I’m curious about the various stubs we have here on Atlas Obscura. A stub is basically lacking enough photos and info to be a full entry. It may have no more than 2 photos and a description less than a paragraph long. If I were to add to a stub, would I only get credited as an editor despite doing the majority of the writing and research? Do you get to share credit with the original poster who added it? Does the new fuller entry just replace the original?
Hi @Andres_Schiffino, the contributor of the “stub” does still get full contribution credit as the community member who’s added it. The entry remains intact as others expand on it, and with enough information and photos, it gets “unstubbed.” Let me know if any of that doesn’t make sense or needs further clarification!
And what recognition does the person who expands it get? If the original entry is only four sentences and it expands to four or five full paragraphs, does the person who wrote all that get at least an editor credit?
Currently they get edit credit, but you raise a great point—we have discussed whether there should be some separate, additional credit for doing the work of turning it from a stub into a full entry. I’ll raise that with the team again.
Thanks. That would be helpful.
To provide some context, a recent trip to a rather unusual museum garnered a great deal of information and photographs. Motivated to write about it, I found the stub and realized it was added by the attraction owner himself! I have a video of him personally giving an interview and brief tour. He’s not an active contributor to AO and it seems like he added his attraction with a brief description in order to promote it. It’s his only post.
I am surprised how some stubs clear the editing process. One batch of places recently added to New Mexico from one author have about three sentences each. One of them doesn’t even end with a complete sentence. I try to have at least a couple of paragraphs for my entries and proofread them, and the editing team still usually finds something worth checking. I’m planning to update the NM ones soon, but want to wait until I have more to write about them, so as not to make the editing team go over it twice.
One of my own entries is actually a stub, but I’m hoping the edits I recently submitted will elevate it to full place status.
Yea, this is my problem also. I could update a bunch of stubs but it’s not really worth the hassle credit-wise. As someone coming from academia, I am a big proponent of shared authorship, and to just make updating stubs count towards your contribution number.
It would even be good to see what staff member edited it to get it up on the site.
I view this from my background as a journalist. The “added by” is really a byline. And these AO Places are in fact considered news articles by other media sites. Google lists them under their News section. Professional networking sites for journalists and PR professionals like Muckrack lists the AO Places as part of the portfolios of reporters.
I’m mystified to why stubs even exist. If the entry is only one or two pics and a poorly written paragraph, why allow it on the site? No other media site would allow incomplete work to be viewable to the public. Many of these stubs are merely taking up space from a better written article that could have been added by a contributor who actually did the work required.