Responding to Mormon Hub Articles


Recommended Posts

I'm going to put on my admin hat here.

It's appears to becoming a trend here to write negative comments regarding the articles put out on Mormon Hub.    Comments like:  "Another stupid article."   

Many of the articles being written are by BYU students who are doing an internship with The More Good Foundation while attending BYU.  Many are wanting to pursue some kind of career that deals with writing.  The internship gives them a great opportunity to use and work on/improve their writing skills.  Many times they are given a subject for an article and they do their best to write something that might be of interest to our readers.  Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't.  Just like professional writers.  Not every article is going to appeal to everyone.  

If you don't like the article, fine...move on.  I do realize that there was one article recently that really hit a nerve with a few.  I get that.  But at least on that one, many explanations were given as to why the particular members of this forum disagreed with the article.  

I also understand that writers have to learn to take some criticism.  But there are kinder and much nicer ways to put things.  In my opinion, the above comment was just hurtful.  All of us have had to start out new in our perspective jobs and careers.  Let's give these people some courtesy.  They are learning and trying to do the best job they can.  Criticism and suggestions are one thing.  Out and out hurtful comments are another.

*takes off hat*

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, as one whom you surely had in mind when you wrote this, I rather liked the "Another stupid article" article. I thought it was pretty good, even insightful, and not at all stupid.

I was probably too hard on Brother Snell. JAG managed to express his displeasure in a much more controlled manner. It's almost as if he's accustomed to making logical arguments in emotional and high-pressure situations. No idea why that might be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

I was probably too hard on Brother Snell. JAG managed to express his displeasure in a much more controlled manner. It's almost as if he's accustomed to making logical arguments in emotional and high-pressure situations. No idea why that might be the case.

*Snort*. I don't think I was terribly diplomatic, either . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pam said:

Many of the articles being written are by BYU students who are doing an internship with The More Good Foundation while attending BYU.  Many are wanting to pursue some kind of career that deals with writing.  The internship gives them a great opportunity to use and work on/improve their writing skills.  Many times they are given a subject for an article and they do their best to write something that might be of interest to our readers.

I don't necessarily fault the writer; I can tell that most of the articles are written by kids either fresh out of high school or in college.  Which, by the way, says a lot more about our education system rather than the writer. I've found that many of the articles are pretty immature in writing style and language, they have the caliber of what one would find in tabloid papers back when I was growing up-a 9th grader could write the same type of articles that's how bad some of them are. Some of them however are very good.

What I do fault is The More Good Foundation and it's editors.  That is why you have an editor, to tell the writer-this is crap-re-do it.  When you see comments like "Another stupid article", what your readership is telling you is that the editors are doing a really poor job of a) assigning articles to the writers, b) reviewing articles for content, c) enforcing strict standards on what should or shouldn't be published d) understanding their readership.  

If The More Good Foundation would like to be taken seriously, then it should seriously look at what is being written and have better editors who do a better job.  If The More Good Foundation wants to be the modern day equivalent of a "Mormon tabloid" keep doing what you are doing . . . . their choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yjacket  I get what you are saying.  However, if you look at the menu of the articles that are coming automatically from the Mormon Hub article side you will notice that the majority of them have had views but no comments.  Which tells me that the article has had no interest or appeal among the people who frequent the forums on a regular basis.  Let that be a sign to the powers to be or editors who oversee the articles.  But we can still keep the little snide remarks out of our comments.  Again, if you don't like the article.....move on.  Just like so many have done on so many of the articles.

To me, the fact that the majority of the articles have had no comments would indicate to me that the appeal just isn't there for a forum audience.  I've been involved in these forums going on almost 20 years.  I find that forum people are a slightly different breed than your casual reader of articles.  I'm not meaning that in a bad way at all.  

Sometimes not saying anything at all is a far better indicator than rude comments.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pam said:

Sometimes not saying anything at all is a far better indicator than rude comments.

