I am currently debating dropping the password requirement from the application, what are opinions?
Admin, SCP Wiki
I am currently debating dropping the password requirement from the application, what are opinions?
Admin, SCP Wiki
After some thoughful consideration, I've arrived at the conclusion that provided we can implement some enhanced architecture to work with newer users at lower levels in greater numbers, the site can stand to do nothing but gain from an overall increase in membership and potential contributorship.
Larger numbers of new members means larger numbers of potential diamonds in the rough, and even the larger number that don't jump out immediately can stand to contribute to the body of work on the site provided people work with them.
Military Consultant, SCP Wiki
I strongly support this.
Before becoming an admin, I would have strongly opposed this. The password seemed like an excellent idea. Especially now that the required reading has been severely cut down; I'd say the knowledge that people can glean from the Guide to Newbies is fairly vital.
But since becoming an admin… well, I've done a lot of apps. We get a lot of intelligent-sounding apps and a lot of dumb as fuck-sounding apps. Do the smart people get the pass and the dumb people miss it? No… not really. Rather, both groups missed the pass about equally. And I let in plenty of idiots who somehow got the password. (Not only did they sound like idiots, but they promptly imploded on the site proper.)
I started talking to every new person who came in site19 while I was doing apps, if they'd missed the password. Sometimes these people were just not reading the required reading because "lol". At other times… well, they'd accidentally missed it, or misunderstood it. They could quote plenty to me from the rest of the guide, but had no clue about any password… and these people kicked themselves when they eventually found it, called themselves stupid. And you know what? I disagree that they were stupid.
I've come to the reluctant conclusion that the only thing our password requirement does is filter out everyone but the obsessive-compulsive, the lucky, and those determined and brave enough to get into chat and ask around. I do think our guides are pretty great, but making people do a close-reading of them up-front without any context doesn't seem to have any effect.
I think we should just require that people give us their age, location, and reason for joining the site as essentially a spam filter. We can modify this if needed, perhaps to test if they can communicate competently.
I would like to also implement some requirement for posting your first article on the site that involves proving you've read the Required Reading. Yes, possibly including a small quiz. I believe others, notably Mann, have floated this idea as well. Yes, this would be easier to do in the future!!!!! but I don't think it's out of the question to do it now. And I think this would serve the purpose that our password is supposed to serve (and isn't).
edit: research on potential wikidot mechanics ongoing. manual enforcement would be at the very least very difficult, but, I feel, not impossible. just clarifying that this isn't an 'in the bag' thing that we can surely do. I just think it would be a pretty good thing to attempt.
I remember there being a quiz of some sort way back when… could we have a basic overview that's, I dunno, sort of just simple matching? I've noticed (based on the copypasta I've kept in my sandbox) a few things that newer members tend to trip up, usually signatures and replying to staff posts and double-posting or the like that aren't really crucial but do get noticed…
It's late and I need to wake up early to get some blood test done and I might think it's a terrible idea tomorrow, but what if there was a small section to fill out that would just have a list of actions (with either pertaining letters or numbers) and an application would need to include which ones are not allowed on the wiki? For example:
a. using the edit button, instead of double-posting on forums
b. submitting unfinished works to the mainsite
c. making small grammatical edits to existing articles
d. replying to staff/mod/admin posts
e. messaging a staff member directly for help
f. having a forum signature
g. keeping drafts in a sandbox
h. upvoting an article you have written
i. posting forum comments as if you are an "in-character" Foundation employee
j. etc. etc.
And the applicant would simply need to indicate the letters (or numbers) about the simple things that aren't allowed. If this idea is any good, then I guess specifics could be discussed (most of the things have their own bolded sections in the "Behavior" tab of the Guide to Newbies, if I recall correctly?). To make sure that people don't just tell others the correct sequence of letters/numbers, we could rotate the choices periodically?
My main concern is that I feel like there shouldn't be too much work for someone who simply wants to be a member so they can vote and/or comment and leave it at that, but at the same time I don't want them to feel self-conscious if they happen to make a mistake. I've seen a few posts going "wow, terrible way to make a first impression, sorry" for pretty much every forum faux pas. I'm glad that the required reading has been cut down, but I feel like the application process should still have some degree of ensuring that a new member is familiar with the way the forums function so they can jump right in.
/endrant Will edit tomorrow.
I don't think a quiz like that is necessary. If someone is a shithead, and does those things repeatedly, we ban them. If they stop after being warned, they learn proper behavior by experience. A quiz won't stop stupid.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
A quiz won't stop stupid.
I was thinking that the quiz could just serve as a sort of generic brush-up/review on commonly missed things. We still do get badly-done coldposts and ragefests, after all. My main (perhaps unnecessary, but I am still new to the site and I'm not sure what previous application processes were like) concern was that if applications consist only of the age, location, and reason for joining, then an applicant wouldn't necessarily need to have read the guide to newbies at all.
