Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
we've had very little content submitted, barring Dimrill's stuff (which he's now removed anyway).
Wuh-wah...?! Why?!
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Sure, it needs more time spent to sort out the rough edges, but put yourself in our shoes.
It's being in your shoes that prompted me to post, as it happens, as I've recently been through a similar process with contributors to a project of mine. They're all excellent, darling people but trying to get things moving through an off-the-shelf CMS was tough and I ended up writing a (far simpler, more focused) site from scratch to distribute material. I was totally unprepared for how challenging it would be to facilitate volunteers and it really all boiled down to minimising the steps needed to contribute and excising absolutely everything else from the process. That's really why I stuck my oar in -- it sounds like you're hitting some of the same snags.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
We've...poured in effort and the site hasn't grabbed people. Would you sink even more time into it? You might suggest that if we filed off those rough edges we'd get more submissions, but I don't think that's true.
I totally appreciate that, but at the same time it's always going to be true that a scalable system is going to look like overkill at the best time to implement scalability (ie the beginning). Take the forum thread -- as-is it's impossible not only to get information from it quickly, but to even see what information is available. Yes a dedicated forum would look sparse and ridiculous, but every forum looked that way once and it'd still have more utility than that congested thread whilst giving potential contributors the impression that you meant business (even if not much business is currently happening). You've got to at least look like you're capable of growth before you can gauge a project's reception, because not looking capable of growth will kill it dead
whatever it is.
I hope that makes sense because (you'll be relieved to hear) it's about the extent of my hard-won wisdom on the matter.
kalmar wrote:
Sledge - good suggestions I'm sure, but no matter how much you "streamline the workflow", if there isn't much work to flow it's still a wasted effort.
Very true. I think, though, that it's human nature to like the
idea of contributing to such a project (which is romantic and lovely) more than actually doing it (which is hard work), hence things that look like inconsequential little hurdles from the point of view of the organisers actually turn out to be hefting great barriers to potential volunteers. That's the fundamental thing I wanted to draw attention to -- that UTJ has hefting great barriers that might (
might!) look like inconsequential little hurdles to the excellent folk behind it.