|
Post by Kat on Feb 11, 2023 3:40:13 GMT -5
From Issue 976's editorial. So, tl;dr, it seems the following changes will be made: 1. No more heldover messages, which means we will only get acceptances and rejections, I assume. 2. The backlog will be cleared after each issue. 3. 3-way collabs must now include a comment as to what each person worked on. 4. No guarantees for series of short stories or comics (as opposed to series series) to be in consecutive issues, as they will now be spread across issues and the publication depends on the quality of the submission. Thoughts? Of course, it remains to be seen if these changes will indeed be implemented for the next issue.
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Feb 11, 2023 4:00:29 GMT -5
I'm ambivalent about most of this. I understand it's likely to make a manageable backlog with clear rules for Neopians that can be managed. And I think the added rule about collabs would help with some issues I've seen with 3-way-collabs over simple entries.
I'm ambivalent... except for 4. And it's mostly because of comic series.
Comic series have been a staple of the NT for about as long as there's been an NT. Comics are usually the first place people go to, and sometimes it is for the sake of a comic series. I could maybe understand this if there were a lot of comic series in the works taking up space, but I'm not seeing that lately. I think this could discourage comic series that people would otherwise like to read.
I think there was already a rule for fairness in place in that one couldn't submit entries to be published in the same issue as an entry for a comic series.
But I could understand that maybe it's because of a scorched earth policy on NT entry backlog and a strong desire to keep it clear, and that could be something that could be nuanced back in over time? I don't know.. Maybe it won't be that hard to get comic series' in with this rule. Though it would make it harder if there was an issue with something in the middle of a series that couldn't be identified from overviewing the entries from the start.
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Feb 11, 2023 14:02:55 GMT -5
*arches eyebrow*
...eh, the cynic in me thinks that by the time my schedule frees up a gap wide enough to churn out another comic or actually finish my series, whichever inspiration sparks first, they'll have overhauled the system again. Pretty sure this isn't the first time they've done some form of the "clear all entries after an issue and let people snipe themselves to exhaustion" approach.
Comic series needed to be submitted all at once because the editor needed to make sure that each part held up to scrutiny (i.e the rules), otherwise you'd run into potential awkwardness when four parts have been published and the fifth suddenly can't be because it breaks a rule. Which I s'pose you could blame on the author and not especially care either way if a series is suddenly cut off without an explanation. I mean, who does it matter to? The author - well, clearly they should've known better. The readers - eh, what does it matter these days whether the readers get a smooth, uninterrupted, reliable reading experience. TNT itself - well, I guess the most benevolent interpretation is that they're buckling under a workload that's been looking pretty buckle-y for I can't even count how many years now and editors keep needing to reinvent wheels.
The eyebrow-raising part about the weekly cleared backlog is that it's the sort of move that'd make work easier for them and harder for the authors. Backlogs get big and lumbering and unmanageable (and I reckon there's been a pretty big one building up, else why even implement this?) and of course it's easier for the editor to just clear the plate and assemble the next issue out of whoever is still actively trying. For the authors, it'd essentially mean setting a weekly alarm to keep checking back and resubmitting until they either get tired or get in. In other words, it feels like changes structured around how it'd be easier for staff at the expense of the user experience.
|
|
|
Post by Twillie on Feb 11, 2023 14:42:46 GMT -5
What I struggle to understand is what makes comic series so different from written series that they don't get the same guarantee of sequential publication. They take less time to read and there's far less of them, and it's not like any of the continued series for the latest issue are Sea themed, so why does a theme override a comic series' right to be published? I understand that there's more comics submitted than series during any given week, but I guess I'm just not convinced that comic series are a major contributor to backlog or would cause much fuss for getting published over one of the half dozen nautical puzzles.
My current series started back in September, and as of now it's only halfway finished. I've been published in two holiday issues and deliberately skipped for three other special issues. Assuming I will only be published in regular issues going forward, this series won't be finished until May and will have taken a grand total of nine months to publish seven comics.
Going forward with this rule, I feel like I'd have a couple options. One would be to submit everything at once like normal, wait every couple of months to get an acceptance like I am right now, and I guess get one series published a year at best. Other option would be to submit a part individually each week and then hope and pray that a) the editor doesn't reject a later entry for whatever reason and cut the series short, and b) there's no themed issues with a 50/50 chance of me getting passed up that will spread publication out over several months like the first option does. Neither of these options feels reasonable to me nor worth the constant hoop jumping they'd require.
