Difference between revisions of "Talk:AdminBlog"

Revision as of 18:17, 9 October 2013

Feel free to add comments about the latest entries of the Admin Blog here.

General Discussion

Do you want us to post from the top or the bottom? --Δ Epelesker (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2013 (MST)

Top should be the newest I think. Easier to see the newest stuff that way. -- Destructor (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2013 (MST)

PotM Discussion (8th October 2013)

Yes, I realize I was horrible and didn't really elaborate much on what exactly our positions were in the backroom discussion we had. I'd rather let the mods speak for themselves here, rather than attempt to paint the entire picture on my own.

My personal reason for bringing up the discussion is that I feel that the public vote system, as it is now, has its flaws: from some comments that have appeared in recent months, there have been issues with results ending up skewed toward well-viewed pages owned by active members, and that articles that barely miss winning several months in a row get "pushed". --Δ Epelesker (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2013 (MST)

My thought was to eliminate the PotM entirely and introduce a Random Page of the Week. This would use the random page function to find a suitable page (meaning it is not 'empty' of information, and has no mature content, stuff like that) and post it on the main page for people to see. I think it is more fair, and provides publicity to pages people might otherwise never see. Another idea I had was to make the Page of the Month only allow these Random Pages of the Week. Meaning, you have to choose from the pages featured in the Random Page.--Maekada (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2013 (MST)

About the PotM thing - Mostly the trend I've seen was that all the voted-in folks had Art of some kind. Makes it difficult for some people (I'm including myself in this) to get any kind of recognition for pages they've spent a lot of time on. Just seems like having art done is like, a prerequisite for being voted in.-- 16:20, 8 October 2013 (MST)

I'm actually happy you brought this up for discussion because it's a point that I pretty much forgot about. I can see where it can be believed that there's an unwritten rule or a "pay to win" mentality where a page has to have commissioned artwork, but there really isn't such a thing. I can agree with you to a certain extent that pages with artwork (and extensive formatting) have a certain edge with the preference of voters, but it's not like we can disqualify those articles just because of it, or easily sway the public opinion to lean towards simpler articles. --Δ Epelesker (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2013 (MST)

Hello, @leroyswish here. I was thinking the other night: What if the winners of POTM won an art commission?. I mean, not something TOTALLY outrageously priced, but just something. Asides form just "winning", we don't really have hopes for much. We all work insanely hard on our pages and maybe a great award is ready?
Also, what if we voted on all of the POTM past winners and chose one to rule them all? --@leroyswish (Talk) 18:00, 8 October 2013 (PST)

I can't really speculate on how feasible something like this could be at the moment. --Δ Epelesker (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2013 (MST)

Please leave the PoTM the way it is. There is no reason to change it now. If you want to do a Random Page of the Month or whatever, make it its own thing, but leave the PoTM as it is. More than likely, random page is how people FIND potential candidates for PoTM anyway, so it would be redundant to have two. I know I find some decent pages once in awhile when I hit the random page link. --@Reldin

Reldin, the majority of people likely look at who has already been nominated and vote for them. This is why we usually only have 1-2, maybe 3 candidates in total. Not to mention often the same minority of people VOTING to begin with. --Maekada (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2013 (MST)

So, what makes you think that's going to change then? If the same people are going to be voting, why bother changing the PoTM at all? It's not going to get more people interested in voting, it's more than likely going to turn a few people off from the whole thing. It just seems like there's more work trying to be done that won't change a thing. Keep it simple. If other folks really want to put their 2 cents into a vote, they can. Again, doing a revamp of the PoTM isn't going to change the minority because there isn't that many people that vote anyways to warrant the change from PoTM to this random page of the month stuff. --@Reldin

As much as I can vouch for Reldin making an effort to "find hidden gems" (remember that little line that used to be up at the top of PotM?), I have to agree with the trends that can be seen. Actually, I'll go one further: most of the people voting for, nominated, and successful in PotM are all people from CORP. We need to find a solution that allows more of the rest of the CO community to be represented without saying or implying "no, you can't vote like that". --Δ Epelesker (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2013 (MST)

The only solution you will find is going on the official forums and letting people know to vote for people's pages for PoTM, because we had a recent winner that WASN'T apart of the CORP community. If you want to get people from the rest of the CO community, you are going to need to be more active on other forums to get that interest in, otherwise you WILL see the same people from CORP voting on here. --@Reldin

The biggest issue I see is the steamrolling of candidates that don't win in a previous month. They'll just get nominated again and again until they finally DO win in the current system. The most obvious fix is putting in a rule that prevents any previous month's nominees from being entered in the next month's PotM contest - which has it's own set of 'unfairness' and problems. However, I think it is more beneficial to slap in that as at least a temporary fix to the problem. Unless you want to get incredibly draconian and come up with a very intensive set of rules and guidelines for it, there is no way to stop people from voting how they want. To some extent it will always be a popularity contest because it is by popular vote. Any 'change' to the system won't change much on who votes, because the vast majority of users on the site don't care about who wins the PotM, and that should be fine. Not everyone has to vote, only those that actually want to. And if they're voting for their friends, well. That's how the system works. In response to worries about active members being the winners most often - is that not the point? Nominating people who are actively still maintaining and updating their pages means that the winners will be around to see and appreciate the notoriety. I'd rather not be nominating dead pages. --Anubisgod