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.
+1
Cristian