Ok . . . Back in the office as promised. It is such a bummer when life interrupts my time in front of the computer.
I was at dinner and started to read the thread on my Android but my wife put and end to that very quickly :)
@Zuzu . . . I want to assure you that there was definitely no implication on my part regarding moderators automatically approving submissions or in anyway being unprofessional. As noted right up front, I am a noob at this job and I was thinking about my options based on my three hours of experience as a moderator and the first three submissions I encountered this morning.
You obviously have TONS more experience here as to how this all works and I definitely not looking for extra fields to be added to the database. Especially requiring the submitter to provide even more data for moderators to verify and correct.
But whether a webbot or a human submits a new addition, it would sure make life a lot easier if at that point, they not only told us the name, but where they found it (seems like the webbot could parse the URL of where they found it) or if it were an old family heirloom or something they bred and has no other source information, they could at least tell us that and like you said, we could treemail them.
When the first three submissions I received this morning turned out to be varieties that I have not yet run across, and they did not appear to be commercially available and I had to start digging to find out anything about them, I panicked at the thought of looking in the queue one day and seeing 50 or 100 submissions requiring researching.
I think that it is reasonable for the submitter to be responsible for justifying or qualifying their request and not the moderator.
I didn't mean that these need to be new fields in the database, but if Dave can set it up as he mentioned, that is, required informational fields that are visible to the moderator, but not cluttering up the database, I really think that it would save a lot of time and potential for error.
Does that make sense? I don't want to create extra work for anyone,
@Dave included. I was just hoping to make the approval process more streamlined and the results as accurate as possible.
Mike
