A recent thread in GQ reminded me that I’ve not seen a Staff Report in several years. What happened? Not complaining, just curious. I assume this has been discussed before, though I missed it, so a link to the prior thread(s) will be more than sufficient.
It’s a lonnnng story, but basically, there was insufficient editing staff at the READER, so Staff Reports have dropped off. There was one a few months ago after a couple of years of none: How does the Queen answer the phone? - The Straight Dope
We’ve tried a couple of fixes, but none of them have worked. Alas.
Which is a shame. W/ all due respect to the entire reason for this forum’s existence, I always preferred the in-depth treatment and relatively lesser amount of gratuitous snark in the Staff Reports to the normal Cecil columns.
Also, Wikipedia happened.
True enough, the Staff Reports (certainly in their earliest days) weren’t trying to break new ground. Even towards the end, we tried to add value (combining info from several sources, for example) and handling questions that Wikipedia didn’t.
PBear42, my apologies, I tried to find that earlier thread and couldn’t… but I was time pressed. Here it is: So what happened to Staff reports? - Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports - Straight Dope Message Board
Question answered. Thanks.
If the issue is insufficient editorial bandwidth at the Reader, why not just publish the unedited equivalent of Staff Reports directly to the SDMB. That is, a SDSAB member who wants to answer a question still gets their question in the usual way (I think you have some secret forum or something?), and writes up their report, and then just posts it in the forum. The report could be stickied for a week to make sure people see it. That way, questions are still getting answered, and the Chicago Reader isn’t responsible for the content (any more than for any SDMB post). And if the Reader ever does want more staff reports, or Cecil goes on sabatical or something, they could take one of the ones that was already posted on the forum and edit it and use it as an actual Staff Report.
Now, if the issue is that no one wants to write them anymore, that’s a different problem.
Sorry, tim314, how is that different from just posting an answer to a question in GQ?
Well, (1) because it draws from the pool of questions that were submitted to Cecil (isn’t that the point of Staff Reports, to answer the questions Cecil doesn’t have time for?), and (2) because someone would presumably spend more time on it, writing up a longer answer and citing several sources (which sometimes people do in GQ replies, but not to the same degree as is typical in Staff Reports).
If you really see no difference between Staff Reports and GQ replies, then I suppose it would be just as good to take some of the questions Cecil doesn’t have time for and repost them in GQ. But I think Staff Reports tend to be of a higher quality than the typical GQ reply, with more work being put into them.
I guess I’m saying I see a lot of value in the Staff Reports, and the vast majority of that value is from the raw content (and the research that went into it), not the editing. So why not just keep doing them without the editing? If it were up to me, I’d say put them up on the Straight Dope home page, same as before – but I assume the Reader would object to unedited columns being posted there, which is why I suggested posting them in the SDMB as a workaround.
OK, thanks, I guess I was misunderstanding. I’ll flash this past the Powers that Be and see what they say…
What we really need is a sponsor. Why some tech company isn’t beating a path to your door is beyond me.
If I remember correctly both Apple and Microsoft were suggested as potential sponsors. I seem to recall there were a few threads around here somewhere discussing the relative merits of both but no one seemed to care much either way so the idea just died.
This has always been my understanding. There’s not much (factually) that a combination of Wikipedia and invidual board poster knowledge can’t answer, IMHO.
Staff Reports were never allowed to rely on Wikipedia, and were never allowed to rely on one source alone. I like to think we did have some Staff Reports that couldn’t be looked up on Wikipedia, e.g., "What kind of apes was Tarzan raised by?"or where Wikipedia gives inadequate coverate, e.g., “Why does water melt the Wicked Witch of the West?”
There are an octo-bazillion potential sponsors. The search engines Duck-Duck-Go and Metacrawler come to mind. Or a 2nd tier anti-virus outfit. Or heck a sports drink. The fact is the resources required to hire (1/8 editor + 1/8 IT + overheard + profit) aren’t all that much. I’m not saying a sponsor would cover all of the costs here. I’m just saying that the ads I see here are wildly generic and mismatched for our audience.
The problem isn’t that this board is too expensive to run. The problem is that we’re too small of a fish for folks to notice. That plus the fact that mainstream advertisers will want to keep distance from the N-entirely-SFW BBQ pit, not to mention a brand name that smacks of drug innuendo.
ETA: The staff reports were terrific and added a lot of value. Just as a university library or a bookcase of textbooks provide a lot of information not available on the web.
Oh, I agree Wiki doesn’t have all the answers, hence the “Individual poster knowledge” addendum. The board members here have a fascinating array of knowledge into a mind-boggling range of subjects.