More assorted changes.

Re: More assorted changes.

Thu, 11 Jul 2024 21:51:01 +0000

Agreeing with Estrella and Queerious. I don't think a hard limit should exist just because of CROM, much as I love the thing.
I do think it'd be a good idea to make it obvious what Crom's limit is, so that people can choose to follow that limitation if they like, and so that staff can remain cognizant of it in our page creation, but I see no real reason to require it of authors.
Especially given what Estrella mentioned re the official pages.

I say we should let authors have an overly long preview if they so choose, so long as they know that it's longer than CROM's display.

Re: [Discussion]: More assorted changes.

Tue, 09 Jul 2024 13:54:40 +0000

Ah, sorry, formatting mistake

Re: [Discussion]: More assorted changes.

Tue, 09 Jul 2024 12:05:16 +0000

Could you specify what the minimum actually is? You didn’t put it in the main post.

Re: [Discussion]: More assorted changes.

Tue, 09 Jul 2024 09:03:34 +0000

There is still a minimum, but it is more flexible.

SCP-XXXX

would not be acceptable as a blurb under this policy.

Re: More assorted changes.

Tue, 09 Jul 2024 03:52:19 +0000

I'm fine with nixing the minimum requirements, but iffy on the 180/200 characters maximum. The original intention of only having a Tech-juried, soft upper limit is to not too strictly limit's authorial decisions, but not excessively blow up the display case for usage on any page.

Preview's intended, and official interaction vector is pages like the Tales Hub and the Tale Series Archive, not Crom (though I do acknowledge it being most visible), as well as any sanctioned contest hubs, so I don't feel like the character limits suit our general, technical policy.

If CO must, they can use technical implementation on the contest page (CSS line-clamp, or something similar) to automatically cut off blurbs, which will sort itself out by virtue of authors deciding to make their own blurb shorter to fit.

Re: More assorted changes.

Tue, 09 Jul 2024 01:39:05 +0000

should we really be restricting policy based on external tools

crom isn't official, but it is used in official spaces. I do understand the objection and I wouldn't want us to get too tightly coupled to external tools, but I think it makes sense to encourage blurbs to fit within crom's limit. That tends to be the way people see 'em, so they might as well look good.

Re: More assorted changes.

Mon, 08 Jul 2024 23:56:40 +0000

I think this raises a point; should we really be restricting policy based on external tools?

They could make changes to crom that fundamentally impact how it interfaces with the preview, and if we set precedent of making policy based on external factors, I'd argue that it would be a pitfall?

The realistic question I'm left with is this: why do we, as staff, care about the length of content in the preview component? Is there some technical reason around this, or is this just in the context of the display through Crom?

Re: [Discussion]: More assorted changes.

Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:27:50 +0000

For the blurb policy, it seems like the policy is replacing a vague minimum length with a strictly defined maximum length. Is there no longer a minimum blurb length? Not arguing that there necessarily SHOULD be, I just want it to be clear whether there’s now no longer a minimum.

Additionally, the soft limit seems a little redundant when the hard limit is only 20 characters longer. That isn’t much of a difference. For reference, the previous sentence is only 30ish characters.

Re: More assorted changes.

Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:25:45 +0000

Ah gotcha. Then why not make the hard limit 180?

Re: More assorted changes.

Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:24:37 +0000

As a note 180 was chosen as that is what crom cuts off at.

Re: More assorted changes.

Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:24:15 +0000

Would it be possible for you to visualize what 180 words vs 200 words looks like on crom, which is what I assume this change is targeted at fixing?

I ask because there is a definite cutoff, as seen with some of the more verbose 8k entries.

[Discussion]: More assorted changes.

Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:16:42 +0000

04 mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-16881706/discussion-more-assorted-changes

Technical policy changes

There is currently no limit to how long a preview can be. This is an issue for contests who like to be able to show previews for all articles. Secondly the current standard for minimum content is a touch unclear for very short form hooks. As such we are proposing the following changes to the technical content policy.

Blurbs must be at least one sentence or equivalent in length

Is to be replaced by

Blurbs must be long enough to have a meaningful hook.
Blurbs should not be above 180 characters in length (soft limit), and ancillary utilities are not expected to fully show blurbs longer than this. Blurbs may not be above 200 characters (hard limit).

Unlisting changes

We previously unlisted the wraithcon page by quasi request of the author. I am proposing that we make this formal policy and add the following to the unlisting policy.

Staff may freely unlist and relist pages created for staff purposes (e.g. guides, admin pages and contests) with sign-off from the appropriate captain(s).

This discussion will go on for one week.