Are you happy with ATSNN these days?

Cause I lament the loss. Sadly, I have watched ATSNN go from a highly dependable, well-sourced and well-written news source to a bias-ridden, grammar- challenged, amateurish slopfest that is suffering from lack of editing. And it bothers me. It was the one place where I could read articles written as well as pro news sites- consistently. The articles I see get voted up now just sicken me, and honestly, I give up. I've screamed and bitched about it long enough. It is a slap in the face to those here who have worked extremely hard to keep ATSNN at top quality, through and through.

So what the heck! Intros- just slam your opinion up there! No problem. Sources? Hell, screw the sources! Who needs sources anymore? Grammar and sentance structure? Pff, why bother? Oh, and we don't need the OP/ED submission part of the form now, so might as well get rid of that. And honestly, why in the hell even have voting anymore, if the membership are going to vote up this crap?

ATSNN as a separate site from ATS now holds no distinction, and absolutely no difference to the rest of ATS. And if that's going to be the case, then why even bother with ATSNN? WHY WHY WHY? There is place on ATS or PTS covering every category on ATSNN. It amazes me, and don't ask me to provide examples, because if you can't see it, I don't want your opinion on the matter anyway. And it's too bad. It once was the pinnacle of ATS. Goodbye ATSNN. Goodbye.

I could probably even submit this as an ATSNN article and get away with it. But I had enough respect for the place. Not no mo, phooey on dat, I can write dood, I am gonna write sumptin, yeah andI think its kewl

Well true American, I apologize if my spelling and grammar if is insulting your sensiives senses.

I mean not harm after all English is not my first language and I do post with a lot of errors.

I am feeling unwanted now.

I'm happy with ATSNN, then again everyone has there own standards when it comes to posts.

I think some people forget that everyone has a varied range of education and ability when it comes to English, heck some here don't even speak the language but nethertheless they do there best.

In my opinion, for a site with such a varied range of cultures on board, it's still the most organised and well presented site, both by the staff and it's members.

I'd just give people a little more slack and read more into thier message than thier grammar.

My only critisism would be that it takes too long for breaking news stories to appear, thats why i generally go straight to the most recent posts or the sections themselves to here the latest news. This is a shame because i do find myself avoiding ATSNN more because of this.

Generally though, it still gives me what i need. Thats not to say you're wrong in what you post though True American, it's always good to improve and not get complacent.

CX.

I Feel it could certainly benefit from member NOT posting trivial matters every day.
I think certain people post subjects that would not make newsworthy articles just for the sake of the extra few points gained in ATSNN or to spam their own political views.

I,m all for a newsworthy item to be presented,even with a few spelling booboos as long as it,s edited before presenting to the outside world.

What makes me mad is the lack of an intelligent,well researched P.O.V that accompanies these trivial non-posts also.

Fortunately this is limited to a few posters

Marg, you know I luv ya, and this is nothing personal. I do my damnest to read your posts and understand them. My biggest problem stems from the poorly written articles which do not conform to the submission guidelines, and not the responses. I might also point out that it appears that you have never written one. (Contributor: 0) And that's fine, and for ATSNN, and this is just my opinion, it is probably for the best because of the higher demand for quality, ONLY. Your opinion counts just as much as anyone else's.

Please don't feel unwanted. It is not about that. It was about having a special, separate place from ATS that held the same standards as pro news sites. As of now it does not, IMO. And that's about it. Sorry you took that personally, honestly. Some people here have the ability to write for ATSNN, properly, and some do not. That's just the way it is, unfortunately. Or at least that's the way it was.

Edit to add:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Need I say more? That is NOT what ATSNN used to be.

[edit on 8-11-2006 by TrueAmerican]

I know TrueAmerican, I am just making a joke

But on the topic, yes I agree with you, sometimes Is not even worthy to read some of the stories.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Edit to add:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Need I say more? That is NOT what ATSNN used to be.

[edit on 8-11-2006 by TrueAmerican]

Pretty quick on the gun there TA, that was trashed within 5 minutes of posting.

Sadly, I have watched ATSNN go from a highly dependable, well-sourced and well-written news source to a bias-ridden, grammar- challenged, amateurish slopfest that is suffering from lack of editing. And it bothers me.

They could probably deny 5-10% more of the submissions... but overall it's not too bad.

heck some here don't even speak the language but nethertheless they do there best.

their best

What would YOU do about it if you could? What's your suggestion/game plan?

You have my attention.

Springer...

Originally posted by marg6043
Well true American, I apologize if my spelling and grammar if is insulting your sensiives senses.

I mean not harm after all English is not my first language and I do post with a lot of errors.

I am feeling unwanted now.

