I would also like to know what documentation is going to be updated to point to the new threads.

Explicit mention of the introduction threads in wiki guides will be updated to reflect the overhaul, as will the Introduction board subtitling.

Edit: per charter, the pages that will need to be changed are Join the Site, the Community Outreach hub, and the subtitle for the Intros boards.

For example, a change to nomenclature and forum category descriptions could resolve the issue. The old Questions Desk could be the new Writing Questions Desk (or Writing Questions & Technical Support or something), and this new subforum could be First-Time Questions or Getting Started Questions or something similar that indicates it's clearly for new users. Or, the two parts of the forum could be treated as equivalent, perhaps sharing a category that's geared towards questions.

Renaming it "Getting Started Questions" for clarity is a good idea; renaming the current QD seems like it'd be a good call, too, though I don't know if Intros has that authority.

My chief concern remains that this new feature is ambiguous with the Questions Desk. Quoting my own post from above:

How do these new questions threads differ from our existing Questions Desk? What determines where a user, new or not, should post their question? What determines where a user with a question should search for existing answers?

Response to this was:

WRT the Questions Desk, these threads are intended for new & returning users, without the need to create a new thread each time a question is asked.

This is fine but just having this intention doesn't fix the issue. We need clear, concrete ways of indicating this to the users who are going to be using one or both of these parts of the site.

For example, a change to nomenclature and forum category descriptions could resolve the issue. The old Questions Desk could be the new Writing Questions Desk (or Writing Questions & Technical Support or something), and this new subforum could be First-Time Questions or Getting Started Questions or something similar that indicates it's clearly for new users. Or, the two parts of the forum could be treated as equivalent, perhaps sharing a category that's geared towards questions.
Or, this proposal could rebrand the Questions Desk to include the kinds of question you describe. Or, these threads could be stickied in the Questions Desk.

I would also like to know what documentation is going to be updated to point to the new threads.

While the two parts of the forum are still ambiguous, and while they differ in who should use them without being explicit, and while there is not a specific plan in place to resolve these issues, I can't vote yes on this proposal.

This definitely would be more useful to newbies than replying to every post… why was that even a policy in the first place? It's really high-effort low-reward work which contributes to the burnout.

I… don't like this proposal. It feels like it's basically just introducing a single thread/multiple threads to handle doing stuff that we already have multiple places for (#site17, the Questions Desk subforum etc. etc.) whilst still keeping all those places

I have concerns that this is just going to be needlessly confusing to new users

These are my thoughts on the matter as well.

I wonder if this could be more easily addressed by just adapting the monthly intro thread template to have more "if you have questions, you can ask in these places" links? The writers-specific one already links to Questions Desk.

I… don't like this proposal. It feels like it's basically just introducing a single thread/multiple threads to handle doing stuff that we already have multiple places for (#site17, the Questions Desk subforum etc. etc.) whilst still keeping all those places; and whilst having a place that's like "here is a friendly place you can ask all kind of questions" isn't necessarily bad, I have concerns that this is just going to be needlessly confusing to new users who'll be unsure where the best place to actually ask their questions is.

I guess my thoughts on periodical vs as necessary is 'it depends on how busy this ends up being'; and I would oppose multiple threads here just because it feels like it makes the problem of 'too many places to ask the question' even worse.

I'm generally fine with this being a CO thing, at least, having CO oversight; it feels like broadly any staff team might be expected to answer specific questions that come up (e.g. forum crit if someone wants to know where to get critique, licensing if someone wants to know if they can make a specific thing into a SCP; tech to help with formatting questions etc.) but it feels like CO can easily reach out to appropriate staffers if necessary.

- As stated by other intro members, I am also in support of multiple, periodic threads. The periodical method already works fairly well, and I agree that a single thread would make it easier for things to get lost/follow up questions not being addressed in a timely matter.

- This seems like it would stay mostly under CO's jurisdiction/something the Intros team would still be managing. That being said, I don't see any issue with other staff chipping in, for example, newcomers with questions around specific writing advice might receive better answers from staffers more well versed in the critique forums than those not as well versed. The idea Edna pointed out about limiting the writing topic is also one I would be willing to consider/support, as I agree having some form of curating would be good for how active that forum is presumably going to be.

- The current mockup for the Help Desk looks good, no complaints there.

All in all, thanks for making this a thing. Happy to see intros get a revamp.

At no point did I expect staff to respond to every intro post—I was rather hoping that the new members would be encouraged to respond to each other if they noticed similar interests/hobbies/etc. since everyone was in the same thread.

If someone's intro post was just a quick "hey, just joined, glad to be here", that in itself doesn't really necessitate a response.

I admit that I personally don't see the need to change the introduction threads themselves, just how staff are expected to handle them (which, again, I'm kind of confused about, since it comes as a surprise to me that staff were ever trying to respond to every intro post?).

• Once you've joined the site, please introduce yourself in one of this month's introduction threads. (Writer/reader/explorer, you choose!)
• You can find the introduction threads at this link. Please do not make a new thread for your intro. Thank you!

This doesn't require too many changes:

• If you have questions about wiki culture, how to get better at specific aspects of writing, or where to start reading what, feel free to drop by the Questions and Requests threads. (Be sure to use the appropriate thread!)
  • Be sure to Ctrl+F (or equivalent) the Frequently Asked Questions [thread? section? page?] to see if your question has a dedicated answer.
• You can find the Questions and Requests threads at this link. Please do not make a new thread for your intro. Thank you!

WRT the Questions Desk, these threads are intended for new & returning users, without the need to create a new thread each time a question is asked.

As before, Single-Thread would allow users to ask all of their questions at once, instead of going to a different thread for questions of differing subjects. You bring up a good point that Single would be a lot larger, and potentially harder to track.

How do these new questions threads differ from our existing Questions Desk? What determines where a user, new or not, should post their question? What determines where a user with a question should search for existing answers?

For an area of the site that is for Q&A, what are the advantages of a single-thread approach? I worry that it will be harder for answerers to assess whether there are new questions, or know when a user has posted a follow up question to an answer that they received a few pages ago.

Now, for my thoughts on it:

- The mockup for the thread is really good and I would love to see it being a thing.

- For the first axe, I would prefer the "Periodical" way, mostly because with that axe, the change would be not too disruptive for the userbase. Plus, with the constant influx of new users, I'm pretty sure that the threads will become large really quickly.

- For the second axe, I'm a little bit hesitant because I think that the two ways have their qualities, but I think I prefer the "Multiple" way, for all the reasons you've stated. I think it will be the most efficient way to help people.

- For the purview, I think that this responsability is not solely CO. Sure, we're the team that have the mission to interact with new users, but giving the goals who are in the mockup, I think that it's a responsability that Staff in general can take care of, because we have experience and we know pretty well how to guide users. Plus, there's written that this thread is for "anything you think wiki staff can help you with", so hey.

And basically, yeah, 200% in favor of that.

That being said, with my experience I can 100% advocate for multiple periodical threads. My only concern are the writer and primer threads, as I can imagine those getting filled the fastest for obvious reasons. Now I imagine that this system will be set up exactly how the original intro threads were, but I'd like to make a suggestion. Have it be set up like the original intros was, but only staff that have surviving work on the wiki may answer questions in the writing topic. Just like the original intros it's fine for nonstaff to give someone an intro as long as it meets standards, but for the QaR team I personally think that it would be better to limit the writing topic to authors as they would have a lot more valuable information to pass on than nonauthors in this situation.

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.