Zichi - if you hang around the front-page you'll see Paschen posting these recommendations to one NP reporter in particular (who I shan't name) but that guy's ticking me off with his endless posting of nothing-but-highlighted stories.

What's more galling is that someone among the Editors is putting him on the front page and even on the Top Story.  The "quality" of his articles goes against all the journalistic principles of NP.

I totally agree that we shouldn't limit people's style (otherwise there'd be no news-Haiku), but demanding a minimum standard is the least we can do if this site is going to prosper.  I'm dead against censorship in any form, but there are some 'writers' who just abuse this site.  I'm sure we could all quite easily post 20 stories a day if we only highlighted them and added nothing of our own.  I think that's who Paschen's comments were aimed at.

If any Editors are reading this: I appreciate that you're not omniscient, but there are days when the overall standard of policing of the site seems to dip - usually around one or two persistent writers (that issue with the guy only posting only photos a few weeks ago comes to mind).

Also (and I'm perhaps getting off-topic here), I'd rather the Front Page was 100% hand-edited, rather than leave it up to an algorithm while the Canada team is off-duty.  Surely we have enough editors dotted around the globe that we could maintain a certain level of editorial control on that page?

Uwe - thanks for this thread.  Perhaps this can be the de-facto comment for articles that have no original writing in them.  I think it makes sense to have one consistent message for those members who need a nudge.

(yes - I'm in a ranty mood today - sorry)

Just to let you know that we are overhauling our story creation process so that purely highlighted posts with no original commentary will be allowed. That will at least solve some issues with just highlighted posts.

Also, if members do not want purely higlighted posts to reach the top five, then don't good stuff them Instead, make a comment asking the author a question, prompting them to add some of their own material. Or sometimes I say 'I would love to flag this, but don't flag purely highlighted pieces'. Often that gets some members to go back and add their own material.

I don't think there is really a 'story formula' on NowPublic; we all like different things, and yes, sometimes a completely original post is no better than one that contains highlights, but it's discussions like this that let us look at what a good post could and should be, and I think the examples you have used Paschen are good ones.

I'm not sure about the 'hand edited' front page, as that is too subjective. What I think makes a good top five is not necessarily what others think make a good top five, so I have a feeling that will cause a lot of problems with all these different tastes. However, some food for thought for sure.

Great discussion here!

Thanks all for your comments and discussion around the Highlight tool and our goal for some modicum of journalistic integrity here on NowPublic.

NowPublic has an extensive community of writers and contributors, and our goal is to provide a platform upon which everyone has a voice and the freedom to contribute their unique thoughts and perspectives.  Good stories come in many shapes and forms; it could be a strict opinion piece filled with emotion, a partially highlighted piece interjected with the authors' own thoughts, or a wholly original news story that the author has tracked down and sourced on their own - all have their place and play a vital role in shaping the NowPublic environment.

Unfortunately, on occasions the quality of some of the content isn't quite up to par with that of our more seasoned members, but hopefully everyone can see this as an opportunity for improvement through encouragement.  We are a community, and through this have the ability to effect positive change by teaching one another and assisting new users with our tools and editorial guidelines. 

From time to time "sub-par" stories do make it onto the front page and we're doing our best to address this issue.  We share the same sentiment in that we want our members' best material to be featured on the homepage.

A site re-design is coming up and hopefully many of these issues surrounding the point value system and straight highlights will be resolved.  We will appreciate your continued feedback once we implement these changes, but in the meantime please continue to assist new/inexperienced members by offering your help and guidance and including them as part of this growing community.

I did notice them as well as others did here and I PM them as well as other did here as well.

Editors did comment about this as well on some of there posting. They are new here and may need some more time. I do not know. 

I wouldn't mind the quantity if they backed it up with some original writing.  There are a lot of stories that they're posting that I think would benefit from background research, broadening the scope of the piece, positioning it - you know - all the things you don't automatically get by highlighting a single source.

I feel like doing some longer, "Sunday paper" versions of stories they've dashed-off, as a reposte.

I will contact those two members today to offer my services for help.

Hi All,

I have been very frustrated of late regarding posting original material and podcasts on "interesting" topics at NP. I was just   flagged as needs improvement by Jarrett and I knew he had not heard the podcast by his remarks. I suggested he listen before being too quick on the draw. Of course no response and it will die a silent death that is not uncommon here. I really don't need to place these original materials on Now Public. I (we) have a very popular web site where all this ends up. However, I thought that Now Public was a good community to be a part of and participate in regularly. Many of the folks are respectful and will appreciate a piece regardless if they disagree. I appreciate this kind of community. However, this indiscrimate use or rather abuse of power really causes me to pull up stakes and take my marbles home and go some where else if my work is not appreciated as an addittional source of special interests and news. Everything I put up is worked on by the authors in a serious manner many of whom are known and accompolished members in their particular fields. So help me friends by sharing your feedback. I really find it hard at times to see so much junk clutter NP with highlighted news anyone can find almost anywhere in the press. Yet I get flagged with questioning original pieces as news worthiness. This has only happened a few times with no real place to redress the decision.Whether you enjoy or appreciate what I put up  to the majority of the NP members and lurkers remains to be seen but at least someone finds them of interest and even flags them when moved. I needed to direct these issues here before I totally stop participating. Thanks everyone for allowing my rant.

Hi there,

Thank you very much for your nice comments about NowPublic first of all.

I understand your frustrations, and I cannot speak for other editors here, but I think that sometimes there is such a vast difference between material here on NowPublic, that it is hard to judge what is 'newsworthy' or not so we do it on a case by case basis.

NowPublic is about timely news pieces most of all, so if a post does not conform to that, we will often flag it. However, of course we can be wrong, and it's nice to open up a dialogue about the piece in question.

As I explained in a previous private message to you, we are re-doing our story creation process so that completely highlighted pieces will not be allowed, but until then I understand how that is frustrating to members that write original pieces or upload original media and then see complete highlights on the front page. They end up there because they have been flagged as 'good stuff' and because they have been read. That's how our system works.

I think NowPublic is a good community to be a part of, but like any online community we are evolving and working out the kinks, so your feedback is always appreciated.

And no worries, it wasn't a rant..... ;)

Hi Zichi,

Thanks for the effort to listen. This particular podcast was done because of the Jewish New Year with a well-known journalist Yossi Klein Ha Levy. The topic was about personal growth and internal understanding of the world around us. God is used in English and in this context solely for the purpose of identifying a more expansive experience or rather deeper understanding of the world we live in and the ability to humbly understand the amazing expansiveness of living in the world divorced of the need to identify with the on going action as if our life depended upon it. This particular podcast may have a Jewish angle to it and therfore may be limited but it is not exclusive as the discussion is quite universal.

This is a very profound experience. My teacher  Zoketsu Norman Fischer had no problem using the word God in describing a variety of experiences one may be blessed with in ones life. Again thanks much for your effort.

Shalom, Peace

Steve

Hey guys, Im new here so Im gonna get straight to the point and hope to get some good replys 
When I start my webbrowser, Im using internet explorer its some weird search engine. It used to be google and everytime I change
it back to google its okay. Until I start me pc again, then the wrong search engine is back. How can I get rid off this? Its getting annoying
and there hase to be a way right? 

Okay I hope you can give me any ideas, Im gonna check back to the forum in couple days to see what you have suggested, Bye! 

mrtruckster, this is not a PC/ computer help site. You would be better trying to find a site that caters to helping users in this area.

Thanks.

Thanks generaldecay - was going to say a similar thing myself.

asdsada

sdfsdf