|
Post by June Scarlet on Jan 30, 2021 22:14:59 GMT -5
A thread for discussing the discussion threads on this board: ntwriters.proboards.com/board/21/issues-previews-reviewsFun title to wrap your head around, I know. I know we've discussed them before, I just don't remember which board that happened on, so I thought I'd go ahead and make a new thread. I'm wondering if they should continue in their current format. Namely, the part where we write out every forum member who submitted a piece to that issue of the Times. Now, I know that thrill of getting tagged because you had a piece published. The thrill of getting your piece reviewed. When the system works, it's great. The problem is, actually filling in the usernames in quite the task, for me it means cross-referencing Twillie's handy list here: docs.google.com/document/d/1EIbsrbgzU7kNKCAmjp4ORGD9z16Jh8helHaERrtCkEE/edit and going through all the submissions in a given issue. I imagine it's a task for anyone, though, because it's a task that simply isn't done that much anymore. I'm wondering if it would be a fair trade off to stop doing the names, in exchange for having more discussion threads made. I mean, I feel kind of bad suggesting not having the forumers listed, it's a very old tradition, and like I said, it's a thrill to be listed. But the problem is, it's gotten to the point that these review threads aren't being made at all, and that's worse. So if the choice is between no review thread, and a review thread without the forumers listed, then I'd say it's better to have the thread in some format. There might be other ways to make the threads easier to make as well. I know Kat suggested making a template, for example. I'm not even sure removing the list of forumers in the Times would even solve the problem with the threads not being made. I think part of the problem is a lack of motivation as well, because even the threads that are made aren't even posted in sometimes. I feel like there's a lot to discuss here, hence the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Liou on Feb 1, 2021 13:05:39 GMT -5
Good idea and good points.
Getting tagged for an issue thread is indeed, very thrilling - perhaps as thrilling as getting the acceptance neomail. If it could continue I think that'd be really cool. I think overall we've had less and less time to give actual feedback on the issues, and I actually see the username list as the main purpose of these issue discussion threads.
Personally, maybe it's because I haven't had to do it myself, but combing through an issue, noticing forumers' usernames and translating them to tags seems like an easy-ish, leisurely task to me on a weekend. (My memory likes remembering names, in particular.) The NT tends to be released in the middle of the night for me, so I thought I'd always be too late to make the actual thread, but the threads do not seem to be created urgently right as the issue is released...
Perhaps it would help if the task of creating the threads was assigned, however loosely? From an outsider's perspective, it can be a bit confusing. When I first came into the boards, I noticed that the threads tended to be made by the same people, around the same times. It's easy to assume that the task is already scheduled in a particular way. For a long time I was not aware that anybody is technically allowed to make the thread, I was not aware of the etiquette around these boards. And there's the awkwardness of not wanting to ninja someone.
|
|
|
Post by June Scarlet on Feb 1, 2021 18:48:33 GMT -5
Ah, see, but I work weekends, so there is no time to be leisurely about things.
However, if people feel strongly that listing the names should continue, I'm fine with that. Though the fact that the first feedback I got on this thread took two days tells me that maybe people don't feel that strongly about the discussion threads in general anymore? I mean, the forum isn't as busy has it has been in the past, so maybe it's not fair to judge it that way. I would point instead to the lack of threads and replies in the Issue Review board, if we're going to make judgements about how much people care about them.
I could see maybe planning ahead who's going to make the next review thread, though. Maybe on the previous review thread, something like, "Hey, I'm free next Friday, I'd be happy to make the Discussion thread for the next issue, if it comes out next week."
And maybe have the list-less version as a backup? Like, say it's Tuesday, and no new Discussion thread has been made, then anyone could throw up a discussion thread real quick without the list of forumers. Having the list would be the first choice still, but then at least we wouldn't be going weeks without a discussion thread.
See, I think people still want these threads around, though. And we've been working on making them more accessible. For example, changing it from "Reviews" to "Discussion," to broaden what we could talk about, and put less pressure on having to have a review. I don't know that it helped long-term, though.
It's hard to say what the root cause of these lack of threads being made is, though. It's no one's job or responsibility to make one (which might fixed by Liou's idea), so there's no one to blame. I know I tend to be busy on weekends, but that's not really an excuse. It doesn't help that there doesn't seem to be any interest when I make one, though. It's kind of a frustrating, thankless task nowadays.
