STOP APPROVING EDITS THAT YOU KNOW ARE INCORRECT!!!!!!!!
I have spent hours over the last couple of days cleaning up the
incorrectly added features that you three keep approving even though
you know that they are incorrectly categorized. I know you know
because you tell the user they are incorrect but then you approve it
anyway.
GMM: These three users keep approving incorrect edits and I have no
way, other than this discussion forum, to communicate with them or to
give them "black marks" so their ability to approve edits is
diminished. If you would be so kind as to cut them off or, at the very
least, break through their impenetrable barrier to the rest of the
user community (i.e. no profile with an email address) and tell them
to stop. There has to be something you can do to stop this utterly
ridiculous practice of allowing users to moderate any which way they
like with no avenue of recourse other than the discussion forum.
A possible immediate step to to change policy to allow moderations
only to those with a profile that includes the ability to send a
message. Having said that, I found a mapper with a profile who's been
deleting features worldwide and who is not responsive to email, so
it's not a real solution.
Gorio, are you rating the edits as "should have been denied"?
--
Rich
On Nov 5, 4:07 am, Gorio <greg.emb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> STOP APPROVING EDITS THAT YOU KNOW ARE INCORRECT!!!!!!!!
> I have spent hours over the last couple of days cleaning up the
> incorrectly added features that you three keep approving even though
> you know that they are incorrectly categorized. I know you know
> because you tell the user they are incorrect but then you approve it
> anyway.
> GMM: These three users keep approving incorrect edits and I have no
> way, other than this discussion forum, to communicate with them or to
> give them "black marks" so their ability to approve edits is
> diminished. If you would be so kind as to cut them off or, at the very
> least, break through their impenetrable barrier to the rest of the
> user community (i.e. no profile with an email address) and tell them
> to stop. There has to be something you can do to stop this utterly
> ridiculous practice of allowing users to moderate any which way they
> like with no avenue of recourse other than the discussion forum.
You have reason gorio. it would be necessary that a system be to
install allowing this moderation kind according to the number edit
and the participation place.
I does not understand that a person of a country moderates the edit of
another person of another country.
when one draws a place one is supposed the connaitre and if this is
not the case to watch out and especially not approved a moderation of
a place that one not connait or that one knows that the moderation
contains errors
On 5 nov, 13:07, Gorio <greg.emb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Cesser d'adopter des modifications que vous sont connus !!!!!!!! INCORRECT
> J'ai passé des heures au cours des deux derniers jours, le nettoyage des
> incorrectement ajouté des fonctionnalités qui vous trois garder approuvant même si
> vous savez qu'ils sont mal classées. Je sais que vous savez
> parce que vous dire à l'utilisateur qu'ils sont inexacts, mais alors vous l'approuver
> de toute manière.
> GMM: Ces trois utilisateurs de garder l'approbation des modifications incorrectes et je n'ai pas
> Ainsi, autre que ce forum de discussion, de communiquer avec eux ou à
> leur donner "points noirs" de sorte que leur capacité d'approuver des modifications est
> diminué. Si vous l'obligeance de les couper ou, à tout le
> moins, briser leur barrière impénétrable pour le reste de la
> communauté d'utilisateurs (ie pas de profil avec une adresse e-mail) et leur dire
> d'arrêter. Il doit y avoir quelque chose que vous pouvez faire pour arrêter ce tout à fait
> ridicule pratique consistant à autoriser les utilisateurs à modérer quelque manière dont ils
> comme avec aucun moyen de recours autre que le forum de discussion.
> You have reason gorio. it would be necessary that a system be to
> install allowing this moderation kind according to the number edit
> and the participation place.
> I does not understand that a person of a country moderates the edit of
> another person of another country.
