Bots should take care of checking the formatting and the validity of the declaration. As a human reviewer, you should check:
[x] The suggested document matches the scope of this instance: it targets a service in the language, jurisdiction, and industry that are part of those described for this instance.
[x] The service name Grok matches what you see on the web page, and it complies with the guidelines.
[x] The service ID Grok (i.e. the name of the file) is derived from the service name according to the guidelines.
[x] The terms type Terms of Service is appropriate for this document: if you read out loud the terms type tryptich, you can say that “this document describes how the writer commits to handle the object for its audience”.
[x] Selectors are:
stable: as much as possible, the CSS selectors are meaningful and specific (e.g. .tos-content rather than .ab23 .cK_drop > div).
simple: the CSS selectors do not have unnecessary specificity (e.g. if there is an ID, do not add a class or a tag).
[x] Generated version is:
relevant: it is not just a series of links, for example.
readable: it is complete and not mangled.
clean: it does not contain navigation links, unnecessary images, or extra content.
-
If no document type seems appropriate for this document yet it is relevant to track in this instance, please check if there is already an open discussion about such a type and reference your case there, or open a new discussion if not.
Thanks to your work and attention, Open Terms Archive will ensure that high quality data is available for all reusers, enabling them to do their part in shifting the balance of power towards end users and regulators instead of spending time collecting and cleaning documents 💪
This suggestion has been created through the Contribution Tool, which enables graphical declaration of documents. You can load it on your local instance if you have one set up.
🔎 Inspect this declaration suggestion
Bots should take care of checking the formatting and the validity of the declaration. As a human reviewer, you should check:
[x] The suggested document matches the scope of this instance: it targets a service in the language, jurisdiction, and industry that are part of those described for this instance.
[x] The service name
Grokmatches what you see on the web page, and it complies with the guidelines.[x] The service ID
Grok(i.e. the name of the file) is derived from the service name according to the guidelines.[x] The terms type
Terms of Serviceis appropriate for this document: if you read out loud the terms type tryptich, you can say that “this document describes how thewritercommits to handle theobjectfor itsaudience”.[x] Selectors are:
.tos-contentrather than.ab23 .cK_drop > div).[x] Generated version is:
If no document type seems appropriate for this document yet it is relevant to track in this instance, please check if there is already an open discussion about such a type and reference your case there, or open a new discussion if not.
Thanks to your work and attention, Open Terms Archive will ensure that high quality data is available for all reusers, enabling them to do their part in shifting the balance of power towards end users and regulators instead of spending time collecting and cleaning documents 💪
This suggestion has been created through the Contribution Tool, which enables graphical declaration of documents. You can load it on your local instance if you have one set up.