Quality benchmark

[pinkforest]

There are some requests that hurt everyone.

It would be great if there is some type of pressure to raise quality of submissions whilst not inpinging people's productivity.

It makes it harder to use the site given one user can effectively cause blockage (see the internal system) by the authority.

These blockages whilst illegal (maybe who knows) provide plausible deniability because one random person (or bot) did it.

Possible improvement options

1. Crowd-source reviews on first time posters by trusted ambassadors

2. Provide feedback via crowd-sourcing on first time posters from trusted ambassadors

3. Feedback positive-only score e.g. people can give thumbs up (not thumbs down possible as it can end up "brigading")

[benrfairless]

Hey @pinkforest

Would you be able to provide examples of low quality requests?

If you would prefer, feel free to email these through.

[pinkforest]

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/john_smith_22

It's also against the house rules - targeting one minority group - if not plain vilification - it doesn't just ask stuff

[benrfairless]

I've been thinking about a possible way to address this without creating too much overhead on our volunteers.

We could consider immediately hiding anything that is reported to Administrators until we have time to review it. This would allow the request to proceed as normal, however would also reduce any harm by having the request public.