"Modifications requested" status [Risolto]

Hi

User adds a new page and referee asks for more data for the new page to be eligible for publishing. User adds more data and confirms the additional information added. The new page is in this moment still in "Modifications requested" status. User then still needs to go to the "My catalogue modification requests" click on the new page and click again on submit again "When you have made the modifications, click on: submit again".

I would propose to add (second button) "submit again" button right next tho the bottom of the new page, which is in "Modifications requested" status. So user can submit directly or just add and save additional data without submitting it. I don't know if latter as it is right now is or would be used widely, I guess most of users would go directly to "submit again " button.

The process is somewhat awkward, not quite optimal and submit again link its just there somewhere. I hope I make some sense here.

LP

Hello,

I added a link at the top of the coin page which is in status “modification requested” to submit the creation request again.

This link is now shown on 3 places: on the modification request page, on the coin page, and on the confirmation page after a change to the coin page.

Just out of curiosity, how old is the oldest page pending of modification requested?

9 years old: the same age as the introduction of the referee process and the possibility for referees to request modifications.
A significant number of modification requests are never acted upon.

 

A solution that was contemplated recently would be to send the requests in status “modification requested” back to the referee is the contributor didn't acted up after 3 or 6 months. Then the referee would have to choose between accept or reject only.

The rationale behind this idea is that, if there was no action in 3 months (or 6), then the contributor will probably never do anything. In that case the contribution is lost as if the referee had chosen to reject.  In that case it's better to leave the choice to the referee to reject explicitly or keep whatever can be kept.

Xavier

A solution that was contemplated recently would be to send the requests in status “modification requested” back to the referee is the contributor didn't acted up after 3 or 6 months. Then the referee would have to choose between accept or reject only.

Very good idea !

I had no idea indefinite limbo was an option…

 

Can't say I like the idea of sending it back to the referee that didn't accept it 3/6 months earlier, if nothing's changed, I think most would just end up deleted, and it is possible some should be accepted with a little work.

 

I think it should be treated more like the appeals system, if nothing happens for 3/6 months, admin/master referees look at it, make any necessary changes and accept it, or delete it at that point.

We also run the possibility that new stuff gets overridden by the up to 9 year old stuff by a careless ref that just click accept without checking (we removed some but who knows how many we still have).

So these send pack request maybe should come with a little hint that they might be outdated?

 

Can't say I like the idea of sending it back to the referee that didn't accept it 3/6 months earlier, if nothing's changed, I think most would just end up deleted, and it is possible some should be accepted with a little work.

There are many reasons requests are getting send back, most aren't out of maliciousness like your sentence implies. 

Also admins have enough to do already, stuffing referee roles shouldn't be the main task.

Thank, thousand of clicks saved. Long live Numista! 😎

Idolenz

There are many reasons requests are getting send back, most aren't out of maliciousness like your sentence implies. 

Also admins have enough to do already, stuffing referee roles shouldn't be the main task.

There is no intent to imply maliciousness, just stating the obvious, if that referee said no, and nothing has changed, why would the outcome be different.  Clearly the submission had some merit, or the referee would have already rejected.

 

I obviously don't know why many modification requests are ignored each month, I just can't imagine a huge number that would negatively impact the admins/master referees (9 year backlog excluded).

There are 79 requests sent back with modification requested between August 8th and September 8th. It means that if the requests were sent back to referees after 3 months, there would be 79 requests to re-process each month. That's 1.5% of the number of requests processed by referees every month.

 

I believe that referees would be the best persons to handle theses requests : they know why the requests was sent back with modification requested and, if they wish to accept the creation and fix the page themselves, they are the ones who know best how to do so for the issuers they are in charge of. Conversely, if there are not enough information to make a valid page, or if the same coin was added in the meantime, it would be fair to just reject the request so that it won't stay in status “modification requested” for ever.