Duplicate articles?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Do we really need 3 articles about Mauer's vision? After there was already a lengthy forum thread about it too? I know sometimes there are different articles coming at a topic from different angles, stats, etc., but that doesn't seem like the case here (the only stat involved seems to be Mauer's day/night splits).

 

I guess the site authors have a degree of autonomy, and that is cool, but it seems like when a big news story hits, you could better coordinate things like that. Especially when the topic is a sensitive one like this, where the discussion could go off the rails, it seems counterproductive to spread it over so many duplicate articles as it makes it harder for the community to self-regulate itself (although maybe duplicate article fatigue will just kill all the discussions too).

 

Maybe one author is put in charge, and solicits pieces from the other authors with a deadline? I don't know. Obviously not a big deal, but just something I've noticed that has made me wary about participating before, so I thought I'd mention it. Thanks!

[Craig Arko]

Three articles and two extra threads, but who's counting?

 

Pitchers and catchers report in a week, so hopefully there will be something else to write about. Still, the site has grown to the point that having a managing editor (which is a different role from site admin or forum moderation) might be worth considering.

[Squirrel]

Yeah ... slow news week is my guess, but yeah.

[Otto von Ballpark]

In addition to the Mauer articles, another instance I noted recently was two articles on the same day about the same subject (Antonio Bastardo, jan. 15), one "The Case For" and the other "The Case Against."

 

I think such immediate point-counterpoint articles about the same subject would be better combined into one article -- just thinking about it logically, if one disagreed with the first article but agreed with the second, where would you post that comment?  It doesn't really work well to split the discussion across two articles.  (And indeed it didn't, as one article generated 9 comments, and the other 110, and probably a lot of redundant comments where posters echoed points made in the other article.)

 

Those two articles were actually posted by the same author too (Seth), so combining them should have been simple.  But there should probably be a mechanism in place to handle multiple opinion pieces from separate authors too.  It seems like the standard procedure for big Twins news items is an initial article breaking the news, then followed by at least one "pro" opinion piece and yet another skeptical opinion piece, and discussion might best flow if those immediate opinion pieces could be combined into one.  There should be no need to rush those opinion articles out there if the news article is already posted, so waiting a day or so while a "managing editor" type solicits and compiles those contributions into one shouldn't be a problem.

 

Again, not a big deal, just thinking about best practices here.

[formerly33]

If you peruse the dusty archives of Questions About MinnCentric, you might be surprised to discover that a majority of members here vehemently abhor the merging of threads. Just sayin' ...

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

  On 2/15/2016 at 5:25 PM, always33 said:

If you peruse the dusty archives of Questions About MinnCentric, you might be surprised to discover that a majority of members here vehemently abhor the merging of threads. Just sayin' ...

This isn't about merging forum threads after they've been posted.

 

It's about avoiding multiple front page *articles* being published simultaneously on the same topic.

[Squirrel]

  On 2/15/2016 at 7:17 PM, spycake said:

This isn't about merging forum threads after they've been posted.

 

It's about avoiding multiple front page *articles* being published simultaneously on the same topic.

Yeah, this is an ownership issue. Moderators can move and merge threads to help streamline forums to facilitate discussion but published articles that also appear as forum threads is a different scenario. We can close the comments and redirect but even then that also is its own can of worms. I think in the case recently with Mauer it was a matter of slow/no news that everyone jumped on it at once. It does happen, but really not that often, and certainly not with 3 articles and 2 threads on the same topic.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Also remember that people use the site differently. We have thousands of users who check the front page regularly but never ever visit the forums.

 

But yeah, three articles is kinda weird.

[Vanimal46]

 

  On 2/15/2016 at 8:44 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

Also remember that people use the site differently. We have thousands of users who check the front page regularly but never ever visit the forums.

Those poor souls... They'll never get to experience the pure joy of a Minnesota Simpsons thread, Hypertheticals, National Holidays, the latest and greatest TV shows, or Minnesota Twins Whine Line..... 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

  On 2/15/2016 at 7:17 PM, spycake said:

This isn't about merging forum threads after they've been posted.

 

It's about avoiding multiple front page *articles* being published simultaneously on the same topic.

Yes. There are better ways to manage this than merging threads, in my opinion. Though I don't envy the job of editing this site.