> when one draws a place one is supposed the connaitre and if this is
> not the case to watch out and especially not approved a moderation of
> a place that one not connait or that one knows that the moderation
> contains errors
> On 5 nov, 13:07, Gorio <greg.emb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Cesser d'adopter des modifications que vous sont connus !!!!!!!! INCORRECT
> > J'ai passé des heures au cours des deux derniers jours, le nettoyage des
> > incorrectement ajouté des fonctionnalités qui vous trois garder approuvant même si
> > vous savez qu'ils sont mal classées. Je sais que vous savez
> > parce que vous dire à l'utilisateur qu'ils sont inexacts, mais alors vous l'approuver
> > de toute manière.
> > GMM: Ces trois utilisateurs de garder l'approbation des modifications incorrectes et je n'ai pas
> > Ainsi, autre que ce forum de discussion, de communiquer avec eux ou à
> > leur donner "points noirs" de sorte que leur capacité d'approuver des modifications est
> > diminué. Si vous l'obligeance de les couper ou, à tout le
> > moins, briser leur barrière impénétrable pour le reste de la
> > communauté d'utilisateurs (ie pas de profil avec une adresse e-mail) et leur dire
> > d'arrêter. Il doit y avoir quelque chose que vous pouvez faire pour arrêter ce tout à fait
> > ridicule pratique consistant à autoriser les utilisateurs à modérer quelque manière dont ils
> > comme avec aucun moyen de recours autre que le forum de discussion.
Why not allow people who have registered for Neighbourhoods of Interest. But
that has some disadvantage as we may have to endlessly for days, weeks,
months for an edit to be moderated.
Otherwise we can fix some criteria like the following
People who have more than say 1000 edits or so with an direct approval
percentage of more than 75% or so.
People who live in a particular area to moderate only those edits in their
area / Neighbourhoods of Interest...
People who regularly post in the GMM groups
If something of these sort of restrictions are not in place, the quality of
the Google maps will take a beating for sure.......
It is better to wakeup early rather than it becomes too late.....
Sorry the above are suggestions and the more experienced members can add
their cents.............
> I have rated many of them as "should have been denied" but that
> doesn't really do anything. They are still allowed to keep approving
> incorrect edits.
> On Nov 6, 7:22 am, pejise1 <peji...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > hi all,
> > You have reason gorio. it would be necessary that a system be to
> > install allowing this moderation kind according to the number edit
> > and the participation place.
> > I does not understand that a person of a country moderates the edit of
> > another person of another country.
> > when one draws a place one is supposed the connaitre and if this is
> > not the case to watch out and especially not approved a moderation of
> > a place that one not connait or that one knows that the moderation
> > contains errors
> > On 5 nov, 13:07, Gorio <greg.emb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Cesser d'adopter des modifications que vous sont connus !!!!!!!!
> INCORRECT
> > > J'ai passé des heures au cours des deux derniers jours, le nettoyage
> des
> > > incorrectement ajouté des fonctionnalités qui vous trois garder
> approuvant même si
> > > vous savez qu'ils sont mal classées. Je sais que vous savez
> > > parce que vous dire à l'utilisateur qu'ils sont inexacts, mais alors
> vous l'approuver
> > > de toute manière.
> > > GMM: Ces trois utilisateurs de garder l'approbation des modifications
> incorrectes et je n'ai pas
> > > Ainsi, autre que ce forum de discussion, de communiquer avec eux ou à
> > > leur donner "points noirs" de sorte que leur capacité d'approuver des
> modifications est
> > > diminué. Si vous l'obligeance de les couper ou, à tout le
> > > moins, briser leur barrière impénétrable pour le reste de la
> > > communauté d'utilisateurs (ie pas de profil avec une adresse e-mail) et
> leur dire
> > > d'arrêter. Il doit y avoir quelque chose que vous pouvez faire pour
> arrêter ce tout à fait
> > > ridicule pratique consistant à autoriser les utilisateurs à modérer
> quelque manière dont ils
> > > comme avec aucun moyen de recours autre que le forum de discussion.
> Why not allow people who have registered for Neighbourhoods of Interest.
> But that has some disadvantage as we may have to endlessly for days, weeks,
> months for an edit to be moderated.
