(tye)Re: More Non-US Editors Needed?
by tye (Sage) on Jun 14, 2002 at 06:21 UTC
|
Just a quick note. I've already started some of the changes that would allow anyone to, for example, do /msg editors Please ... and the message would end up in a "shared inbox" that only editors could use. The "Editors' Nodelet" would show you how many messages there are (ones you haven't seen, archived ones, and the rest). Editors could do things in the shared inbox just like in their own inbox (reply to, archive, and delete messages).
I'd also like to allow modification of messages (which also forces them to be archived, perhaps also marked as "modified" in some way), which probably means everyone will be allowed to modify their archived messages. This will allow editors to "claim" an item that they are about to handle. I think this will stream-line a lot of things that are done rather cumbersomely ATM. This won't replace Nodes to Consider, of course. It might replace Editor Requests to some extent. We'll see how it works and adjust as needed.
This would also work for /msg gods I can see any user's password if I....
More details will be available when things are closer to working.
- tye (but my friends call me "Tye")
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] [select] |
(improvement: knowing who's an editor in other users) Re: More Non-US Editors Needed?
by crazyinsomniac (Prior) on Jun 14, 2002 at 01:31 UTC
|
Ok. This is not an original idea, but E2's (the website) other users nodelet lists a * or some kind of character next to people who are gods for example, and so on, and I figure, doing the same for our chatterbox might not be a bad idea.
This post prompted me about thinking how many times have I had to look at the editors node to see who is an editor, and then checking the other users nodelet to see if they're here, cause I wanted something taken care of within the hour.
Knowing who's an editor by looking at the other users nodelet would make this more than simple.
So here it is, a call to pmdevers, everywhere, who'll take on this patch? (make the other users nodelet display an *e* next to an editor)
update: I'm usually here around midnight and after PST, when kudra ain't around ;D (and i'm a very responsible QAndAEditor).
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
BTW, for those who can't read the pmdev wiki, there's a rough patch to do this. (More exactly, [E] will show for Editors, and [G] for Gods.)
Tye or another God will get to it soon, I'm sure.
Just a little update from your friendly submitter of timely but terribly poorly written patches.
We are using here a powerful strategy of synthesis: wishful thinking. -- The Wizard Book
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: More Non-US Editors Needed?
by Dog and Pony (Priest) on Jun 14, 2002 at 12:19 UTC
|
As one of the people that participated in this discussion yesterday, I thought I'd stick my neck out and try to post an answer. Someone has to do it, I guess. :)
Speaking as one Euro-monk that is popping in here now and then during my working hours and more, I do see a need for more editors in my timezone. However, I might be fooled, or not sufficiently informed. Feel free to set things straight.
As I said yesterday when the question "how often do you see a call for editors when noone is about" came up in the CB, I'd say that is on average one to three times per week. It isn't like someone has posted lots of pr0n links or anything that often, but something that would be good if it was fixed quite soon. It may even be so simple as something frontpaged really needing a <readmore> tag. Waiting 4-6 hours for that seems unnecessary, and if it wasn't an issue, then the readmore tag wouldn't be needed at all?
What I mean by that, is when someone is requesting something they feel is urgent in the CB, and we can't see no editor about, and apparently none of the is at least reading the CB. It may involve cases where someone has posted something that breaks a page, or posted something accidently etc.
Of course, the editors may well be there, but if so they are not fixing the problem, and they don't let anyone know "I'm here" either which could calm some people down.
Last example I know was when SOPW broke badly two or three days ago, so noone could post. There was quite some upset people then, that wanted to ask questions. I am still not sure if it actually was a post that broke it, maybe it was something in the engine. It is hard to tell for really sure unless you can examine the posts more closely, but I think this might have been something else.
Point is, if it was a post that broke it, no editor was around. At least not that any of us saw, and more importantly, no editor, even if they was there, and took a look, bother to say so. I think an editor would have, so I conclude that there was noone about. Then again, this is only guesswork.
Situations like these are not that rare. Maybe they can wait for 4-6 hours, but for the people who want to use the site the upcoming 4-6 hours, it might be a big deal. It sure sounds like it is a big deal to them in the CB. And that should probably be listened to.
I can't help but get the feeling that this is maybe a territorial issue. Not from the US-monks side, really, but rather from already editors. I am not sure this is altogether a good thing. Although, someone against called this a "political" issue yesterday in the CB, as if it was some kind of US against Europe issue. Which I don't think it is, or should be. I would be just as satisfied with people from anywhere, just as long as they are around at the times needed. Do we need it 24/7? Maybe not. I can't see why it would hurt, though?
