Click here to subscribe Moderation
So this has been my major concern in the last few days.
One of AGOv3 objectives is to be an hight quality artwork repository for GNOME desktop. Thus, there is the need for moderation. Since AGO’s development community is short on staff we need to find a efficient way to have submissions checked out. On the other hand the community should also have the opportunity to say what they think should or shouldn’t be accepted.
In response to the problem I’ve already gather several ideas among the community and tried to compile what I think is a good solution to the problem.
- Every work should be submitted to an initial moderation process where it is voted by several moderators if it is accepted or not
- After being accepted, it will be made fully public. Users can now vote on it. This votes will decide if a work will stay in the system or not.
- In case of having a negative rating for a certain period of time it is removed from the public gallery and moved to the author’s draft folder.
- The most active artwork developers are perfect candidates to become moderators. That can be seen as a way to recognize and award their commitment to the community
You’ll find a complete description of the process in here.
However I’m not fully happy with this solution. So if you have any suggestion, please, do tell.
Why have the two-stage review process where a single public review queue would suffice? The community gets to rate the content anyway, and I think that if a piece of artwork is declined by moderators, the community surely wouldn’t let it in as well. So maybe this is a place for simplification.
But then we need an option for moderators to drop content from the review queue, e. g. if it is objectionable and has to be removed from public view.
To: Vasiliy Faronov
Because Art.Gnome.org provides high quality themes and stuff only.
Lucas, this is fine, but I don’t see how adding a _second_ layer of community review (moderators are a part of the community, remember) improves quality.
Here is how I see. Why would a moderator refuse to pass content into the “community voting” area? Two reasons I can think of are:
* either the content is obviously very bad or malfunctioning;
* or the content is objectionable in the sense that it is submitted to disrupt the system (something like wiki vandalism maybe).
The first case can easily be dealt with by the regular voters. I mean, who would vote for an obviously bad or malfunctioning theme/engine/etc.?
The second case is why I also propose a mechanism for moderators to delete certain items from the voting area. But this is POSTmoderation, not PREmoderation.
I see two advantages in my approach:
* less complexity;
* content will get to the ever-hungry users faster
And there is no damage to the overall quality, because content is still allowed into the “general public view” area only after a period of community voting.
Oops…
As usual, a misreading of the author’s proposal leads to various misunderstanding
Please scrap that last comment of mine. Sorry for the hassle.
To: Vasiliy Faronov
No problem. It was good to be certain we have a good solution to the problem of moderation.
Keep those comments coming. They are more than welcome.
Wanna share (your opinion)?