I've been a member since February. Since then I've seen posts of all different natures ranging from great to those that do not belong on the site and the author needs to go and hide under a rock somwehere till the rage and anger blows over. (I don't mind making controversy to promote a healthy debate amongst fellow monks but one should not make a regular habit of it in bad form) And no matter how good or bad a post is. There always seems to be an unusual number of posts that are badly written that make it to the front page. I'm sure that this has been discussed before. But there seems to be a basic flaw in the approval process as to what goes onto the front page. Apparently the post that is listed in the approval section is also shown to the monk who posted the article in the first place. Giving a chance for temptation to set in. I know we do have some monks who have approved of their own posts to show up on the front page and have given in to such a temptation.
I believe that this form of tempatation must be dealt with so that authors can't approve of their own posts to go on the front page so that we may cut down on the garbage that seems to be showing up on the gates.
There seems to be a lacking of any standard (loose or otherwise) of how to judge if a post is worthy of being put on the front page. Do we need something like this? Obviously one doesn't need to write an article that will win the Pulitzer prize but at least it needs a good amount of content than the some three liners or less that make it to the front. I think in order for a post to make it to the front, more than one monk needs to say it deserves that sort of attention.