 

Indeed... the comment "another stupid article" is not in anyway helpful.  Its not helpful to the author trying to refine and perfect their craft, its not helpful to the editors trying to gauge potential audiences, its not helpful to other readers trying to figure out their own responses, even if they themselves did not like it.

All that comment is... is a personal venting of negativity...   And the forum does not need any more of  that.

Now if a person wants to discuss why the article fails in detail (or why it works), then it seems the perfect place for that is in the very thread the MGF creates to discuss said article.  Perhaps MGF should re-think the creation of a thread for each article if they don't want this forum to have the kind of discussions we have here, about their articles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pam said:

I'm going to put on my admin hat here.

It's appears to becoming a trend here to write negative comments regarding the articles put out on Mormon Hub.    Comments like:  "Another stupid article."   

Many of the articles being written are by BYU students who are doing an internship with The More Good Foundation while attending BYU.  Many are wanting to pursue some kind of career that deals with writing.  The internship gives them a great opportunity to use and work on/improve their writing skills.  Many times they are given a subject for an article and they do their best to write something that might be of interest to our readers.  Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't.  Just like professional writers.  Not every article is going to appeal to everyone.  

If you don't like the article, fine...move on.  I do realize that there was one article recently that really hit a nerve with a few.  I get that.  But at least on that one, many explanations were given as to why the particular members of this forum disagreed with the article.  

I also understand that writers have to learn to take some criticism.  But there are kinder and much nicer ways to put things.  In my opinion, the above comment was just hurtful.  All of us have had to start out new in our perspective jobs and careers.  Let's give these people some courtesy.  They are learning and trying to do the best job they can.  Criticism and suggestions are one thing.  Out and out hurtful comments are another.

*takes off hat*

 

 

Fair point. As I'm the one who wrote that specific comment I can take responsibility. I will be more careful in my responses. I was not considering the author's feelings in my initial response. That was a mistake and I apologize for it.

The objective, for what it's worth, in the "trend", I believe, was to get the More Good Foundation to take a closer look at their editing processes. I do not fault a young college kid for writing something that might be naively harmful. I do fault the "adults" who own and manage the site for not asking for a rewrite when problematic ideas are presented. But there are, as you say, kinder ways to say so. I was wrong in my approach and I actually appreciate being called on it.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

All that comment is... is a personal venting of negativity... 

This is not true. It certainly "involved" some venting of negativity. But the comment was made with a very good understanding that it would lead to discussion and not simply be a stand-alone comment.

I do not justify the rudeness. I was wrong. But I am simply not that one-sided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pam said:

@yjacket  I get what you are saying.  However, if you look at the menu of the articles that are coming automatically from the Mormon Hub article side you will notice that the majority of them have had views but no comments.  Which tells me that the article has had no interest or appeal among the people who frequent the forums on a regular basis.  Let that be a sign to the powers to be or editors who oversee the articles.  But we can still keep the little snide remarks out of our comments.  Again, if you don't like the article.....move on.  Just like so many have done on so many of the articles.

To me, the fact that the majority of the articles have had no comments would indicate to me that the appeal just isn't there for a forum audience.  I've been involved in these forums going on almost 20 years.  I find that forum people are a slightly different breed than your casual reader of articles.  I'm not meaning that in a bad way at all.  

Sometimes not saying anything at all is a far better indicator than rude comments.

 

 

I also get what you are saying and to a very large extent I agree. I don't think we should be overly critical; the only articles that every really raise my hackles are articles who's headline or text would appear to go against the Church.  I understand that these folks aren't writing for the Ensign, and that's why while IMO annoying I haven't commented on the most recent one. I will comment on articles like "I Hate my Patriarchal Blessing" (that is easily a title one would see on a anti-Mormon website), etc. Those types of articles IMO go beyond inanity, etc.  

IMO the MGF really needs to rethink their strategy and the types of articles they are asking for. Either MGF promotes the LDS church and gospel principles or it doesn't.  Rather than shooting the messenger (i.e. forum posters), maybe an organization that posits itself to promote the Church, should take the criticism and evaluate itself rather than say STTO shut-up, sit down and enjoy what we put up as articles.

