The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

[OtakuGray]

I think a lot of the out-of-date guides should be updated a lot of the information...like USING MFTOON is probably bad advice for newbies interested in improving their skills.

[-MD]

You guys and gals aren't editing enough.....less talk more edit.

[Castor Troy]

You guys and gals aren't editing enough.....less world of warcraft more edit.

Fixed.

[Kionon]

You guys and gals aren't editing enough.....less talk more edit.

MD doesn't edit.

[OtakuGray]

how to improve the org:

*worldofwarcraft.org

[Enigma]

I'm a level 80 paladin

[OtakuGray]

i play minecraft

[godix]

Edit: Nevermind. Now it disappeared again. Weird.

[Kaream]

and the sub button is at the top of every channel/video and same with the search bar yeah subs are like alerts. You get videos on the front page and it shows what they made recently. It can get a little unorganized at times...and you HAVE to watch the videos to make them go off the FP. Its not fool-proof but it is a good way of showing people when videos are made at times.

We already have the alerts anyways.

[DriftRoot]

Replace the quick comment system with a youtube-like system. Comments should be public. Give the creator the option to disable comments, or make them private only. Should not be anonymous.

If we want to encourage discussion about AMVs, not keep videos bottled up in their own little worlds, I also feel there should be a more aggressive approach to this.

More and more editors link to their announcement threads in their video info, presumably because they want discussion on the video to be made public. Announcement threads sort of exist in a no-man's land between leaving a QC and writing an opinion - you never really know what kind of feedback you'll get, but it can range from brief and inconsequential to thoughtful and valuable. Either way, I'd argue the forum feedback is of greater quantity and overall higher value to the editor than either a QC or an op. There also is no ranking system associated with the announcement thread (at least in the eyes of the Web site itself), so - unlike the star system or ops - there is no real incentive to alter one's comments for the sole purpose of skewing the video's rank. PLUS...lots of people don't frequent the forum or even know that an announcement thread for a video has been put up, just think about how many potential commentators this bypasses.

Is there some way announcement threads could be merged with a youtube-like comment system to produce a new result? I can see several benefits of this:

• If an editor an wants public discussion taking place, it could be their choice to start an announcement "thread"/comment tree. No change from the current system at all. This would encourage people to realize the difference between simply hosting a video on the .ORG and actively promoting it, the latter which the 'Tube does extremely well without any effort on the editor's part whatsoever. Too often I see people unhappy with the exposure their video gets here, because they are not aware of the announcement option or do not feel it is in their best interest. If someone doesn't want their video part of a public discussion, fine, but make that lack of exposure THEIR responsibility, not a failing of the .ORG's.
• Public discussion about a video can go on far, far longer than the announcement "thread" itself can support, since that thread's visibility is generally dependent upon sitting at the top of the forum. Who wants to comment in a nine-month-old announcement thread? What good does that do, really? You might as well just submit a QC, because no one else is probably ever going to read it.
• Make the QC and OP systems more obviously private methods to provide the editor with feedback.

Perhaps this feedback system could be tied into a revamped New Vid on the Block area, so that becomes where new videos are "announced" instead of relying on a forum thread to do the heavy lifting? Obviously there are a lot of logistical and programming issues with all of this to be considered and without knowing the site's capabilities, it's hard to know what's possible.

Who are these people who don't contribute? I didn't know who those useless members were at the time, but a few years later it's blatantly obvious. The non-editing viewers.

I'm going to take issue with this like other people did because for a long time I was a so-called "useless member" of this site and I expect a lot of other people were/are too. I still tried to contribute, I still felt that my opinions about AMVs should be taken seriously and, even when I got ignored or put down for it, I persisted. A lot of other people wouldn't, and I can't say I blame them. THIS is why new editors don't want to come here, THIS is the attitude that makes it look like - unless you're an AMV editor - you are annoying garbage that just causes problems and clutters up the place. I'm not advocating for an OT section - we've got enough of that already - but the AMV hobby isn't just about the editors.

If the .Org decides this site should be focused on segregating editors from non-editors, then so be it, but I don't personally like the idea and would argue that it is one of the huge perceived negatives ABOUT this site. Does that "Keep Out" attitude drive "useless" non-editors away? Yeah, but it also keeps would-be editors away, which eventually will (and is) crippling the site. Stop with the backroom stuff...if a-m-v.org wants to make this site more friendly and inviting, it should be opening doors and taking down walls, not putting huge signs over closed ones which read "Editors Only."

I think the .Org really needs to decide where it stands on this issue, because otherwise we're all going to go 'round and 'round on it, which is a waste of time. It's fine to ask the a-m-v.org community for ideas about how to accomplish its goals, but don't do that until after the goals have been defined. Don't put the cart before the horse.