Building a streamlined curation process allows owners, authors, editors and even users to fully engage with content in a manner best suited to each person’s needs. However, even the best laid plans will go awry if oversight responsibilities are murky or absent. The problem simply gets worse as the volume of data-rich hypertext content increases. Curators must maintain thorough reviewing processes to verify that the underlying data is of value. Here are just a few of flaws that inhibit effective content curation.
“Underpinning each pitfall is a missing aspect of oversight.”
As a foundation for establishing acceptability, authority, and proper editing privileges, a robust curation strategy requires a system that maintains ownership of content on a granular level. Otherwise, the system gives rise to “orphaned” content; i.e., content exposed to an editorial gap (because it has no owner) that can result in inaccuracies.
Lack of coherent review stage
While it may seem obvious that a review stage is needed for effective content curation, a significant issue is where review should occur. Should individual data components be subject to review and approval? How much should generated content be subject to peer review if those reviewing it have similar editing privileges as the author? The placement of review stages in your curation processes is the essence of content “management” at every phase of content lifecycle.
Doesn’t consider design and formatting
Content curation programs put extensive thought into information architecture but comparatively less attention to the end-user’s experience with the content. This can lead to the selection of a component content management system (CCMS) that does everything expected of it while producing content that is fundamentally not user-friendly. Unless the CCMS integrates end-user presentation into its operating capability, even the most complex CCMS can miss the mark.