Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Tom:

I don't consider speedup to be constructive, I see it as a way to take the database down a road filled with potholes. That's why

Is the delay constructive if the votes stay the same? It take too long back and forth to make changes, even to correct mistakes that slipped trough. With a speedier process there should not be more "potholes", it should be possible to correct them quicker :o

I think 'you guys' would even like it when it took 10 days, even there was no merit in that. So, now I believe there are many many contributions where the long (existing) delay has no single positive effect at all, au contraire (and I'm not even French).

Tom:

I want correct data to the Rules the FIRST time. i don't want to have to come behind somebody and make a correction to fix a mistake that should never have been made to begin with. Based on the last time Ken revealed such information (a long time ago) the screeners are reviewing 30,000 titles per month, probably more. Sorry, Tom, as for the Yes votes you seem to be so fond of, Isee gar too many sleepwalkers who pay no attention to what is being Contributed  and will just vote Yes to any old piece of whatever Contribution that comes down the pipe, those Yes votes are not helpful nor constructive. So, just learn to be patient, Tom, it won't hurt you, I promise.

Skip

Quoting MatrixTom:

Quote:
What's wrong with thinking about a speedier process, without compromising correctness? Never read any constructive thoughts.

Nothing wrong with it, but you are making an assumption that may or may not be true...that screeners are doing nothing during the built in delay.  I don't believe they are.  Let me try and explain...

Day
1 - Built in delay, no contributions processed
2 - Built in delay, no contributions processed
3 - Built in delay, no contributions processed
4 - Built in delay, no contributions processed
5 - Built in delay, no contributions processed
6 - Due to built in delay, day 1 contributions processed
7 - Due to built in delay, day 2 contributions processed
8 - Due to built in delay, day 3 contributions processed
9 - Due to built in delay, day 4 contributions processed
10 - Due to built in delay, day 5 contributions processed
11 - Due to built in delay, day 6 contributions processed
12 - Due to built in delay, day 7 contributions processed
13 - Due to built in delay, day 8 contributions processed
14 - Due to built in delay, day 9 contributions processed
15 - Due to built in delay, day 10 contributions processed

If you start throwing profiles into that mix, out of order, it just delays other contributions.  Net effect, while some contributions are completed quicker, others will take longer.  What is gained?

Sometimes it only takes the comments in 1 no vote for a profile contribution to get rejected for  one reason or another. I've seen profiles with 20 yes votes where I found an error and voted against it, as I'm sure many people here have encountered the same situation.

The contribution process works just like anything else that has a public comment period. It shouldn't be closed off just because you have a certain number of agreements. it should have a set time so that everyone who feels the need to make a comment gets the opportunity.

I would suggest that there can be only one exception to the time rule. When 100% of people who can vote on a contribution have voted... and even then it's not a perfect solution because people are adding profiles to their collections all the time.

In fact, it would be nice if after people cast their votes, they would not simply figure they were finished, but would actually continue to look at the profile while it was outstanding to see if anyone had discovered a problem. WE have very few conscientious voters that appear to take the process seriously, but we have a LOT of sleepwalkers who will vote Yes to anything regardless of the quality of the data.

Quoting mreeder50:

Quote:
The screeners have a hard enough job as it is.

For the record: the screener load obviously stays exactly the same whether contributions are processed in two, six or a hundred days.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
In fact, it would be nice if after people cast their votes, they would not simply figure they were finished, but would actually continue to look at the profile while it was outstanding to see if anyone had discovered a problem.

It would be nice, but not practicle.  I currently have, just under, a hundered pending contribution in my voting queue.  There is no way I can go back and check them all after I have voted. 

I don't blame the users, I blame the presentation. Why are the current vote count only showing under the individual profiles and not directly in the overview of all pending profiles? And even under the individual profiles, why do I have to click one extra time to see the other votes? Little things that irks me...