Habbox news

[Samantha]

I still don't get why news reporter's articles get published BEFORE they've been edited. It's somewhat understandable for normal news reporters but trialists definitely should not be able to publish an unvetted article.

The problem with that might be due to the important information that could be on some reports, they might need to be published immediately and not wait a couple of hours for a senior and/or management to give the go ahead. We trust the reporter's to publish news immediately on the front page and sometimes they do go wrong but admittedly he is still a trialist and he is still improving. We had a report in dire need of removal yesterday and luckily that was edited quickly, it's not to say the information wasn't needed immediately (on the front page) too though.

If you get what I mean.

[MKR&*42]

I still don't get why news reporter's articles get published BEFORE they've been edited. It's somewhat understandable for normal news reporters but trialists definitely should not be able to publish an unvetted article.

That's actually a very fair point lol. The only issue I could see with this, is if a trialist takes an [URGENT] article, so it wouldn't be sensible to keep the trialist waiting for someone to check their article before it is published (if a senior is not online at the time). It's a very good point though, would love to see Sam's/Grig's opinion on this.

---

Nvm about last bit, she has posted her view

[lawrawrrr]

I still don't get why news reporter's articles get published BEFORE they've been edited. It's somewhat understandable for normal news reporters but trialists definitely should not be able to publish an unvetted article.

It's a bit difficult (espcially when there's only 1 senior and 1 manager) to be able to get on enough every day to post articles soon after they're first written. They are usually edited ASAP though, they never usually stay incorrect for more than about 12 hours, max.

[GoldenMerc]

I guess raw html isn't allowed at all?
Or hope even

[lawrawrrr]

I guess raw html isn't allowed at all?
Or hope even

It's done in WYSIWYG editor.

[Chippiewill]

admittedly he is still a trialist and he is still improving.

Alternatively you could just not allow trialists to take urgent articles and not publish them immediately since they're most likely to make errors.

[Maatt.]

It seems people at this site just complain about everything.. is there anything nice at all to say?
Someone made a mistake. omg sinner.

seriously people

[Samantha]

Alternatively you could just not allow trialists to take urgent articles and not publish them immediately since they're most likely to make errors.

They should be allowed to take any article to their desire. To be honest, the person has been doing articles no one was even bothered about doing thus it's not his fault if no one else will do them. News isn't jam packed all of the time either so if he wishes to do an urgent one he can do.

[e5]

So does that mean bogus "facts" are always pulled into news?

Sticking up for news here.

The facts are 99.9% correct. Sometimes reporters, usually trialists tend not to do their research and put anything and hope noones finds it. Once someone has checked out it and edited it, they are messaged to say so and told of their wrong-doing having it being corrected. They will usually get a polite reminder to research in future. I've always used backed up facts in my reports, and most people did. It's one slip up out of the 100's of reports they produce

[OhLiam]

I still don't get why news reporter's articles get published BEFORE they've been edited. It's somewhat understandable for normal news reporters but trialists definitely should not be able to publish an unvetted article.

I agree, if he is still a trialist his articles should be checked by fully fledged reporters or seniors/managers.

It seems people at this site just complain about everything.. is there anything nice at all to say?
Someone made a mistake. omg sinner.

seriously people

Everyone makes mistakes yes, but his wasn't a mistake to come out with a year you need to atleast know roughly but he didn't he clearly guessed.

Sticking up for news here.

The facts are 99.9% correct. Sometimes reporters, usually trialists tend not to do their research and put anything and hope noones finds it. Once someone has checked out it and edited it, they are messaged to say so and told of their wrong-doing having it being corrected. They will usually get a polite reminder to research in future. I've always used backed up facts in my reports, and most people did. It's one slip up out of the 100's of reports they produce

Is that 99.9% a fact or a guess?