Habbox news

[lawrawrrr]

It still doesn't seem like you're teaching them anything other than informing them of their mistakes :/ In order for them to learn, you really should have them edit the article. Do you just remove the offending information or do you allow them to edit the article at any given time to give updates or fix any wrong information? I imagine you don't have a system where they can only post articles and that's it - that would be pretty daft but Habbox does have some wonderfully bizarre systems in place

It's a nice idea, but if we waited for each person to come back online before editing, who knows how long it'd stay unedited on the home site. We generally just edit the incorrect information or SPAG and PM the (offending) user. If a news reporter notices something wrong with their own article, they can edit it at any time.

[CaptainAce$$]

Wow. First people moan about habboxlive and now news. Come on people pull yourselves together, people make mistakes. It's not the end of the world. The whole point in being a trialist is to learn. You can't learn if you don't make a few mistakes. If you think you can do better, become a news reporter when apps open :rolleyes:

[nvrspk4]

People make mistakes, but not lie about a date of release. a mistake is something you do acidently, not something you do to finish a report.

A lie means he intentionally did it, or knew he was wrong...how are you absolutely sure that's what happened?

I imagine you don't have a system where they can only post articles and that's it - that would be pretty daft but Habbox does have some wonderfully bizarre systems in place

This will make you cry: that used to be how it worked. Before I was an AGM I believe (not that me becoming an AGM changed it, it's just how I'm classifying time). When you found typos or problems, you had to PM someone with editing access. It was because CuteNews (I believe it still was, or maybe we had switched to Joomla, but pretty sure it was CN) only recognized edit or no edit, and edit allowed you to edit all articles, therefore only seniors and managers were trusted with that level of access.

Also, I'm impressed that I was able to remember the name of CuteNews.

To the original poster: good catch. Good to know that it has been fixed, I think this particular issue has been put to rest. However it is worth at least discussing the merits and demerits of having trialist articles unpublished until a manager or senior can review it. Obviously it's management's style choice at the end of the day but user feedback and debate couldn't hurt. That said I would suggest the creation of a new thread, then the discussion can be solely focused around that issue instead of getting derailed by people like me still quoting arguments from page one

[Samantha]

@GommeInc; actually it really does teach them, when I or Grig first inform them what they've done wrong they ensure that most of the time (near enough all of the time) they don't do it again. Having them edit the article could be feesible and I have thought about that before, but 1. They might not do it, 2. They might not be online thus it will be incorrect for longer and 3. It's a Head News Reporters role to ensure perfection in articles, this is done by editing and such. Don't get me wrong, if there is something that I cannot fix myself I will ask the person who wrote it to edit it themselves, such as an image the other day, I had to unpublish the article and ask him to redo said image due to the content.

When I first came to news, I honestly thought that we could only post articles then not edit them as I got told that by an ex manager, this turned out not to be true and although I didn't edit my articles afterwards I have no problem with normal staff doing so. I'm sure they could easily read their reports over and see mistakes and go back to them, I feel the Head News Reporter and myself are also there for when they have missed an edit out or something like that.

@CaptainAce; thanks for the advertisement News Applications are open though woo! .

Also I agree with @nvrspk4; I will happily answer any feedback threads made about News and I love to hear positive and negative opinions as I do wish to improve news to be the best it can be. If that means changing some things or implementating something else then I'm all for it! I just need your views to do that.

[CaptainAce$$]

Oh well sam, that was good time for an advertisement pmsl.

[Grig]

I actually caught that fact, and I did say I would edit it but ended up getting smashed off my face with friends, that's life.

It is a pretty silly error and reporters are usually informed as soon as possible about these, particularly if its something factual that needed amending as that should never be the case. Such errors prop up much more rarely, but they do happen sometimes.

As for the system, that works fine. I remember back in 2009 we had an article approval system, but that was ineffective and meant that one would have to wait for a manager before the article was actually approved. It is frustrating when people ignore handbooks etc. but as a new reporter people sometimes need an article or two to get used to the system. Though they are hammered for silly mistakes, as there's nothing I hate more than silly mistakes that would take a minute or two of proof-reading to amend.

