@joeylucia
I have been trying to get some content published for about a month now and I can say publishing something on Let's Talk Bitcoin is harder than it was to get my thesis published by an academic publishing house. To begin with I haven't heard anything from my editor, then I get one message saying my article (which I was trying to publish as three separate pieces) needs to be longer. So I extended it and sent it back for approval. Then I hear nothing again for a very long time, until I get a new editor, with that new person it has been a constant back and forth, but nothing ever got done.
I think editing on Let's Talk Bitcoin should be de-centralised. It would be better to let the LTB community vote which articles they like.
Have you been trying to get stuff published on here? What was your experience like?
You are of course completely right, we launched with an incomplete system and opened it up far too early. We were immediately overwhelmed by submissions and ad-hoc systems were put in place managed by volunteers who have done a valiant job but ultimately experiences like yours are occurring just as often as the positive experiences.
Here's a mockup @matt is developing of what the new user profile pages will look like (note the office hours clocks) http://i.imgur.com/3z6DNDd.jpg
Here's the original request I gave to Nick for the new decentralized editorial system that should be out by october.
The current "Blog" menu has Blog Settings, Categories, Posts, Post Metadata and Disqus Comments
I would like it split into two menus, and several new areas added
Blog Settings, Categories, Post Metadata and Comments should be in a new "Front Page Admin" menu
Create a new Category: Editorial
Write - The text editor, you and format your post (ideally with markup, inkpad.io and that mirroring style that shows a live preview of your markup
Edit Request - A new status, it then shows you a list of "editors" who are not self-flagged as unavailable. The blogger selects one or two of them manually or clicks "editors choice" which flags the first available. With multiple editors being flagged it would be better to flag one first (the most recently active) and wait for an accept/deny before flagging the other. Once a request has been accepted, the editor now sees the piece in their "Write" list and it is editable by them.
Once the editor is done they change the status to Pending Review which pings the author again to check the work and confirm the changes. It would be awesome to show them a side-by-side or red-highlight the changes made, otherwise this will be a tedious step.
Proof-Read Request - Edits can go back and forth as above until both parties agree. Once they agree the page is moved to Proof-Read mode where any opted-in proof-reader can be requested and sent the non-public on-blog preview version of the article.
At the top of the page they are reminded of the publishing guidelines for LTB, and they read through the piece. They do not have edit abilities but they have a text box where they can write as much as they want with suggestions, thoughts or comments which are then sent to the author or perhaps just visible in the feedback section at the bottom of the "write" page for the article.
Along with the comments they check a box that says "This article complies with the publishing standards of LTB and is ready for the front page". Ideally each piece would be vetted by several proof-readers.
Submissions
The last step of the process, only articles with the status "Ready for Publishing" appear in this list.They should be viewable from the list as-draft to let curators quickly assess the merits of a piece.
Moving a piece into Ready for Publishing which flags the next available editorial curator and the managing editor not opted out. These are submissions, not a a guaranteed publishing workflow and so pieces that are not desired are essentially just left on the vine - Each individual curator should have the ability to remove any piece from their viewpoint without it being removed from everybody elses. Managing editors should have the ability to completely remove a piece of content from the workflow.
Once a piece is selected for publishing, it should be assigned to a "publish slot" - A "slot" is a timed content release where the content changes from day to day but the schedule does not. I would like to start with five such publishing opportunities per day spaced approx 3hrs apart starting at 6am, but the interface you create should eventually let us trivially expand this. It would be ideal to have a public-page of this page automatically generate so our editorial calender is transparent (as we get close to releasing a piece of content).
The Curator also checks a button that says "I affirm this meets the LTBn publishing guidelines" when they submit it for scheduling, and unless there is a conflict the piece is committed for the publishing slot, and the author is pinged with the update.
Regarding other Blogs
The Front Page is going to become just that, a front page - Individual stories are going to be posted to specific blogs that operate within the LTBn ecosystem and the managing editor or front page curator will have access to a "Front Page" check box that if checked puts the piece's image/content card on the front page and opts-them in for the Proof of Publishing disbursement.
Regarding User Compensation
I have it in my head it should not be too hard to make it so when you send an invite to an editor or a proofreader that we can let the offerer also offer a fixed LTBc bonus or a specific % of the LTBc generated by the piece which the platform could then help automate via the weekly disbursement and devons forward-looking-accounting idea. I think people will use the system even without, but ideally any message or action could be accompanied by either LTBc offered if the other accepts or commit them to a user defined share for whatever is earned by that particular piece of content.
Regarding Availability
Users should be able to opt-in from their dashboard to be a proof-reader, or an editor. They should be able to easily set what hours they would like to fill each role, and be encouraged to set office hours. For example, someone might want to be a proof-reader during their work hours, but an editor for a two hour period after they get home from work.
Users looking for help ASAP should be able to flag "first available" which just sets up the offered amount or split to whomever first claims the right.
Regarding Better Decision Making
Ideally each user and proof-reader would be able to put a little description of their style AND have some general statistics available about them. To start, average response time from request to first edit returned to the author. Also their % of pieces which they edit, that are submitted to blogs that make it onto a blog. Also their % of pieces which they edit that are submitted, make it onto a blog and also make it onto the front page of LTBc and thus earn LTBc.
The same would also be true for writers, what their % is at those various things so an editor can make an informed decision.
Proof reader stats would be average response time from request to feedback + affirmation. It should also give an average number of words per feedback, but probably not display average affirmation as that would help people farm approval.
Blog Curators would have their % of front page posts displayed, which should generate an average expected weekly LTBc revenue based on the schedule and their expected portion of it.
All users will have "Error rate" which is essentially where they affirm something is ready but it is later found to not be ready and has to be corrected there or kicked back.
Regarding Responsibility
Every step of the way both parties need to be in agreement, if an editor edits a piece and the writer rejects it the draft the editor generated is lost (not available to the author) and no payment is made or owed. The dispute is noted in both of their records and statistics.
Regarding Decentralized Mediation
We can offer a mediation flag button that charges a mediator defined LTBc fee and brings in another party to make the judgement and determine if the payment is due.
This could be available to community members with LTBc balances above certain amounts which makes them trusted. Once they achieve the designated qualifiers, they have a "Available as Mediator" box available which lets them set hours, describe their style, etc.
The deal would be that each side submits a written argument which they can both see and the mediator can see, the mediator responds to each with questions, each has an opportunity to respond and the mediator makes the judgement which can be binary or split-the-baby.
Either party can pay the mediation fee or they can split it, we don't care - it just needs to get paid at whatever level the participants want or can afford.
