Pretty clear here. Recently, I've gotten hooked on Gamegrep. However, more often than not I realize I made a small typo spell check didn't pick up and I didn't realize it, or I forgot a small tid-bit of information, want to add a picture, etc. Anyway, I'm suggesting we implement a way to edit our articles. This could be useful in events such as:

For reference, this ability was removed last month. It would be nice to have it back, but approved articles are supposed to be "final".

Opening this up to editing after approval can lead to a few nagative points.

- degradation in quality of the article (ie: more typos).
- potential abuse.

Typos should be caught by the approver. Also, there is the spell checker for the user. An idea going around with the approvers was a new status called a "draft" with a draft you can submit it but it wont be pending for approval. This will let you save and edit it till you are ready to submit.

Just like news papers or magazine articles you cannot go back and edit it once it's off to the printing press.

I am open to any ideas for this. However, for the time being articles will not be editable after being approved.

Hm... Perhaps when someone decides to edit their article, their article is put into a quere similar to the "pending approval" quere. This quere would essentially work the same, except it is put there for review of an edit. The article is not removed from public view, but the edit is not finalized until the Gamegrep approvers view it and give it the ok? It's kind of rough to explain it, but I'm hoping you get the general idea. This would prevent both abuse of editing things in such as (to go to the extreme) pornographic content, and to prevent degrading the article even further.

This message was edited by Fusion on Apr 02 2008.

quote

- degradation in quality of the article (ie: more typos).
- potential abuse.

quote

Typos should be caught by the approver. Also, there is the spell checker for the user. An idea going around with the approvers was a new status called a "draft" with a draft you can submit it but it wont be pending for approval. This will let you save and edit it till you are ready to submit.

I think what he was addressing in the first issue was so much as degrading the article on purpose, though I could be mistaken.

quote Fusion

I think what he was addressing in the first issue was so much as degrading the article on purpose, though I could be mistaken.

quote Fusion

Hm... Perhaps when someone decides to edit their article, their article is put into a quere similar to the "pending approval" quere. This quere would essentially work the same, except it is put there for review of an edit. The article is not removed from public view, but the edit is not finalized until the Gamegrep approvers view it and give it the ok? It's kind of rough to explain it, but I'm hoping you get the general idea. This would prevent both abuse of editing things in such as (to go to the extreme) pornographic content, and to prevent degrading the article even further.

Strange that I didn't see that.

I like the idea too, I'm all for it.

quote Fusion

The article is not removed from public view, but the edit is not finalized until the Gamegrep approvers view it and give it the ok?

I can see a problem with this though. A user, if they try to degrade the article even further, can simply bypass by editing small pieces at a time. Perhaps giving them a certain amount of edits before placing it into the quere? You really only need to edit an article once, maybe twice, pushing it with 3 times and anything above that is probably unnecessary. Other than that, it's a great idea Red, and that'd be the perfect way to implement this system.

Actually you hit one of my earlier concerns on another topic right on the nail: I think of it as slowly sabbotaging something by doing minor changes until the damage is complete, so a limit on minor edits is a great way to reduce that.

quote Fusion

I can see a problem with this though. A user, if they try to degrade the article even further, can simply bypass by editing small pieces at a time. Perhaps giving them a certain amount of edits before placing it into the quere? You really only need to edit an article once, maybe twice, pushing it with 3 times and anything above that is probably unnecessary. Other than that, it's a great idea Red, and that'd be the perfect way to implement this system.

How about if all your minor edits combined are enough to be considered one major edit (As if you had done it all at once) it still gets sent to the submission que.

Guticb's idea seems even better, but that would make things even more complicated, wouldn't it? (Just throwing in my 2 cents)

~StarJet

My idea might be a bit tricky to implement though. =/