Thread: A proof test in introduction

Sorry but I'm not keen on this idea. The intro process is complicated enough for some, you only have to look at some that have been through recently to see that some applicants cant even answer the simplest of questions, nor can they get the BTStats proof correct. Having a ratio editing test will just lead to frustration for applicants and intro staff, an increase in the intro workers/mods workload and a reduction in people wishing to join (they will get bored with constantly being told that the proof is wrong).

The idea is to keep the intro system as simple but yet as effective as possible as well as keeping any necessary delay's as short as possible, so whilst the idea is nice the practicalities are not. So I'm afraid its a no from me.

Just because someone hasn't been exposed to editing proofs before does not make them a bad invitee. If they are already a member of the site and they need to make a proofs to get an invite they are more likely to do properly then than at the intro stage. Trust me, we used to have ratio proofs instead of BTStats proofs in the intro stage and when I say that people left because they got fed up of editing I am not joking.

I agree with TG. The introduction process is complicated enough as it is. Strategically it's just very unwise to ask everything at once from a newbie. It's very discouraging. We should keep this site as inviting as possible and give members the chance to learn things along the way. Creating too many obstacles at the entrance will put off too many potentially valuable members. Don't forget there are also many "just ask" giveaways, where no proofs are required. It's nice for a newbie to get started this way. Just give new members the time and the opportunity to learn about ratio proof editing along the way (this is one of the reasons why I made the invite giveaway guide and tried to make it as simple as possible); this way we keep the forum inviting and accessible to everyone.

hmm... let me put it this way,

1. If I were to throw a book on quantum mechanics at you and told you that you had to learn its contents and that you would be tested on the whole thing at the end of reading this sentence - how would you fair?
2. Now lets say that I threw that same book at you and said that you would be tested everyday until you passed said test in order to pass through our gates, how long would it be before you said - you know what screw this, I can get what I need from somewhere else and they don't have tests.
3. Now say we take that book but we break it down into bite sized chunks so its easier to learn and then we test you on specific parts at points when you need that info to continue and have a really nice reward at the end of it if you pass.

Which option would you choose?

Now lets put that in some perspective with regards to the intro section,

1. We put a test in place which they have to complete at the end of their intro - a test in which many people WILL fail since many have never done a ratio proof in their life.
2. We put a test in the intro in which people have to continuously correct their answers, frustrating that member which leads them to quit trying and go to somewhere like TI.org (where they may learn the fine art of trading/cheating).
3. We welcome them onto site and we give them the chance to learn as they go, explain to them as to why their proofs must be edited in a specific way and if they make a mistake we educate that person sufficiently so they do not make it again.

Now I don't have no issues with people making suggestions about the intro section and how it could be improved, in fact I welcome suggestions that makes the tasks in there a lot simpler, faster and easier for both worker and applicant alike, but before you make a suggestion I urge you to try helping out in there first so you can experience first hand what the staff in there go through each day and how the applicants respond to some of the requests the team make.

I gotta say I agree with everything Tankgirl has said thus far. The introductino process already takes long enough, and often involves several edits PER member, meaning the intro crew must constantly reply again and again to try and get the already simple process of making sure new members understand the rules to go smothly. Adding more steps to that will only place a barrier between us and new members and cause an influx of members giving up and just letting their intros sit idle after a while (a problem that already plagues us). The mods do an excellent job with the aid of user input cleaning up area 51 and keeping the proofs well edited, and normally unedited proofs don't stay up for very long, and when they are found rest assured that the staff that edits it informs them why and points them in the direction of the FAQ so they can learn. So i'm gonna have to say I don't like this idea, as the current system works and no need to throw more oil on the fires and turn an already slow process into a living nightmare.

I think it is fine the way it is. You would not believe the amount of people that struggle with the intro as things stand without adding more even if it is something they will need to learn eventually. I honestly think it is fine as it stands. I can just imagine the amount of bumps needed and requests for images to be re done with a vast amount of intros. This is something they can learn as they go on. In an ideal world this would be a good suggestion as it would mean people would learn how to do image edits straight away. Problem is, majority of intros would be held up and as Tankgirl has said above would slow the intro process down quite a lot. So while i see the merit of this suggestion, i am not entirely convinced it would be a good idea, due to slowing down the intro process and adding more work for the intro workers.
Also DocDoom makes a good point, the people who would struggle with this in there intros would in all honestly give up and we would have lots of abandoned introductions. Never a good thing.