Have I missed something?

[Samantha]

You two are contradicting each other here then. Samanfa says before you had to do 1 hour per department, so now everyone needs to do 2 hours (News+content). Laura says that each person only put 1 hour in, and still only needs to put 1 hour in. Which one is correct?

Do you mean 'Samanfa say' as I know I didn't say it was only an hour.

I believe that we're meant to squeeze our minimums (which I reiterate is over 2 times as much as it was before the merge) into the week, so Laura is correct in saying that as we still only have the same amount of time and that won't ever change - however, I do beyond what is expected of me on a weekly basis therefore it feels like more to me as I don't want to let the department down due to others not pulling their weight or not doing their minimums, if they don't that is.

---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 03:57 PM ----------

You two are contradicting each other here then. Samanfa says before you had to do 1 hour per department, so now everyone needs to do 2 hours (News+content). Laura says that each person only put 1 hour in, and still only needs to put 1 hour in. Which one is correct?

---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 03:52 PM ----------

And just so we're clear, there's the same amount of staff:



Work hours is different, because it depends if staff are required to do a certain amount of work hours per person, or a certain amount of work hours per job role.

Those statistics aren't correct though are they?

Really it would be:

10 in news, deduct one for me being in both.
2 in content, deduct one for me being in both.

That makes 9 on news, 1 on content, 1 in both.

Before it was 10 + 2 = 12.
Now it's 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.

So there is one less person?

I didn't include Jan in this due to graphics being the other part of content.

---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 03:57 PM ----------

You two are contradicting each other here then. Samanfa says before you had to do 1 hour per department, so now everyone needs to do 2 hours (News+content). Laura says that each person only put 1 hour in, and still only needs to put 1 hour in. Which one is correct?

---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 03:52 PM ----------

And just so we're clear, there's the same amount of staff:



Work hours is different, because it depends if staff are required to do a certain amount of work hours per person, or a certain amount of work hours per job role.

Those statistics aren't correct though are they?

Really it would be:

10 in news, deduct one for me being in both.
2 in content, deduct one for me being in both.

That makes 9 on news, 1 on content, 1 in both.

Before it was 10 + 2 = 12.
Now it's 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.

So there is one less person?

I didn't include Jan in this due to graphics being the other part of content.

[Kardan]

Do you mean 'Samanfa say' as I know I didn't say it was only an hour.

I believe that we're meant to squeeze our minimums (which I reiterate is over 2 times as much as it was before the merge) into the week, so Laura is correct in saying that as we still only have the same amount of time and that won't ever change - however, I do beyond what is expected of me on a weekly basis therefore it feels like more to me as I don't want to let the department down due to others not pulling their weight or not doing their minimums, if they don't that is.

---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 03:57 PM ----------



Those statistics aren't correct though are they?

Really it would be:

10 in news, deduct one for me being in both.
2 in content, deduct one for me being in both.

That makes 9 on news, 1 on content, 1 in both.

Before it was 10 + 2 = 12.
Now it's 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.

So there is one less person?

I didn't include Jan in this due to graphics being the other part of content.

---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 03:57 PM ----------



Those statistics aren't correct though are they?

Really it would be:

10 in news, deduct one for me being in both.
2 in content, deduct one for me being in both.

That makes 9 on news, 1 on content, 1 in both.

Before it was 10 + 2 = 12.
Now it's 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.

So there is one less person?

I didn't include Jan in this due to graphics being the other part of content.

The numbers are examples since I don't know the correct numbers (from what I've read/seen on this thread it would be 2 in News, 2 in both, 1 in content or something like that), but it's just to try and get over some of the confusion.

Assuming the numbers are correct, the 10 in news wouldn't go down because you're in both, since you are counted in the green '2' figure. Overall, there's 12 for news - 10 doing just news, and 2 doing news and content. Like-wise for content. There's 7 people doing content, 5 doing just content, 2 doing news and content.

And don't worry Sam, I'm not having a go at you, if you didn't work in the news department, there would literally be one article a week.

It's the work hours that's causing the confusion here. You say that you had a minimum work time before the merge, let's call this 1 hour. Now you say that has doubled since the merge, so 2 hours.

So using my numbers as an example:

Pre-Merge (1 hour min)

News: 10 hours
News and Content: 2 hours (so 1 hour for each)
Content: 5 hours

So overall, news gets 11 hours, content gets 6 hours.

Post-Merge (2 hour min)

News and Content: 34 hours.
So that's 17 hours for news, 17 hours for content.