In the end, if I want a review of my work, I find I'm better off finding a beta reader before my piece is published. The Discussion threads aren't reliable for that at all.
|
|
|
Post by Twillie on Feb 1, 2021 19:30:19 GMT -5
For me, making the threads with the lists hasn't been too time consuming, as like Liou I tend to remember usernames and take a sort of leisure in making them. I'm not sure how universal either experience is; I do remember a while ago people expressing fear of making these threads and forgetting someone (hence me making that doc in the first place). But even if removing the list makes thread creation easier, I feel like it'd make review posts harder to make.
It sounds like there's different two issues trying to be solved here: How to get discussion threads made on time (or at all), and how to get activity on them after they're made. Removing the tagging list I'm not sure will make much difference, as I believe there was even a period where we tried that to little result.
I think the root problems to both issues here are 1) the forum has fewer active members these days, and 2) only a portion of the current active member base is active on Neopets. That puts the tasks of making discussion threads and actually posting on them onto a much smaller pool of people, who may not always have the time or motivation to do so each week. It can easily turn into feeling like a chore when you know no one else is going to do the thing, which then leads to putting it off more and feeling guilty for it (this has been my experience, at least).
Even with assigning people to making discussion threads, it then begs the question of who will post on them afterward. I also fear that if people get assigned or if we set up a system of planning ahead, that'll create a bottleneck. If the person responsible that week maybe gets busy or ends up forgetting, the thread still doesn't get made and now there's a barrier in the way of asking, "Do we wait on this person or make it in their place?"
Right now, I don't think the solutions to these issues are found in just changing the format of the threads. I think it lies more in creating new incentive to post, to change the motivation from guilt to genuine interest again. It's easy to let the review threads fade into the background for one person, so what can be done to keep it fresh on one's mind to where they post?
Individual requests like you mentioned, June, could honestly be a step in that direction. I think adding that personal touch to reviews would add motivation. While the tag list is beneficial in showing you who here you can review for without having to dig for their stuff, it can still be easy to let it and the discussion thread fade into the background. If someone specific posts asking for reviews, maybe even providing prompts, that can be more memorable because people like sharing in their friends' work.
That's just a starting idea I got, though, so definitely something that can be expanded and improved upon.
|
|
|
Post by RielCZ on Feb 1, 2021 20:41:57 GMT -5
In terms of how to encourage people to post once the thread has been made... that's a subject for discussion and I admittedly haven't given it much thought. But in terms of actually making the thread, I found that to be an interesting problem. I hardly ever write for the NT, but when I do, I drink dos equis put in way more effort than I usually have to -- so seeing my name and tag mentioned can be quite a thrill. Now, I actually looked at the problem, thought, "hey, I could probably write a Python script in about 3 hours to automate this", and challenged Rabbit ♠ that I could. I was wrong, it took me about 4 hours to get it done, but I digress. It should have more testing and the output could always be manually double-checked. But, the script goes through all sections of the NT, extracts the pieces, links, and authors^, cross-references the authors with Twillie's list*, converts the authors to NTWF mentions, and ties everything together into an output post based on a template I devised from other review threads. ^ The sending author is easy to get. When a collab occurs, that also isn't too bad as long as the collab partners are listed in the story's description as "collab with [...]" or "also by [...]". If this paradigm changes, the script will need to change. * The script uses the list "statically" (i.e. it's built into the program) rather than going to the Google doc and fetching the values from the list, so ultimately for future-use the program would have to be continually updated with the "master-copy". Also, I had to add swordlilly, herdygerdy, and twillieblossoms. Now, in its present state, this will really only be valid until the NT gets its mobile site overhaul. But, this could be a good solution in the short or medium term, or long-term if parts of it are rewritten from time to time. It can also be used with earlier NT editions that follow the format I coded for. But, if the NT goes behind the login-wall, then the script would have to be rewritten almost from the ground-up using more advanced techniques. There is a version that lists all entries, and one that only lists entries with an NTWF contributor. It runs in ~20 seconds (and could theoretically be shorter, but I introduced some delay so as not to overwhelm Neo's servers haha). IDK if this is something that people actually want to use, especially if doing it manually is leisurely to some; but it was a good coding exercise nevertheless. that is my leisure I could run it every Friday, but if one of you wants to take it and utilize it, I'd be happy to make it a bit more user-friendly and help you set it up on your own system. Here is some sample output: This past week, with all users: This past week, with only NTWF users: Christmas (Edition 923), with just NTWFers: Halloween (Edition 918), with all users:
|
|
|
Post by June Scarlet on Feb 1, 2021 23:02:58 GMT -5
That's a good point, Twillie, even if the thread were to be easier to make without the list, it would make posting in it harder, with people not knowing what to look for. I ended up trying an experiment on the current discussion thread, asking for reviews on my piece, to see how that helps facilitate discussion. I think it's a good idea.
