Closed OTA-Bot closed 3 days ago
Indeed, this page contains many different terms types. Only block 1 is “imprint”. Block 2 is “terms of service”, etc. I think it would have been better to withhold from merging in this case, as the type is indeed misleading. Thanks for pinging us! 😊
Hi @MattiSG
Thank you for providing some advice regarding this contribution. However given that I had already merged it, should I revert the changes of this pull request?
🔎 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
BoursoBank
matches what you see on the web page, and it complies with the guidelines.[x] The service ID
BoursoBank
(i.e. the name of the file) is derived from the service name according to the guidelines.[ ] The terms type
Imprint
is appropriate for this document: if you read out loud the terms type tryptich, you can say that “this document describes how thewriter
commits to handle theobject
for itsaudience
”.[x] Selectors are:
.tos-content
rather 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._