[GommeInc]

This will make you cry: that used to be how it worked. Before I was an AGM I believe (not that me becoming an AGM changed it, it's just how I'm classifying time). When you found typos or problems, you had to PM someone with editing access. It was because CuteNews (I believe it still was, or maybe we had switched to Joomla, but pretty sure it was CN) only recognized edit or no edit, and edit allowed you to edit all articles, therefore only seniors and managers were trusted with that level of access.

When I used CuteNews you could modify it so you could give access so only reporters can edit their own articles, and this was back in 2005 I think :/ But I guess Habbox may not of done that because a) They did not know of official modifications and b) They were affraid of security. Thankfully that doesn't exist now or I would cry

Also, I think it was CuteNews. Joomla! is pretty recent in Habbox history, if you were an AGM when I think you were. I strangely remember logging into a CuteNews system to leave comments.
@Samanfa; It doesn't really solve the problem, especially when you have stated "they might not do it" if you inform them. Obviously if the article is of great importance then common sense would be to remove the untrue information, but you should promote the idea that they should add the actual facts to the article when they're next available.

Obviously this is not a big deal and the problem was solved quickly (all media companies post untruths, some on purpose and some by accident) and eagle eye readers pick up on this, so kudos to them. Just something to think of if trialists are not strongly promoted to edit their articles later to post actual information. I think some informal websites post updates at the end of articles, so you could do this.

EDIT: Alternatively, you could have a small italic reminder at the top or bottom of the editor saying "Is everything in this article correct to the best of your understanding?". But it seems this is a rare event where trialists get things wrong. Some tools I use put tiny reminders like "Have you read the guidelines and followed them?" etc etc.

[Grig]

When I used CuteNews you could modify it so you could give access so only reporters can edit their own articles, and this was back in 2005 I think :/ But I guess Habbox may not of done that because a) They did not know of official modifications and b) They were affraid of security. Thankfully that doesn't exist now or I would cry

Also, I think it was CuteNews. Joomla! is pretty recent in Habbox history, if you were an AGM when I think you were. I strangely remember logging into a CuteNews system to leave comments.
@Samanfa; It doesn't really solve the problem, especially when you have stated "they might not do it" if you inform them. Obviously if the article is of great importance then common sense would be to remove the untrue information, but you should promote the idea that they should add the actual facts to the article when they're next available.

Obviously this is not a big deal and the problem was solved quickly (all media companies post untruths, some on purpose and some by accident) and eagle eye readers pick up on this, so kudos to them. Just something to think of if trialists are not strongly promoted to edit their articles later to post actual information. I think some informal websites post updates at the end of articles, so you could do this.

EDIT: Alternatively, you could have a small italic reminder at the top or bottom of the editor saying "Is everything in this article correct to the best of your understanding?". But it seems this is a rare event where trialists get things wrong. Some tools I use put tiny reminders like "Have you read the guidelines and followed them?" etc etc.

But you can't start saying that as we really rarely had a 'problem' and as trialists progress they learn and do not make similar errors, as it's all analyzed and broken down for them in a feedback PM.

Not sure why you think it's a problem.

[GommeInc]

But you can't start saying that as we really rarely had a 'problem' and as trialists progress they learn and do not make similar errors, as it's all analyzed and broken down for them in a feedback PM.

Not sure why you think it's a problem.

Which bit are you talking about?

[Grig]

Which bit are you talking about?

For them to edit facts or errors. That method, in my view, would have a few flaws such as an extremely long and tedious process of actually getting the errors checked.

Also, by never had a 'problem' I refer to the fact that for the past two times when I was in a senior position at news, we never had a problem with the editing process as reporters know perfectly well that if they keep making the same mistakes management wouldn't be happy and warnings would even be considered (and most want to genuinely improve and do well). So they take in what has been said and improve upon it and I've seen countless of reporters become better and better with this method.