However, what I do understand is this: It must be really tough to find people you can trust with this kind of business, that has both the skills needed and are trustworthy to not go on an editing havoc. So if that is the case, just say so: "We can't find anyone suitable". I'd understand that.
I don't think that the editorial staff is swamped though, as asked above. I don't think they are doing a bad job, rather the opposite. I think they are fixing all things that needs fixing... eventually. In my time zone, that may well be after more than a working day. I have also noted that during US hours, this kinds of requests are extremely rare, probably because those cases gets fixed almost before anyone has the time to complain. Or maybe it is that US posters makes less mistakes, I am not sure. ;-) Either way, I can understand why the US people hasn't seen this.
To sum it up, this question arises time and again, time and again during Euro hours, and while it may not be a big problem, people seems to have the feeling it is. All I would ask is that the people in charge, or the editors themselves (the latter, preferably, I think) just took some time to think about this. Some people (including me) feels it would be great to cover the time zones a bit better. I hope we deserve a discussion about it at least. :)
You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue. | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
About the SOPW problem:
I was on at the time, and as far as I could see,
it wasn't the post. I didn't announce anything
at the time because the conversation in chatterbox
had already shifted to the view that it wasn't the
node.
I'm a bit suprised there's such a slow response time
for European times like you report. My usual morning
routine is to take care of outstanding nodes (except
tutorials) and then check every couple of hours from
that point on.
I will be gone next month, however, so there will be
a lot less editing from me until August.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: More Non-US Editors Needed?
by grinder (Bishop) on Jun 14, 2002 at 13:22 UTC
|
I have noticed in the past couple of months that around 06:00-07:00 UTC, there are rarely more than 15 monks in Other Users. Given that a certain number of those people might have left a Chatterbox client running and are not actually present, I'd hazard that the number of active people is less than 10. The easiest way to verify this would be to get tye or ar0n to do some access_log munging to look for the trough.
Another hint that activity is low is that "all is quiet" in the CB. This means that if anyone posted a node requiring urgent editing, the wait might be fairly lengthy.
Taking a quik squint at the editors group, I see that Adam, chipmunk, Masem, neshura and tilly and were last here a number of weeks ago. And that's not counting Nate who was here 7 days ago but is not otherwise a regular participant.
I'd tend to say that most of the editing is performed by the usual bunch of suspects. Maybe a couple of additions would be a good thing, just in case they're not around.
print@_{sort keys %_},$/if%_=split//,'= & *a?b:e\f/h^h!j+n,o@o;r$s-t%t#u' | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
Of the 4 'usual suspects', two are from europe: bunch and of </tounge in cheek>
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: More Non-US Editors Needed?
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Jun 14, 2002 at 14:48 UTC
|
Hello Footpad,
Ive thought long and hard about how to reply to this node. Frankly I feel that the way that you portray what happened yesterday in the CB is not the way it felt to me (or frankly a number of other monks with whom I discussed the matter in /msg).
Is there a problem?
Well, it all depends on the definition of the term "problem".
- Will PM fall over or that type of thing due to there not being an editor on hand during the morning hours GMT? No.
- Are there regular requests for editorial intervention during the morning hours GMT that go unanswered? Yes.
So the question "Is there a problem" depends on your perspective. And this was the root of the dispute that occurred on the CB. A number of monks were saying "There have been many occasions where editors havent been around when it was felt that one was needed." But you came in, frankly in a quite patronizing manner, pooh-poohing us all. Your attitude was "This hasn't affected me thus it can't be a problem." This was despite several monks making the same point.
You then attempted to imply that somehow this was politically motivated (apparently because I said "maybe we should could keep a log, I bet the US editors/monks would be suprised.") which was where I bowed out of the conversation. I dont know what you were thinking (and nor did the several other monks that /msg'd me with things like "What planet is he on") but whatever it was it was wrong, and the smell of the whole thing was both patronizing and insulting.
Is it necessary to have an Editor available at all times?
Actually I would say generally yes. Think of a lifeguard. Most times a lifeguard sits on his (reverse this for female lifeguards :-) chair flirting with girls. His most frequent issue is to dispense bandages to people who have slipped and skinned their knees. Of course this type of stuff could be treated a couple of hours later so most likely it wouldnt matter if the lifeguard only showed up later on. But if the pool only provided a lifeguard when it was really busy then one day someone would drown when the lifeguard wasnt there. Which is why public pools normally provide a lifeguard for all of the hours they are open.
