Historic:Content: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:41, 22 September 2016

Obsolete Page
This page is obsolete and only retained for archival purposes.

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 ??

SNR - Soylent News Roundup: This would be a weekly review of the best articles/comments

Revision as of 04:26, 22 February 2014 (view source) 70.179.183.155 (talk) (SNR) ← Older edit		Revision as of 01:41, 22 September 2016 (view source) Sir Finkus (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{archival}}
	* 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. [[User:FatPhil\|FatPhil]] ([[User talk:FatPhil\|talk]]) 14:14, 6 February 2014 (MST)		* 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. [[User:FatPhil\|FatPhil]] ([[User talk:FatPhil\|talk]]) 14:14, 6 February 2014 (MST)