I agree that stifling examples would do more harm than good. Some do throw in a wrong one without reading but generally other people are quick to tell them "no, read the description!"
Y'know, example suggestions could have something like a vote up/vote down button that would highlight good and bad ones. That might help sort out the problem ones at a glance.
I understand if people don't like my idea that much (for the record, I was thinking of them as horizontal, normal-width boxes that individually "dropped down" when opened and I am fine with the laconic being change-able (even if it means it could be harder to find the same YKTTW if it suddenly has a different "name") ), but that does not answer my initial question:
How can you stop people from discussing the whole thing? I understand the benifits of the 3-4 step process, but don't see any way to prevent people from discussing the whole thing at once without a LOT of effort. And I know I like to think about the end result (name, description, examples, related tropes, etc.) for every YKTTW I've taken part in. After-all, it all effects the end "product, " right?
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!I just can't see a multi-step process doing anything but exacerbating the very problem it's trying to fix.
With the current system, if people have a lot to say about the definition but not much to say about the title, the people talking about the definition will keep the draft bumped and help it attract more views so that people who might care about the title can find it.
With a multi-stage process, if it starts in the title phase and nobody has anything to say about the title, all is silent. The draft languishes, withers, and dies alone and unloved.
Just to put it bluntly, we need to show people that we are not interested in trash examples. They waste time and energy. You can't give a good example until the description is clear. Examples based only on the laconic will be wrong, too. We know that this will not stop people from offering 'examples' as soon as they see a laconic or a title.
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyWe can't "stop" people from adding examples to a YKTTW. The problem is cultural, not technical.
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.Yeah, I don't think we can stop users from at least trying to add those.
EDIT: I think we could have a separate box for just compiling examples, and then we discuss which ones work once the definition is sorted out.
edited 16th Feb '12 8:23:30 PM by DragonQuestZ
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.![]()
Which was my suggestion. People are going to add examples, sure, but it is not a problem if it do not distract from the main discussion.
Which is better than a bad launch. As long it is there, it can be bumped in future with no harm. But, if it gets launched with a broken title, it can damage the wiki (and it will eventually get thrown in the TRS for an endless title discussion, anyway).
edited 16th Feb '12 8:31:06 PM by Heatth
![]()
I agree using examples as a support for an argument is a good idea. I do not think we should rule them out during the 1st and 2nd phases. However, having multiples examples that add little to nothing to the current discussion burring the most important topics is a problem. So, I am not against using examples when discussion, as long you don't just throw an example in the middle of a discussion without adding anything.
edited 16th Feb '12 9:05:37 PM by Heatth
I've participated in a fair share of drafts that had intense definition or title discussions. Without exception, examples always slipped comfortably between comments discussing the draft itself. They're not distracting at all, and they certainly don't bury the discussion. It's easy to discuss around them, and so that's what happens: people discuss around them.
If there are bad examples, well, there's a case to be made that that's an issue, okay...but even if it is a problem, it's really not that common. It's just not something that happens unless the trope itself is fundamentally flawed (and in those cases, it's not usually the examples that are the problem). It's not nearly widespread enough to consider a complete overhaul of the system to deal with it.
edited 16th Feb '12 9:22:16 PM by troacctid
Here
is a case in point for YKTTW'ers adding "drive-by examples". Somebody pointed out we already had it, the OP acknowledges it, still somebody comes along later only to post an example.
Myself, I find the current YKTTW system easy and intuitive to use. I would not be in favor of making extra hoops to jump through. Mind, for the tropes I sponsor, I try to have a clear definition already in place, and often a decent title and am therefore most interested in gathering enough examples to make the page viable.
On the other hand, several of the pages I've adopted (including the late lamented Fanfic Chop Suey ) started as poorly-worded, vaguely defined YKTTW entries that required quite a bit of discussion and sorting out of examples before what the trope actually was could be defined. Trying to define the trope completely before examples can be discussed seems like a counterproductive idea.
Troaccid, the problem is that people who participate in TRS - which YKTTW desperately needs - don't want to wade through a bunch of contentless posts adding examples. Whether perception or reality, they fear that any substantive discussion gets lost in the flood of examples. There HAVE been YKTTW threads where problems with the trope were suggested and completely ignored while people kept adding examples willy-nilly; I'm sure quite a few were launched and wound up going straight to TRS.
