've been doing this for what, 5 days? The existing standard is in the guide - remove all links to .... etc. But now that we are also 'publishing' the sub in an unedited form, we have got to be even more careful.
[14:35:11] <janrinok> I have already ping NCommander - but as yet had no response. We need to get this sorted out in the next day or two. So, if you see them before I do, please tip them off regarding the problem.
[14:36:58] <CoolHand> alrighty...
[14:37:13] <paulej72> janrinok: NCommander is on a bouncer and will see it when he logs on a gain. I think he is doing a massive bike trip so probably will not be on until late evening US Estern time
[14:37:24] <janrinok> how long before the first goatse?
[14:37:30] <janrinok> paulej72: thanks for that
[14:38:01] <CoolHand> janrinok: are you saying we haven't had a goatse yet? (in the submissions)
[14:38:16] <janrinok> not that got to the front page - I don't recall one
[14:38:34] <CoolHand> and as long as we don't publish a story with goatse we'd still be fine..
[14:38:35] <janrinok> ... plenty tried, tho
[14:38:40] <CoolHand> I don't see how as that would change
[14:38:47] <janrinok> so where is the line?
[14:39:04] <CoolHand> other than all submissions may be slightly more visible if we get the rejection page
[14:39:22] <janrinok> if it is a good story but the submitter's link points to a goatse, is the story worth publishing?
[14:39:26] <CoolHand> I wonder if we get that, if we could edit out stuff like that
[14:39:39] <CoolHand> janrinok: the answer is *no*
[14:39:50] <janrinok> and if that is NOT ok, then how about a site pushing the share price analysis of TING?
[14:40:30] <janrinok> you cannot edit the submission, only the summary. The submission stays un-edited but is now accessible on the front page
[14:40:48] <CoolHand> janrinok: I still believe you are comparing apples to oranges with submitters link and story links, as well as NSFW and corporate... but ok..
[14:41:20] <janrinok> Well suggest a simple rule that anyone can follow when editing and I will support it
[14:41:48] <paulej72> Editor' Comment: Orginal Submission not available due to inappropriate links that have been remove in the above version
[14:42:23] <CoolHand> paulej72: nice idea there..
[14:42:25] <janrinok> paulej72: I agree with that and I am quite happy to do that
[14:42:27] <paulej72> make sure we have language on the submission page about that
[14:43:09] <janrinok> but we still have to decide what is 'acceptable' and what is 'not' - and that line must be clearly defined. The procedure is simple.
[14:43:18] <paulej72> sure sure
[14:43:58] <janrinok> we cannot leave it to editors without some form of backing, otherwise they simply become scapegoats when things go wrong.
[14:44:07] <paulej72> we just need to update the submission guidlines to show that we will edit out this kind of stuff
[14:44:35] <janrinok> that is procedural - I'm having problems with the definition.
[14:44:49] <CoolHand> 1) not NSFW 2) No direct benefit/influence on subject of story (i.e. no political group in a story with politics)
[14:44:57] <paulej72> Well we can ask the community
[14:45:14] <CoolHand> paulej72: good pt
[14:45:34] <janrinok> I've gone hard on the side of caution and I accept that there is an entire spetrum to be considered, but at least we are safe for the time being
[14:45:52] <janrinok> I do not support political links at any time - just as the current guide says now
[14:46:23] <CoolHand> janrinok: which guide? I was looking for that..
[14:46:23] <janrinok> in the story OK, but not in anything else, and not hidden as a 'user' link. That is simply being dishonest
[14:46:31] <paulej72> is that in the editor's guide. if so that is not readily avilable to submitters
[14:46:54] <janrinok> Read the guide on how to edit a story. It tells you to remove unsuitable links and tells you what they are
[14:46:59] <paulej72> we should have that spelled out in the submission guidlines
[14:47:16] <janrinok> I agree paulej72, but we have to clearly define it first...
[14:47:47] <paulej72> and I think we need to date the guidline page when do so people can know when there is a change
[14:49:02] <janrinok> HughPickens is linking to his site that is pushing his financial analysis of TING. Should that be acceptable. He did not publish it under either of his usernames (HughPickens or papasfritas) and it has nothing to do with the story.
[14:52:23] <paulej72> I think in this case he is trying to be a bit sneaky about the name he published this under. it not a good thing in this case
[14:53:09] <CoolHand> in editing_process guide, the policy would be defined as "remove links to unwanted material such as political electioneering, pornography, blatent advertising". so I would have to say in this case it's blatent advertising, so per policy unacceptable.
[14:53:59] <CoolHand> still not sure I totally agree with that policy as best, but it is what it is, and we have enough else to worry about.. I do think it should be clear to submitters though..
[14:54:57] <CoolHand> that was for "each link in the submission" , now whether his "homepage" is part of the submission may be up for debate I guess...
[14:55:35] <janrinok> well, it is a link, and it is in the submission, so I'd prefer to play safe.
[14:56:01] <CoolHand> right..
[14:58:42] <janrinok> Perhaps something like 'User contact links may contain a contact email or a personal (not commercial) website, or be left blank. Any other links must be relevant to the story and not contain links to political electioneering, pornography, blatent advertising or other material considered 'Not Suitable For Work'. Submissions that breach this guide may be rejected by the staff'
[15:00:18] <CoolHand> that sounds pretty good.. :)
[15:01:48] <CoolHand> I mean, pretty much anything we'd put out will still have some judgement on our parts involved, but at least, it will set the basic expectation for the submitter..
[15:02:23] <CoolHand> which I think is fair..
[15:02:31] <janrinok> and it provides a clear guide to all on what is considered 'acceptable', particularly for the protection of editors
[15:21:22] <janrinok> Wiki page for submissions is locked - anyone know how to unlock it?
[15:25:37] <janrinok> paulej72: do you have anything to do with our email system? I'm getting bounce messages for 'undelivered mail' to my soylent account. I assume that it is just someone using my email address but the spam emails are in my sent folder and are dated May 22
[15:26:19] <janrinok> I know that someone (mechanicjay?) was having problems with this the other day
[17:17:20] janrinok is now known as janrinok|afk
[17:55:57] janrinok|afk is now known as janrinok
[19:11:52] janrinok is now known as janrinok|afk
[20:02:26] janrinok|afk is now known as janrinok
[20:25:37] -!- janrinok has quit [Quit: leaving]
[23:41:11] <mrcoolbp> CoolHand/takyon: I'm udating the "Self Parking Volvo" story with a "human fault, not self driving" comment
[23:55:51] -!- Bender has quit [Read error: error:1408F119:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_RECORD:decryption failed or bad record mac]
[23:56:25] -!- Bender [Bender!Bender@Soylent/BotArmy] has joined #editorial