Oh my goodness, RielCZ, that's amazing! I can't speak for anyone else, or the mods, but I think it's a great solution for making the threads! What I would suggest is running an Times issue that's been missed, say Issue 925, and go ahead and make a discussion thread for it on the forum. 925 is a pretty quiet issue, should be a good chance to test it out, and it won't hurt to have a discussion thread made for it. From there, we can see it in action, and fine tune anything that needs tuning, like the template, or missing usernames, or whatever. Though from your screenshots, it looks good to me. I suppose the question would be: since it's so easy, do we include every piece submitted, or just the NTWF ones? Personally, I'd say since it would be the same amount of work, include every piece because that's a chance to get more attention to our forum, from the outside. I think I remember stories of people looking for reviews of their NT piece, and that led them to the forum. And I've looked at very old review threads, and some people used to review every piece in the Times, forumer or not, though with a very short sentence. Oh, and the other question would be is it okay with the mods? Just to double check.
|
|
|
Post by RielCZ on Feb 2, 2021 0:35:46 GMT -5
Oh my goodness, RielCZ , that's amazing! I can't speak for anyone else, or the mods, but I think it's a great solution for making the threads! What I would suggest is running an Times issue that's been missed, say Issue 925, and go ahead and make a discussion thread for it on the forum. 925 is a pretty quiet issue, should be a good chance to test it out, and it won't hurt to have a discussion thread made for it. Thank you. And, a thread for 925 is up with all contributions. It looked mostly fine, though I added a spoiler box below it with the 1 known issue that I noted. I'm not sure if it's a big issue, but if it is, I can try to remedy it. If there is an issue with having made that thread the way I did, though, mods can modify it or take it down if they wish. I suppose the question would be: since it's so easy, do we include every piece submitted, or just the NTWF ones? Personally, I'd say since it would be the same amount of work, include every piece because that's a chance to get more attention to our forum, from the outside. I think I remember stories of people looking for reviews of their NT piece, and that led them to the forum. And I've looked at very old review threads, and some people used to review every piece in the Times, forumer or not, though with a very short sentence. I would also say to include every piece in the edition. I also thought that I could set it so that non-NTWF authors instead show as a link to their Neo ULs -- this would make it easier to see/connect with non-NTWF authors (and/or excite some that may be lurking) -- but this may not be desirable or go against some forum rule. EDIT: It also occurred to me that I could probably sort the pieces in each section in alphabetical order (rather than the order they appear in the Edition), if that is another thing that is desired.
|
|
|
Post by Liou on Feb 2, 2021 3:02:44 GMT -5
Heeey this is pretty amazing!
My only concern is whether this is Neopets-legal. The new Rules & Guidelines page, which comes in a small link at the bottom of Terms & Conditions, is phrased pretty neatly imo, saying to play with honesty and fairness and more in the spirit of the rule. This script would not give anyone an unfair advantage in on-site gameplay, so I believe it's fine. Smarter people plz confirm.
On including non-NTWFers' pieces: in my dim memories from before I became one with the hive joined the forum, I do recall peeking at it a lot from outside, and being super thrilled when anything relevant to my interests was mentioned. I really don't know how the users who are currently getting in would feel about it, but it seems to me like a positive?