There's also the matter of people being a little unsure about how the wiki works. I've gotten PMs from people who are hesitant to ask on the forums, and also some people who get a little freaked out when I ask them to remove their signature because they may not have seen a comment prompting them to do so. /shrugs I feel like a brief recap as part of the application could help in reinforcing the rules read (and to an extent, make sure that they are read).
Of course, it's highly probable that I'm just paranoid, so I guess we'll have to see how site activity changes, if it does, when the application process changes. :)
if applications consist only of the age, location, and reason for joining, then an applicant wouldn't necessarily need to have read the guide to newbies at all.
This is accurate. This was the purpose of the password. My estimation is that it didn't work out all that well.
I can't see a complex quiz ending well, or really making much of a difference in the end.
And the quiz is testing people mainly for understanding our rules that cover 'minor annoyances'. I think those are things that can be learned along the way, as they are now, and systematic failures mean membership removal or banning. After all, we already do require that people know the rules, even though there's currently no password in there or anything.
It just seems like a barrier to entry that would only serve to "make us less annoyed" assuming it worked. But we should not be creating barriers to entry to serve ourselves as staff. As staff our job is to serve the site — the writers & the reader community.
(A barrier to posting shitty articles differs because it's a form of quality control, serving the readers of the site & not just ourselves.)
I think it'd be fine to remove the PW and we don't need any complicated replacement system either. If somebody is a shithead once they get accepted we can ban them. If they write bad articles we can delete them. So why not let the admins just use their judgement in admitting them?
I sing of arms and the man
Storm-tossed by Hera's jealousy
Seems fair to me. You can usually tell when people didn't read the RR from their behavior anyways.
if your reading this your gay
At this stage I don't see the password doing much good at all, so we may as well.
Look, we had a big application process and it didn't work. Neither does a password. We've kind of had this proven to us that idiots will be idiots, forever, regardless of anything we do ever. It doesn't matter if we have God write a personal letter assuring the competence of each of our applications, we'll still get idiots. As mentioned, it's really a lot of hassle for not a lot of gain. Newbies will forget, be idiotic, and make tiny mistakes regardless of what we do and it's a lot less of a hassle to just tell someone to cut that shit out and then ban their ass.
(edit this was meant as a reply to.zyn what the fuck wikidot)
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
I can support dropping the password. Like Moose, I thought it was a wonderful idea when it was introduced, but sadly the data do not back it up. It just isn't working.
I do oppose the wholesale elimination of the application process. Even if it's nothing but a "Why do you want to join?", it'll give us the chance to weed out those people who can't even be bothered to capitalize.
it'll give us the chance to weed out those people who can't even be bothered to capitalize.
This really isn't what we use the app form for, though (perhaps individual admins may vary here), and/but honestly if we were using it for that purpose, I'd rather use it for weeding out the hopelessly incoherent, not people who type without caps (most of us have done this anyway at some point in informal arenas online).
And yeah, we're almost certainly going to keep the app form — if nothing else, it's a spam filter, and a way of weeding out 10-year-olds.
Rather than remove it, I'd like to see it moved somewhere a little more obvious. Right now, it's on the least read tab on that entire document. Putting it on, say, "Site Behavior," something that should be read by everyone… Now that I could see being a good move.
"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato
Seconding this. I remember there was a forum (SA?) where people complained that one would need to read over the staff bios in order to get the password. Site Behavior sounds like a good place.
I feel it would undeniably be a big improvement if the password was in "Site Behavior".
I think it would be a bigger improvement to kill the password altogether, but putting it in Site Behavior at least temporarily would be a decent compromise, if enough people support that.
EDIT: Also, the argument that all newbies must thoroughly read our staff doesn't hold water for me. "It lets them know which staff members they can work with!" only works if staff actually worked with most newbies.
I'd rather we just kill it. We'd see more dramatic results as to whether it works or not, and if it doesn't we can put it back under the suggested tab.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
Same, but IF we decide not to drop it entirely (or if dropping it entirely is shown to be a Bad Idea) then Site Behavior would be a better place.
if your reading this your gay
more dramatic results
Dramatic results are not something that interest me. I want just regular results, and while I can believe that people who "read the guide" would be inclined to ignore the Staff tab (for obvious reasons), ignoring "Site Behavior" is pretty much the line I would draw. It's also the first tab.
"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato
Perhaps dramatic is not the best word. Obvious is more what I was going for.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
With obvious being a flood of users? I'm not sure how you plan to measure success here. In pages created or deleted? Users joining or posting? How do you suggest/plan that we discover if doing this is "successful"?
"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato
Obvious being admins doing apps noting that "hey we're letting in the competent people we used to deny cos of the apps and stuff".
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
This is still purely qualitative, unfortunately. However, see my other post.
the other problem here being that once people see the damn thing they'll probably stop reading and wander off to apply