2012/10/1 Nicu Buculei
<nicubunu(a)gmail.com>om>:
- 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
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
--
+Nyarko Rexford <https://plus.google.com/u/0/107174506890941499078>
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org