> Otherwise we can fix some criteria like the following
> People who have more than say 1000 edits or so with an direct approval
> percentage of more than 75% or so.
> People who live in a particular area to moderate only those edits in their
> area / Neighbourhoods of Interest...
> People who regularly post in the GMM groups
> If something of these sort of restrictions are not in place, the quality of
> the Google maps will take a beating for sure.......
> It is better to wakeup early rather than it becomes too late.....
> Sorry the above are suggestions and the more experienced members can add
> their cents.............
>> I have rated many of them as "should have been denied" but that
>> doesn't really do anything. They are still allowed to keep approving
>> incorrect edits.
>> On Nov 6, 7:22 am, pejise1 <peji...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > hi all,
>> > You have reason gorio. it would be necessary that a system be to
>> > install allowing this moderation kind according to the number edit
>> > and the participation place.
>> > I does not understand that a person of a country moderates the edit of
>> > another person of another country.
>> > when one draws a place one is supposed the connaitre and if this is
>> > not the case to watch out and especially not approved a moderation of
>> > a place that one not connait or that one knows that the moderation
>> > contains errors
>> > On 5 nov, 13:07, Gorio <greg.emb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Cesser d'adopter des modifications que vous sont connus !!!!!!!!
>> INCORRECT
>> > > J'ai passé des heures au cours des deux derniers jours, le nettoyage
>> des
>> > > incorrectement ajouté des fonctionnalités qui vous trois garder
>> approuvant même si
>> > > vous savez qu'ils sont mal classées. Je sais que vous savez
>> > > parce que vous dire à l'utilisateur qu'ils sont inexacts, mais alors
>> vous l'approuver
>> > > de toute manière.
>> > > GMM: Ces trois utilisateurs de garder l'approbation des modifications
>> incorrectes et je n'ai pas
>> > > Ainsi, autre que ce forum de discussion, de communiquer avec eux ou à
>> > > leur donner "points noirs" de sorte que leur capacité d'approuver des
>> modifications est
>> > > diminué. Si vous l'obligeance de les couper ou, à tout le
>> > > moins, briser leur barrière impénétrable pour le reste de la
>> > > communauté d'utilisateurs (ie pas de profil avec une adresse e-mail)
>> et leur dire
>> > > d'arrêter. Il doit y avoir quelque chose que vous pouvez faire pour
>> arrêter ce tout à fait
>> > > ridicule pratique consistant à autoriser les utilisateurs à modérer
>> quelque manière dont ils
>> > > comme avec aucun moyen de recours autre que le forum de discussion.
Hi I am giving below some more explanations to what I have already written.
1. The moderators who dont know about a locatlity can moderate only for the
correctness of the attributes, description, naming etc only. They cannot
assure the correctness of the data or the length, names given etc. These can
be moderated only by those who know the area.
Otherwise we may have logically correct, physically bad data.
2. There has to be a lesson or some kind of tests which a moderator should
pass to gain knowledge about what all should be looked into and ensured
before approving / denying / asking for explanation etc. Now whatever is
moderated is based on what a person knows or based on the knowledge he has
gained from others who have moderated his edits.
There may be some users who just approve whatever they come across without
asserting the correctness just like what Gorio has mentioned...
If you look at many of the roads which were created are being created at
much lower resolution imagery than at the maximum possible resolution which
makes the roads to be positioned very much away from the actual location.
This can be avoided if the GMM ensures that the roads can be edited /
created only at highest resolution possible in that area. otherwise editing
should be disabled.
Sorry I am just scribbling my thoughts / difficulties / problems which I
came across during the past 50 days of association with GMM.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Cool Runnings <ajsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some examples will definitely help understanding the issue with these
> features better :)
> I suppose the features you are talking of are genuine errors that cannot be
> corrected once published?
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Vaseekaran <john.vaseeka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I have a suggestion here
>> Why not allow people who have registered for Neighbourhoods of Interest.
