The Problem
Anyone on Introductions must necessarily accept that you can't respond to every introduction in a satisfactory manner. Every user has different wants and needs, necessitating, at the very least, a few sentences directing them somewhere they themselves will benefit from. Boilerplating each and every intro reduces it to a copypasta that might as well greet the user itself. Whether or not you have a copypasta at the ready, you're still looking at a personalized greeting for the ever-growing crowd of users who have been implicitly promised such a thing; this is all assuming said users make such needs and wants known, or that you've got the energy to parse what they might like.
As a result, Introductions has a tendency to burn out its staffers. From experience, even focusing on a single thread can get to you; by the time I'd burned out in May 2019, even looking at the intros board gave me a mental sort of nausea.
Part of this can also be attributed to the low number of Intros staffers. We simply don't get very many sign-ups when we put out notices. But even then, the rate at which we're seeing new users is means we'd need a lot.
Either way: we're due for an overhaul on how we look at intros.
The Plan
The primary gist of my proposal is thus: We reorient what is presently Introductions from greeting all new users to directly addressing the needs and wants of (primarily) new users with specific questions and concerns.
This will involve the replacement of the current introductions threads with what I'm tentatively calling "Getting Started Questions" threads. Getting Started Questions threads are intended to serve as avenues by which (primarily) new or returning users can request assistance in Wiki-related matters, whether that's accessing specific writing resources, requesting wiki primers for genre- and lore-related articles, or simply asking questions that don't warrant a whole new thread. Frequently asked questions may noted on the top post, or given their own page.
Whether or not we keep the original Intros thread, staff will no longer be expected to reply to every users' introduction. By shifting the focus to specific concerns, the Getting Started Questions threads intend to cut down on the volume of introductory posts, cutting down on necessary responses while giving staffers clear indication on how to respond.
A mockup of a Getting Started Questions thread can be found here.
There are two axes I can see this implemented:
- Periodical vs. As-Necessary:
- Periodical: Essentially, QaR threads are posted at the beginning of a specified time period (most likely monthly) and archived+replaced at the beggining of the next period. This is largely how we already handle introduction threads, and is how I would ultimately recommend we implement QaR.
- As-Necessary: QaR threads remain up until they're deemed too large, at which point they're archived and replaced. I can't see much value in this approach, but I bring it up because others might have good points to make on this matter.
- Single vs. Multiple:
- Single: There is only a single QaR thread at any given time. Such an approach would encourage users to get all their requests out in one go; however, the thread risks filling up incredibly fast.
- Multiple: Multiple QaR threads are present at once, sorted by topic (I'm envisioning "writing", "primer", and "wiki culture"). This could allow staffers proficient in one area to focus primarily on said area; it'd also leave multiple threads to keep track of, and potentially force users to use multiple threads at the same time.
The Purview
Introductions is a Community Outreach subteam, so I imagine this will remain Community Outreach. However, this proposal modifies the scope of Introductions, and I'd therefore like some opinions on whether or not the responsibility of Getting Started Questions is still solely CO.
This discussion is open to JStaff and above.
Edit: Noting for posterity the name change.