I have seen many of quality images being voted for removal and removed by various users(especially new users). And no one looks into those removed images except for few experienced patrollers . Its really frustrating to see your uploaded images go down because of non experienced users who don’t read the article.(Warning: talking only about quality images) Solution: Just like we have a nfd voting policy, we can also implement something like that in quality guardian. The implant will be : whenever a user votes “No” for an image then they need to answer why? which will be available as bulletin options and the user needs to tick the appropriate reason. If the user fails to give a reason then the vote won’t be counted. Similarly for the “yes” option.The reason chosen by the previous user will be visible to the next user but it won’t show whether it was a yes or no! So that in case someone is putting wrong options then the user can inform an admin or notice the respective user for the mistake committed. And whenever an image is removed ,the uploader of that image should be notified with the comments left by the voters so that in case of discrepancy the image can be put back and if the image was okay to be removed then the image adder has learned about his mistake. Benefits: *Quality enhanced to greater means. *No race for ranks on the ranks table as now the user has to think before they vote. *Removal of quality images is reduced by an greater extent. *No need to put someone as incharge to see if people are commenting carefully or not because here by default the image uploader will be the incharge. *Acts as a feedback system for both image uploaders and removers forcing them to choose more carefully in case of a non matching image. *Also avoids calculation of votes which were given by mistake due to pressing of wrong button in the Quality Guardian while voting. Caution: Image shouldn’t be removed directly by a patroller even before it passes through Quality guardian. I have seen this a many times ,which somewhat questions the presence of quality guardian as there are no other votes except for one single “No” vote as the patroller themselves pass on the 1 to 1 judgement.
Yes, but I somehow don’t fully support this. Instead, we can implement something like NFD Guardian tool. An image will be removed only if there is a majority (as per the current working of the tool) and there is at least 1 vote of an admin or a NABer. This ensures that every image or video has been reviewed by an experienced and knowledgeable user. However, approval of videos/ images need not require admin/ NABer votes.
Well I though about it but most of the admins don’t use image picking and Quality Guardian and thus have no experience.So the best votes will be those who know about it and have experience. Coming to this there shouldn’t be any difference between an admin and an user as the three buttons don’t interfere with that of these platforms.
system
5
**This is beyond false. Judging images has nothing to do with who is/is not an administrator. Judging images is purely common sense. If images are being taken away wrongly, then the editor should inquiry to the person whom removed it for their opinion on why.
Who is to say whose opinion matters over someone else’s? “Best votes will be those who know about it and have experience”? This is barring people from doing different jobs on wikiHow and I completely disagree with the idea if this is the reason why.**
This is what I have written in my proposal.
You got it all wrong! My statement states all admins and users voting are served as equals when coming to these platforms.
I do agree with what Maluniu said about the Quality Guardian. You’re saying that Admins and NABs don’t use the Quality Guardian, I use it, and a lot of other Admins and NABs use it - Maybe not as much as you, but like she said, it takes common sense to know if an image is right for the article. I personally thing the QG is fine just the way it is, but that’s just MHO. June Days
Here the talk is not about you or me ! Its about quality guardian which is used by thousand other users.Don’t talk about admin thing anymore as these platforms work irrespective of an user’s status. If you are trying to tell that admins do all the work on wikiHow then we should probably stop using these platforms as users because admins can do everything! , that’s what is your point is! Right! The proposal was for general users irrespective of status , but if you can carry on everything on wikiHow without anyone’s help then we are happy to stop.
…Um, that was not my point at all actually.
Admins. NABs or regular users are all equal and I know a lot of the regular users to QG. Admins don’t do all of the work, you look at Lewis Collard or Mash317, they’re awesome users who aren’t Admins at all. I wasn’t asking for anyone to stop and I’m sincerely sorry if it came out that way; I was just giving an honest opinion.June Days
I’m always interested in ways we can improve our tools. @Genius_knight
and others, can you email me a bunch of URLs for the cases where good faith QG users are removing high quality, matching images? It will help me better understand where the current design of the tool is failing.
Are you kidding? I think the bigger problem is that intro images are being accepted even though they have little to do with the article’s content.
system
12
Seems a good point. I’ve had several images of mine yanked from articles I put in and I’ve seen a lot of non related images added in patrol. I always let it be as guardians can sometimes take things a little too seriously and an edit war is not anything I’m interested in. I’m watching the knowledge philanthropy article nervously which may reveal to you that its happened a lot
I like the add-a-reason or the NFD guardian voting idea. But seeing that when you add or remove an image it goes through patrol and a lot of them are reverted there. So, there would have to be a way to ensure consistency across tools that a good image is added and a good image isn’t removed (and vice versa that poor images don’t make it and poor images get removed). I myself tend to skip ambiguous photos and videos while on patrol, because its too subjective - although I do check them on the “patrol a patrol” side. The solution may be that its added by a voting system in the guardian and there is a way to show in patrol that it is a community approved image - a little tag or icon that can show up when its in and when its removed by guardian. When a writer removes an image they installed, perhaps a simple reason tag from a drop down box is all they need and not a voting tool. I don’t know if any others have experienced this but when I write / edit an article and add an image, it might say several hundred odd choices, but it only shows a fraction of them. So, a lot of images get overused or stuck in when they are “close enough”. I know its not limiting me to only previously uploaded images, as I can still upload them, but the choice does not reflect the range. Can this be fixed? It might help both writers and image guardian people to have a better range for a better choice. I don’t want to open a can of worms but there may be benefit in a voting system for the video tool as well. My 2 cents!
