In my previous logs, I have discussed topics such as:
Every month, as is my custom, I use this space to discuss some philosophical point relating to E2. I usually take my inspiration from the nodes I nuke or from events in the catbox, since these are the two subjects most fraught with potential for discussion.
The month began with a very fruitful philosophical discussion regarding the nature, purpose and proper execution of a good and useful editor log, with gnarl. As the discussion proceeded to a conclusion, I had intended to summarise its central points here. Certainly, gnarl persuaded me to adopt a different approach on several points.
The discussion, however, sparked off an extended debate among the admins about the extent to which editor logs should list everything. Opinions are still divided. As for myself, I will continue to give fairly detailed logs of my actions. However, some of the picayune stuff is (as gnarl rightly points out) essentially irrelevant, and will no longer be appearing.
Nose to the grindstone:
Another month begins, this time with lots more editing time available. Woo! I've also made huge progress on the massive self-audit I promised myself on my first noderbirthday some six months ago, and it's made me hypersensitive to improperly (or un-) attributed (near) cut-and-pastes, as well as formatting errors of all kinds. Related comments coming soon to a Message Inbox near you; I mean well, I swear it!
As always, I will remove any deletion record from my editor logs if requested to do so by the author of the writeup(s) in question. I've got embarrassing stuff in Node Heaven, just like everybody else. I have also decided that posting links to deleted writeups and their authors is just negative nodevertising and so I will be underlining the incriminating node titles and usernames instead of hardlinking them from now on. Props go to graceness, whose editor log (below) was what originally gave me the idea.
A negative review or opinion about something can be entertaining and useful. In my explorations of the E2 database I have stumbled across some mighty venomous writeups. Some are about things like books, movies or music. Others are scathing overviews of a person's career or place in history. Do these have a place on E2? Movie and book reviewers have often made names for themselves by severely slamming certain releases. They gain notoriety from making or breaking certain works by advising their audience not to patronize the work in question. Their work is highly subjective and generally presented as fact.
"In this person's opinion..."
Avoid highly subjective writeups. To me this means more than just shying away from blatant GTKY nodes. A subjective writeup includes presenting your opinions as fact rather than your point of view. We all have people and things we intensely dislike and ideas and beliefs we think are complete crap. Sometimes the negative writeup is meant to follow an extremely glowing report on the topic and as thus disses everything said in the highly positive treatment (overly glowing is almost as bad, but at least everyone feels like dancing). Avoid this. Instead of simply bashing, perform a factual and critical analysis. State the facts and present opinions on both sides to produce a balanced writeup on the topic. A hateful and emotionally rampant writeup on anything is rarely useful. I've seen too many of them lately and deleted quite a few. Sarcasm in a writeup is sometimes missed, but starting a writeup with "So and so is the biggest hack to ever grace the literary world" is just plain dumb. If someone or something is such a waste of time to deal with, why are you wasting your time on them? There are plenty of fish in the sea. Find some you aren't as anxious to throw back.
I vote quite a lot on writeups and part of that is to produce unofficial and very primitive statistics on trends here on E2. Because over the course of the last few months I have spoken to many new users and not so new users about the nature of voting and how to gauge voting, I've taken to looking at it more closely. Of course, you should not take the voting/experience system too seriously. Voting is your true means of being subjective here and everyone has their own agenda. What many people are puzzled by is how to tell whether or not their writeup is a good writeup, a bad writeup or a great writeup in the eyes of the E2 audience. Face it, you are writing for an audience and the audience is here. This is different from publishing a short story or having your piece printed in an academic journal. The same things that work there may not work here. Part of what you seek as a writer is to be read and to have some kind of impact on your core audience. On E2, your core audience is the names in the Other Users list.
You may feel the need for positive reinforcement. Especially as a new user you may feel tinges of pain when you see Ack! show up on the page. If you are looking to avoid this and want to feel the imaginary love that warms your heart when upvotes come your way, you must study the degree of difficulty on different types of writeups.
A number of newer users I have exchanged words and thoughts with in recent months have decided to leave, while others seem here for the long term. Here in writers' purgatory, there are so many reasons. Some felt E2 just wasn't what they were looking for. I find that a good reason coming from someone who spent a few weeks exploring and submitting. I am sad to see them go, but I have liquor in my house.
There are many schools of thought on "why am I here?" For different people the answers will be different. Some are dedicated to the creation of an encyclopedia of facts, often to the point of being hostile towards anything that does not fit their personal definition of E2. There are those who like to read a variety of writeups from history to technical information to recipes to movie reviews to stories and humor. There are those who are writers who are accustomed to being locked away in their ivory tower or wooden shack. They see E2 as a way to expose some of their work to a limited audience and receive some sort of feedback on it. There are also those addicted to the experience/levels system and those who take every downvote as a personal affront and every upvote as personal validation. You need not know why you are here. For most of us the answer is not easily put into words. Even for those of us who are writers.
See also: E2 FAQ: What Not To DoFor what people who really know have to sayRemember, I'm just crazy.
There. I'm sorry. It was me. I deleted all your writeups. It was an accident. Love, TDG.
I woke up yesterday to find myself among a strikingly diverse class of new Content Editors: gn0sis, graceness, Lucy-S, sid, sneff, witchiepoo, wuukiee, and I have all signed on to help with the housework here on E2.
This group has very little in common. The style, content, frequency, and total number of our writeups, our chatterbox presence and our profiles in the E2 community are all over the map. The observant noder may have noticed that the same could always have been said of The Management here. Clearly, this is not mere coincidence. In my estimation, it is one of many broad hints scattered throughout the design and upkeep of E2 that it has no interest at all in forcing our contributions into any particular mold.
That said, I have no firm picture yet what it's really like to be an E2 Content Editor.*
Encouraged:
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout. -- Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal (1729)
-- Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal (1729)
i have become gn0sis, destroyer of nodes.
DELETED: mercy-killed iMac Pentagram by Rev.Conor. It observed that if you connect five points, and surround them in a circle, you get a pentagram. What didn't matter was that the five points were specifically on an imac poster. cleaned out (mercifully) cat, which had a handful of superceded writeups. C!'d (regular, not ed) one entry by TallRoo I'd appreciate someone else taking a look because I had no idea what entries involving the command "-cat" were or were not valid. I"m just versed in the feline bit. filled several user-requested nukes, with mercy of course. a handfull of other nodes which I lost a record of when my blasted laptop froze. checking for testicular cancer (Uberfetus) (with mercy) This node was a "joke" about what to tell your mother when caught, erm, playing with oneself. When followed by such an in-depth factual on what's really a serious health issue, it no longer seems funny.
FIRMLINKED snarfblat->pipe
SOFT-LOCKED cat. It was getting long and tedious.
ED-COOLED: (I've had a list of "if I could ed-cool" nodes built up for a long time. I'll be doing it less frequently in the future than I am now.) Letter To A Dead Dog What is this beautiful, beautiful woman settling for?
MESSAGED: several users, new and old, with advice I deemed helpful. Some of them even agreed. sent a special thumbs up to new user pacio49 who's looking to be an excellent new user noding in one of my areas of expertise
DELETED
SOFTLOCKED
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help