2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee <wieralee@gmail.com>:
>
> On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times by three another persons.

The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.

> Corrected, not read.

Uh? Correcting without reading?

> In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it again, because the book would be finished.

Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.

Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?

I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like « wo­rd » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead of « word », ).

> We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time (from red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not become a better editors...

> We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our stats better.

No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book.

How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky question.

And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the BGB usefull?

> Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie.

Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as correct something that already is.

Cdlt, ~nicolas