>> But that has some disadvantage as we may have to endlessly for days, weeks,
>> months for an edit to be moderated.
>> Otherwise we can fix some criteria like the following
>> People who have more than say 1000 edits or so with an direct approval
>> percentage of more than 75% or so.
>> People who live in a particular area to moderate only those edits in their
>> area / Neighbourhoods of Interest...
>> People who regularly post in the GMM groups
>> If something of these sort of restrictions are not in place, the quality
>> of the Google maps will take a beating for sure.......
>> It is better to wakeup early rather than it becomes too late.....
>> Sorry the above are suggestions and the more experienced members can add
>> their cents.............
>>> I have rated many of them as "should have been denied" but that
>>> doesn't really do anything. They are still allowed to keep approving
>>> incorrect edits.
>>> On Nov 6, 7:22 am, pejise1 <peji...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > hi all,
>>> > You have reason gorio. it would be necessary that a system be to
>>> > install allowing this moderation kind according to the number edit
>>> > and the participation place.
>>> > I does not understand that a person of a country moderates the edit of
>>> > another person of another country.
>>> > when one draws a place one is supposed the connaitre and if this is
>>> > not the case to watch out and especially not approved a moderation of
>>> > a place that one not connait or that one knows that the moderation
>>> > contains errors
>>> > On 5 nov, 13:07, Gorio <greg.emb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > Cesser d'adopter des modifications que vous sont connus !!!!!!!!
>>> INCORRECT
>>> > > J'ai passé des heures au cours des deux derniers jours, le nettoyage
>>> des
>>> > > incorrectement ajouté des fonctionnalités qui vous trois garder
>>> approuvant même si
>>> > > vous savez qu'ils sont mal classées. Je sais que vous savez
>>> > > parce que vous dire à l'utilisateur qu'ils sont inexacts, mais alors
>>> vous l'approuver
>>> > > de toute manière.
>>> > > GMM: Ces trois utilisateurs de garder l'approbation des modifications
>>> incorrectes et je n'ai pas
>>> > > Ainsi, autre que ce forum de discussion, de communiquer avec eux ou à
>>> > > leur donner "points noirs" de sorte que leur capacité d'approuver des
>>> modifications est
>>> > > diminué. Si vous l'obligeance de les couper ou, à tout le
>>> > > moins, briser leur barrière impénétrable pour le reste de la
>>> > > communauté d'utilisateurs (ie pas de profil avec une adresse e-mail)
>>> et leur dire
>>> > > d'arrêter. Il doit y avoir quelque chose que vous pouvez faire pour
>>> arrêter ce tout à fait
>>> > > ridicule pratique consistant à autoriser les utilisateurs à modérer
>>> quelque manière dont ils
>>> > > comme avec aucun moyen de recours autre que le forum de discussion.
The features have errors that can be corrected once published. The
point is that when a moderator knows the edit is incorrect they should
request information, deny it or fix it themselves otherwise the
incorrect information remains published, which degrades the quality
and usefulness of the map and perpetuates the addition of incorrect
features by the same and other authors. If a moderator knows it is
incorrect and publishes it BUT then immediately fixes the error
themselves then I have no problem with that. Approving the incorrect
feature, and then hoping and wishing that someone else will fix it
later, is not good policy. The problem is compounded when there is no
avenue to communicate with or educate the moderator. They are
impervious to all comments and accountability to do the right thing.
Simplest solution is to force moderators to have a profile with email
(so you can communicate) and be able to rate the moderation and have
"bad" moderation impact thier ability to moderate in the future. It
really doesn't matter where they live as long as you can give feedback
to keep them from bad moderation practice and from moderating things
they know nothing about.
-Gorio
On Nov 6, 4:57 pm, Vaseekaran <john.vaseeka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi I am giving below some more explanations to what I have already written.
> 1. The moderators who dont know about a locatlity can moderate only for the
> correctness of the attributes, description, naming etc only. They cannot
> assure the correctness of the data or the length, names given etc. These can
> be moderated only by those who know the area.
> Otherwise we may have logically correct, physically bad data.
> 2. There has to be a lesson or some kind of tests which a moderator should
> pass to gain knowledge about what all should be looked into and ensured
> before approving / denying / asking for explanation etc. Now whatever is
> moderated is based on what a person knows or based on the knowledge he has
> gained from others who have moderated his edits.
> There may be some users who just approve whatever they come across without
> asserting the correctness just like what Gorio has mentioned...
> If you look at many of the roads which were created are being created at
> much lower resolution imagery than at the maximum possible resolution which
> makes the roads to be positioned very much away from the actual location.
> This can be avoided if the GMM ensures that the roads can be edited /
> created only at highest resolution possible in that area. otherwise editing
> should be disabled.
> Sorry I am just scribbling my thoughts / difficulties / problems which I
> came across during the past 50 days of association with GMM.
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Cool Runnings <ajsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Some examples will definitely help understanding the issue with these
> > features better :)
> > I suppose the features you are talking of are genuine errors that cannot be
> > corrected once published?
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Vaseekaran <john.vaseeka...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> I have a suggestion here
> >> Why not allow people who have registered for Neighbourhoods of Interest.
> >> But that has some disadvantage as we may have to endlessly for days, weeks,
> >> months for an edit to be moderated.
> >> Otherwise we can fix some criteria like the following
> >> People who have more than say 1000 edits or so with an direct approval
> >> percentage of more than 75% or so.
> >> People who live in a particular area to moderate only those edits in their
> >> area / Neighbourhoods of Interest...
> >> People who regularly post in the GMM groups
> >> If something of these sort of restrictions are not in place, the quality
> >> of the Google maps will take a beating for sure.......
> >> It is better to wakeup early rather than it becomes too late.....
> >> Sorry the above are suggestions and the more experienced members can add
> >> their cents.............
> >>> I have rated many of them as "should have been denied" but that
> >>> doesn't really do anything. They are still allowed to keep approving
> >>> incorrect edits.
> >>> On Nov 6, 7:22 am, pejise1 <peji...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > hi all,
> >>> > You have reason gorio. it would be necessary that a system be to
> >>> > install allowing this moderation kind according to the number edit
> >>> > and the participation place.
> >>> > I does not understand that a person of a country moderates the edit of
> >>> > another person of another country.
> >>> > when one draws a place one is supposed the connaitre and if this is
> >>> > not the case to watch out and especially not approved a moderation of
> >>> > a place that one not connait or that one knows that the moderation
> >>> > contains errors
> >>> > On 5 nov, 13:07, Gorio <greg.emb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > Cesser d'adopter des modifications que vous sont connus !!!!!!!!
> >>> INCORRECT
> >>> > > J'ai passé des heures au cours des deux derniers jours, le nettoyage
> >>> des
> >>> > > incorrectement ajouté des fonctionnalités qui vous trois garder
> >>> approuvant même si
> >>> > > vous savez qu'ils sont mal classées. Je sais que vous savez
> >>> > > parce que vous dire à l'utilisateur qu'ils sont inexacts, mais alors
> >>> vous l'approuver
> >>> > > de toute manière.
> >>> > > GMM: Ces trois utilisateurs de garder l'approbation des modifications
> >>> incorrectes et je n'ai pas
> >>> > > Ainsi, autre que ce forum de discussion, de communiquer avec eux ou à
> >>> > > leur donner "points noirs" de sorte que leur capacité d'approuver des
> >>> modifications est
> >>> > > diminué. Si vous l'obligeance de les couper ou, à tout le
> >>> > > moins, briser leur barrière impénétrable pour le reste de la
> >>> > > communauté d'utilisateurs (ie pas de profil avec une adresse e-mail)
> >>> et leur dire
> >>> > > d'arrêter. Il doit y avoir quelque chose que vous pouvez faire pour
> >>> arrêter ce tout à fait
> >>> > > ridicule pratique consistant à autoriser les utilisateurs à modérer
> >>> quelque manière dont ils
> >>> > > comme avec aucun moyen de recours autre que le forum de discussion.
> >>> > > -Gorio- Hide quoted text -
> >>> > - Show quoted text -
> --
> John Vaseekaran
> +919841297993 / +6584024507- Hide quoted text -
Hi Gorio,
I generally agree with your observations about approving features
that are known to be incorrect. If a minor edit that is approvable but
has minor changes to be made, then ideally the person approving the
edit should themselves correct it. However, if the change is major,
then probably makes sense to ask the author of the edit to fix it
themselves.
Additionally, we have contacted the moderators advising them about
your observations. You can also contact them using the 'Send a
message' option on their profiles.
For example, here is the link to Spy's profile.:
http://www.google.com/profiles/109790780283692323507?hl=en . You can
get to this link when we select 'View full profile' on the Map Maker
profile page.
We hope that they will agree to the points that have been bought
forward here.
We appreciate your patience.
Thanks & Regards,
Map Maker Guide.
On Nov 7, 9:52 pm, Gorio <greg.emb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The features have errors that can be corrected once published. The
> point is that when a moderator knows the edit is incorrect they should
> request information, deny it or fix it themselves otherwise the
> incorrect information remains published, which degrades the quality
> and usefulness of the map and perpetuates the addition of incorrect
> features by the same and other authors. If a moderator knows it is
> incorrect and publishes it BUT then immediately fixes the error
> themselves then I have no problem with that. Approving the incorrect
> feature, and then hoping and wishing that someone else will fix it
> later, is not good policy. The problem is compounded when there is no
> avenue to communicate with or educate the moderator. They are
> impervious to all comments and accountability to do the right thing.
> Simplest solution is to force moderators to have a profile with email
> (so you can communicate) and be able to rate the moderation and have
> "bad" moderation impact thier ability to moderate in the future. It
> really doesn't matter where they live as long as you can give feedback
> to keep them from bad moderation practice and from moderating things
> they know nothing about.
> -Gorio
> On Nov 6, 4:57 pm, Vaseekaran <john.vaseeka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi I am giving below some more explanations to what I have already written.
> > 1. The moderators who dont know about a locatlity can moderate only for the
> > correctness of the attributes, description, naming etc only. They cannot
> > assure the correctness of the data or the length, names given etc. These can
> > be moderated only by those who know the area.
> > Otherwise we may have logically correct, physically bad data.
> > 2. There has to be a lesson or some kind of tests which a moderator should
> > pass to gain knowledge about what all should be looked into and ensured
> > before approving / denying / asking for explanation etc. Now whatever is
> > moderated is based on what a person knows or based on the knowledge he has
> > gained from others who have moderated his edits.
> > There may be some users who just approve whatever they come across without
> > asserting the correctness just like what Gorio has mentioned...
> > If you look at many of the roads which were created are being created at
> > much lower resolution imagery than at the maximum possible resolution which
> > makes the roads to be positioned very much away from the actual location.
> > This can be avoided if the GMM ensures that the roads can be edited /
> > created only at highest resolution possible in that area. otherwise editing
> > should be disabled.
> > Sorry I am just scribbling my thoughts / difficulties / problems which I
> > came across during the past 50 days of association with GMM.
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Cool Runnings <ajsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Some examples will definitely help understanding the issue with these
> > > features better :)
> > > I suppose the features you are talking of are genuine errors that cannot be
> > > corrected once published?
> > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Vaseekaran <john.vaseeka...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >> I have a suggestion here
> > >> Why not allow people who have registered for Neighbourhoods of Interest.
> > >> But that has some disadvantage as we may have to endlessly for days, weeks,
> > >> months for an edit to be moderated.
> > >> Otherwise we can fix some criteria like the following
> > >> People who have more than say 1000 edits or so with an direct approval
> > >> percentage of more than 75% or so.
> > >> People who live in a particular area to moderate only those edits in their
> > >> area / Neighbourhoods of Interest...
> > >> People who regularly post in the GMM groups
> > >> If something of these sort of restrictions are not in place, the quality
> > >> of the Google maps will take a beating for sure.......
> > >> It is better to wakeup early rather than it becomes too late.....
> > >> Sorry the above are suggestions and the more experienced members can add
> > >> their cents.............
> > >>> I have rated many of them as "should have been denied" but that
> > >>> doesn't really do anything. They are still allowed to keep approving
> > >>> incorrect edits.
> > >>> On Nov 6, 7:22 am, pejise1 <peji...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > hi all,
> > >>> > You have reason gorio. it would be necessary that a system be to
> > >>> > install allowing this moderation kind according to the number edit
> > >>> > and the participation place.
> > >>> > I does not understand that a person of a country moderates the edit of
> > >>> > another person of another country.
> > >>> > when one draws a place one is supposed the connaitre and if this is
> > >>> > not the case to watch out and especially not approved a moderation of
> > >>> > a place that one not connait or that one knows that the moderation
> > >>> > contains errors
> > >>> > > Cesser d'adopter des modifications que vous sont connus !!!!!!!!
> > >>> INCORRECT
> > >>> > > J'ai passé des heures au cours des deux derniers jours, le nettoyage
> > >>> des
> > >>> > > incorrectement ajouté des fonctionnalités qui vous trois garder
> > >>> approuvant même si
> > >>> > > vous savez qu'ils sont mal classées. Je sais que vous savez
> > >>> > > parce que vous dire à l'utilisateur qu'ils sont inexacts, mais alors
> > >>> vous l'approuver
> > >>> > > de toute manière.
> > >>> > > GMM: Ces trois utilisateurs de garder l'approbation des modifications
> > >>> incorrectes et je n'ai pas
> > >>> > > Ainsi, autre que ce forum de discussion, de communiquer avec eux ou à
> > >>> > > leur donner "points noirs" de sorte que leur capacité d'approuver des
> > >>> modifications est
> > >>> > > diminué. Si vous l'obligeance de les couper ou, à tout le
> > >>> > > moins, briser leur barrière impénétrable pour le reste de la
> > >>> > > communauté d'utilisateurs (ie pas de profil avec une adresse e-mail)
> > >>> et leur dire
> > >>> > > d'arrêter. Il doit y avoir quelque chose que vous pouvez faire pour
> > >>> arrêter ce tout à fait
> > >>> > > ridicule pratique consistant à autoriser les utilisateurs à modérer
> > >>> quelque manière dont ils
> > >>> > > comme avec aucun moyen de recours autre que le forum de discussion.
> > >>> > > -Gorio- Hide quoted text -
> > >>> > - Show quoted text -
> > --
> > John Vaseekaran
> > +919841297993 / +6584024507- Hide quoted text -
hello all,
I am baجwa from Pakistan. I want to published my edits in google
earth. I have 250 edits in mapmaker and they all approved from
moderator. I ask from all when my edits will be published. and what is
porpuse of i am going to a moderator.
> I am baجwa from Pakistan. I want to published my edits in google
> earth. I have 250 edits in mapmaker and they all approved from
> moderator. I ask from all when my edits will be published.
On Nov 10, 5:16 am, Map Maker Guide <mapmakergu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Gorio,
> I generally agree with your observations about approving features
> that are known to be incorrect. If a minor edit that is approvable but
> has minor changes to be made, then ideally the person approving the
> edit should themselves correct it.
Which they cannot do until the feature is published, which may take
additional moderation by other users, and requires the first
moderating user to keep a "to-do" list - something people may not want
to do.
>However, if the change is major,
> then probably makes sense to ask the author of the edit to fix it
> themselves.
Which they cannot do until the feature is published. Or, if the
feature is denied, they have to re-create it correctly, something they
are unlikely to do if they are (understandably) angry at having to
duplicate their work.
|
