Review process for new entries/blacklist + a way to explain edits

[pzeke]

I don't know if this has been recommended/asked before (I admit I didn't bother to check), but this website would benefit from having a system where all submissions are put in review for approval or perhaps have a blacklist for users that tend to submit dupes or submit entries without enough/proper information.

Also, I think it would be beneficial to add a field or something akin to it so that when an edit is made to an entry, an explanation can be provided for whoever reviews said edit. This could help prevent misunderstandings and such.

Didn't want to over-complicate things, so I went with as simple an explanation as possible.

[98dgreen]

I second this

[ignition365]

When you say submissions, you mean new listings? I won't second that.  If there were an approval process for adding new items, when I have to add a new item, that new item would never make its way into my collection because either the listing would get erroneously declined (actually a frequent thing) or I'd forget about the game entirely during the review process.

Most folks will use an empty field to add notes to the moderators.  Like Alt-name or something.  Your "note" will get declined obviously, but it will get the message to the moderator who is reviewing your edit.

[tripredacus]

Do not use a field on an entry to add a note to DB admins. There are three problems with this:
1. It can be accidently allowed onto the entry.
2. The way we see edits may not correspond with how you think we actually see them. As such, sometimes these notes end up not being visible in relation to what it is you are talking about.
3. There already is a way to talk to DB admins: the forum. Create a topic or reply to an existing thread (like listing errors) if something gets rejected

For the other side of things, it has been asked before that a DB admin could add a note on an edit rejection if they choose. Currently it cannot be done outside of sending a PM about it specifically. Most times it is not worth that effort unless there is something really specific that needs to be talked about, such as when we notice a bad pattern to a user who is editing entries.

[ignition365]

Do not use a field on an entry to add a note to DB admins. There are three problems with this:
1. It can be accidently allowed onto the entry.
2. The way we see edits may not correspond with how you think we actually see them. As such, sometimes these notes end up not being visible in relation to what it is you are talking about.
3. There already is a way to talk to DB admins: the forum. Create a topic or reply to an existing thread (like listing errors) if something gets rejected

For the other side of things, it has been asked before that a DB admin could add a note on an edit rejection if they choose. Currently it cannot be done outside of sending a PM about it specifically. Most times it is not worth that effort unless there is something really specific that needs to be talked about, such as when we notice a bad pattern to a user who is editing entries.

My bad, I could've sworn a moderator was the one who said that using the alt-name field to pass along a note to the moderator was fine.

[tripredacus]

Do not use a field on an entry to add a note to DB admins. There are three problems with this:
1. It can be accidently allowed onto the entry.
2. The way we see edits may not correspond with how you think we actually see them. As such, sometimes these notes end up not being visible in relation to what it is you are talking about.
3. There already is a way to talk to DB admins: the forum. Create a topic or reply to an existing thread (like listing errors) if something gets rejected

For the other side of things, it has been asked before that a DB admin could add a note on an edit rejection if they choose. Currently it cannot be done outside of sending a PM about it specifically. Most times it is not worth that effort unless there is something really specific that needs to be talked about, such as when we notice a bad pattern to a user who is editing entries.

My bad, I could've sworn a moderator was the one who said that using the alt-name field to pass along a note to the moderator was fine.

I'm sure that is true.

[pzeke]

When you say submissions, you mean new listings? I won't second that.  If there were an approval process for adding new items, when I have to add a new item, that new item would never make its way into my collection because either the listing would get erroneously declined (actually a frequent thing) or I'd forget about the game entirely during the review process.

Submissions would still go live, they'd simply end up on a "queue" for a moderator or admin to review and approve. Good submissions will remain live, but bad submission will obviously get rejected and deleted. I mainly suggested it thinking it could help reduce double entries. Could also mitigate users that have a tendency of submitting dupes and/or bad/erroneous info. Blacklisting these type of users doesn't seem like a bad idea, I think.

[tripredacus]

Currently there is no plan to stop item submissions from being made the way it is now. The changes that were made to searching have cut down on duplicates immensely.