So really, if these minimums are in place, there's more work hours produced from the merge. Of course, I doubt anyone other than Samanfa probably has put more than the minimum in news, I mean, it doesn't take 1 hour to write an article? Of course, I don't know how long this minimum is spread across, I'd assume a week?

---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 04:15 PM ----------

Now, if we take what Laura said, that the one hour work time for before is now split into two, because each person has two workloads:

Before Merge (1 hour min)

News: 10 hours
News and content: 2 hours (1 hour each)
Content: 5 hours

So news gets 11, content gets 6

Post-Merge (Each person needs to work 1 hour, so assume they do 30 mins per department)

News: 8 hours 30 min
Content 8 hours 30 min

So content goes up, news goes down.

So it all depends on whether Samanfa is right (the minimum work time has been doubled inline with the doubling of work requirements) or if Laura is right (the minimum work time has remained in same, but in reality has halved because the work requirements have doubled).

Either way, content hours goes up due to the lack of staff in that department.

[Samantha]

The numbers are examples since I don't know the correct numbers (from what I've read/seen on this thread it would be 2 in News, 2 in both, 1 in content or something like that), but it's just to try and get over some of the confusion.

Assuming the numbers are correct, the 10 in news wouldn't go down because you're in both, since you are counted in the green '2' figure. Overall, there's 12 for news - 10 doing just news, and 2 doing news and content. Like-wise for content. There's 7 people doing content, 5 doing just content, 2 doing news and content.

And don't worry Sam, I'm not having a go at you, if you didn't work in the news department, there would literally be one article a week.

It's the work hours that's causing the confusion here. You say that you had a minimum work time before the merge, let's call this 1 hour. Now you say that has doubled since the merge, so 2 hours.

So using my numbers as an example:

Pre-Merge (1 hour min)

News: 10 hours
News and Content: 2 hours (so 1 hour for each)
Content: 5 hours

So overall, news gets 11 hours, content gets 6 hours.

Post-Merge (2 hour min)

News and Content: 34 hours.
So that's 17 hours for news, 17 hours for content.

So really, if these minimums are in place, there's more work hours produced from the merge. Of course, I doubt anyone other than Samanfa probably has put more than the minimum in news, I mean, it doesn't take 1 hour to write an article? Of course, I don't know how long this minimum is spread across, I'd assume a week?

To be honest it seems like you're complimenting me for actually doing work in news instead of having a go at me.

Before the news minimum was 2 reports a week.
Content didn't have a set minimum, but it was mainly aimed at 5 worthy edits per week, so doing pages to a high quality, spagging, stuff like that as opposed to categorising.

After the merge the minimum is still the same as it was before, but it's just bunched together so we're expected to do the work news did per week and the work content did per week, so our workload has increased dramatically instead of coming to a balance. This could be wrong though, I'm not too sure, but that's what I've always known the minimums to be. Plus seniors have added more with making sure others are doing work etc.

[Kardan]

To be honest it seems like you're complimenting me for actually doing work in news instead of having a go at me.

Before the news minimum was 2 reports a week.
Content didn't have a set minimum, but it was mainly aimed at 5 worthy edits per week, so doing pages to a high quality, spagging, stuff like that as opposed to categorising.

After the merge the minimum is still the same as it was before, but it's just bunched together so we're expected to do the work news did per week and the work content did per week, so our workload has increased dramatically instead of coming to a balance. This could be wrong though, I'm not too sure, but that's what I've always known the minimums to be. Plus seniors have added more with making sure others are doing work etc.

In that case, it sounds like you're agreeing with Laura. So news work hours will decrease because of the merge, but content work hours will increase, which I think isn't too bad, content is more important than news.

[Samantha]

In that case, it sounds like you're agreeing with Laura. So news work hours will decrease because of the merge, but content work hours will increase, which I think isn't too bad, content is more important than news.

If we didn't have the Wiki then would it still be more important?

[Grig]

I actually can, I noticed it during my time as News Manager and senior, a lot of people who applied after being in the content department found it extremely difficult to write in the right style.


I know news is meant to be factual, that's kind of my job to realise that, but there's a difference between writing factual accounts from a third-person perspective (content style) and writing more opinionated news stories with an exciting and interesting 'spin', which is how good news is written. It's just so different in so so so many ways. You don't put ALL the information in a news story, not in the same way you do with wiki pages or something.

