Rev 3.5 Dictionary--User contributed notes!
devin_asay at byu.edu
Thu Apr 16 14:45:23 EDT 2009
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Richard Gaskin
<ambassador at fourthworld.com>wrote:
> Andre wrote:
>> I'd rather have an inverse approach where every comment is approved
>> default and we can flag the ones we think should be removed.
> I'm normally quick to agree with you, but on this one I think your
> nature may have you underestimating the potential for problems.
I see valid points on both sides of this argument: It is in the Rev
community's interests to have Notes appear as quickly and fuss-free as
possible. It is also in the community's interests to have notes be
accurate, well-written, non-repetitive, and non-spammish. Even when
contributors are well intentioned, you can end up with a lot of noise.
The Quality Control Center is a good example--I would say all of the
contributors are well-intentioned, but a quick perusal of submissions
finds lots of repetitive and spurious reports, as well as many that
are too vague to be useful. The Rev team have to cull through all of
the reports to find actionable ones.
In the case of Dictionary comments, there could be a third way. What
if Rev allowed volunteers in the developer community to get "checked-
out" in evaluating the quality of submissions. Once qualified, these
volunteer editors could simply review submissions as they popped up,
evaluate them on the spot according to RunRev's guidelines, and
approve them. Result: time burden off the engineering team, high-
quality comments ensured. I wouldn't mind spending a few minutes a day
checking submissions. I know there are experienced folks here who,
based on the quality of there contributions to the list, could do an
excellent job in this role.
Such a system, I think, could keep most everyone happy, or at least
everyone sort of not unhappy. :-)
Humanities Technology and Research Support Center
Brigham Young University
More information about the use-livecode