2012/10/1 Nicu Buculei <[email protected]>: > - 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 [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
