Content: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* When you have the same group of minds selecting the content that gets seen, over the course of years, the users eventually get burnt out seeing the same type of stuff, chosen by the same people over and over again. The content becomes stale even if its fresh | * When you have the same group of minds selecting the content that gets seen, over the course of years, the users eventually get burnt out seeing the same type of stuff, chosen by the same people over and over again. The content becomes stale even if its fresh | ||
:Need to find a way to combat this.... some kind of voting system for content so it is not just the editors choice ?? | :Need to find a way to combat this.... some kind of voting system for content so it is not just the editors choice ?? | ||
*Minimize internal Drama (i.e. Wiki pages for Scientology) | |||
Revision as of 21:21, 10 February 2014
- Scraping bad. Having editors dotted around the timezones that create their own better versions of the summaries, even if they contain just the same links as the /. story that inspired them, not bad. FatPhil (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2014 (MST)
- Agree with scraping bad. The general trend for the summaries has gone downhill badly over the past few years so better to have editors (re-)publish articles even if they use the same (or better) links (Qwade)
- When you have the same group of minds selecting the content that gets seen, over the course of years, the users eventually get burnt out seeing the same type of stuff, chosen by the same people over and over again. The content becomes stale even if its fresh
- Need to find a way to combat this.... some kind of voting system for content so it is not just the editors choice ??
- Minimize internal Drama (i.e. Wiki pages for Scientology)