Anonymous user
Forum:Featured Content voting issue: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>LostInRiverview mNo edit summary |
imported>K6ka No edit summary |
||
Line 16:
::My response to this earlier was brief because I was in a rush and didn't have an answer prepared. I've thought about it some more and I have more to add.
::It probably goes without saying that these problems all stem from a lack of activity in featured content selection. The minimum threshold would maintain some minimum level of quality but it doesn't solve the problem of lack of activity, and additionally adds a high bar that submissions need to pass, which may ultimately severely reduce the amount of content that is featured. Now admittedly this may be good from the perspective of ensuring that only high-quality content is featured. But, as it relates to ensuring that we have new content featured on a monthly basis (to ensure that the old features don't become "stale" and that we continue to highlight new features), having a threshold would make it much more difficult to keep featured content updated.
::I do have an idea on how to solve this, though it may seem a bit drastic. First, it may be ultimately a good idea to standardize the voting systems and requirements for each featured content category. Featured articles are nominated and receive a 14-day voting window before the nominations and the votes both "expire," featured media votes and nominations never expire, and featured editor votes all expire monthly whereas the nominations do not expire. It may be best to set some standard length of time and vote threshold for all of them, so that any other overarching rules we apply will be applied evenly.
Line 22:
::I think it may be useful to re-imagine how we handle these featured contents. To explain this rethinking, consider the following regarding featured articles as an example (since I'm the most familiar with how it operates). Every month, the wiki selects a new article, which is ''the featured article for <month, year>''. So at any one time, the wiki has only one featured article. If a threshold system is introduced, it is possible that one article will remain ''the featured article'' for several months at a time, especially if votes for featured article continue to expire at the same rate they do now (every 14 days). Even without this expiration, any threshold is likely to result in this problem simply because featured content voting is sadly less popular than it ever used to be. Featured articles are meant to be a selling point for the wiki and, as such, it's important that the featured article changes regularly. So, having the same featured article for several months due to a vote threshold is not an ideal situation and should be avoided.
::It may be more practical in the long run to feature articles more than once. Right now we have a Featured Articles queue which is populated by articles which pass the nomination stage. We could use this queue to feature articles that have already been selected. The articles can be re-added to the queue by a curator with input from the community, and changed on a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly basis. For this to be effective, we would want to develop some system to evaluate past FAs to ensure that they are still featured article quality (something which I have been personally advocating for some time regardless), and then weed out those articles that fall below FA standards or improve them until they meet those standards again. On top of this, we would have the FA nomination process (along with a vote threshold or some other means to ensure that only quality articles are chosen) to bring new articles into the rotation.
::I personally would prefer this approach. I feel like it's a bit of a shame that once articles are featured they cannot be featured again. And if we are having difficulties selecting worthy articles to feature, as it appears we are, then we should be instead highlighting those articles that we have already determined (and subsequently re-affirmed) to be high-quality, rather than leaving the same article featured continuously for months or leaving the space blank altogether. Plus this system would take the pressure off the FA nominations process. Right now in order for the wiki to have a featured article, an article must pass the nominations process. If we are allowed to use articles that have already passed, then we no longer ''need to'' get articles from the nomination page. That means we can be more selective with the articles that we do feature.
Line 32:
:My opinion regarding what LiR calls arbitrary thresholds largely aligns with LiR. I'd venture to say that the wiki activity itself has grown down, and the enthusiasm for featured materials have gone down in general. It's been quite some time since Featured Fanon and Fan Fiction became obsolete, and Fanon Battles generate nowhere near the activity that the regular battle does, despite a fairly healthy start. My opinion is that the problem, at least in case of the fanon-related things, simply involves the glut of fanon material of acceptable yet not outstanding quality. I'd personally would wish for a big fanon critiquing/revision project to spiff up fanons, especially of the more active fanon authors who could use other peoples' inputs (such as myself, who believe my fanons, at least at the beginning, is a pile of incoherent pile that needs a bit of patching up). As for the featured tutorial, my opinion on that matter is that not many people come here for tutorials, asides the most basic ones like extracting headshots, thus tutorial section as of the moment has serious limitations given competition like the various modding sites and youtube videos which cover more technical things. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 06:04, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
::I think the fanon critique idea is a good one. Since it's your idea, maybe you should run with it and try to implement it? Or else try to get a discussion going towards implementing it, if you feel doing it unilaterally is too bold (I personally don't think that it would be too bold). And I think your point about featured game guides/tutorials is right on as well; our Game Guides namespace has always been a little disappointing. The idea when it was created was that it would be a place for more technical help with the games. That did not occur, I think mainly for two reasons; 1 - a lack of members on TSW with significant technical knowledge about the games, and 2 - as you mentioned, the prevalence of other sites that offer that information already. That's not to say that I'd advocate for getting rid of the namespace, but I think you're right that there's simply not enough content there to begin selecting features. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 02:38, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
:::From what I'm getting skimming over, it seems that the primary force of the declining "featured awesomeness" sections of the wiki is the lack of editor activity. Fewer and fewer editors are voting. Not to mention some things are too small to warrant a "featured this-and-this" section, like the game guides. Considering our collection of game guides is so small and often not as thorough or well-developed as game guides on other websites, and our article probably only makes it on the first page of Google because The Sims Wiki on Wikia is a shining beacon in The Sims world. Granted, we do have some very popular game guides, such as [[Game guide:Avoiding corruption]], which is the first entry you get when Googling "The Sims 2 corruption", and [[Game guide:How to delete a Sim correctly]], which is the third result when Googling "The Sims 2 delete a Sim" and first if you add "correctly" (by contrast, the original guide, written by [[J.M. Pescado]], doesn't appear on the first page of either of those search terms, so our game guides, while not receiving the attention that would make a "Featured Game Guide" more than just tumbleweeds, is still at least a valuable asset). However, let's be fair... most of our game guides are not of good quality. Some were copied-and-pasted directly from other sites, most of them aren't written in the best tone ever, and again, most readers looking for help probably don't even look at The Sims Wiki. The official EA websites are the first places a distressed Sims player goes to, followed by maybe TSR and MTS. There are tons of guides on those sites that we don't have. I suppose maybe I could try expanding the game guides section, but even then, considering how I procrastinate a lot and how real life gets in the way (and how I seem to be capable of cranking out a new article every three months, not including off-time), we'd probably need to find the editors to crank out a new *quality* game guide at least every month '''and''' have them all of good quality or at least really, really informative, before I could probably say that a "Featured Game Guide" section is even plausible. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 03:35, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
| |||