This isn't the first time this has happened to comic series, as I remember the same lack of guarantee for publication around Scrappy or Jade's time. As far as I know, though, that was the only other time this has been a rule. I agree that it completely puts the burden on creators and just makes submitting to the Times more hostile.
Were this to stick as a hard rule, I just don't see a reason for me to keep submitting to the NT. Less issues in general already make it difficult to publish a long form story, and it's been made clear to me now that themed entries take priority over unthemed, regardless of quality between the two. I plan on asking Stone about this rule to get a better explanation on why comic series are being treated like this, but if they stick to their guns, it'll feel like comic series just aren't welcome in the Times anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on Feb 11, 2023 14:56:53 GMT -5
Clearing the backlog every week (Change #2) seems fine to me. I think that Mac, as well-meaning as they were, raised the hopes of too many people by holding over submissions indefinitely and saying on the Neoboards that ideally they would try to accept everyone.
I very much dislike Change #4 though, and I especially feel that this part was disrespectfully written:
Twillie's comic shouldn't have been skipped. There was nothing wrong with the "quality" of her submission. The truth is that A) the submission system is poorly coded; B) the editor got overwhelmed and thus neglected some submissions (unfairly, I must add). But of course they won't admit that.
I remember seeing Dingo (one of the few remaining devs - sometimes I wonder if they're the only one) say in the Discord that they were trying to convince the higher-ups to hire more devs. I really hope they succeed. Comic series should be processed the same way written series are. (And the thumbnail submission should work, lol.)
|
|
|
Post by Ian Wolf-Park on Feb 11, 2023 15:06:45 GMT -5
Hmm, my initial thoughts is some of the rule changes are detrimental to the authors, especially the first two rule changes. Thanks to those changes, it puts the onus on the authors to check if their submissions are valid. At least with the holdover letters, at least we know that it will be appearing in a future edition, giving us less worry. Combined with the biweekly schedule, it makes it harder to appear in the Times as it's essentially a roulette wheel now, since everything is affected by this change.
I actually don't like the idea of submitting NT questions and concerns via the editorial as most of the time, it's a private question/issue from the authors, which was probably the reason why NT_editor was created. The Editorial should not be a blanket Q & A (or AMA)
I get it that the NT doesn't make Neo money, but the changes shouldn't come at the expense of the writers. They are what makes the Times what it is.
|
|
|
Post by June Scarlet on Feb 11, 2023 17:38:31 GMT -5
Aurgh this is frustrating. I'm not even sure if continued comic series *can* work. I know Twillie mentioned submitting all the comics at once, but I don't think even that'd work, because it sounds like they reject any and everything they don't use that specific Issue. So you're stuck doing it Art Gallery style, which is also a frustrating system that requires submitting the day before the art gallery comes out. I think the only option is to submit a comic series one comic at a time, and really, who wants to do that? You're guessing that the whole series is okay, but you never know for sure when a human will be banned by the editor or whatever rule comes up. And you're having to basically set a timer to submit every two weeks, I guess the weekend after the Times comes out.
What I really dislike about this though, is that it seems so... targeted, you know? Like, how many comic series are there? Long running multi-part comic series that are currently running? Stone doesn't name names, but geez, why does Blossoms get so much hate from TNT? There was the thing about humans as well.