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Now if a person wants to discuss why the article fails in detail (or why it works), then it seems the perfect place for that is in the very thread the MGF creates to discuss said article.  Perhaps MGF should re-think the creation of a thread for each article if they don't want this forum to have the kind of discussions we have here, about their articles?

I agree here. A call for civility is right. A call for "shut up if you don't agree" makes less sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting on my author hat.  I rate feedback into three categories:

ONE: Comments I hate receiving from readers:

  • That was great!
  • Loved it!

...and anything along those lines.  As an author, these are the most useless comments on the planet.  (If someone can give me details on what and why they liked, that's slightly more useful, but honestly, not much.)

TWO: More useful comments (but not by much) include:

  • That sucked!
  • You suck!
  • This part sucked!
  • I couldn't even finish it!
  • Seriously!?

...etc.  As an author, these let me know I'm completely off base and need to change [something].  That is, frankly, a gift.  They just don't help me know what [something] is.

THREE: Helpful comments include those which explain why it or I suck, why the reader couldn't finish, what the reader didn't like (and why - knowing why is the greatest gift of all), etc.  Now I know not only is something wrong, but what, and if I'm lucky, why that person thinks it wrong.  I can work with that.

I'm not sure I would have felt this way during my BYU years.  But my classwork there wasn't about being a writer (to my eternal regret).  IMO, anyone who is studying to be a writer had better learn the above fast.  (In other words, they'd better learn to like it (a little) when someone says, "That sucked!" - because that's useful information, even if it's not politely communicated.  No doubt they'll appreciate the helpful comments more, but they should learn to appreciate the "more useful" and to disregard the utterly useless praise.)

That said, I have no problem with shutting up or being useless in response to MormonHub articles - the vast majority aren't of interest to me anyway and no one's paying me to be useful or helpful, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the years I have struggled myself with how I respond to things.  I've been unkind many times in my responses.  Some were justified.  But many times they weren't.  I am really really working on trying to be a little kinder in all my contacts with others.  It's hard sometimes.  

This quote was sent to me this morning and it's exactly what I've been trying to work on for the last year or so.

 

Quote

 

Brethren, we do not honor the priesthood of God if we are not kind to others.

My dear friend and associate Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin was truly a kind man. Said he:

“Kindness is the essence of a celestial life. Kindness is how a Christlike person treats others. Kindness should permeate all of our words and actions at work, at school, at church, and especially in our homes.

 

This of course would apply to sisters as well. :)   

I appreciate the comments made and I'll forward the link to this thread to those who would have an interest in it.  I can see how our opinions on the type of articles could be of some benefit to them.  

Again my point is, let's not be so harsh on those who are writing the articles.   Whether it was meant for the organization as a whole or not, it's the writer who would take it personal.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pam said:

it's the writer who would take it personal.  

I like your post, but feel compelled to respond to this part with: "See my previous reply."  If you want to be a writer, get over this fast and learn to love negative feedback - it's far more useful than the positive stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zil said:

I like your post, but feel compelled to respond to this part with: "See my previous reply."  If you want to be a writer, get over this fast and learn to love negative feedback - it's far more useful than the positive stuff.

And as I previously posted, writers do need to learn to take criticism.  But the hurtful comments aren't really criticism.  They are nothing more than hurtful comments.  And it doesn't give people a free ride to post such comments because "writers need to learn to love negative feedback."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pam said:

But the hurtful comments aren't really criticism.

We disagree on what constitutes a hurtful comment.  Had I written it, I would have found "another stupid article" useful.

But as I said, I'm fine with following site rules, and I'm not trying to make up excuses for people to be jerks.  I'm explaining how I really see things from a writer's perspective, and I think the writers in question could learn from that perspective (or not, whatever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zil said:

We disagree on what constitutes a hurtful comment.  Had I written it, I would have found "another stupid article" useful.

