[Hpr] new show posting algorithm

Kevin O'Brien zwilnik at zwilnik.com
Thu May 30 07:43:43 PDT 2013


On 5/30/2013 5:18 AM, ken.fallon at gmail.com wrote:
> On 2013-05-29 23:45, Klaatu wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:19:49 PM Dave Morriss wrote:
>>> On 29/05/13 21:23, epicanis+hpr at dogphilosophy.net wrote:
>>>>>> The upload form would have a drop down with the first two items been
>>>>>> "Normal (Selected)" then "Backup Show" and then a list of
>>>>>> free/unscheduled slots listed by "episode number/date". Once processed,
>>>>>> the show would be added to the database and the episode/day would not
>>>>>> be available any more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The beauty of this is that all the decision making is done by the
>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken.
>>>>> Sounds great to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anybody else want to ratify this?
>>>> BY THE POWER VESTED IN ME AS "SOME RANDOM GUY ON THE INTERNET",
>>>> I hereby ratify.
>>>>
>>>> For what that's worth. :-)
>>> It seems like a pretty good way forward to me.
>>>
>>> I thought about it a while and wondered:
>>>
>>> 1. This has the potential to disrupt patterns such as Community News
>>> being released on the first Monday of the month. Does this matter?
>>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> Good point. This might need to be the one exception to the no-reserved-slots
>> issue. It is, after all, a community show.
> Well is that fair ? Surely TGTM News and LiTS are part of the community
> as well. Removing reserved slots means just that. So Community news
> should also go to a FIFO schedule. That will mean about a two week delay
> even if people space out their shows. Not a big problem.
>
>>> 2. The new algorithm means that there is nothing to prevent multiple
>>> shows from a given host being released in the same week. Is this a
>>> deficiency?
>> I think it is, yes. I don't think hosts should post multiple shows per week,
>> but maybe we could make that a 'best practises' sort of request, rather than a
>> rule that is enforced.
> I think this is very desirable on occasion. Sometimes I want to put all
> my shows out one after the other. Eg: After OggCamp, New Year shows.
> While other times I want to space them out. Leaving it up to the
> individual is fine by me.
>
>>> 3. Situations may arise where a show is submitted which requires more
>>> work to prepare than usual, yet the submitter has asked for it to be
>>> released very soon. This puts extra pressure on the admins. Is this
>>> likely to be a problem?
>> I do not believe so. All the work is done on the user's part, so I don't think
>> it'll be a big deal to admins.
> If the slot is free and it has all the required information, then the
> process is fairly fast. If not then the show will miss the deadline.
>
> As is the case now, no show will be guaranteed a slot until it has been
> processed correctly including complete show notes. If there is a problem
> that results in a delay and in the mean time someone else submitted a
> correctly formatted show requesting the same date, well then they will
> not get their shows posted on the requested date.
>
> This system will discourage "I want this released tomorrow". This is
> because tomorrows show will already be in the database and on the web
> server with it's hpr episode id. It will already have been released with
> that episode id on the "go_max" feed.
>
> It will be extremely inconvenient to change that. So it will not be
> allowed unless there is mass and I mean mass approval from the list to
> do it. Plus you will need the explicit permission from the host who is
> scheduled tomorrow to swap them out to the next available slot again.
>
>>> 4. The existing rapid turnaround for new hosts will be lost. Is this an
>>> attraction to new submitters, or merely an unexpected bonus?
>> Ken's idea is to not do the new-host bump, but we expect there to be less of a
>> queue as a result of this new simplified FIFO algorithm, so I don't think it's
>> going to hurt the incentive for new hosts.
> Back in the day(TM), new hosts had to wait like everyone else. Now at
> least they get to know the exact moment when they become a (HPR) Podcaster.
>
>>> 5. Since the responsibility for ensuring there are no gaps in the
>>> schedule has now been "outsourced" to the community, is a strategy
>>> needed to accumulate "filler" shows to cover any gaps? Perhaps there
>>> will be none?
>> I think that's where the admins do come in.  If there's no show, then the
>> admin posts a show from the emergency fund; if there is no emergency fund then
>> the admins re-post content from the CC-BY-SA podcast of their choice.
> Most people will just select the default option of "First Available
> Slot" so I expect the pick a date to be mostly used by the regular
> contributors.
>
> I'd still like to keep some shows in the backup queue so that we have
> two weeks of shows ready for when we need them.
>

I am fine with new procedure, but how do you want to handle the shows I 
already have in the queue that I uploaded expecting to be busy over the 
summer?

BTW, I can always whip up something if there is a need. I have a few 
ideas outside my LibreOffice series that I haven't acted on since I am 
already so prominent in the queue. But I can jump in any time there is a 
need.

Regards,

-- 
Kevin B. O'Brien
zwilnik at zwilnik.com
A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw.





More information about the Hpr mailing list