|
|
|
Post by RielCZ on Feb 11, 2023 17:55:48 GMT -5
Regarding the point about holdovers, it really does seem as through the pendulum has swung the exact opposite direction from what Mac had. It was positive to have everyone "held over" by default, but that obviously became unmanageable over time. Conversely, I think it's both unfair to authors and short-sighted to do away with the holdover system entirely. Having a backlog of saved publishable entries is beneficial, I would believe, for an editor; no holdovers may make it so the editor will have to re-read the same piece many times, often with few to no changes, as people are forced to resubmit. There should be a balance between the two extremes, IMO. As Ian Wolf-Park mentioned, perhaps the biggest issue for me is having to go through the Editorial, as it means that questions about the creative contests will only be answered, at minimum, on a semi-monthly basis. This seems problematic, as (at least for me) many questions have a sense of some urgency / "hey there's a problem with the STC what's up? / "hey may you consider publishing my piece in the next NT because it deals with current site events? ^^" The editorial for general questions and the editor's NT account for quick/urgent asks would sit better with me, and it basically what is done now to my knowledge. Forcing them into the editorial would also take away (perhaps more meaningful) editorial questions from other people about other things. I can't say much about the comic series, because I have never done those, but I do agree it isn't fair to restrict them compared to their written counterparts. I hope they reverse that change. I agree with the point about explaining collaborations. That's the trend in academia, which I've come to like. This would give greater transparency, and also help show off one's strengths in the collab if the authors' contributions are published alongside/within the work. E.g., this user contributed to primary writing, and/or secondary writing, or proofreading, art, icon art, a mix thereof, etc.; some adaptation of the CRediT Author Statement explicitly for the NT could be good to standardize/streamline the roles. I am guilty of asking for changes post-acceptance because I am too perfectionist. It's unfortunate to explicitly cut those, but I can certainly see why. Just have to get better at proofreading and maybe give myself more space to let ideas sit before submitting. I have some concerns for, e.g., the STC though; because there is no fixed schedule (and maybe having that would actually be the solution), if I know I'm running up against the time entries tend to get selected, oftentimes I'll submit a less-polished version before revising/proofreading and (if there is still no entry) resubmitting with a note saying this is a better version of what I just sent. I'm not sure whether this rule directly impacts that, but it makes that practice seem... "greyer" to me than it otherwise has been. Anyway, as something of a summary, it seems to me like TNT is trying to make things easier and more manageable on their end -- for which I can't really fault them -- but at the expensive of a more positive experience for authors and readers alike. And coming off the drama of 975, I would say the events are related heh. Though maybe I should just be happy the creative contests / NT runs at all. I do think it would be worthwhile overhauling and/or automating (more) parts of the submission system -- a one time development that would make everyone's lives easier and save costs in the long run. But yes, more devs would be needed for that heh. The rules are new, and we'll all be learning (including Stone). Hopefully when what doesn't work becomes more clear, more changes will be made.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Feb 11, 2023 18:08:15 GMT -5
Take this with a grain of salt since I am not a regular contributor, but personally changes 1-3 seem positive for the format overall.
Non-regulars trying to get in have repeatedly expressed frustration about not hearing back on their entries or not being sure when they will be published after getting a hold over. The rejections were sorely needed to help eliminate this confusion, and I think just having a simple "accept/reject" system makes things less confusing for single-issue contributors (especially regarding special editions). No doubt these changes were made because of the latest milestone NT-- while I don't agree with some of the attitudes that flared up regarding not getting in, I do think there was a problem with clarity around what a "hold" actually meant and I understand why people were upset. This could have been solved by simply going back and sending rejections prior to the issue coming out, including to the hold overs that weren't going to be used, but what's done is done.
Clarifying what a collab partner did for an entry also seems totally benign to me. I don't really see it changing anything, people who submit a puzzle with 2 collaborators to get trophies for their buddies are just going to lie about it, but that's Stone putting more work on their own plate and doesn't really change anything for the average contributor who isn't submitting phony collabs.
#4 is extremely confusing and I don't understand it myself. I do agree with others that it feels oddly targeted at comic contributors and makes it hard for anyone who wants to run an ongoing series. Especially true considering how many special issues are run, with only 2 instances of back-to-back "normal" editions on Stone's posted calendar.
Just going back to running the NT weekly feels like it would solve some of these issues.
Edit to add an additional thought: TNT made this bed for themselves when they attached avatars to the NT. At that point it became a game mechanic just as much as a creative outlet for the community. Two types of players competing for the same space is always going to lead to heads butting. I can't hardly blame players trying to achieve their avatar goals wanting things to be more straightforward. They're just participating in the game as it was presented to them, and to me it feels clear that these changes were made in an attempt to make the process less frustrating for them.
|
|
|
Post by Twillie on Feb 12, 2023 0:34:17 GMT -5
I don't think there's specific targeting towards me or my comic- the no humans debacle was under a different editor and a few years ago now, and I feel like this newest rule change comes moreso because comics have never had a series submission process as official as written ones, so there's less precedent on how to handle them and they're vulnerable to more dramatic changes and looser rules. As of right now I'm also not worried about the quality of my comics being put into question or anything. I think in my case it's more been about priority being given to themed entries for the special issues. Whether or not that mention of quality in the Editorial announcement means anything deeper or is just an awkward choice of words, I don't really know, but I'm not going to stress about what it means for me.
