Flowchart to explain review process to new Mappers (Feedback please)

[Jody Benedict]

I'm going to be teaching a bunch of people to use Map Maker next weekend. I keep finding new users get confused about the whole review process and I put together this flow chart to explain it to them. 

So I would love it if you all would take a look and let me know if there are any parts I've got wrong or that seem confusing. 

Thanks for any feedback you have to offer. 

[Jody Benedict]

I already made change of course. I decided to group things by color to make it easier to follow. 

[rjhintz]

A couple of immediate comments.  

• Any chance that this could be put in a Google Docs collaborative presentation slide(s)?  You could retain sole edit rights.
  
• I'd recommend no passive voice.  XXX [verb] YYY, result [ZZZ]
  

--

Rich

 

[Jody Benedict]

How do I do do that? I'm happy to share it with anyone who'd find it useful. I did it in yEd graphing tool but I can export it in a bunch of different formats. 

[Jody Benedict]

Also, I'll work on the passive voice. Good suggestion. 

[eastwest]

You should probably note that even if the approving reviewer is an RER or GR some edits take more than one approval to be published, and the reasons why are opaque to us (or to me anyway). Other than that, I think this represents an idealized process (which is good for teaching!) and doesn't show the messy occasions when GRs deny an edit for no good reason or don't believe your local knowledge over an outdated satellite photo.

[Jody Benedict]

Good point. Things are definitely messier than this sometimes in real life but I have noticed that with new people they don't even expect it to be as complicated as this flow chart. I'm hoping this will set people's expectations in a slightly more real zone than "I submitted it 15 minutes ago and I still don't see it on Google Maps?" 

I'll try to figure out a way to add that in. I think for non RER/GR folks like me sometimes we don't even notice this stuff. If it doesn't get published we assume it just wasn't reviewed by the right person yet. We mostly notice whether it's published or not and wonder what the heck we're doing wrong. 

Reviewer X told me to do it this way? Then reviewer y told me that was wrong? What the heck? 

Maybe I should make a new slide called "Some edits are easier than others." :) 

[gzub]

Don't know how complicated you want to make it, but this is some additional info you could add...

• "report as spam" option when an edit is reviewed
  
• Generally after a week or two if a "Request for more Information" has not been replied to a reviewer will deny the edit (this makes sure the pending edit does not hold up new ones)
• Reviewers also have the option to selectively deny individual parts of an edit (I do not believe denying individual items on an edit causes any loss of trust)
• The original editor can also comment on an edit that was denied by choosing (and I am going from memory here as I can't find a denied edit) "I object" or "request more info"
• On an already approved edit you can comment that the "Edit is Good", "Should have been denied", or "Is Spam"
  
• When adding or editing a place duplicates are presented if there are similar items around and you can mark and item as a duplicate at that point.

Don't feel you have to add it all, just thought I would give you some more ideas...

Geoff

[zxrayz]

The flow chart is currently a circle. Probably need to show the three possible outcomes. Pending items are not being allowed to set forever (in some places).

1) Published (and after published, possibly corrected / modified by a GR/RER if the user has not replied, corrected, etc..)

2) Undone (user can undo at any point before it publishes)

3) Denied (If the errors are small, a RER/GR may approve and make the corrections. But if the item is incomplete, unverifiable / does not appear correct and no user verification was provided, or has major problems and the user has not undone, corrected, or replied, the item will ultimately be denied. Sadly many users drop and run, leaving a lot of garbage on the map.) 

[rjhintz]

As far as Google Documents go, please look at the black bar at the top of any Google page and click on Documents.  You can create a Presentation (like Powerpoint) that can be, but doesn't have to be, collaborative for editing.  My suggestion is to make it available for comment.

--

Rich

[Kyril]

From a visual standpoint, the chart lacks hierarchical organization. I think the point of using a flow chart is that it allows to represent different types of actions through the use of different shapes, colors, and positioning of elements in relation to each other. 1. At the very least there should be a separation between the actions taken by a mapper and corresponding actions taken by the reviewer. 2. Similar elements should be grouped or positioned on the same level. For example, I'd put "the reviewer is not satisfied..." and "the reviewer feels..."  on the same level. 3. I would make "you edits gets reviewed bigger" and put it in the middle of the chart. 4. There should a delineation of Actions vs Processes. For example "the approval and comments add trust" is not the same as "the reviewer is a trusted reviewer..", as they serve different purposes.  "the approval and comments add trust" in this example can be written along the length of arrow.  

[Kyril]

I would second zxrayz's opinion on denials. Where I am, edits are not allowed to "chill" in the queue for long periods of time. Usually, if after a grace period of a week there hasn't been a response from mapper, a RER can either try and "fix" the edit themselves OR deny the edit. The one week period is, by the way, in use with the Google Reviewers. 

[Jody Benedict]

Thanks. I'm thinking of this particular doc as more of what to expect as someone who's just submitted an edit but since I'm learning plenty from everyone, having posted it here, I may make a more complex version. I'm not the greatest reviewer myself. I'm trying to do more reviews to get better at it, but having something like this to help guide me through the reviewing would be good. 

I do think it's a good idea to put something in about the time frames and let people know that they really need to follow up if there are "requests for more information." 

[Jody Benedict]

Makes sense. I'll see what I can do to work these in without making the process seem Kafkaesque to a brand new mapper. 

[djboge]

Here's my stab at it - I assumed the audience is an engaged mapper, and that this flowchart doesn't attempt to explain every fork in the road, such as GR/RER/user approval weights, selective denial of edit parts, denials after a week of no response, etc.

I also probably didn't meet all the requirements and standards that a flowchart-making expert might want to see but it seems understandable to me.

http://i.imgur.com/G00yd.png 

[ruandias.12]

Hello! You may publish my edits in Google Map Maker to Google Maps?

[rjhintz]

Hi ruandias.12,

 We need a link to one or more of the features you are talking about to help:

• zoom in satellite view to the feature
• select it
• select details
• generate the link to the feature using the chain icon, near the top right
• create a new topic and include the country and region in the title
• paste it in the "items for review" category, preferably in shortened form.  Do no more than about 5 at a time to avoid reviewer fatigue.

Also, if this makes no sense, let us know. Sometimes people in a regional sub forum can better help.

Generally it is better to start a new topic than to post in an unrelated topic.

--

Rich