But as I said, I'm fine with following site rules, and I'm not trying to make up excuses for people to be jerks.  I'm explaining how I really see things from a writer's perspective, and I thank the writers in question could learn from that perspective (or not, whatever).

You are just in a category of people all by itself.  And I mean that in a good way.  Thanks for your comments. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess part of the issue, too, is the question of what precisely these articles are supposed to do.  A lot of them, frankly, have a chirpy--even click-baity, at times--tone; without saying much of anything substantive.  I've had experience with SEO; and I know that sometimes the point is that the content is there at all rather than the actual quality of the content.  If MGF is primarily trying to drive traffic, then that approach makes sense; and they'll probably be tracking their success through site metrics and metadata rather than comments.  If they're trying to provide bubble-gum content that will attract people (especially youth) to an online community that MGF is trying to build--that makes sense too (though frankly, given the sources cited in Bro. Snell's article, I did worry that his article would tend to attract a class of carper that strikes me as incompatible with MGF's aims).  

But if MGF is looking to build MormonHub's reputation as a host for thought-provoking content, solid scholarship, and meaningful spiritual inquiry--I've seen some remarkably promising starts (I love that you're publicizing the excellent work of the LDS Perspectives podcast; and I was pleasantly surprised at Gabriella Loosle's engagement of Brian Hales' scholarship in her review of Carol Lynn Pearson's latest book); but the overall caliber of the content is far from uniform.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

We disagree on what constitutes a hurtful comment.  Had I written it, I would have found "another stupid article" useful.

But as I said, I'm fine with following site rules, and I'm not trying to make up excuses for people to be jerks.  I'm explaining how I really see things from a writer's perspective, and I think the writers in question could learn from that perspective (or not, whatever).

Of course, as I suggested, the comment was not directed at the author. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recognize that many of us could use improvement to our civility subroutines (myself included).  But it is often difficult to know where to draw the line.  In fact, drawing lines in most human interactions are very difficult to get right at all and impossible to get right all the time. Such a dilemma invokes the question of drawing lines at all.

When do we need to worry about it?  When do we not?

The part that makes this particular interface different is that the comments tend to be one sided.  There is no interchange of ideas or a back-and-forth dialogue.  An article is often written and mostly forgotten.  Comments are often given and those who comment rarely return.  There really is not the interaction of the forums.  On the forums, we go back and forth.  We have a conversation.  But here we have a forum tightly linked to the article site.  Separate, but related. The interaction protocols are not so cut and dry.

Pam has said, "Let's be more civil."  Ok.  Let's be more civil.  But a forum like this is one is (ideally) critical in the logical, classical way.  If the forum links to the articles, do we not tend to put on our critical cap and analyze?  If we approach it from that position, I think we could be more civil in many respects.  Are we supposed to comment?  Well, Pam's putting them on the forum for discussion.  That invites forum discussion and debate.  We'll tend to discuss the articles in very much the same fashion.  We just need to remember that those threads have the same rules as the rest of the forum.  

But even so, are these "young interns" ready for such critiques?  Do they know what they're getting into?  After the past couple years now on this forum I've noticed my critical reading skills deepening, my debate and argumentation skills sharpening, my estimation of "harsh" blurring.  I've taken hits and I've given them.  Are the interns equally willing to go through that?

Are we supposed to treat them with kid gloves because they're young?  In such a scenario, how do we treat an author about whom we know nothing?  The easy, Sunday School answer is: like a child of God.  But my opinion is that if we did that to everyone, this forum would be almost dead.

I'm not sure if I really had a point to this.  But these are just some thoughts on the subject at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

  Well, Pam's putting them on the forum for discussion.  That invites forum discussion and debate.  We'll tend to discuss the articles in very much the same fashion.  We just need to remember that those threads have the same rules as the rest of the forum.  

 

No I'm not putting them on the forum for discussion.  It's an automatic generation.  I have no control over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pam said:

No I'm not putting them on the forum for discussion.  It's an automatic generation.  I have no control over it.

Thank you for clarifying.  I didn't know that.  

Question: if you did control it, would you prefer to keep them separate?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carborendum said:

I recognize that many of us could use improvement to our civility subroutines (myself included).  But it is often difficult to know where to draw the line.  In fact, drawing lines in most human interactions are very difficult to get right at all and impossible to get right all the time. Such a dilemma invokes the question of drawing lines at all.

When do we need to worry about it?  When do we not?

The part that makes this particular interface different is that the comments tend to be one sided.  There is no interchange of ideas or a back-and-forth dialogue.  An article is often written and mostly forgotten.  Comments are often given and those who comment rarely return.  There really is not the interaction of the forums.  On the forums, we go back and forth.  We have a conversation.  But here we have a forum tightly linked to the article site.  Separate, but related. The interaction protocols are not so cut and dry.

Pam has said, "Let's be more civil."  Ok.  Let's be more civil.  But a forum like this is one is (ideally) critical in the logical, classical way.  If the forum links to the articles, do we not tend to put on our critical cap and analyze?  If we approach it from that position, I think we could be more civil in many respects.  Are we supposed to comment?  Well, Pam's putting them on the forum for discussion.  That invites forum discussion and debate.  We'll tend to discuss the articles in very much the same fashion.  We just need to remember that those threads have the same rules as the rest of the forum.  

But even so, are these "young interns" ready for such critiques?  Do they know what they're getting into?  After the past couple years now on this forum I've noticed my critical reading skills deepening, my debate and argumentation skills sharpening, my estimation of "harsh" blurring.  I've taken hits and I've given them.  Are the interns equally willing to go through that?

Are we supposed to treat them with kid gloves because they're young?  In such a scenario, how do we treat an author about whom we know nothing?  The easy, Sunday School answer is: like a child of God.  But my opinion is that if we did that to everyone, this forum would be almost dead.

I'm not sure if I really had a point to this.  But these are just some thoughts on the subject at hand.

Perhaps a good goal would be to be gentle to those who are acting in good faith, with good intentions?  

I have been on the forum long enough to see bad faith posters.  You know, the guys who come on and spew anti-Mormon venom, or are searching for validation to sin, etc.  Some of these authors perhaps should be disagreed with somewhat more vigorously. 

While I have not read many of these articles in question, it is clear that these young writers are not acting in bad faith.  Disagreeing with what good faith authors write is certainly not bad, but doing so gently and diplomatically may be most prudent.

So perhaps a prudent course would be to make sure and be gentle, especially when the other party is acting with good intent?

Good grief, I can't express myself without using legalese today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Thank you for clarifying.  I didn't know that.  

Question: if you did control it, would you prefer to keep them separate?

You are putting me in a tough position since I work for More Good. :P     

My understanding or at least the way it was explained to me about this is we wanted to bridge the gap between the article side and the forum side.  So in order for the forum side to become familiar with the articles, a thread would automatically be generated for each article published.  And at the end of each article is a link to the thread on the forums to invite people to discuss the article on the forums.

It was a way to also try and get more people to join and participate in the forums.  I haven't seen that happen unfortunately.  It's our regular posters that engage with any kind of a discussion that might come up regarding the articles.

Would I want to keep them separate?  Not necessarily in all cases.  There have been some good articles that could entertain some good discussion.  But I don't see that all of the articles are necessarily things that we, as forum members, necessarily want to have a discussion about.

Perhaps I would want to see it become a little more selective.  Maybe a manual rather than an automatic posting of the articles.  Ones that we feel might generate a discussion in some way.  That's just my opinion now mind you.  

Keep in mind that the forums is a sub section of the website Mormon Hub as a whole.   So I can understand why we would want to help bridge the gap between the two sections a bit.  

And perhaps the reason I'm a bit more defensive of the writers is because, while many are interns, they are basically working for The More Good Foundation just as I am.  So perhaps I feel like I'm just looking out for fellow coworkers. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share