Being more strict on three person collabs and asking users to explain each persons' contributions I think is a step in the right direction, so no complaints there. There's been some issues with those kinds of collabs wherein three people will get credit for one panel copy-paste comics, so I'm sure this is in response to those.
I completely missed that last line about submitting questions and concerns to the Editorial. Do they not want people messaging them at tnt_stone, either? The nt_editor account hasn't been in use since Aesop took over in 2020, so I'm not sure how many people have even been trying that over Stone's own account, but I do agree that keeping it to the Editorial is pretty limiting when it comes to getting information. Does this mean that any questions I have on the new comic series rule will need to go through the Editorial before anything else?
|
|
|
Post by Kengplant on Feb 12, 2023 1:41:36 GMT -5
RULE #1/2: I'm OK with the backlog clear after every new NT. This is pretty much the same as sending out Too Many Good Entries (TMGE) neomails without having to send the neomails. It could be improved by adding in neomails for other rejection reasons, but looking at it purely as a time cost, I think this is a reasonable change.
I have some one off comics that I want to appear in a certain order, because of timeline things but are otherwise unrelated and don't need the other to be understood. I had a bit of a problem with the backlog where I was continuing to submit and hit the themed entries. The comic I would have preferred to to be published first (but didnt NEED to be published first) got put in limbo until the backlog purge. I now have other comics going, and this gives me more control over when I'm ready for it to be published again (when I submit again). I prefer this to having work lost in the system for months at a time.
#3: Perfectly reasonable. They should add more space to the comments box. Give us another 50 characters to work with PLEASE. We need space for thumbnail URLs in here too until that gets fixed!
#4:
I personally find it worrying as a reader when I've become intrigued by a series then it doesn't show up again the week after, or the week after that. Is it coming back? Should I keep looking for it? What happened to it?
As a comic series creator, I like being able to submit my parts weekly instead of all at once. It fits my work habits better. I can pace myself. It's frustrating when a part doesn't make it in and I have to wait another week, but I was willing to accept that as the tradeoff for not submitting the whole series at once. If ever I ran into an actual rejection, I was ready to have to re-work that part and resubmit it if necessary (hasn't happened yet)
For Comic Series to work at their best there needs to be some level of consistency to pull the readers along. A well crafted series considers when the breaks are and where to leave anticipation.
It seems unfair to me that a comic series that WAS submitted all at once does not get the same treatment and consistency as a written series. A lot of work goes into having it ready all at once, and during that time you're probably not submitting anything because you're building a whole. That's time lost. The tradeoff is supposed to be that you get that time back by then having your straight run.
And with biweekly NT, every missed issue is 2-3 weeks lost.
I see the biggest difference being simply that the NT has a dedicated Written Series section, and presumably some categorization to help track the series. Whereas Comic series are stuck kicking around in the most active submission box where they're likely harder to organize. I don't think we're going to get a comic series section until they overhaul the NT. Which I do think is in the works just at very low priority.
But we've had consistent series in the past, so I don't see why we can't do it again.
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Feb 12, 2023 6:34:27 GMT -5
Re: directing NT questions and concerns towards the Editorial: in my 19 and-a-half years on the site I haven't gotten a single question published in the Editorial so I may be a wee bit discouraged to try and address issues that way, but I'll grant that things have been weathervaning around a lot so maybe I should be open to possibilities. Re: entries will no longer be edited after publication unless major input errors, and also conveniently related to the above point and this thread in general: take a moment to feast your eyes on my Sauna Day series. Part 4: www.neopets.com/ntimes/index.phtml?section=579288&week=875 business as usual Part 5: www.neopets.com/ntimes/index.phtml?section=579289&week=876 lol what Yeah. I imagine someone's later comic got uploaded with the same number as part 5 and overwrote it, but regardless of reason I've been meaning to kick up a bit of a fuss to get part 5 back up again. Only, how? Stone's Neomail inbox was full last I checked and if I have to start sniping for a time when it might have room, hoping against hope that he actually reads them, that'll be taking up rather a lot of my time, spoons and general adult-life effort. Or I can send it to the Editorial as per this update? Then what? Is it going to actually be published in an Editorial, nevermind that it's the sort of behind-the-scenes fix that the entire general populace has no business witnessing and the editorial space would be much better used for other things? But if it's not published, how do I know if it's been read? Keep sniping into the void? What if the editor goes "lol whatever, who even cares about issue 876 any more" and ignores it and I keep sending in the same issue week after week not knowing they don't intend to fix it? Was thinking I could just send in a good old-fashioned ticket about it. Another form of sniping, but might actually be the most reliable of all of these options.
