+1 Cristian

On Friday, October 5, 2012, Cristian Consonni wrote:
2012/10/1 Nicu Buculei <nicubunu@gmail.com>:
> - also I have to acknowledge I was confused at first with the position of
> the "accept" and "reject" icons, a few times I clicked on the wrong ones, I
> expected them to be below the pictures but they were at the top;

I think this has been fixed by adding the colored semi-transparent  to
the images (green for accepted, black for the others) anyway, I think
a framing will be better because you may want to lok again at the
images before updating the decision

> - the filtering is going to be used my more people at the same time. One
> user will browse the images, accept some, reject some but also defer some,
> leaving the decision for others. A faster way to navigate the images is
> needed, perhaps in the footer in addition to "<< Start || < Previous || Next
>>" some way to jump to "page N".

> For the second stage, image rating, I only saw a screenshot so far so for
> now I have a single request: a more fine-grained noting system. When the
> jury is small, only 1-5 stars is to little and will produce a lot of
> collisions, multiple image with the same score.
> Last year in my country we had every member of the jury give an image 3
> scores from 1 to 10 for different criteria: artistic quality, technical
> quality and usefulness for Wikipedia and made a pondered sum (50%, 30%, 20%)
> for a final note for each person.
> While this may be overkill for the global competition and juries in every
> country, moving to 1-5 stars is way too little. I will think a bit more
> about how comfortable a 1-10 rating per image is.



Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list

+Nyarko Rexford