Oh dear oh dear

[Bibliophobia]

Does this really matter - if you can read it why cant anyone else?

cos i am god x

[Adzeh]

I know the full measures you take, and either it's e5 ignoring them or them not being enforced like they used to be. I know you provide constant feedback, but I don't know the situation in the News Department? For all I know, it could be seriously busy... Which is what I assumed, when constantly seeing e5's awful reports.

I remember the Saturday reports too, and they're good. I'm not going to oppose the rest, because I agree with it.

As I said, trialists are not given the benefit of clear cut feedback on their written work. This is because we, as management, want to assess how talented they are, and get to grips with exactly what sort of ability level we have to work with.

If we feel there is significant promising areas in a trialist's work, they will pass and we will begin to mould them into the Habbox Reporters that you see on show at the minute with virtually impeccable work, week in week out (Finkelstien, Hecktix, Nixt). If we feel that there is nothing we can work with, the trialist will not be offered a full time position.

If you are going to judge my trialists or our ability as News Management, please judge them on their improvement during the first three weeks after passing their trials; I guarantee you see results.

[Bibliophobia]

judging on improvement is silly.

they could still be below average

judge on skill

[GommeInc]

Does this really matter - if you can read it why cant anyone else?

That's my stand aswell. If you can understand it who cares? Saying you can't read it yet you clearly can because you're criticising it in a way that means you've understood it is just showing people what an idiot you are, who can't read and interpret...

As I said, trialists are not given the benefit of clear cut feedback on their written work. This is because we, as management, want to assess how talented they are, and get to grips with exactly what sort of ability level we have to work with.

If we feel there is significant promising areas in a trialist's work, they will pass and we will begin to mould them into the Habbox Reporters that you see on show at the minute with virtually impeccable work, week in week out (Finkelstien, Hecktix, Nixt). If we feel that there is nothing we can work with, the trialist will not be offered a full time position.

If you are going to judge my trialists or our ability as News Management, please judge them on their improvement during the first three weeks after passing their trials; I guarantee you see results.

I am confused, you hire trialists that could suck to high heaven, then put them on a s news reporters then teach them? Makes no sense, it'll be easier to teach them when they are trialists, so if they fail they can at least try better next time.

[Bibliophobia]

That's my stand aswell. If you can understand it who cares? Saying you can't read it yet you clearly can because you're criticising it in a way that means you've understood it is just showing people what an idiot you are, who can't read and interpret...


I am confused, you hire trialists that could suck to high heaven, then put them on a s news reporters then teach them? Makes no sense, it'll be easier to teach them when they are trialists, so if they fail they can at least try better next time.

yes but this is habbox, good luck getting anything rational!

[GommeInc]

yes but this is habbox, good luck getting anything rational!

That's besides the point!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lol.. I think if you're going to give negative comments at least tell him why it's so bad. Fair doos if he gives alot of it out he should expect some stick back but why lower yourself to his level? meh I just think making comments like in your post is really harsh

A few months ago the news was terrible because there was none, I haven't a problem with e5's news as it's better than none.

[Yum999]

I am confused, you hire trialists that could suck to high heaven, then put them on a s news reporters then teach them? Makes no sense, it'll be easier to teach them when they are trialists, so if they fail they can at least try better next time.

Not at all.

First of all, we do not select applications "that could suck to high heaven". Adzeh and I look at each and every application, and consult each other on whom we believe has both the talent and the attitude to make a competent reporter. Only around 10% of applications go forward to the trialist stage.

Trialists are then trialled for two weeks, but aren't treated quite like a full time reporter. We watch them to see how they respond to criticsm and feedback (via individual one to one discussions with members of management called "Your News" personal messages) and generally how they cope with the responsibilities of a full time reporter in a high pressure environment.

Only if we feel they have improved to a sufficient degree over their trial (to the standard of a regular reporter), have a positive working outlook and ability to take constructive criticsm onboard effectively without complaint do we offer them a permanent place on the team (about fifty percent of trialists go on to this stage). They then recieve regular, once weekly reports just like any other reporter, reviewing each aspect of their work (images, titles, grammar, activity, attitude and layout etc.) and giving them advice which they can use to improve their work as time goes by.

I hope by this you can see that we don't take on just anyone. e5 is a trialist because we believe he has the potential to make a good reporter, and we are coaching that. On average, only about five percent of applicants make the journey to become full time reporter, while in previous years we've simply been grateful for any applications of any standard. If you want proof of how report standards have rocketed in recent times, simply compare a report from today with one from 25th February 2007, and you'll see for yourself.

Finally, I apologise for any mistakes I made in this sprant (speech rant)!

[GommeInc]

This seems to go against what Adzeh says though? That trialists are left to their own devices, then turned into full time reporters that are then sent messages telling them to improve. Although there could of been some confusion in his post.

Your post made perfect sense anyway

Not at all.

First of all, we do not select applications "that could suck to high heaven". Adzeh and I look at each and every application, and consult each other on whom we believe has both the talent and the attitude to make a competent reporter. Only around 10% of applications go forward to the trialist stage.

Trialists are then trialled for two weeks, but aren't treated quite like a full time reporter. We watch them to see how they respond to criticsm and feedback (via individual one to one discussions with members of management called "Your News" personal messages) and generally how they cope with the responsibilities of a full time reporter in a high pressure environment.

Only if we feel they have improved to a sufficient degree over their trial (to the standard of a regular reporter), have a positive working outlook and ability to take constructive criticsm onboard effectively without complaint do we offer them a permanent place on the team (about fifty percent of trialists go on to this stage). They then recieve regular, once weekly reports just like any other reporter, reviewing each aspect of their work (images, titles, grammar, activity, attitude and layout etc.) and giving them advice which they can use to improve their work as time goes by.

I hope by this you can see that we don't take on just anyone. e5 is a trialist because we believe he has the potential to make a good reporter, and we are coaching that. On average, only about five percent of applicants make the journey to become full time reporter, while in previous years we've simply been grateful for any applications of any standard. If you want proof of how report standards have rocketed in recent times, simply compare a report from today with one from 25th February 2007, and you'll see for yourself.

Finally, I apologise for any mistakes I made in this sprant (speech rant)!

[Adzeh]

This seems to go against what Adzeh says though? That trialists are left to their own devices, then turned into full time reporters that are then sent messages telling them to improve. Although there could of been some confusion in his post.

Your post made perfect sense anyway

Obviously they aren't left totally to their own devices, but they are not coached to the level of full time reporters. If we spoonfeed trialists everything from day one, we are not getting a clear idea of how talented they actually are.

We have tried coaching trialists before, and it turned out to just be a waste of our time since 90% of the trialists either resigned, failed, or just did not actually post any news. This way, we can also easily pick out the commited people, and focus our attention on making their work better.

I hope we are all in agreement that our guidance is a source of guaranteed improvement for anybody willing to learn? Yes that might sound arrogant, but that is my firm belief which to this day has not been proved wrong, in all my time as manager.