indexing on behalf of others

[Jochen G.]

There are a few indexers, who enter data on behalf of others, be it
under their own account, or the account of the other.

When the changesets were introduced long ago, we did add a
'on_behalf_of'-field, but never implemented that further. Don't remember
if this was added by Henry on its own, or a broader decision.

Put a quick think into this, it should be not much work to implement the
rest. As in, an indexer reserves a change, and then can later at some
point select the account of the indexer on which behalf the data was
entered, so that two accounts are linked, one as the indexer, one as the
'ob_behalf_of'.

I would see this as a user setting, i.e. an indexer first selects that
indexing on behalf of others takes place. Only then a corresponding
button appears, so that most indexers will not notice it.

The actual indexing workflow is the same, which is why it is easy to
implement.

If we go further on this, one aspect could be the IMPs, should these go
partly to both, or only one ?

There is also a field for indexing along with another indexer, so more
than one would index one change. That would be more problematic to
implement, e.g. need to avoid that both update/edit at the same time.
And I am not sure if co-indexing is a practical use case ?

Comments or questions ?

Jochen

[Ramon Schenk]

In the past, I have indexed for several others, but under my own and their name. I don't really care about the IMPs, but some people might.

Not sure about indexing in tandem. Can't think of a situation where that would work/be useful.

Ramon

---

From: 'Jochen G.' via gcd-board <gcd-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 30 May 2025 13:40
To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com <gcd-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [gcd-board] indexing on behalf of others

 

--
--
GCD-Board mailing list - gcd-...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe send email to gcd-board+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-board

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gcd-board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gcd-board+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gcd-board/b3870ea1-72bb-4b11-a747-5c52489f2350%40garcke.de.

[Donald Dale Milne]

    I think that if we formalize "on behalf of" indexing, it should require an action by BOTH indexers to authorize.  We should not allow one person to index under any random account.

    Currently, anyone can enter information supplied to them by someone else.  It would of course show up under the indexer's own account, but a Note can credit the source.  I've done that many times for people who send in information but do not want to open an account.  The error report system works similarly.  Why to we need a third method to accomplish the same thing?

- Don Milne

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gcd-board/VI1P190MB0576B0527832BB12AB128F22A861A%40VI1P190MB0576.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Jochen G.]

We have indexers that index under someone's else account. There is a
current request by an indexer who wants to add another account for that
specific purpose.
I find that not ideal and much more transparent by an 'on behalf of'.
Authorizing both is missing the point, the other indexer doesn't want to
have to do with the actual site / account.

Sending in one-off information is not relevant. But for some of the
prolific error reporters this might be helpful to track their
contributions and follow-up on it. With an on-behalf aspect, we have a
data trail, which text notes don't provide.

Jochen

Am 30.05.25 um 23:44 schrieb Donald Dale Milne:

>     I think that if we formalize "on behalf of" indexing, it should
> require an action by BOTH indexers to authorize.  We should not allow
> one person to index under any random account.
>
>     Currently, anyone can enter information supplied to them by someone
> else.  It would of course show up under the indexer's own account, but a
> Note can credit the source.  I've done that many times for people who
> send in information but do not want to open an account.  The error
> report system works similarly.  Why to we need a third method to
> accomplish the same thing?
>
> - Don Milne
>
> On 5/30/2025 5:13 PM, Ramon Schenk wrote:
>> In the past, I have indexed for several others, but under my own and
>> their name. I don't really care about the IMPs, but some people might.
>>
>> Not sure about indexing in tandem. Can't think of a situation where
>> that would work/be useful.
>>
>> Ramon

>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* 'Jochen G.' via gcd-board <gcd-...@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* 30 May 2025 13:40
>> *To:* gcd-...@googlegroups.com <gcd-...@googlegroups.com>
>> *Subject:* [gcd-board] indexing on behalf of others

>> VI1P190MB0576B0527832BB12AB128F22A861A%40VI1P190MB0576.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gcd-board/VI1P190MB0576B0527832BB12AB128F22A861A%40VI1P190MB0576.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> --
> GCD-Board mailing list - gcd-...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe send email to gcd-board+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/

> gcd-board <http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-board>

>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "gcd-board" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to gcd-board+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:gcd-
> board+un...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gcd-

> board/71095436-8f13-46bc-997b-98260d0fe8e2%40att.net <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/gcd-
> board/71095436-8f13-46bc-997b-98260d0fe8e2%40att.net?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Jochen G.]

Am 31.05.25 um 14:20 schrieb 'Jochen G.' via gcd-board:

> We have indexers that index under someone's else account. There is a
> current request by an indexer who wants to add another account for that
> specific purpose.
> I find that not ideal and much more transparent by an 'on behalf of'.
> Authorizing both is missing the point, the other indexer doesn't want to
> have to do with the actual site / account.

We could introduce a user setting, 'allow others to index on ones
behalf'. We can set this on the backend (and create users accounts) for
cases where people don't want to be involved with the actual site, but
we / the actual indexer, wants to track this. I think this would resolve
the valid concern Don has ?

Jochen

[Donald Dale Milne]

    A user setting would be a good idea: both indexers need to
authorize the account.

    For IMPs, could the standard points be simply divided in half, a
half credit for each party involved?  Or, if the person submitting
information does not even have an account, give full points to the
person inputting the information?

    I don't see a need for indexing in tandem.

- Don Milne