Talks without events

[Joshua Thijssen]

A friend (@wimgtr) was talking about a feature that can come in very
handy on occasion: talks not linked to events. His use-case: the FosDem
conference that doesn't use joind.in for their talks, but he would like
to add his talks anyway to build up his online CV.

For me personally it is not the first time that an event isn't added to
joind.in which means I can't "log" the talk and creating the event for
the talk is not really what you would like to do.

There are some cons though:
1. Talks are always connected to events. DB and code wise.
2. It might trigger more spam since we don't moderate talks.

Both might be solvable by creating a sort of "dummy" event where all
unlinked talks are stored. Everyone should be able to add a new talk,
but they should moderated by JI-admins nevertheless.

Any ideas / suggestions on this feature?

gr,
josh

[Kevin Bowman]

Interesting, I can see the point behind the idea, but this could either be done quite well or really really badly.  Imagine that an event hasn't put its details on joind.in yet, so speakers start making lots of ad-hoc talks.  Then the event uploads its schedule; that's a reconciliation nightmare.

I'm not saying I don't like the idea, but it's my natural state to find problems with suggestions.  Maybe some simple restrictions would help, like ad-hoc talks can only be created in the past?  Although that prevents a speaker from getting their URL to advertise in the physical talk.

Kevin

[lornajane]

I can see why someone would request this feature but I am not in
favour, even if it means we moderate a lot of events with only one or
two talks in them (as we do for the user groups). My advice to that
speaker would be to create the event and add talks and admins to it as
the idea catches on (or not, if it doesn't). I can easily see that if
we allow ad-hoc talks, you can't tell which event they were really at,
we'll be approving large numbers of talks for the same event at
times ... I'm just not sure it's useful enough to be worth the
effort. Sorry to be negative :(

Lorna

On Feb 5, 2:20 pm, Kevin Bowman <kbow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting, I can see the point behind the idea, but this could either be
> done quite well or really really badly.  Imagine that an event hasn't put
> its details on joind.in yet, so speakers start making lots of ad-hoc talks.
>  Then the event uploads its schedule; that's a reconciliation nightmare.
>
> I'm not saying I don't like the idea, but it's my natural state to find
> problems with suggestions.  Maybe some simple restrictions would help, like
> ad-hoc talks can only be created in the past?  Although that prevents a
> speaker from getting their URL to advertise in the physical talk.
>
> Kevin
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Joshua Thijssen

> <joshua.thijs...@gmail.com>wrote:

[Mike van Riel]

I concur with Lorna that in this case a separate event should be
created. But perhaps we can make it more intuitive for people by having
an 'Add talk' option with their user with which they can add talks and
try to locate the appropriate event.

And if it doesn't exist ask the user about event information but not
require them to add anything but, for example, the name?

Should the conference organizers with to claim the event they can do so
on hindsight anyway.