Part of the reason why YKTTW is an example magnet is because people read the title, laconic, or description, and it automatically reminds them of something they've seen in some sort of media they consumed. Having to think about actual issues with the trope itself is much harder.
If we're trying to emphasize "quality of description over quantity of examples", then, I honestly don't think that would be much more newbie-friendly than TRS, forum or no forum. (In fact, it might be less newbie-friendly, because there isn't an existing, familiar page to work with.) Troaccid has a point when he says that people might stop contributing instead of moving away from offering examples. However, I don't support merging them, as YKTTW has different needs than TRS, as evidenced by the popularity of the three-step plan where pages don't even have titles until after a description has been hashed out. And as others have suggested, not everyone has a full-fledged description in mind when they propose a trope, having little more than a name and a laconic, or even a name and an example.
On to the proposal at hand:
In fact, example gathering could almost be eliminated from the creation process as long as we are sure that at least three examples are out there.
The point is also taken that healthy tropes need much more than three examples, that nothing may stop people from adding examples willy-nilly entirely, and the point in post 168. Assuming we don't use an on-wiki YKTTW/ namespace, how about this variant of the blind drop idea: each YKTTW has an an "add an example" button and an "expand examples" button, with the latter going to a separate page with all the examples people have submitted (including the three that establish its tropability, hence "expand"). Each example will have a "challenge" button allowing anyone to remove the example from the list and put a post in the main thread explaining why it's a bad example. (Mods can remove examples without posting in the thread if it's clear they're based only on the laconic, or are otherwise rooted in some issue that won't be relevant once the trope is launched, and there will be a holler button for ordinary tropers to flag this. If examples are removed in this way, a PM is sent to the offender, and they may be suspended from adding examples to YKTT Ws if they persist. This prevents the thread from being clogged with people saying "read the description!!!" when if they were going to read the description, they might not read the thread.) Adding examples doesn't bump the thread (unless that would be more of a perk than a problem), anyone can edit any example, and the add-example prompt includes an area to pick a medium so the list can be auto-sorted when the trope launches.
In fact, if we add this separate example area, make the laconic mandatory and the name optional* when creating new YKTT Ws (as opposed to now where it's the other way around), and put mods on YKTTW to keep people from adding Just An Example and help keep the examples clean, that's probably half the battle right there, without much of a real overhaul of YKTTW.
By the way, to everyone who wants to keep the current YKTTW format:
When people do come to YKTTW with very rough drafts, we generally either ignore it or throw Needs a Better Description at them and then move on to providing examples to some better fleshed out ideas.
edited 16th Feb '12 10:36:15 PM by MorganWick
There are several good ideas in there
, such as making an exception to the "no examples until we're ready" thing and collecting exactly three examples during the first stage, and then launching the trope when a name is picked.
The problem with "no examples until ready" idea is that examples are added largely because the troper sees the YKTTW, thinks of the example, then writes it down and moves on. Disallowing examples would kill that spontaneity. And if the YKTTW doesn't have enough examples at launch, then it may starve and die due to lack of wicks.
Editing the YKTTW instead of commenting has been mentioned several times. The problem with that is there's no history; a vandal could blank the YKTTW, someone could alter the wording and change the whole idea of the trope, etc. I have both avoided editing anything from typos to adding in examples or a related trope because there's no record of how it was before — and when I do so, I make a comment detailing my changes. When it happens to YKTTW's I've added and the troper doesn't explain it (or even if they do) I end up worriedly scanning the explanation over and over making sure it matches what I remember. If each YKTTW had the history of edits to it attached, then I could see it working.
edited 17th Feb '12 1:27:12 AM by Westrim
I rarely visit the forums to avoid the cynicism ooze.Why don't we have an edit history with ability to view previous versions for all pages anyway? Technical issues?
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
I don't think the majority of the site users/readers are lucky enough to afford computers with the processing/RAM power to support that on a single page.
edited 17th Feb '12 6:47:32 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Crown Description:
Issues with current YKTTW setup:- YKTTW is often overly-concerned with example-finding as opposed to description-drafting
- There is a backlog in the current YKTTW system.
- There isn't enough quality control over what comes out of YKTTW, leading to more work fixing them later.

edited 16th Feb '12 8:00:02 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick