Resource System Awaiting Update fallback rating

[loktar]

Maybe moderators should be able to (optionally) set a "fallback" rating for Awaiting Update resources, of Simple/Lacking/Restricted (basically a rating for as the resource is right now). Then after 6 months (or whatever seems reasonable) the Awaiting Update rating would expire and the resource is automatically set to the fallback.
It should probably be hidden from the public whether or not there is a fallback and what the fallback is.

That way moderators don't have to manually set resources that have been in Awaiting Update for a long time to Simple/Lacking/Restricted.

This could seriously cut down on resources that seem to be "awaiting" an update forever.

 

[deepstrasz]

Not sure... both of those mean the resource gets back to Pending? Do you mean this would help in the way user moderation suggestions work now, like hoping someone else than the first would re-review?
Forever Pending is also not a solution.
Rejection should automatically mean at least Lacking if not Restricted depending on the case. You might say Simple but who decides that since the site programming can't discern from the review.
Anyways, it's not really clear to me what this fallback means or what's the result of 1 and 2.

 

[Panda]

If the person chooses not to update there resource then that's really on them.

But, if they have a problem with there "awaiting update" status and doesn't not think that is necessary.. then they can do "staff contact" and appeal that status.

I dont think having a 6 month period after its set to "awaiting update" really does anything to help the reviewer and the uploader..

 

[General Frank]

I dont think having a 6 month period after its set to "awaiting update" really does anything to help the reviewer and the uploader..

On top of that, 'auto'-'approving' a faulty resource that might just bug or even break the editor is just counter-productive.
We had that before two years ago when 'someone' approved lots of assets that needed fixing... for sake of having less resources that needed fixing? Kinda counter-productive.

 

[loktar]

Not sure... both of those mean the resource gets back to Pending? Do you mean this would help in the way user moderation suggestions work now, like hoping someone else than the first would re-review?
Forever Pending is also not a solution.
Rejection should automatically mean at least Lacking if not Restricted depending on the case. You might say Simple but who decides that since the site programming can't discern from the review.
Anyways, it's not really clear to me what this fallback means or what's the result of 1 and 2.

If the person chooses not to update there resource then that's really on them.

But, if they have a problem with there "awaiting update" status and doesn't not think that is necessary.. then they can do "staff contact" and appeal that status.

I dont think having a 6 month period after its set to "awaiting update" really does anything to help the reviewer and the uploader..

On top of that, 'auto'-'approving' a faulty resource that might just bug or even break the editor is just counter-productive.
We had that before two years ago when 'someone' approved lots of assets that needed fixing... for sake of having less resources that needed fixing? Kinda counter-productive.

No, I mean a moderator could set Awaiting Update with a fallback of Simple/Lacking/Rejected (whatever the moderator thinks would be best if no changes are made). Then either after a while it gets set to the fallback rating, or the author clicks some button saying "Don't update, set to [fallback rating]". Or of course it does get updated and it goes back to pending. And of course the fallback would be optional so if the moderator decides not to use that's possible too.

Basically, currently sometimes a moderator will for some reason get back to a resource that's been "Awaiting Update" for a long time and give it a new rating saying "No changes made, setting to Lacking" or something. This would automate and expedite that.

For example:

• A good resource with some problems: moderator sets to Awaiting Update with fallback Simple -> after a while it's automatically set to simple if no changes are made.
• A resource with severe problems but still technically usable: fallback of Lacking
• A resource that's just not usable or very buggy or something: fallback of Rejected -> will no longer show up in search results (hidden from public) when it's automatically Rejected after a while

 

[deepstrasz]

Well, that's different from what one would understand in the opening post. You might want to change that. As I wrote before, fallback is not a specific word one simply gets the idea of and the context for me wasn't clear.
Essentially you mean that you already give a status when you set it to Awaiting Update. That way you don't demotivate someone by putting the Lacking or Simple status from the start and saying you could change it if xyz.
It's a nice idea. I dislike the permanent Awaiting Update limbo especially for resources that aren't that bad. However, one could see the ones in Awaiting Update if they tick the filter tag.

 

[Panda]

No, I mean a moderator could set Awaiting Update with a fallback of Simple/Lacking/Rejected (whatever the moderator thinks would be best if no changes are made). Then either after a while it gets set to the fallback rating, or the author clicks some button saying "Don't update, set to [fallback rating]". Or of course it does get updated and it goes back to pending. And of course the fallback would be optional so if the moderator decides not to use that's possible too.

Basically, currently sometimes a moderator will for some reason get back to a resource that's been "Awaiting Update" for a long time and give it a new rating saying "No changes made, setting to Lacking" or something. This would automate and expedite that.

For example:

• A good resource with some problems: moderator sets to Awaiting Update with fallback Simple -> after a while it's automatically set to simple if no changes are made.
• A resource with severe problems but still technically usable: fallback of Lacking
• A resource that's just not usable or very buggy or something: fallback of Rejected -> will no longer show up in search results (hidden from public) when it's automatically Rejected after a while

I see. It could be something to run by @Ralle for sure..

But, some people would abuse this theory as they know it will just be set to "useful/lacking" and then not update there resource at the end of it..depending on the person or the resource, but still a nice idea..

 

[loktar]

Well, that's different from what one would understand in the opening post. You might want to change that. As I wrote before, fallback is not a specific word one simply gets the idea of and the context for me wasn't clear.

I've updated the first post, hope it's clearer now.

Essentially you mean that you already give a status when you set it to Awaiting Update. That way you don't demotivate someone by putting the Lacking or Simple status from the start and saying you could change it if xyz.

Yeah, essentially moderators could give a resource a rating for as it is now, but still use Awaiting Update to give the author the chance to make fixes/improvements.

I see. It could be something to run by @Ralle for sure..

But, some people would abuse this theory as they know it will just be set to "useful/lacking" and then not update there resource at the end of it..depending on the person or the resource, but still a nice idea..

Well, the way I see it the "fallback" would be optional (so moderators don't HAVE to use it), and it's hidden from the public whether or not it's there or what it is. Although that way you couldn't give authors the option to "refuse" the update, which might be a bad idea anyway.

Edit: I've edited the OP again, removed the suggestion to let authors "refuse" an update and hopefully explained it better overall.