This idea has been percolating in the back of my head for a month but Just reached "Critical Mass" today. We all know that sometimes authors get the help of an editor to improve thier work: and ocasionaly a story owner will shuffle around a page around to a more fitting locaton: what if there were a way for the original author of a page or owners of the story to mark such pages as being "Colaborative" between the different contributors? Both authors would be listed in the bylines; both would receive notifications about comments, bookmarks, etc; each would be given half the number of 'likes' the page received; and-so-on... Now I speak of this as a 'both' thing for a reason, not only does allowing more than two authors complicate the implementation a great deal but it makes it very prone to abuse, with multiple owners on a story adding thier names to the byline without earning it. If just one other person can be on the byline it's easy to confirm if the base author feels they earned it if there's a question, but if dozens of people have supposedly been contributors, how to sort the ligitimate from the false? This also neatly solves the issue discussed in THIS thread about these rare exceptions: since both 'authors' are listed both are getting credit for the combination of their work, and that means there's no need for self liking. (Which, let's be honest, didn't help in the old page format because the editor got no credit or notification from the extra like, now they would instead get half of the likes the page earns...) I look forward to further discussion of this idea and how it might be implemented...
It would be nice to be able to add other authors to the line, though several spots for that line could be too small to show them (recently added chapters, story map, ...) Like counts are saved as integer values in the database. It isn't possible to save half, third or quarter Likes. Why should the initial author put someone on the list, who didn't contribute? Actually, things would be more complicated as there are two authors who wouldn't be able to vote for their own chapter.
A problem, I admit, but not, I think, an insurmountable one, after all, some people already take up more or less space in that area. Then we simply round up or down as appropriate. That was included because of the situation that prompted this idea, where I took over a story and edited the introduction so much that there was little of the original writing left. I therefore suggest that story Owners can add individuals to the bylines as well as the author themselves. This is especially important for situations like mine but also more carefully managed stories which have an "editorial staff"... I agree, the solution is not ideal, but I do not foresee them readmiting self likes even if over the long term you lose more likes than you gain.
If you round a half, it's not a half anymore. rather Chapter owner If I would do a close collaboration with another user on a story, I would alternate in publishing chapters. If the creative part wasn't mine and I did only some editing, the chapter should belong to the other user. (He could leave a line within the chapter if he wants to.)
Please enlighten me what you mean by this statement. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here, are you saying you oppose the concept or that you feel it is unclear in its execution, or what?
sry, I meant that rather the original author (publisher) of a chapter should be in charge of adding the collaborating user to the chapter. Or is this about showing the users with Story Role "Story Owner" and "Editor"?
Yes, no, and sort of. I'm saying that both / either those with the story role of OWNER and the person who wrote the chapter can add a secondary owner to the chapter as a major contributor if they have done sufficient editing work...
Wow... Surely you can just store the total number of likes exactly as they are now, and when you display/calculate the totals for an author you just use half (rounded to the nearest integer) of whatever the value is for a shared story/page. Or are likes also stored directly against an author to avoid having to calculate the total all the time? If so, what's wrong with the story/page getting one like, and the collaborative authors all getting one each. They don't add up; so what? Having said that, I don't think that there's much point in having collaborative pages or sharing likes per page. Sure there are cases like in the thread linked in the first post, but surely they're the exception, and most pages are only ever authored by one person? Editing... it's not really the same as being the original author. Having multiple authors displayed on the title page though? That I can see being useful.
Well, it would be nice to see it as information only, like "additional contributors to this chapter" Not sure about notifications and so on. yes For that reasons, it should usually be enough to do it like I described above.
C for creator O for secondary owner(s) D for reader E for editor I don't know about fractions, but wouldn't be better to just give both one like for each chapter instead of halves. There was a story earlier this year where I had contributed a couple of chapters and the author made a chapter to recognize those who helped contribute. From what I've gathered from this thread it sounds like the idea is to have something like that but more in the chapters the secondary person is doing the work. Has there ever been a chapter (not story) where three or more people contribute?
I don't know. I think the probability is high, but I've never personally encountered one, though how I would know if I did...