Now granted here at the monastery we dont generally deal with such extreme issues. The most serious are newbies making a mistake and posting real and sensitive data samples in their posts, that and trolls in the CB. But nevertheless these are serious enough issues that there should be IMO only a small probablility that the site is unmonitored by an editor for any reasonable amount of time (at least the probability should be closely related to the size of the comunity likely to be online at a given time, and considering that there are a lot of euromonks....). And by the latter I mean in computer terms, so 15 minutes is probably the right amount of time. Now of course if this site was low volume, if it was only getting a few tens of hits a day such coverage would be both unneccessary and unfeasable. But the fact is that the site is high volume. During the day (GMT) there are usually 10-40 people online. Usually amongst them are monks who are both senior and have been active members for at least a year. Thus there are several if not many monks who could fill this role admirably.
Is there, perhaps, some other way to more widely document the editorial process and how the average monk can use it to best advantage?
No. While such measures may improve peoples understanding of the situation, and probably the associated frustration that it cant be helped, but they dont resolve the fact that someone with the correct permissions needs to be on hand to perform the task.
In general, I don't feel there's a real problem.
This was patently obvious from your responses in the CB to the various monks who think there is.
Slightly more than 20% of the current editors are located internationally
Perhaps. But consider, Corion is often not around in the mornings. Kudra often shows up around mid morning. Davorg doesnt seem to be around much at all these days, nor does neophyte. ar0n is on his way to holland, so that will address matters a bit, but still.(BTW, this is not a criticism of the editors in question I am well aware and understanding of the fact that they are volunteers.)
The current convention of sending private /msg's to one or more editors seems to work well.
During the times you are online Im sure it does. What about when you're not?
Also, I'm not against adding more editors, regardless of location.
That certainly wasnt the way it seemed yesterday. In fact quite the contrary. And again, I am not the only one who thought that.
let's discuss it as a community
Im glad that we are doing so. However lets keep in mind that the community you see and the community that I see can be pretty different. (Actually I have long thought there must be many faces to the monastery. There are active saints who I have _never_ seen online) If only because of the times that we are online. And lets also keep in mind that just becuase you dont see that there is a "problem" that the community it affects may well feel that there is a "problem". Taking other peoples experiences and feelings seriously (which IMO yesterday you did not) is part of being in a community.
Yves / DeMerphq
---
Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look. | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: More Non-US Editors Needed?
by greenFox (Vicar) on Jun 14, 2002 at 04:09 UTC
|
What, no Aussies!!! In fact no-one from the Southern Hemisphere at all... is the Monastery beset by hemispherical prejudice? <grin>
More seriously though whilst I am not be around so much as some other Monks I have never encountered a problem and (taking the chance to offer some praise) always thought the Editors did a pretty good job.
-- my $chainsaw = 'Perl';
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: More Non-US Editors Needed?
by mojotoad (Monsignor) on Jun 14, 2002 at 06:05 UTC
|
Thank you for the node, it's always interesting to get some sort of peek behind the curtains.
As to the general premise...how are non-editors to respond in any sort of informed manner? (other than, perhaps, non-US monks who have run into an availability wall of some sort).
As to the larger premise, only Editors can tell us what their burden is like, whether it's scant or all-consuming. If they are swamped then they should recruite on the CB or somesuch.
Matt
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: More Non-US Editors Needed?
by talexb (Chancellor) on Jun 15, 2002 at 16:53 UTC
|
Is there any interest in temporarily offering editor status to a sufficiently advanced user who is not (yet) an editor?
This could be offered to a user in the event that there are no editors about, in the unlikely event that a post needs fixing. I'm thinking this wouldn't apply to modifying the code that runs the site or anything like that .. just removing offensive/copyrighted material or personal information.
The user could accept (if they're going to be on for a while) or decline (if they don't have time).
--t. alex
"Mud, mud, glorious mud. Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood!" --Michael Flanders and Donald Swann
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: More Non-US Editors Needed?
by BUU (Prior) on Jun 14, 2002 at 01:59 UTC
|
A thought on possibly helping the "janitors", maybe you could have a larger group of people who can submit 'recomended changes' of a node, then the editor could just approve it. Thus the editors would still be a small group, but would (probably) greatly increase their efficiency.. | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
This is such a good idea that in fact it is already implemented. The node Nodes To Consider (also referred to as NtC) does just that. It is accessible to all monks of level 6 or higher.
print@_{sort keys %_},$/if%_=split//,'= & *a?b:e\f/h^h!j+n,o@o;r$s-t%t#u'
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |