Reject incomplete submissions#249

There are a few submissions that are incomplete as in only one or two pics or barely even a paragraph of information. These I have tried to add a pace only to find an incomplete and poorly written submission. I declined to make edits to it and add my own pics since I would only have gotten credit as an editor. The “added by” is basically the byline for us contributors. I wouldn’t want to rewrite an entire Place and be only given an editor’s credit. I believe incomplete contributions should be rejected thus giving contributors an opportunity to add a Place that is better written, illustrated, and researched while getting full credit for their work

From the perspective of a reader and not a contributor, the articles with minimal information are not very informative or helpful. As a recent example, Fulham Pottery Kiln (https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/fulham-pottery-kiln) contains one photo and two lines of text. It barely covers the basic historical information about the site, leaving out a lot of details, and it provides no information about visiting the site (such as, for example, indicating whether it is currently possible to go inside, if it is publicly visible, if admission is charged, if they take donations, etc.).

Many webforms are designed to require people to submit a minimum amount of text before the form can be submitted. That seems like it would be an easy fix for Atlas Obscura, and in the long run, it would help people using Atlas Obscura as a travel guide.

Thanks for this feedback, we are experimenting with publishing shorter entries in order to get more interesting places out on the site faster so that our Atlas can grow.

For the OP:
Would you prefer if the shorter entries were rejected completely so you could write the whole entry yourself or would it work for shorter entries to be somehow displayed on the site such that you could easily find which entries needed more information and finish them to get credit as an author?

For @Dark Nebula Deluxe :
Thanks this is helpful to know that shorter entries don’t feel useful to you as a reader. Would you prefer not to see them on the site at all? Or might the information still be helpful if they were separated from full place entries, maybe via a way to filter them out or not have them show up on the map?

I think it would be best if the short entries were not included on the website (or if contributors were forced to submit text that met a minimum length threshold). Since I often read the entries in the Latest Places list, I have noticed that Atlas Obscura has been including quite a few stub articles with only a couple of sentences. My sense from this experiment by Atlas Obscura was that the website was lowering its standards, which I thought was disappointing. I would rather see this website include quality articles rather than a larger quantity of articles. Additionally, I really think that setting a minimum article length will nudge contributors to say more about their sites rather than severely blocking content.

Also, I don’t think separating the stub entries from the real entries is a good idea or easy to implement. First of all, it could lead to duplicate entries if some entries are hidden. Additionally, just filtering the entries on the map would not work in all situations. Like I said above, I see stub entries in the Latest Places list, so that would need to be filtered. However, I also see stub entries in lists for cities as well, so those would also need to be filtered. I think placing restrictions on submissions would be easier to do than implementing filters and would also improve the quality of the site.

@Dark Nebula Deluxe Thank you, will share this perspective with the team

I agree, the point of AO to me is to find interesting places that I’m willing to add a detour for my trip for. If a place is 2 lines, I’ll either ignore it or have to be captivated enough to Google it.

Imo it should be at least 2 paragraphs and if the user can’t make it, then the editor should. I assume that they research the places, so they have the information.

I would prefer shorter entries rejected completely so that contributors can start a proper entry from scratch. I recall AO from its early founding when only a handful of contributors added entries and they were great. You can tell that there was enthusiasm and creativity put into the work. A minimum word count, not too long, but at least something to be used as a reference if not a hard rule would greatly benefit AO. The AO FAQ makes fine suggestions on what a proper Place should look at. These micro entries go against everything outlined in the AO FAQ.

I think there is a magic formula for a place entry, in terms of length

I won’t read places that are too long but at the same, if they are too short, it’s no better than a trip advisor listing, that leaves you wondering “what is this place?!?”

They need to get the compelling information across in a punchy and succinct format, and nothing more.

I’m still experimenting with what the right length is.

I have experience getting a co-author for places that I did rewrite, you just ask for it in the new submrion (in square brackets ar the start of the edit)

Yeah the “co-author” title is a cool idea, because even the short incomplete entries deserve credit for being found, but then if the editor has to do all the heavy lifting to finish the article then they deserve equal credit if not more

Yea, imo the editors should be on there also.

Basically, if you edit a stub enough to “destubbify” it you should get co-author credit, not just an edit credit (which rhymes…)

Note that a co-author credit applies completely to your “added” places–it’s not prorated. CoolCrab and I have a co-authored place in Las Vegas, for which we both got full credit.