Hi,
gamification seems to be a hot trend lately. My understanding of this
is a clear communication of (community) goals and closing the feedback
cycle to individual contributors. Counting validated squares may be a
good proxy for a user's efficiency. It may not be the most finegrained,
and lead to people trying to game the system. Also, like Dan S said,
only reinforce positive contributions, non-improving contributions
require a learning impulse and vandalism should be handled quietly.
I also like Mikel's idea of microtasking validation. I'd guess that
scoring an individual building on a green/yellow/red scale in a
specifically designed webapp to reduce effort would be much easier than
working with josm+browser and trying to judge whole squares. Also it
might improve the feedback as in "This building should be drawn square
on the foundations, not including it's roof's shadow."
Regards, David
On 2014-08-31 09:07, Severin Menard wrote:
Hi all,
Thinking aloud, would not be possible (actually asking tech people)
to
have a tool allwing the following:
- detecting changesets with hotosm hashtags and picking up the
username
- comparing the username to a list of HOTOSM contributors and
stating
if it is new or not and already validated for a certain numbers of
quality items (like drawing buildings correctly, drawing roads
correctly, tagging roads correctly, etc.)
- when contributors have not been validated yet, a task is sent to a
validation team
- one team member picks up the task, check, validate the work of the
contributor and contact her/him if some mistakes. A form would be
great, with checkboxes for typical errors, and if making a typical
one, the contributor would receive in the answer link to the Learning
point (there are already quite a few in LearnOSM) dedicated to this
error
- once done the hotosm contributor quality status for this
contributor would be: good for such and such aspects, bad for such
and
such ones and the latter would then be tasked in the future for
validators as soon as this contributor would submit a new changeset
Thoughts?
Sincerely,
Severin
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Nick Allen <[email protected]
[7]> wrote:
Pierre,
A help channel or some form social help channel would be good, but
in order to ask for help, the mapper needs to realise they are doing
something wrong, or dont know how to do something.
The new mappers in this thread are consistently asking for someone
to check their work, and provide feedback so they know what to do to
improve. The validation process is good for this as well as quality
control - but it would be nice if we made it easier for the new
mapper to receive the comments, and if needed for the validator to
pass them.
I dont know if it is easily achievable, but perhaps a system where
the validators comments are more easily available to the mapper,
unless they opt to not receive them. I know that MSF & BRC were keen
to offer help, and I know that the few mappers that have replied to
this thread are asking for this feedback.
It would be good if more mappers replied, especially if they are
new, so we have an idea as to whether it is worth investigating
further.
Regards
Nick (Tallguy)
--
Nick
Volunteer Tallguy for
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team [1]
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Tallguy [2]
Treasurer, website & Bonus Ball admin for
http://www.6thswanleyscouts.org.uk/ [3]
([email protected] [4])
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[email protected] [5]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot [6]
Links:
------
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Tallguy
[3] http://www.6thswanleyscouts.org.uk/
[4] mailto:[email protected]
[5] mailto:[email protected]
[6] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
[7] mailto:[email protected]
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