As for linking to neopets accounts of non-NTWFers, I would advise against that, for safety reasons. All the things that can and have happened to accounts. >_>
Sorting the pieces in alphabetical VS NT order: it might be just me, it is probably just me, but if the entries are sorted in an order that's different from how they appear on the NT pages, I will be screaming a lot, going back and forth between two tabs, unable to decide in which order to read them and which is which, and I will end up editing one of the pages on my browser to have the same order on both pages.
On actually assigning and scheduling the task for if it can't be done with a script anymore: I was thinking about a casual "pass it on" sort of assignment. If Person A thinks they have time, for the moment, to make the threads, they could start. If their schedule changes one week, or they have a tired, they could prod Person B. "Hey, can you make this week's thread?" Person B makes next thread. Either they go "yo, I could continue this!" or "hey, Person A, can you take it back now?" Not especially efficient, but it would at least avoid an entire group of maybe-thread-makers silently side-eyeing each other.
(Seriously issue feedback is a thing that I love a lot and it kills me not to have time for it, as the time I'd take for feedback is time I'd have to sacrifice from my personal creative endeavours, which I already do not have time for, as you can probably tell from how I'm not in the NT)
|
|
|
Post by June Scarlet on Feb 2, 2021 11:20:21 GMT -5
I would agree with Liou, that we're probably better off leaving the usernames as plaintext, both for safety concerns, but also to make the forumers stand out at a glance.
I would say this sort of program would fall under the same rules that allowed the (now defunct) Neopian Times Master Index to get data of usernames and entries in the Times.
As for the thread template, maybe we can add a sentence encouraging people to post if they want their piece reviewed, per Twillie's idea?
|
|
|
Post by Twillie on Feb 2, 2021 12:14:18 GMT -5
Ey, that's really cool Riel! Even at four hours I'm impressed, seeing as I couldn't code myself out of a paper bag xD I can't think of any reason it'd be disallowed to use the coding to make posts, as there's nothing in the rules that says you can't and it doesn't hurt the forum or any members. Same with Neopets rules, I doubt this would violate any of those. I like the idea of leaving non-forum users as plain text for the same reason as June, that it'd let forumers stick out better. I think in terms of making the thread, were this coding to be used, the best route I think would be to put it on a thread for anyone to reference as used, like you mentioned Riel. That way a bottleneck can be prevented, and anyone new and old can find and use the coding. This brings up another question for me as well: Were this coding made accessible for anyone to use, would this unintentionally create the feeling that you're required to use it to make a discussion thread? Much like how when one person repeatedly make the threads, others may get the sense that they're somehow "in charge" of the discussion threads. Is there a good way to avoid this feeling, so that people who may be intimidated by the coding can still feel comfortable manually making the threads?
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Feb 2, 2021 12:23:13 GMT -5
These discussions come and go on a somewhat regular basis whenever the current review board setup doesn't quite serve its intended purpose any more. Which is excellent, really, because it shows that there's still lifeblood flowing in that particular aspect of the forum. I was one of those people who joined this forum by googling my username at random and finding a review someone had written for one of my comics here. Wouldn't ever have happened if the entire userbase had remained within their closed-circle-review-rotation. (...and then I wouldn't be married and wouldn't have kids and basically it becomes It's a Wonderful Life very quickly.) From various modly and legal standpoints I can't smell anything wrong with using a script like that either, although I can't exactly claim to be an expert. Inasmuch as this is helpful xP I think Twillie is right in that there are two separate if related issues: how to get the threads made, and how to spur activity once they're made. One aspect I could try and prod at a bit is that the discussions are nearly always isolated back-and-forths. Like, A gives reviews to B and C, B and C thank them/provide comments/give a review back, but how often does C comment on A's review of B's piece? How often does A's entry spark an actual chat? Not something that can be forced, obviously, but I'm wondering if that may be another one of those subtle things that people might be averse to doing solely because it's Not Done (particularly considering how often reviews are hidden behind spoilerboxes, giving this little vibe of "for select eyes only, plz do not touch"). The review threads go so incredibly far back that they've sort of fossilized into an echo of what worked well for the NTWF of 2006ish, but a smaller creatorbase could potentially work much better as a kind of weekly book club.
