Blog Submissions - Tighter Editorial Policy

[cim]

Please don't anyone take this the wrong way - this idea is not aimed at any specific blogs or blogger, and I know there is a lot of great blog content which a lot of people put a lot of hard work into - but my idea is that blog items should be required to meet defined editorial standards in order to be approved by Giffgaff.

This approach should help Giffgaff to present a professional image.

Blog Editorial Checks which I can think of (for starters) could include:

• A brief mention of relevant background expertise of blogger - not necessarily a full bio and fine to use a pseudonym, but establish credentials to write on the presented subject
• Originality and avoidance of any blatant plagiarism
• Objectivity and balance - or failing that a clear indication of writer bias and reasons why
• Web links provided where appropriate
• Ensure any web links indicate clearly where they will link to before clicking them
• Reviewing something? List key alternative products and explain clearly what are the benefits and downsides of the product vs the competition
• Effective use of Graphics
• General proof reading for any obvious content errors
• Clarity of presented information
• Total Word Count and conciseness
• Correct Grammar
• Correct Spelling
• Correct Punctuation
• Avoidance of Text Speak and obscure acronyms
• Correct use of upper/lower/title case.
• Effective layout with appropriate paragraph breaks

Any others? Perhaps those more experienced in writing blogs may be able to suggest improvements to above list...

I understand blogs are currently submitted and vetted - but I would argue the process could be tightened up - standards seem to vary somewhat.

After all - the blog section is a very prominent part of the Giffgaff web site - and may constitute a large part of Giffgaff 'first impressions'.

What do you think?

[cricpk]

I am a current Blogger. The current system does not allow one to post a Blog without the authorisation of a giffgaff educator. The educator reads through the blog and approves it before giving a date. Therefore giffgaff carefully monitor every Blog. 

Strict control over Blogs are currently in action. I don't think further action is required.

[cim]

@cricpk -yes, I acknowledged that submissions are vetted in the idea text.

However I have seen blog entries which do not meet various of the above points, and on that basis I would say there may be room for improvement in some cases.

[cricpk]

@Cim,

I understand you point. However, I feel one aspect of Blogging is also a expression of feelings. We are all humans and errors come about. I am sure everyone reading this would have some time spelt a word wrong or had grammar error in their work before. I believe, being a Blogger, having errors in my work is not just embarrassing but also heart-breaking.

Afterall people write Blogs due to interest. Certainly anyone who would like their Blog to do well and be popular would generally keep these things in mind. I also fear that making the current process more complex would put people off writing Blogs. In Blogs we don't generally help fellow giffgaffers out, nor do we get a financial incentive (I think). So why go through the stress? To express our feelings, opinions and interests. Its because we want to generally contribute to the community in this way. However, if this process becomes largely complex and confusing. We will simply result in a decline of creativity, as people would not spend hours upon hours gold-plating the blog. There might also be a decline in new bloggers as they may turn the back immediately after starting the process.

Implementing this idea may also be unsustainable for giffgaff. Having a stricter criteria would mean that the Educators would have to spend longer on each blog than they currently do. They are already very busy, keeping our community running. I don't feel the time pays up fairly for the outcome. 

Maybe your idea would be more ideal if the points you have raised were given to each blogger as advice. This may be a more cheaper and suitable alternative.

[cim]

@cricpk - thanks for your considered comments.

I suppose it boils down to a quality vs. quantity trade-off - and what importance is placed on professional looking blogs vs. a more 'homespun' presentation.

I suppose a 'Blogger's Guide' route may be worth exploring if editorial checks as outlined are not considered practical - either for cost reasons or for fear of putting bloggers off. How much effect this would have in isolation is hard to say.

Be interested to hear any other views on this.

[andy0]

I think you're making good points, but perhaps standards are already improving after some adverse comments on plagiarism or letting free advertising for certain websites.