I can't see the new Members Created

I’ve read in the blog about the new Member Created category in the library and I can see the option in my own created lessons, but I can’t see this feature when looking for lessons in the library. Where it is supposed to appear in the library? In the blog says that there’s Audiobooks, Podcasts, News and Member Created shelf, but in the Spanish library there’s just New lessons, Courses, Audiobooks, Podcasts, My Collections, My imports. I can’t see it either in the English library.
Also, I have changed some of them manually, but is there any kind of automatic way to change this to a batch of lessons, or we have to do it manually one by one?

Hi Alsuvi,

We’re working on a couple of bugs related to this, but we hope to have everything cleared up tomorrow. At the moment, you will have to change lessons one by one, but perhaps in the future we will be able to add a function to change by collection.

In fact our library is structured in such a way that it is all based on Lessons. This is can be inconvenient for some actions. One day we may well have to reorganize it allow actions by collection. It will be a major task.

Ok, meanwhile, I’ll do it manually.

Ok, I know you are working on that, for just for you to know, I can see the “Member Created” shelf in the library, but there’s nothing inside. Yesterday I updated one of my collections and I added some more collections today, but none of them shows up in this Member Created category in the library. The same for English, it is empty.

Can I tag my lessons as member created? Most of them I just make the audio myself (I take the texts from websites), don’t know if that counts as member created. Or you can only tag as member created the ones that you make text+audio all by yourself?.

Thanks for the report, alsuvi. We’re continuing to resolve this and other issues.

berta, things that you record would probably be best designated by the “Member Voices” category. I think the Member Created is meant to distinguish content that LingQ members make from scratch, which would include all of the stuff that you and Oscar do.

Actually, I see lots of lessons in the Member Created shelf in Spanish and other languages. Please check again alsuvi. It seems to be working fine now.

Yes, the Member Created is showing up. Thanks for doing this Albert.

Berta, the Member Created shelf is in response to requests from members including Vera, Albert and others. Therefore, I would like to ask other members what they think qualifies. I think it should definitely include original content, but perhaps also podcasts that are transcribed, or texts that are read by members. But I would like to know what others think.

There was another thread about this topic: Updated Lesson And Library Pages - Language Forum @ LingQ

I wrote there: “I wonder why you use the type label for classification of Member Content. I provide different types of content. Now, I’m no longer able to classify the content by type, if I want people let know that this is content produced by myself. This is too sad.
I understand that from the view of a programmer it was easier to do it in this way. But I’m not sure if you hit the goal.”

Some of my content has the category articles, others like podcasts, others audiobooks written and recorded by me and so forth. To change this into “member created” would end in a mess again. I hoped for an additional classification system. With different options to point out

  • written and recorded by a member
  • recording by a member
  • transcript by a member

Vera, given our available programmer resources and our priorities right now, this is the solution we have chosen in response to the request to better feature content created by members. It will be up to each provider to decide how to use this feature.

We also wanted to standardize the shelves in each language as we think this is less confusing for our users.

I think that it would confuse many learners to see the three shelves you have described. The question before us now is what we should include in Member Created.

I think we should limit this to content created and recorded by members. Podcasts that are transcribed will appear in Podcasts. I think that your content is very well featured in the Library and people are finding it.

I am hoping that members will start to use the News type so that we will soon see more items in that category.

Alex, “Member voices” is part of , so most of my lessons would lose its category (history, sports, food…). I’ll leave them the way they are, can’t see any benefit in changing them into “member voices”.

I thought that “member created” was going to be content unique to Lingq, a way to differentiate copy-pasted lessons from the rest . But I see that only content from scratch is. Ok.

The main point is to make sure that learners find the content that is of interest to them. I think that the new streamlined library will be less confusing and should help learners find what they want.

Let’s go with this and see how it goes. Thanks for your understanding and patience.

No, I don’t understand. The idea was developed to help content providers who put a lot of effort in the creating process. Their content should be distinguished from the copy/paste content. That was the original idea.

Vera, I believe that the content created by members is very valuable, and I think it is a major unique feature of our site. However the learners may have different tastes when it comes to what they want to learn from. We feel we have arrived at a fair compromise that provides benefits to a majority of our users.

I would also like that this exclusive content created by member will be more distinguished than the rest because I think is one of the great things that you can find just here at LingQ. Also, as we have said many times, creating lessons is time consuming and requires a big effort (all of them, even just the transcripts and recordings), so I think it should be rewarded better than the general copy-paste lessons that you can find anywhere.
Having said that, I appreciate your efforts to improve the library. I think this “Member Created” category is the first step towards that. I know you have few resources and a lot of priorities, but I hope one day member content will be even more distinguished and promoted.
Anyway, thank you for this first move.

