Jump to content

About the Revision Request System

Recommended Posts

The Revision Request System


This system…

  • Allows users to report problematic guides
  • Provides guidelines for how the staff will review guides
  • Is designed to encourage and reward revision

The process in short:

  • A user reports a problematic guide in the guide's thread
  • The staff will decide if the guide in question warrants a guide review or not and if so, conduct that review
  • If the guide achieves a 70% disapproval rate, the guide will be moved to drafts with feedback on how to fix the guide
  • After changes are made, the author can either create a new guide thread or have the old one moved to a Guides board






Forum attachment version:





One of the common complaints about the previous GAT was old guides with problematic advice or methodologies were not handled properly. With this system, the goal is to provide the bare minimum protection against toxic or harmful advice while discouraging spiteful complaints, working with the limited time resources the staff can provide, and encouraging the guide author to revise their work. While this system is far from perfect and is not designed to completely resolve the core issue, it may be good enough given the lack of a GAT and possibly make progress where the former GAT could not.


The process starts when a user finds a guide they wish to report. To make a report, a user needs to make a post in the guide's original thread explaining the problem they have with the guide's contents and request for a review to be done. Any report posts, particularly stand alone threads, made outside of the original guide thread will be merged with the original thread. Otherwise, they will be ignored or in extreme cases deleted if deemed absolutely necessary. While a user can make a report for any reason, the intention of this system is to identify and address problematic advice or some other serious issue with the guide's content such as illegibility, not to harass the guide author or point out grammatical or structural errors. Keep in mind if a guide breaks the forum rules, this system does not apply and the guide thread is subject to moderation action. Additionally, if a guide violates the guide guidelines and there's a listed consequence, the guide may be subject to immediate action. Once the report post has been made, the staff will decide if they wish to review or not.


Once the report is made, the staff will determine if a review is necessary. The staff will check if the user making the report followed these guidelines and use staff discretion to determine if the issue warrants further investigation. If the staff determines the issue does not warrant a review, a staff member should post in that thread explaining why a review will not be done. For example, if there is a report to review a guide because of some bad spelling, the report may be rejected because it does not make the guide difficult to read the guide. In another scenario, a guide that violates that was blatantly plagiarized may be moved to drafts immediately rather than go through the rest of the process. If the staff agrees a review should be done, then a staff member should leave a post saying the staff will review the guide.


Once determined a review is necessary, the staff will conduct a guide review to determine if it needs to be revised. Staff reviews are similar to the GAT review process of the past, only the review process is a disapproval system instead of an approval system and the review guidelines are different. The requirement of 70% disapproval rather than 70% approval aims to make it harder to move something to Drafts and ultimately discourage members from making unnecessary reports. Additionally, an author gains a mathematical advantage if more staff members review a guide. The more staff members reviewing, the more people who will need to vote disapproval to achieve the 70% requirement. A minimum of 3 staff members must participate in the guide review process. The staff review guidelines can be seen here, but in short staff members should focus on the core issue, only reading what is necessary. While staff members are more than welcome to give additional feedback to enhance the guide, this is not necessary or expected of the staff. If the vote fails to reach the 70% disapproval requirement, the guide is left in the relevant Guides board. If the vote does meet the 70% disapproval requirement, the staff will then list out exactly what changes need to be made and move the guide to the Drafts board. However, if a staff member reports a guide, the process is a bit different.


If a staff member makes the report, the process is largely the same but with some key differences. First, the staff member reporting a guide can still review the guide since the bias of one staff member is likely to affect all staff members, and removing that staff member would only limit staff resources to addressing guide reviews. Second, community members are free to volunteer and make their own reviews that must be considered in the overall staff review, but it is not required and this process can continue without volunteer reviews. Community reviews must be clearly stated as reviews and also follow the RRS Staff Review Guidelines. Given the likelihood community members are also biased, they cannot vote to disprove the guide. However, staff members must publicly acknowledge any concerns and thoughts brought up in volunteered reviews before coming to a final decision. This system aims to make sure all viewpoints are addressed given the biases towards a guide. If the staff votes for a guide's disapproval, it will be moved to the Drafts board for revision.


Once a guide has been moved to the Drafts board, the guide author must make the requested changes to have it moved back to the relevant Guides board. Once these changes are made, a staff member will check the guide and then once verified, move the guide. If the author wishes to do so, they are more than welcome to create a new thread in the relevant Guides board. However, if a guide reposting fails to include the requested changes, it will be merged with the original guide thread.


Ultimately, this system aims to address problematic guide content while keeping in mind the anxieties guide authors had with the GAT system. While this system uses a disapproval system, there are numerous advantages granted to guide authors including the requirement to keep reports in the original guide thread by offering less visibility and giving the author more control over the review process content, the staff dismissing unnecessary cases, the high disapproval requirement, disapproval being harder to achieve with multiple reviewers, and the requirement staff must spell out exactly what changes need to be made for resubmission in a Guides board. In the end, the goal of this system is to provide constructive criticism where needed while ensuring beginners don't come across problematic advice or illegible guide material.

Edited by Ranger

I'm Ranger, GrayTheCat's cobud (tulpa), and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff. I go by Rosalin or Ronan sometimes. You can call me Roz but please don't call me Ron.

My other headmates have their own account now.


If I missed seeing your art, please PM/DM me!

Blog | Not So Temporary Log | Switching Log | Yay! | Bre Translator | Art Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Ranger locked this topic
  • Ranger pinned this topic
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...