13 Messages
•
340 Points
Should the checkers of reviews, have to detail which-reasons for declining a review?
2 quick yeses and nos each,
could be a better idea for answers to this one...
-----------
Should the checkers of reviews, have to detail which-reasons for declining a review,
to be co-operative / efficient / to-save-time?
Is it realistic to expect ordinary-people to keep them all in mind as-well-as one of the staff?
----------
As an additional suggestion/idea ... there could be a corresponding drop-down list of rules breached, that the checker could just select, if they don't want to have to type a huge amount for everyone / it would take time to keep having to write for each one. A general rule-breach highlighting, would not be exacting, but it would set you off back to your keyboard with a massive time-saver - consider it a 2nd time ... you do have quite a few rules there, which is fine,.. but because you do,.. at-least a which-one covers it ... under-which one was it,.. means you could go back and have another go much like when someone proof-reads something of yours,.. except much faster for your checkers, if they aren't even doing that much,.. if only being more like the Bureaucrats in Futurama - rule numbers, a stamp ... bang! and you're out.
Im saying THAT, would be an improvement, so... do you realize what it's like at the moment? You're doing the equivalent of some demanding high-brow private school's uncaring you'll-have-to-learn-the-hard-way no-reasons-given rejection to a child that thought that their overall score on something would carry them through, while not making some essay perfect, when happy with an 80% rather than going for 100%.
That's NOT something you're going to get from the public. So a FAST,.. at-least-which-one ?
time-saver, would still draw our attention back to where we've breached the rules, but without making life any more inefficient for your checkers - selecting between which in a drop-down list selector,.. would take like... 10 seconds. a fraction of the time it takes, compared to the actual checking.
===========
1st set of answers, mine,
Should checkers have-to?.. yes,
Is it realistic for us to be as-good-as?.. no
jeorj_euler
10.6K Messages
•
225.3K Points
4 years ago
Should the checkers of reviews be required to provide detailed reasons for declining a review? Not unconditionally, I say. If somehow IMDb had the adequate infrastructure (including staff quantities, staff qualifications and staff training) behind it, only then generally yes, they ought to be required to produce explanations for declining reviews. Right now, I'm not even certain that the interface itself is capable of accommodating this. I've also notice that whenever IMDb staff send email message to me, there are never any attachments, and only the newsletters contain any images or text formatting in them. Somewhere on this forum, there is a thread proposing that IMDb staff be provided the ability to not only highlight the unacceptable portions of text within a submission but also convey the report to the author of the submission. That right there is an interface feature matter. As it stands, anybody who has never been on the IMDb staff before has no clue what the "employees only" side of the IMDb interface even looks like. Michelle is the only member of the IMDb company whom I've ever observed sharing a partial screen shot, and the particular interface in that case was not really any more featuresque than the IMDb submission interface. By the way, I agree with the points made by Karen earlier in this thread, and so, I'm not sure if the suggested regulation is necessary.
0