|
|
|
Post by Herdy on Feb 12, 2023 8:43:21 GMT -5
Perhaps a cynical take but it feels like this is a spiteful reponse to the complaints about the lack of rejections until after the fact for the milestone issue - "You want rejections? Fine! *Everything* gets rejections now!".
I don't buy the argument that doing away with the heldover status completely is helpful to the editor in reducing workload, even if on a surface level it feels like it does. In fact, all it does in increase the editor's workload per issue because everything is now resubmitted each and every issue and must be reviewed (if you buy the idea that everything is going to get looked at) rather than allowing them to cut things out of that queue by holding them over.
|
|
|
Post by Blueysicle on Feb 12, 2023 14:39:11 GMT -5
Plus, there's a difference between a piece getting a rejection simply because there's not enough room in the current issue and a rejection because there's an issue with the piece in question. So now people are just supposed to guess which of the two it is? I don't understand how that's helpful to the editor when that's just going to result in people sending in the same entry issue after issue, which may or may not have any changes made to it because there's no information being given on why it wasn't published.
Like, I can understand the editor wanting to lighten their workload. But surely there has to be some sort of middle-ground here, because the lack of any sort of reliable communication going forward only seems like it's going to be a big inconvenience to the users.
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Feb 12, 2023 19:22:52 GMT -5
Perhaps a cynical take but it feels like this is a spiteful reponse to the complaints about the lack of rejections until after the fact for the milestone issue - "You want rejections? Fine! *Everything* gets rejections now!". While I wouldn't call it a spiteful response, I do agree that this is probably related to all the complaints surrounding 975. (The rest of this post isn't directed at you specifically; just piggy backing off of what you're saying for things I've already been thinking about.) It's not that people didn't have legitimate complaints, but during that time, I saw a lot of people getting angry and riled up at everything between actual problems and just inconveniences. It all just bundled up into a big overwhelming pile of emotions (that sometimes included just outright harassment and snipes at other writers or Stone themself) that the Editor was supposed to take on while simultaneously trying to finish and put out a major Times issue. (Maybe some of my personal bias is showing because all of that kind of ruined some of the excitement and memories of 975 for me.) My point being, with all the complaints and issues about that and the amount they had to deal with, of course they'd end up doing something about it and working to be transparent, and also doing whatever it takes to ensure it doesn't happen again, especially if they were personally affected by all the backlash. When you have to deal with something that big, I think most people would go all out and ensure no holes, even at the cost of situational nuance. That's a normal psychological response, and that's what I speculate is happening here. And we can talk all day about "but I didn't do that!" or "wait was this in response to what I specifically did," but I really don't think it's personal and I wouldn't advise taking it personally. I think it's about Stone focusing on their workload and figuring out what works best for them, at least at this moment as the Editor, and they're just informing us of these changes. And I don't think there's any malice to this either; this isn't a "punishment." It's a change for them that helps their workload but turns out to have issues and serves as a disincentive for the players. Whether the rule will become more flexible over time remains to be seen. Either way, I wouldn't assume bad faith on the part of Stone. That thinking is part of what led to the emotional problems around 975 that may have contributed to such a rebound effect. Herdy did bring up a good point though that hold overs may not necessarily be good for the Editor because it means one has to start all over again after every issue. I wonder if the backlog was just so bad that they thought it was necessary. Maybe it's even so bad that it even clogs up after every issue? Maybe all the themed issues aren't helping with that, as they tend to get more spotlight and interest, but I wonder if it'll appear more normal when we get back to normal issues. All of this really makes me wonder what the Neopets system looks like for the Editor (and TNT in general). I wouldn't be surprised if it's super outdated. Especially when the site runs on spaghetti code. Every time they make a major overhaul, sure, there's good changes, but then something else breaks. I could understand the reticence for updating anything. Consequentially, maybe the NT and messaging system will remain onerous to work with.
|
|