掲示板 Forums - [Discussion] Better way to handle usage note validation
Top > renshuu.org > Feature Requests/Improvements
Your proposal sounds solid to me. Let people who want them screen them for you. If the discord is any indication, the community is pretty healthy and responsible and is capable of self policing something minor like that. FWIW, I have turned off mnemonics as it's just noise to me.
If you're falling behind on reviewing usage notes, I'd much rather have your expertise and time spent on verifying the 'how to use' and 'meaning' submissions.
I keep meaning to go back and view some more mnemonics to help with the backlog but I can't remember which page the link is on and I've been too busy (or maybe just a little bit lazy) so I haven't gone back to search for it. Is it possible to pin that bit to the top of page 1 or something to make it easier to find? I'll do some more in my free time if I can find it. 
Thank you!
Not sure if the layout lines up the same way on both platforms, but on mobile, it's the 3rd message on page 3. Just fyi until it gets pinned to the beginning, if it does.
Thank you! 
Hello all!
I have improvements and news as we move closer to making this open to everyone.
1. There is a new "accept if improved" button. upon tapping, will let you choose one of four (so far) options. If a certain number of users select the same reason, it'll be sent to the user (detailed notes, example, etc.).
I considered "grammar", but if the grammar is a problem so that it is not understood, it should be removed. These messages will be automated, so it must be a suggestion obvious enough to the original author that they can fix it. If it's small grammar/spelling issues but still understandable, that's fine.
2. Because this has been added, and because I've been doing a ton of the markups in the last week, I have removed all "unacceptable" and "not sure" markers from notes that I have not yet checked. It's not many, but I'd like you to go through them again (the leftover ones) and take advantage of the new "improve" option.
3. I did run some stats on the notes where there a)was a simple consensus from you all and b)I independently rated them.
For "acceptable", there was an over 90% overlap between what you all and what I rated, so I think those will be safest to add without an additional check from me. This is great news!
For the "unacceptable", there the agreement was much, much lower. I think it'll help to reanalyze this half of the data once we run through it more with the new features.
Hi, a bit late to this post, but I have two questions/suggestions, which I don't think(?) have been addressed yet:
1.) Would/should mnemonics be unacceptable if it doesn't add anything new to the list of already added mnemonics? Maybe that could be another option for "Accept if improved" category. Also adding a direct link to the dictionary for the word being judged in the fire-hose widget would be helpful QOL for volunteers to judge in this category.
2.) Piggy-backing on this:
So, for something like an anime character, if they say "This is like CHARACTER from anime ANIM}ENAME", I think that's totally ok.
What happens if a media-based mnemonic houses a potential spoiler for said media? Should that be an acceptable mnemonic, even if reading it might be a landmine for someone who might be invested in the plot of the referenced media? For instance I had one for 人 (hito) that referenced a specific character and their abilities introduced a bit into the Jujutsu Kaisen series (based on one of the antagonist's names), and it *really* helped me remember it because it was such a perfect fit, but I was afraid someone would find that to be a spoiler so I ultimately left it private. (I also determined it was an incredibly widely used word so a mnemonic for it would be low-value to begin with)
Forgive me if this has already been addressed, these are just my thoughts after trying out the fire-hose widget
Hi, a bit late to this post, but I have two questions/suggestions, which I don't think(?) have been addressed yet:
1.) Would/should mnemonics be unacceptable if it doesn't add anything new to the list of already added mnemonics? Maybe that could be another option for "Accept if improved" category. Also adding a direct link to the dictionary for the word being judged in the fire-hose widget would be helpful QOL for volunteers to judge in this category.
2.) Piggy-backing on this:
So, for something like an anime character, if they say "This is like CHARACTER from anime ANIM}ENAME", I think that's totally ok.
What happens if a media-based mnemonic houses a potential spoiler for said media? Should that be an acceptable mnemonic, even if reading it might be a landmine for someone who might be invested in the plot of the referenced media? For instance I had one for 人 (hito) that referenced a specific character and their abilities introduced a bit into the Jujutsu Kaisen series (based on one of the antagonist's names), and it *really* helped me remember it because it was such a perfect fit, but I was afraid someone would find that to be a spoiler so I ultimately left it private. (I also determined it was an incredibly widely used word so a mnemonic for it would be low-value to begin with)
Forgive me if this has already been addressed, these are just my thoughts after trying out the fire-hose widget
Honestly, I would put a disclaimer like this:
"Jujutsu Kaisen spoilers
-
-
(Spoilers)"
This gives people enough time to register the possibility of being spoiled before they read the content. However, this could be annoying for users who want to scan mnemonics quickly.
Top > renshuu.org > Feature Requests/Improvements