Thoughts on Sentence Collector

Anything? I have a lot to say.

Random order

I sometimes look back and review the sentences I've "ignored", so it's a bit inconvenient for me to be random. But,

If these are possible, we might try to introduce them.

It's hard for me to notice mistakes when there are similar sentences in a row. Well, I generally agree that "boring" is a word.

But, as @irvin says in post #14, we should not overlook the benefits of making connections (relationships) between each sentence.

Rejected sentences

Users should show everyone why they are rejecting the sentence.

For example,

  1. Press reject button.
  2. The choices are displayed.
    • Incorrect. (e.g., misspellings, lack of.)
    • Inappropriate language. (e.g., sexual language, hate speech, etc.)
    • It's hard to pronounce.
    • Can't understand the meaning.
    • Other (user enters)
  3. Select and reject.

I agree with the idea of re-posting after fix. But who is going to fix it? The user who added the sentence? Another user?
Wouldn't the work get done faster if the rejected sentences were public and could be fixed by any user?

In any case, the re-posted sentence

It should be like this. To maintain neutrality, it should be able to be reviewed by anyone other than the user who rejected it.

Protesting the rejection

I also think the user who added the sentence needs to be able to protest (required if the user wants to re-post the sentence without fixing it). For example, let's say it was rejected because of a "misspelling". But it could be that the user who rejected it just didn't know the words or grammar. Therefore,

  1. The sentence is rejected.
  2. The user who added the sentence presses "protest button" (or simply "publish button" or "discuss button")
  3. A sentence discussion page is created.
  4. Each user gives their opinion on the page.

I think it's appropriate to maintain neutrality with this kind of process.

User filters

Hmmm, are these filters shared by all users? Or is it configurable on a per-user basis? Personally, it's best to have both working. I think the filters we share should be carefully considered.

It's important to know clearly from the Collector tool which users who have added and reviewed the sentence. But when reviewing a sentence, the user's information becomes noise. The "Review" screen hides it, and the "Search" screen shows the metadata of the sentence (user, source, etc.). In this way, there should be a distinction between judgments about sentences and judgments about users.

Why do we want to use user filters? That's the focus. Most reasons to filter users is because of a problem with the sentence. Therefore,

For the above, allow the users involved to be added to all the users' individual filters. Then, for the most problematic users, add them to a shared filter.

I would rather have a source filter. If there is an alleged copyright violation in a sentence, we can exclude it.

I think @irvin's opinion in post #3 is reasonable. Yes, even if we make the source searchable, not all users will submit a "source"... I agree with the filtering itself.


I think it's an option. I don't need it (because I'll check it myself).

For example,

The frequency of sending is also important. A day, a week, a month. Or every time a sentence is added? We might want to have an option to notify, "only rejected sentences" or "only sentences that require discussion".


Maybe we don't need a self-review when we upload. If we' re able to do a self-review anyway. There would be no reason to interrupt the upload process. This should have been written in Sentence Collector - Review before Submit. Sorry.

Tell people from the platform

On the platform, let people know that the text is also being collected by volunteers. Perhaps people who only record voices and their validation don't know about it. Currently, when we run out of sentences to read, we are guided to the Collector tool. But I think sentence collection is a matter that should be mentioned by the platform. Because in fact, sentence collection is just as important as recording!