I have never had one bit of trouble knowing exactly what you ment.

As far as ATSNN "it ain't broke, so don't fix it"

[edit on 8-11-2006 by whaaa]

the only thing that i get unhappy about

is when there is an ATSNN submission displayed
but there is no voting box
or there is no [Reply] tab to click, for a comment

??what's up with that??

...does the 'news' item needs a number of views to see if it even 'Vote Worthy' ?

Springer and Staff,

Well, I think you guys have done what you've wanted with it and tried a few different systems. When I came on board ATS, it was back when we had staff reporters, and it was those times I think that ATSNN had the best quality, imo. And not just cause I was one, but because the writers were more screened, articles were more scrutinized, and the quality overall was just better.

But the problem seemed to be that the limited staff couldn't, or wouldn't keep up with all the news stories, and as I understand it, some members weren't happy with the subject material. But it was a competitive news portal, with uncommon, controversial articles that were well presented and written in correct grammar and spelling. There was a sense that it had to be real good to make it on ATSNN. There was a sense that ATSNN was separate, and of generally higher quality. At least those were my senses about it at the time.

I propose to return to a similar system, except this time with a much larger reporter base, and a reporter tag designation that must be somewhat qualified and approved by the staff. Within that I propose that reporters take on "junior reporters" who have interest in becoming a tagged ATSNN reporter. They would be required to submit initially to the ATSNN reporter/sponsor, who would then be able to edit the post and coach the learner, until the submission is acceptable. All this would be done in a similar room like we used to have- the "bullpen."

This approach would take the pressure off the staff for the most part, and of course any staff that wanted could be an ATSNN reporter as well. It would put most of the editing in the hands of the reporter staff, and only those that volunteered to be reporter/sponsors. I would think that any Experts at this point would be grandfathered in, and have the immediate option to be sponsors. As to the rest of the current contributors, maybe those with over 25 upgraded stories would be considered for sponsor options as well, so that there is immediately a large base of qualified ATSNN reporters, and ATSNN reporter/sponsors.

This is just a rough draft of the ideas I have off the top of my head- since you put me on the spot. I'm sure it could be improved and maybe some new incentives added as well. But after years now of trying the voting at various levels, I really feel ATSNN overall was better off when writers were qualified and held to higher standards.

Regards,
TA

Yea I was a bit unhappy with it as well recently. It seems like some things that I just can't see getting through manage to slip by into at least submission. Some stuff I wonder how it ever got passed.

Being more strict may ward off some posters, but if its not going to be top notch, do we really want it on ATSNN to begin with? I have no problem with having my articles declined, so long as it is for good reason. If I have grammar mistakes, I'd be very happy to see some one tell me what to correct for future reference.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
...bias-ridden, grammar- challenged, amateurish slopfest that is suffering from lack of editing.

I completely agree. Although the grammar and spelling can be disappointing it is the bias that truly bothers me.

Great post, thanks.

Pokey Oats

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

I propose to return to a similar system, except this time with a much larger reporter base, and a reporter tag designation that must be somewhat qualified and approved by the staff. Within that I propose that reporters take on "junior reporters" who have interest in becoming a tagged ATSNN reporter. They would be required to submit initially to the ATSNN reporter/sponsor, who would then be able to edit the post and coach the learner, until the submission is acceptable. All this would be done in a similar room like we used to have- the "bullpen."

Regards,
TA

There are several legal issues with having "a staff" that copy/pastes pieces from other networks' copyrighted work. The way it is now, it's pure Member content, no staff, no "official ATS involvement" or editorial control over the content.

The IP laws are pretty straightforward in this regard and there have been some rumblings that even the news aggregating sites are in potential trouble for making money off the IP of others without a license to do so.

When someone copies the first couple paragraphs from a news story, gives credit to the author and the site, posts a link to the original story and keeps it all seperate from their opinions/comments on the story we're usually OK as long as that person is not "Staff" of this site.

The unique quality of ATSNN has always been the Member's discussion that ensues from the "news article" brought to the Membership's attention not the "regurgitated" news article itself.

If we had Reporters out in the field creating original stories on interesting events and situations that would be different. But if all we are doing is simply "grabbing" the work of others and commenting on it I don't see how we can justify having reporters or editors, those imply original work where none is being done.

Springer...

Originally posted by Springer
There are several legal issues with having "a staff" that copy/pastes pieces from other networks' copyrighted work. The way it is now, it's pure Member content, no staff, no "official ATS involvement" or editorial control over the content.

