metanewsmods (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
metanewsmods) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
metanews2015-07-09 04:59 pm
metanewsmods) wrote in metanews2015-07-09 04:59 pm
Entry tags:
Call for Volunteers
Metanews is once more (and always) in need of volunteers. We're looking for two types of volunteers. First, people who would be willing to take on link finding and maintenance for one our set reading lists (LJ, DW, Tumblr, Feedly, Pinboard, and submitted links). Right now there are only two of us, and we simply can't cover everything. It's not sustainable. The only reason we're getting by right now is that one of us is unemployed, but it would be better if that one had time to do other things, too, in addition to Metanews, and didn't end up burning out.
Second, we're also looking for volunteers who would be willing to cover one or two specific fandoms of their choice. This would involve looking for meta in general, particularly in places we don't know about or can't adequately cover (especially Tumblr), and evaluating for quality any links other link finders discover for the fandom(s). We're especially interested in help with fandoms or types of fandoms that we haven't covered much or where the quality of the meta we've been finding isn't great because that generally means that we don't know where to look to find meta for that fandom.
We use Google docs for all of our working documents, so any volunteers will have to be willing to deal with that.
We've been told that we're not doing a particularly good job at posting on Tumblr, and we don't really have many readers there. Neither of us actually use Tumblr beyond following links there that we've found elsewhere and making the weekly Metanews post (which we do by rote). We would love to have someone to take over the Tumblr posting and do it in a way that's more friendly to Tumblr readers, whatever that may look like.
The fastest way to reach us is to comment on this post on LJ or DW or to PM metanewsmods in either place. We don't check Tumblr very often, so things sent to us there may languish for a while. We can also be reached as on Gmail as meta.news.fandom.We don't always check the Gmail every day, so please be patient if it takes us a little time to get back to you.
While we do check the email every day due to it being forwarded, and will attempt to get back to any replies within 24 hours of receiving them, we may be longer due to consulting with each other.
Second, we're also looking for volunteers who would be willing to cover one or two specific fandoms of their choice. This would involve looking for meta in general, particularly in places we don't know about or can't adequately cover (especially Tumblr), and evaluating for quality any links other link finders discover for the fandom(s). We're especially interested in help with fandoms or types of fandoms that we haven't covered much or where the quality of the meta we've been finding isn't great because that generally means that we don't know where to look to find meta for that fandom.
We use Google docs for all of our working documents, so any volunteers will have to be willing to deal with that.
We've been told that we're not doing a particularly good job at posting on Tumblr, and we don't really have many readers there. Neither of us actually use Tumblr beyond following links there that we've found elsewhere and making the weekly Metanews post (which we do by rote). We would love to have someone to take over the Tumblr posting and do it in a way that's more friendly to Tumblr readers, whatever that may look like.
The fastest way to reach us is to comment on this post on LJ or DW or to PM metanewsmods in either place. We don't check Tumblr very often, so things sent to us there may languish for a while. We can also be reached as on Gmail as meta.news.fandom.
While we do check the email every day due to it being forwarded, and will attempt to get back to any replies within 24 hours of receiving them, we may be longer due to consulting with each other.
no subject
The fact that we, the current link finders, understand so little about Tumblr is why I say that anyone who's willing to link find there will have carte blanche to change how we do things there. It would be silly to recruit someone who knows Tumblr and then hobble them with the way we've been doing things (which we know doesn't work well). My main request will be that they write up some instructions as to how to do it in case we once again find ourselves with no one who knows Tumblr well.
I think that leaving links for us is very useful. We are behind on following up on submitted links, but those links tend to be really good stuff that we wouldn't find any other way.
That said, if you want to be an occasional link finder and write up the links you find, we'd welcome you. Giving you access to our weekly Google doc wouldn't be a big deal, or, if you'd rather, you could write up your links and mail them to us. The format is pretty simple. I can provide you with the template. The hardest parts tend to be the pull quote or summary of the article and the tags.
Links that are already written up can just be pasted into the correct place in the posting document and so don't require very much work at all.
no subject
When I tag I prioritise the things I think people are most likely to be following/searching for on tumblr? So probably "meta" and then fandom names, or "fandom name meta" is a used tagging convention also. The first five will be the easiest to find but you can use up to twenty. Of course tagging may not be the problem at all, but it's an idea.
no subject
Also, this comm is just awesome. :)
no subject
I can PM you with our templates for writing up links.
For a pull quote, we try to find a sentence or three in an article that will give the reader an indication of what the article is about or of the writer's attitude toward the topic. It's often challenging because people don't tend to state their theses very clearly and because a number of writers introduce their articles with lengthy digressions.
When we can't find a good pull quote, we try to write a sentence or two that tells readers what to expect if they follow the link. I most often do that for things like Tor's chapter by chapter rereads, for discussions of specific episodes and such that ramble and cover a lot of different points, and for linkspams focused on a single topic. I also use it for posts where the majority of the meta is discussion in the comments. So an example would be (this is a typical Tor summary): "Summary, discussion and analysis of the chapter in question." Another option might be something like: "Discussion of the episode, mostly in the comments." For a linkspam, I might say something like: "Collection of links relating to the works of Joss Whedon."
no subject
Oh, and about the tags, shall I add them separately after the meta link?
Also, once I'm sure I'm on top of things I could leave what links I find directly on your Google doc if that would mean less work for you guys. :)
no subject
We put the subject/fandom tags between the div style= and the /div html tags.
There's no maximum number of tags, and it's fine to use just one. I'll often just tag for fandom, if I'm in a hurry, even if a topic tag might fit because the fandom is the thing most people care about more.
no subject