|
|
|
Post by RielCZ on Feb 7, 2021 3:20:53 GMT -5
As for the thread template, maybe we can add a sentence encouraging people to post if they want their piece reviewed, per Twillie's idea? How does this sound? (Though obviously it can be tweaked, it's just what I came up with for the placeholder default text.) Wouldn't ever have happened if the entire userbase had remained within their closed-circle-review-rotation. (...and then I wouldn't be married and wouldn't have kids and basically it becomes It's a Wonderful Life very quickly.) Well we certainly can't deny other potential users that chance at a rewarding NTWF-filled life Ey, that's really cool Riel! Even at four hours I'm impressed, seeing as I couldn't code myself out of a paper bag xD [...] I think in terms of making the thread, were this coding to be used, the best route I think would be to put it on a thread for anyone to reference as used, like you mentioned Riel. That way a bottleneck can be prevented, and anyone new and old can find and use the coding. This brings up another question for me as well: Were this coding made accessible for anyone to use, would this unintentionally create the feeling that you're required to use it to make a discussion thread? Much like how when one person repeatedly make the threads, others may get the sense that they're somehow "in charge" of the discussion threads. Is there a good way to avoid this feeling, so that people who may be intimidated by the coding can still feel comfortable manually making the threads? Haha, thank you! And, actually, I've been experimenting with exporting it as a relatively simple GUI-based Windows executable, which should hopefully make it accessible to people beyond those who are not intimidated by setting up Python and the required libraries on their own system (which is probably most people ). It's taking me some time to test and debug, but I have preliminary results and they seem promising. Rabbit ♠ can vouch for me. I can post both a download link to the EXE, and the original script. In terms of who is "in charge" of making the threads... I'm not sure. I think Liou 's suggestion works. Interested parties could all be on a DM thread, either completely decentralized (first to post wins!) or with some sort of schedule/rotation; if the latter, have some backup plan, e.g. if no post within a day or two, the next person in the rotation just posts. And if you don't wanna use the program, don't use the program. IDK, I'm sure something can be figured out. In terms of code maintenance... Obviously, should something need to change, I can try and maintain it. But, as I will post the script, others familiar with the language/coding can jump in and try to alter/re-export it as well.
|
|
|
Post by June Scarlet on Feb 8, 2021 21:30:38 GMT -5
That's great Riel! Are you going to put the code someplace like github or something?
I think maybe a regular thread as opposed to a DM thread would be better, so it's not behind closed doors or anything, so people can feel free to jump in. Hm... A thread for talking about who will make the next thread... Worth a shot. Or maybe it's something we can discuss in the previous week's thread? For example, we would discuss who's making Issue 927 in the Issue 926 thread. Maybe we could even plan ahead, as opposed to worrying about it once the issue is out.
As for the quote, I'd change the "but" to "however," but that's just me. So it's more like: All reviews of all pieces are welcome! However, if you would really like your piece to be reviewed, post and let others know!
This could be something the thread creator could adjust themselves as well.
Thank you so much for putting this work into this!
|
|
|
Post by RielCZ on Feb 11, 2021 22:52:08 GMT -5
Sure, I think a thread rather than a DM could work just as well! Alright, here is the link: The EXE and the PY code are inside that ZIP. Also included is a Neo2NTWF usernames TXT file (Twillie's file with a few additions)* that is the only required input. At this time I didn't think I needed to post the code to GitHub (partly because it's just 1 file haha).
* There will be some warnings thrown, as is -- they are just saying the script is skipping lines not in NeoUN = @ntwfun format (e.g. the letter headings) -- and are generally safe to ignore.
The program has many options for how to format text, as well as an (Advanced) ability to customize the template itself; hopefully this allows for some creativity with it. It is designed to export a TXT file containing the ready-to-post BBCode.
Hopefully is relatively easy and straightforward to use. Play around, have fun with it! But if anyone has concerns or questions lemme know.
Also, hopefully it works fine for most people. I tested it on my main computer and my laptop (both Windows 10), and got Rabbit to test it on her Windows 7 laptop, and no issues there. However, all of those computers had some version of Python installed; I ultimately could not test a completely "clean" system.
|
|
|
Post by June Scarlet on Feb 15, 2021 21:48:04 GMT -5
I will have to test it out soon for you, RielCZ. But I am excited! And busy, which is why I haven't tested it yet. But soon!
|
|