This really sums it up for the writing style issue. I am about to do a Master's of Journalism degree (and did a Bachelor degree in the same field) and I can tell you that news has its own unique writing style and people writing it need to be quick and the the point, not wishy-washy everywhere. It has key points, opinions and analysis- whilst Wiki is more descriptive, which is why I always liked news more. News Reporters here learn from the help of managers and seniors on what a great news story really is. If you have a manager, who knows nothing about news reporting, a senior that can edit reports but know little about that very same thing- it defeats the point. You will have news reports suffer in quality and new reporters not get the correct direction and guidance that they need to truly be great.

I was a staff at news, content and graphics. But honestly, I hated graphics, content was OK for me but yet again didn't like it that much and loved news. If I were forced to do content and news at the same time, I wouldn't have been here. Also, the point of "oh many people did both news and content" is very wrong. Nowadays loads have done it from the recent batch, but not in the past. Great people in the department- take Adzeh (Adam), Martin, Charlie, Harry etc. never did content and had no desire of doing content (I might be wrong for one of them there) and I know for a fact that those people wouldn't have stayed that long and done the good they have towards the department had they been forced to do content.

Which is why this is the most absurd (in nice terms) idea that I've seen on Habbox for a while.

[Kardan]

If we didn't have the Wiki then would it still be more important?

Yes if Habbox were on Version 7. But from what I understand, new content won't be put onto the site until V7 is released, so if the wiki didn't exist and Habbox were on V6, then news would be more important, since what content is there to do on Habbox V6 other than editing old content?

This really sums it up for the writing style issue. I am am about to do a Master's of Journalism degree (and did a Bachelor degree in the same field) and I can tell you that news has its own unique writing style and people writing it need to be quick and the the point, not wishy-washy everywhere. It has key points, opinions and analysis- whilst Wiki is more descriptive, which is why I always liked news more. News Reporters here learn from the help of managers and seniors on what a great news story really is. If you have a manager, who knows nothing about news reporting, a senior that can edit reports but know little about that very same thing- it defeats the point. You will have news reports suffer in quality and new reporters not get the correct direction and guidance that they need to truly be great.

I was a staff at news, content and graphics. But honestly, I hated graphics, content was OK for me but yet again didn't like it that much and loved news. If I were forced to do content and news at the same time, I wouldn't have been here. Also, the point of "oh many people did both news and content" is very wrong. Nowadays loads have done it from the recent batch, but not in the past. Great people in the department- take Adzeh (Adam), Martin, Charlie, Harry etc. never did content and had no desire of doing content (I might be wrong for one of them there) and I know for a fact that those people wouldn't have stayed that long and done the good they have towards the department had they been forced to do content.

Which is why this is the most absurd (in nice terms) idea I've seen on Habbox for a while.

I think an important thing to remember is that Habbox is just a Habbo fansite, not a University newspaper or national broadsheet. It's written by mostly teenagers, so the news articles aren't going to be perfect

[Grig]

Yes if Habbox were on Version 7. But from what I understand, new content won't be put onto the site until V7 is released, so if the wiki didn't exist and Habbox were on V6, then news would be more important, since what content is there to do on Habbox V6 other than editing old content?



I think an important thing to remember is that Habbox is just a Habbo fansite, not a University newspaper or national broadsheet. It's written by mostly teenagers, so the news articles aren't going to be perfect

I knew someone would bring this up. I say this because Habbox more or less tries to incorporate at least minor elements from journalism into articles. Yet, these elements are very important and make news articles 100% better and they are at the same time completely different to wiki content.

[Zelda]

This was my point, staff numbers are the same, work hours have decreased.

staff numbers have decreased though as nearly all the people in news (including one senior) resigned due to the merge????

------------------------------

tbh talking from the news side here we have suffered quite badly due to the merge. I completely feel like I wouln't want to do content work myself either and would probably have resigned if I was a normal staff, especially after resigning from content recently before due to hating it after about a month.

I can't see any real benefit in the merge at all myself, if staff had wanted to do content work they would have applied for it anyway, so it just seems pointless now. As laura said we had a massive pickup in staff just before and we were actually improving quite a lot, and the news survey results really supported these beliefs with very positive results, but now the staff have just plummeted again to worse then when I was a head just after Laura resigned.

will say more if anyone wants me to talk on anything in particular lmao

[Kardan]

staff numbers have decreased though as nearly all the people in news (including one senior) resigned due to the merge????

Who resigned? Because the merge happened last week right? And the only people that have posted news articles in the last month were yourself, Samanfa and runeaddict, and you're all still here aren't you? So all the people that left weren't posting any news anyway?