 

Here would be an interesting experiment. Next time you are hosting a party, and you notice that there are, say, three groups of two or three people in their own circles, but all talking about the same thing, try forcing them all together into one big group of 8 people, and then say to them, "now talk."  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

  On 2/15/2016 at 7:34 PM, ChiTownTwinsFan said:

Yeah, this is an ownership issue. Moderators can move and merge threads to help streamline forums to facilitate discussion but published articles that also appear as forum threads is a different scenario. We can close the comments and redirect but even then that also is its own can of worms. I think in the case recently with Mauer it was a matter of slow/no news that everyone jumped on it at once. It does happen, but really not that often, and certainly not with 3 articles and 2 threads on the same topic.

Thanks for the response.  I hope I am being clear here, I am not asking for any threads to be merged or comments to be closed or any such thing.

 

This is a request to proactively consolidate articles before they are posted.  It could be as simple as telling site contributors that if another article already exists about they same topic, don't post another one!  But I don't mean to squash any voices, which is why I really like Craig's suggestion of a managing editor, at least for big news stories.  They could notify the others of the intent to publish an opinion piece, then others could offer input or a counterpoint to be included in the article before it is published.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

  On 2/15/2016 at 8:44 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

Also remember that people use the site differently. We have thousands of users who check the front page regularly but never ever visit the forums.

But yeah, three articles is kinda weird.

This has nothing to do with front page vs forums either.  Right now on the front page, 3 of the top 4 articles listed are about Joe Mauer, two containing witty wordplay on his vision issues, all basically reporting and speculating on the same thing.  (And the other article in the top 4 is notice of a podcast.)  Regardless of whether people plan to stick around to comment, it's just a weird overload of duplicate content.

 

Also, I don't think these duplicate article topics are that rare.  Like I said, off the top of my head, it was done a month ago with a point/counterpoint duo of articles.  You could probably look around any other times of big Twins news (Jepsen trade, maybe Suzuki extension) and probably find some similar duplication.

[Squirrel]

 

  On 2/15/2016 at 9:41 PM, spycake said:

This has nothing to do with front page vs forums either.  Right now on the front page, 3 of the top 4 articles listed are about Joe Mauer, two containing witty wordplay on his vision issues, all basically reporting and speculating on the same thing.  (And the other article in the top 4 is notice of a podcast.)  Regardless of whether people plan to stick around to comment, it's just a weird overload of duplicate content.

 

Also, I don't think these duplicate article topics are that rare.  Like I said, off the top of my head, it was done a month ago with a point/counterpoint duo of articles.  You could probably look around any other times of big Twins news (Jepsen trade, maybe Suzuki extension) and probably find some similar duplication.

Yeah, it's something else I've commented on before, too. Because the writers/owners also write independently, and because they are spread out, I'm not sure that having regular 'assignment meetings' is possible or practical. But I think it's a valid issue to bring to ownership's attention and something they will have to figure out.

[Otto von Ballpark]

  On 2/15/2016 at 10:17 PM, ChiTownTwinsFan said:

Yeah, it's something else I've commented on before, too. Because the writers/owners also write independently, and because they are spread out, I'm not sure that having regular 'assignment meetings' is possible or practical. But I think it's a valid issue to bring to ownership's attention and something they will have to figure out.

Thanks. Yeah, I wasn't thinking any kind of regular meetings. Maybe just when a news story breaks, after the news item is posted, maybe the writers could do an email blast to each other to better coordinate their opinion pieces or something.

 

Love the different writers we have on this site, and I actually think this idea could help them (they'd be less likely to have their article potentislly overshadowed).

[Squirrel]

 

  On 2/16/2016 at 12:45 AM, spycake said:

Thanks. Yeah, I wasn't thinking any kind of regular meetings. Maybe just when a news story breaks, after the news item is posted, maybe the writers could do an email blast to each other to better coordinate their opinion pieces or something.

Love the different writers we have on this site, and I actually think this idea could help them (they'd be less likely to have their article potentislly overshadowed).

Yeah ... sometimes I don't mind two different articles on the same subject because there will usually be two totally different angles as they all are very different writers with different points of view. But three articles plus two non-article threads (now one since I merged them), that was a bit much.