Chess.com Articles

I really wanted to post something unusual, maybe about cheating or unsportsmanlike behavior, but rather than that, I figured I'd simply inquire about something on my mind -  the chess.com articles.

There are apparently 2 types of articles:  the regular articles  and the fun articles.  To me there doesn't seem to be much distinction in content.  So, what's the purpose of having two sections?
Additionally, the regular articles section seems to be uncontrolled. Many of the so-called articles are worthless filler making the search for worthwhile articles tedious. (I know worth is a subjective thing, but I think most agreed upon objective criteria would lead to a similar conclusion).  I was wondering if it would behoove chess.com to establish a panel, comprised of diverse members, to winnow through the articles and vote whether to keep or delete articles.  I'm not completely sold on this approach, but I do think something should be done to keep the article section for collapsing under the weight of chaff.

Thumbs up on this idea, however, people need to be carful when deleting.

people need to be carful when deleting

That's why "I'm not completely sold on this approach."  The possibility of abuse, carelessness or relying on personal tastes does exist.  It's also why I would specify "a panel, comprised of diverse members" - to help nullify those possibilities.

A committee would have to establish criteria and vote on each article only according to those criteria.

Gonnosuke expressed my thoughts more clearly than I did.

How about instead of deleting it simply demotes the article to the writers blog?

Yeah, it's very difficult to search the articles. There's a lot of redundant info that clouds searches.

What about the difference between blogs, articles, and forum? I remember when you brought that up, and I would be interested in learning the answer.

Why don't they make another category such as "amateur articles" or something along that lines so there is no danger of being permanently deleted and if people want to access it they still can.

Most of the articles are "amateur," that is, not professional.  I don't feel we need another category - we already have one too many.  And I don't see anything wrong with deleting what Gonnosuke called "fluff."  Not every article has to be great or even very good, nor must an article have some sort of universal appeal, but (I feel) there should be some minimum standard according to a set of agreed-upon criteria that any article retained should meet.

I tried once to read an article, other than that featured on the main page. I found 2-3 low-quality articles and I gave up. I think I never read another article on chess.com again. I don't like to search a tone of garbage to find a diamond.

I agree with batgirl and Gonnosuke on their suggestions. It would be something similar to peer review for articles on scientific journals.

It's a little surprising that so far everybody seems to agree to what is basicly not such a good idea, in my opinion. However, I think there is a good way to strive for Batgirl's goals.

Let my start by pointing out what probably everybody agrees to: an entirely free, unmonitored environment and one that sets certain standards (akin to a magazine) are both legitimate and useful in their own way. Chess.com serves as the first for (vaguely) chess related content. If chess.com were to institute any kind of editorial board it would cease to be a free environment and become a sort of magazine. There is nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it's what they want.

There is a way however in which the magazine function can be created within the free environment that chess.com is. It's the same way in which magazines are created in the real world, but with the added benefit of the ease of virtual reality. Members could be enabled to form their own editorial boards. It could be similar to a group.

Let's take the example of a hypothetical player who is interested in two types of articles: historical articles and what this player feels are fun articles. He founds two magazines: "chess history" and "fun chess" (he's not very imaginative). To the first he allows three acquaintances with an interest in chess history on the editorial board, to the second he is the only editor (he has a peculiar sense of humour). Every chess.com member can freely subscribe to his magazines. Any editor can mark any  article as magazine content. All subscriber's are then notified of the article.

In this construction, the free unmonitored environment of chess.com is intact, while there needn't be any discussion of the "objective" quality of an article, yet content is grouped according to interest, allowing for a much more refined use of the free environment (anarchists may notice, incidentally, that much of the refinement of this system is due to the lack of copyright on chess.com, allowing all magazines acces to all content).

I don't know -- I think the only real distinction between an article and a blog entry is editorial endorsement by the site, so while what you suggest might be a good idea within the context of groups (i.e. the ability to publish articles to just a group) I think that central editorial control, such as what batgirl has suggested, is required for site articles in order to ensure that they meet some standard of quality.

Bear in mind that subsets of the community (generally groups) currently act in ways that are self serving and generally not in the best interest of the community -- the joke that is the "Site Trophies" are a great example of this.  I don't know that by handing this over to user defined groups and worse, allowing them to splinter into multiple factions, will accomplish anything by way of culling poor articles.  No, I think it needs to be a site sanctioned, single individual or committee that makes the final call.

"I think the only real distinction between an article and a blog entry is editorial endorsement by the site". I don't think that's true (anybody can write an article) and if it were true, Batgirl would have what she wished for. The distinction I made between article and blog, which isn't a very strong one, is based on the etymology of the word "blog" = "weblog" = a log (=a record of performance, events, or day-to-day activities) on the web.

If chess.com where to institute an editorial board, it would imply a certain opinion on what's a good article (obviously) and that would alienate those with other views. In other words, chess.com would become a sort of magazine. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not what chess.com purports to do and the free environment that it does provide is also very useful.

The point of the construction that I proposed is that indeed it doesn't accomplish  anything by the way of culling poor articles, because it recognizes the dangers of objectifying the notion of a poor article, but rather it's let's people decide for themselves. Let me show you the two main ways in which my system works better.

Imagine an article that doesn't meet your required standard of quality. In the Batgirl system (no offense, I can't think of a better name) it would be banned by an editor. In my system it would simply not be in the magazines of editors who didn't like it, but it would be available, for those who would find it intersting.

Now imagine an article that meets your required standard, but is of no interest to you, say a particularly well researched article on a side-line of the Ryder-gambit, an article on chess in seventeenth century Gambia, or a fairy chess retrogade problem collection (or something similarly esoteric). In Batgirl's system there would be no filter for these articles, in mine there would be.

In other words, both systems are filters on the "big bad outside world" of all articles written. The one I propose is more refined and less invasive, because it is shaped to personal taste.

I'm not sure what "site trophies" are, but anything I can imagine them to be, isn't particularly relevant to this discussion.

Edit: Changed some typo's.

we already do this :) the problem is that it is just hard to sort through all of it and be up-to-the-minute. i'd welcome having some help :) if you're interested in helping, please let me know!

No, it is a good idea. A distinction should be made between a good article, which may be of general interest, and some notes which should be put on a personal blog. Also, there is a copyright issue: if somebody takes whole pages from a book and copy-paste them as an article, chess.com might be accused of distributing copyrighted materials.

Yes -- without centralized editorial control it will continue to be the dogs breakfast it is now.  Given that the rejected articles still remain blog entries (per Erik's clarification) nothing would be unavailable, just unendorsed.

Make a group, after the idea of tactics trainers approvers.

Ok, so the "big bad ouside world" of all articles written would be the blogosphere, and the article section would be "chess.com magazine". It would still be a cruder system  system than what I suggest. I still haven't seen any argument why my system wouldn't work better.

Costelus, the copyright issue has no bearing on this matter. You can't copy material from books without authorization anywhere, not in blogs and not in articles. And, because it's already illegal, there is no need for special regulations on the matter.

I like this idea.

Something has to be done to make it easier to find an article that is worth reading. I usually read the feature article but if I miss it I give up trying to find it. Whether it be something like an editors choice or a separate group for Master-Plus articles it needs to be weeded out.

Foregoing posts prompts my suggesting that we could perhaps have a new heading in the Forum frop down menu- say Forum Digest for example which would have  duplication  edited out to show the up to date concensus.