The separation of news and articles on habré

90% of the content on habré generated by ordinary users. The involvement of experts to write a blog in the interests of not only the community but the owners of the site. In this respect, Habra is a long-standing problem: the impact of a post is often inversely proportional to the difficulty of its creation. Partially it decided the allocation of "thematic" hubs. Invites & points of PPA are given only for posts in the thematic hubs. However, this system has problems:

the

the
• Based on the list of "thematic" hubs, accurately describes them the word "technicality". The correlation between the "technicality" of the post and the theme (hub) is not 100%. Result: the authors seek to add a post at least in one thematic hub, sometimes unreasonably.
the
• In my opinion, the "technicality" is a different metric, which should be encouraged. What I offer in return — below.
the
• Promotion not valid for karma, rating and ensuring attention to post.

The separation of news and articles will solve the problem of promotion is much better.

The associated problem that not only the optimal allocation of attention of the community content. Though during the existence of Habra the situation constantly improved. In my opinion, the well would help the moderation of the choice of hubs to post, because the authors often approach this totally irresponsible. This problem is probably beyond the scope of this post, but the separation of news and articles partially solves her too.

I have repeatedly mentioned the idea of sharing in the comments, and wrote in support of Habra, and I kind of answered that they were thinking the same, but things are there. If the community will support the idea, I hope we'll see some improvement on the website in that direction.


Proposal: at the level of separation of content types (post — Q&A — event) to divide the posts into "news" and "articles". The name is a bit conditional, because to define is to post "news" or "article" is proposed based on the metric interest and utility.

It is now possible to assess the post 3 ways: like, not like (this is the exact definition — view tooltip to buttons "up" and "down" under the post), and add post to favorites, however, is generally not taken into account the mechanics of the website.

Prompted to enter the 4 buttons: interesting, interesting, useful and useless. As you can guess, a couple of "interesting — not interesting" the heirs "like — dislike", "good" — the heiress add to favorites. For all existing posts need to translate scores on the new system in accordance with this inheritance. The principles basically remain: for fun you can vote only for a certain time since the advent of the post, and you can not change your choice, the utility — on the contrary, you can vote at any time and change the choice. Hiding the vote for the interest, you can leave, although personally, I think that should be removed. To evaluate the usefulness of can read-only users.

You can now define the criterion for the separation of the posts on "news" and "articles". News is the posts where the activity of voting in the interest significantly exceeds the activity of voting for usefulness.

what is the profit?

You can make the "news" from "articles" a little more similar than posts and questions in the Q&A now:
the

the
• Sort posts. New and actual news (a La Reddit: the relevance depends on the rating and time of publication). New, the best of all time (aka the fount of good), actual article (for example, the dynamics of the rating of usefulness for the day) and here you also can put the mechanics of the current favourites — ie, sort by user votes. The default sort both sections by relevance.
the
• Sort by comments. At least the comments of the first level under the articles you can sort by rating (as well as the answers are now in the Q&A). However, there are a lot of ideas and suggestions that sound for a long time.
the
• Promotion. To receive an invite or points in PPA can be for both ratings, but the thresholds on the interestingness and usefulness just to be different. In this regard, I believe, is to abolish the "thematic" hubs.

Questions

If the post does not fall clearly into one of the categories?
— Let them live in both, and is subject to the relevant sorting rules independently. On promotion, he can claim in any way, but actually useful (because interestingness thresholds above). To the eye, habré 10-15% of "uncertain" posts.

— Will be to vote both ways.
— Slight difficulties, but:
the

the
• From the list of posts (pages, sections) you can vote only on the corresponding pair.
the
• When a post becomes a news or article, i.e. a vote for one pair prevails, which in most cases will occur within 5-10 minutes after publish, the opportunity to vote for the 2nd pair is removed, in principle (and current results for nowhere does it show).
the
• For interestingness can vote not all users (as now).

— Why "useless"?
Because without this button, the "usefulness" will be discredited "50 beautiful themes for Wordpress", "10 hidden features of JavaScript" (@TheShock will not lie :), etc. In most cases, I think, will be around 0 votes "useless".

Article based on information from habrahabr.ru