Yes, it is VERY discouraging and you can’t even begin to compare making a lesson yourself (from scratch or making the audio or transcribing) with copypasting. The way points are awarded and the library is set up, you’re encouraging the copypasting. So at the end is what you will get. Which doesn’t seem to be a bad thing if that’s what users want, is it?.

This issue reminds me a bit of why nowadays most of the tv is crap. Is that what people want to see? or is it because tv stations feed us crap (cheaper to produce) and we eat it all? (and I’m not saying that copypasted lessons are crap, but you can see the comparison and where I want to get to).

Please bear in mind the following:

  1. It is up to the learner to decide which content to use.
  2. Points are awarded based on usage, not on the time required to generate the content.
  3. We cannot differentiate in points awards based on how the content is generated, (or how the provider tells us the content is generated). We don’t assess each content item as it is provided.
  4. We can provide more prominence for Member Created content, and that what is we are trying to do with this new shelf. In a way the courses is also there to allow the more creative members an opportunity to feature their work and that is largely how it is used.
  5. Having three shelves, Member Created, Member Transcribed, and Member Recorded, is something we could consider in the future. However, the question is whether it will help learners choose such content, or whether it matters for the learner.
    6)Would these shelves by left empty? At present some providers, like Vera, prefer to keep their content in the existing Type categories and are not even using the Member Created shelf. Will the member not find a transcribed Podcast as easily under Podcast? I prefer to stay with the one Member Created shelf for now.

I think the most important thing is to make the library easier for users to use. That is what we believe we have done,although there are still a few bugs that are being worked on.

I agree with these points except the 2 and 3. I mean, I know that points are awarded on usage, but precisaly that’s what we are complaining about. We have to think in which kind of library or content do we want for LingQ. If we want a place where you can find some original content and many free resources that you can find anywhere, then the present system is Ok. In this case, I don’t know if the library is really outstanding over other content that you can find on the web, so I’m not sure to see the real benefit, for a new user, to become a member. Yes, you can do it, but if most of what you can find here you can find it anywhere, what’s the point of becoming a member (don’t get me wrong, I see many other benefits, but I’m a fan boy, what about new users?).
Anyway, if we want a library in which you can find free content such as anywhere, but also a lot of really exclusive LingQ content created by it’s members, then maybe you may consider to award content not just based on usage, but also in who create it and where you can find it (just in LingQ). Like this, members won’t be discouraged and they’ll keep on creating more quality content, which in my opinion, should prevail over quantity.
I remember Vera made a long detailed list in which points could be shared among creators. I understand that being so detailed can be difficult, but a simple way could be great.
For example, award the content in 3 different categories:

  • Member created (any kind- also just recorded or transcripted): 1point (as now)
  • Free content (copy-paste content): 0,75 points
  • Long content (more than 5 minutes, for example): 1,5 points.

The last point (long content) related to what you said in your second point “not on the time required”. I think this should be taken into account. It’s not the same to create a 30 seconds beginner lesson than a 15 minutes transcript of an improvised lesson or podcast for intermediate or advanced users. It’s NOT the same. You spend 10 times more time for the advanced material. So right now it’s very discouraging to create advanced content. That’s the reason why I’m not creating new lesson for the Improvisaciones collection anymore. It doesn’t worth it. (I’ve created 3 new ones because someone offered to do the transcripts for me).
1,5 points for long lessons will not be fair enought for the time spent, but anyway it will be at least more fair. I also know about other member who have stopped creating long content for high intermediate or advanced users.

The problem we can have in a few months is that there will be plenty of beginner content (which is ok), but not many intermediate or advanced content. Well, yes, the free stuff that you can find anywhere.

So I know it’s complicated to organize the library and to satisfy anyone, new members and senior ones, but I think you should bear in mind that the way you treat content and content creators will determine the kind of library you’ll have and the value of a system like LingQ.

Albert, thanks for taking the time to set out your views. I certainly appreciate the work that you and others put into our content. It is difficult for a system to detect which content is transcribed, recorded or just copied and award differential points on this basis. We would have to rely on members identifying their contents as such, and that could be subject to abuse.

I happen to think that members’ usage is the fairest indication of the value of the content to our users. It is not obvious that all member produced, recorded, or transcribed content is always preferred to third party content. People like different things.

We are going to introduce some form of evaluating content in our Iibrary at some point. We might even enable some form of additional tipping for certain content. We could perhaps create Recorded By, Transcribed By as fields in the description, but the question is whether this information is helpful and of interest to the users.

Right now our focus has to be on finding ways to attract more members, and you will be seeing some additional improvements in this regard before we go back to changing things again in the library.

I would like to hear the views of others on this issue. In any case, we have made some steps forward in the library and will make more at some point in the future.