I’m cleaning up the issues in the Sentence Collector project, and moving open discussions here. We can then file more concrete issues once we came to a conclusion for those.
Happy to hear your thoughts!
Randomize Sentence Order in Review section
Originally reported at: https://github.com/Common-Voice/sentence-collector/issues/314
There seem to be instances where reviewing can get boring, as there are alphabetical lists of similar sentences right after each other. This is probably due to some list of sentences being uploaded. We are currently surfacing the most reviewed sentences first, in the same order as they were created.
Is this a general issue you’ve encountered? Do you think randomizing while keeping the most reviewed sentences at the front would improve the process?
Process rejected sentences
Originally reported here: https://github.com/Common-Voice/sentence-collector/issues/284
Currently rejected sentences are not actionable, as they are simply a list in their own section. The suggestion in this issue was the following:
- Allow changes to the sentences and resubmit them from within the list instead of having to copy them over manually
- Allow sentences to be marked as correct without change and resubmit them
My thoughts: I don’t like the resubmit without change, as there most probably is something wrong with a sentence if it gets rejected by two reviews. However I like the approach of being able to fix and resubmit. I however would take a different approach: let the user select which sentences to re-submit, and once the user clicks a “Resubmit” button we automatically switch to the “Add” page, prefilling the selected sentences.
What should happen with the overview after re-submitting? I’d say it should stay there, together https://github.com/Common-Voice/sentence-collector/issues/275 we could go down the road of marking these as “taken care off” and only showing open sentences not marked as taken care off at the top.
Would that help others as well? What do you think of my suggested approach?
Additionally, how should we handle notifying users about newly rejected sentences as suggested in Sentence Collector Open Discussions - Input needed? How would you want to mark them as resolved, keeping the above points in mind too? There seems to be some overlap here which we can tackle together I think.
Add a user filter to the Review section
Originally reported here: https://github.com/Common-Voice/sentence-collector/issues/280
This issue suggests to add a “created by” user filter on the Review page, so that only sentences by specific users could be displayed and reviewed.
Would that help others too? What would we need to consider to make sure sentences are not rejected based on who added them?
Warning about possible errors
Originally reported at: https://github.com/Common-Voice/sentence-collector/issues/168
This issue includes quite a few different checks, please read the original issue. What would be the most helpful checks that should be added to the rules files? How could these be done in an efficient manner?
Import from RSS
Originally reported here: https://github.com/Common-Voice/sentence-collector/issues/138
This is an old issue suggesting to add the possibility to import from an RSS feed. This could for example be used to import all articles from a personal blog.
Should this be implemented in the Sentence Collector? Would that better fit into the Sentence Extractor approach using our Quality Assurance process we already have there? What do you think?
Originally reported here: https://github.com/Common-Voice/sentence-collector/issues/206
This issue is requesting email notifications when new sentences are added. Before going into the mechanism of how this could potentially work, I’d like to ask the following questions.
Would notifications help you in your workflow of reviewing new sentences? What kind of notifications would you like to have? What cadence should that be?
Reviewing by submission
Originally reported here: https://github.com/Common-Voice/sentence-collector/issues/155
Is there still a need to be able to review by a submission? How should that process look like? How could we make sure that submissions are not falsely identified as “generally bad” after reading one sentence of it?
Looking forward to your thoughts!