On 22/12/2011 13:42, Adam McGreggor wrote:
... that aside, I'm one for chucking out the option of (machine&
human -readable) live-data; counts&c, against the database, so there
is real-time info, along with, the chunky annual report, that has had
(crowd-sourced?) manual review.
We could then see some stats on the authority pages; "Consistently
replies on time; Consistently fails to respond in time, Has an
extra-ordinary high count of internal reviews:requests"
Similar to what I did earlier in the year by extracting data from the API:
http://mark.goodge.co.uk/2011/08/number-crunching-whatdotheyknow/
I think stuff like that would be a useful addition to the WDTK site
itself. The problem with it, though, is that some authorities, for no
fault of their own tend, to attract far more unanswerable or daft
requests than others, which distorts the stats (look at requests to the
Prime Minister's Office for some classic examples).
What I'd like to see is some form of peer-review on WDTK to try and weed
out the more frivolous or daft requests. As I pointed out in that blog
post, a significant proportion of requests which result in either a
refusal or a "not held" response are caused by people asking misguided
or malformed questions. I'm not sure that we can - or should - actually
stop people asking them (since FOI is, by design, applicant-blind and
that means it has to be numpty-blind as well), but allowing people to
rate a question itself as good, bad or indifferent (maybe via something
similar to the classification game, or by means of the annotation
system) could help to give a truer picture of which authorities are
better or worse at responding.
Mark
--
Sent from my Babbage Difference Engine 2
http://mark.goodge.co.uk
_______________________________________________
developers-public mailing list
[email protected]
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
Unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