Lol, well I really am not trying to be a smart ass, but if that's the case then why did intrepid(staff) just throw that article from a member submitting news into the trash bin? The "staff" at that point made a decision to not accept the piece as written. So I am curious as to how that action does not qualify as "ATS staff editorial control." The staff also makes routine edits on many ATSNN submissions all the time, as is visable in edit parenthesis. Do those not qualify either? Should you maybe explore removing those?

The IP laws are pretty straightforward in this regard and there have been some rumblings that even the news aggregating sites are in potential trouble for making money off the IP of others without a license to do so.

Hmm, well then maybe for ultimate protection, the copied section should be removed from ATSNN articles, and the submitting member should have to rewrite 2 to 4 paragraphs of the original story, and just provide the link to the original as a reference? For the purposes of quality, if that were to be the concern, then it would seem that the system above I am proposing might actually have some advantages:

1) It would certainly be less liability for the owners of ATS that way, because at that point it would be a complete member contribution, only referencing sources.

2) Quality and editorial control could then be implemented, at a staff or non staff level, or both, without liability issues.

3) Any quotes from the original article could be included in the analysis/commentary section, so that it forms part of the discussion, and not part of the story.

4) Obviously with the additional work, why hey, increase the rewards.

5) That would be closer to a truely member written news portal!

Now what at that point would be the difference from ATS, one might ask? More tightly controlled, "finished quality" pieces- well sourced and deserving to be on ATSNN as approved by a dedicated reporting and editorial staff.

When someone copies the first couple paragraphs from a news story, gives credit to the author and the site, posts a link to the original story and keeps it all seperate from their opinions/comments on the story we're usually OK as long as that person is not "Staff" of this site.

Again, not to be a butthead, but how then is it that some staff are still submitting news articles? (and getting away with it).

If we had Reporters out in the field creating original stories on interesting events and situations that would be different. But if all we are doing is simply "grabbing" the work of others and commenting on it I don't see how we can justify having reporters or editors, those imply original work where none is being done.

So in that scenario under forced rewrites, would that not qualify as original work?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Edit to add:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Need I say more? That is NOT what ATSNN used to be.

[edit on 8-11-2006 by TrueAmerican]

Pretty quick on the gun there TA, that was trashed within 5 minutes of posting.

Couldn't we be allowed to see what your talking about?

I agree with TA most of the way and bad submissions upgraded sets a precedence that could rub off.

I for myself admit my internal quality check might tend to slip, when I see what other contributors get away with - compared to when I first submitted to ATSNN and strictly stuck to the guidelines outlined in the submit news form. I still stick to those lines though, I won't let me influence by someone else's bad habits. But they do set (bad) examples, I fully agee on that.

As for some coaching, that would just be wonderful. How should one else learn, if nobody points out errors?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Springer
There are several legal issues with having "a staff" that copy/pastes pieces from other networks' copyrighted work. The way it is now, it's pure Member content, no staff, no "official ATS involvement" or editorial control over the content.

Lol, well I really am not trying to be a smart ass, but if that's the case then why did intrepid(staff) just throw that article from a member submitting news into the trash bin?

Where did you get that piece of info? I said:

Originally posted by intrepid
Pretty quick on the gun there TA, that was trashed within 5 minutes of posting.

I didn't trash it, I just pointed out that it was. Your point?

The "staff" at that point made a decision to not accept the piece as written. So I am curious as to how that action does not qualify as "ATS staff editorial control."

Again, your point? You have a beef, that's a given but your previous post had a problem with ATSNN accepting "lesser" material, now you want us to consider "lesser" material? There is a baseline for an article, I couldn't post "Me big, have beers, want a pancake." It's not rocket science that a post like that would be removed. Much like the post that you linked to that was quickly removed. AGAIN, what's your point?

The staff also makes routine edits on many ATSNN submissions all the time, as is visable in edit parenthesis. Do those not qualify either? Should you maybe explore removing those?

You would prefere that we do edits that the board CAN'T see? We could say anything then, just by editting. That's great news? BTW, those edits are of a minor nature, removing all caps, correcting a broken link. Not all members are computer wizards like yourself that could do that themselves. A lot of the time these edits are done at the request of the author. Should we deny submissions from willing authors because they don't have the comp skills BUT the willingness to be an active part of the board? Just asking dude.

*snipping the rest*

One part at a time. I look forward to your response.

I already anticipated your response on that Intrepid, but decided to go with it anyway, because the point is that someone on the staff excercized editorial control over a member post. Doesn't matter if it was you or Helmutt, relative to what Springer said. Please re read Springer's post, and you should get the point.

I think the people who upgrade stories from '(pending)' status to '(submission)' should do a better job to stick closer to the ATSNN guidelines here: TO ALL MEMBERS SUBMITTING NEWS or if those guidelines are no longer in effect, a new ATSNN guideline should be published.