Integrated decision making on new entries & posibility to see who votes up and down

Hi
Due to the longer waiting periods for new approvals, maybe some kind of by members integrated approval procedure could be implemented (I know it will not, but still, it is very nerve consuming when new approval takes a week, sorry, but it does). What is all new entries would be visible to all and those that get like 5 or 10 approvals from all members, get approved...
LP

PS: BTW: total down vote expected! I could not care less for these, but I do care very much over any honest reply to make this great site even greater!

In the same moment, I am using this opportunity to propose a possibility to see, which members vote up or down.
LP

No harm if new approvals take a week or a month, seems reasonable to me. Doesn't change my lifestyle - why the rush.
Asking to see who votes up or down, if you take Twitter as an example - they have the likes button - you can click on your post that has likes to see who liked it.
They don't have a thumbs down button!

I understand your frustration. I myself am waiting too since more than two and a half months for approvals for a modern country with FOUR referees. Yet I voted your proposal down because this undermines the whole referee system and in my opinion that's worse than waiting.

Cita: "Essor Prof"​I understand your frustration. I myself am waiting too since more than two and a half months for approvals for a modern country with FOUR referees. Yet I voted your proposal down because this undermines the whole referee system and in my opinion that's worse than waiting.

​Agreed. The situation is poor but this isn't the answer. It would create anarchy. We need to do something about referees who have either lost interest, no longer have the time or have their own agendas.

Taking a step back and trying to see the situation from a different point of view is always an eye opener.
There is more to life than losing sleep over approvals.

Hello everyone, I also do not think that the solution proposed here is the most appropriate, but it seems obvious that some decision must be made. We are not talking about whether the fact of not having an application approved allows us to sleep or not, we are talking about being able to improve the operation of Numista.

To give an example that I know well, I made a multiple request in the following post:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic102842.html
The proposal was accepted on 9-Dec-2020, but nothing has been done yet. How do you think all this could be improved?

Regards, Oscar

Cela tient du mode de fonctionnement du site :
Tant qu'il y aura du monde dans la roue elle tournera, et Numista continuera de se développer.
il suffit d'être patient ou de s'y mettre
Une autre méthode ferait certainement des mécontents.

This is due to the way the site works:
As long as there are people in the wheel it will turn, and Numista will continue to develop.
just be patient or get started
Another method would certainly cause dissatisfaction.

Edit-
The vote is not public, it is however personalized since it can be modified

Are Numista referees paid for their time.
If there is such a huge demand for prompt response - maybe this is something that is being considered.

Cita: "BluHawk"​Are Numista referees paid for their time.
​If there is such a huge demand for prompt response - maybe this is something that is being considered.

​Hi

No we are not paid for this. Its for fun and for being a part of something extraordinary. But still I like for the new requests to be processed quicker (I guess Cyrillius was pampering us too much).

I am using this thread just for a search of better or rather quicker way of requests being accepted.

When I add new pages, only like 10-15 (can be more) requests per year are not adopted, mostly due to my mistakes. Some requests I could see were are also approved and before that little bit amended by referees. Hence it would be great, at least for me to know where can I improve myself, how am I doing on Numista:

• how many of my requests were approved without amends,
  
• how many of my requests were approved after publication (would be also good to know why in statistical terms).
  
• how many of my requests were approved with referees amending something before approval (would be also good to know why in statistical terms),
  
• how many of my requests were not approved (would be also good to know why in statistical terms).
  

So, before I add new request for a new page, I do always try to locate if this piece already exists in database (this is pure basic). I also try to gather info on the web, for better first entry. This also takes away future work for referees, when they have to approve small changes on pages.

So, hundreds of my requests are usually accepted without referees extra amends. I dare to say, that I could be considered as a "trusted member" with high percentage of approved requests (probably like over 98%). User can not be a "trusted member", unless he/she reaches certain amount of accepted requests. I am writing this not for my own fame, but maybe as a way for such of us users to have rights on changes directly into the catalogue (hopefully also limited to the country/state, where we are mostly active), without referees extra work. The referee should still be able to see new request, even if it was already added to the DB.

Any other ideas of fastening the approval process?

LP

Essentially we already have a "trusted status" in the shape of referees. The problem is that referees, once trusted, are not checked up on to make sure they continue to do a good job. If we want to add an element of democracy to Numista, setting up a system where complaints about referees were actually investigated would be a good way to go.