Company generator: mandatory copy of identity document

[WebworkrNet]

The case of having to present a copy of an identity document to the provider is relatively frequent. It would therefore be an advantage if "needs-id-document" could be set to "true" directly in the form. I am always undecided how I should accommodate this directly in the form. An implementation would certainly reduce the need for subsequent editing.

[moriarty-jim]

You are probably referring to the "Suggest an edit to our company database" page?

I agree that this field should be added. needs-id-document is pretty self-explanatory. The same probably applies for nsfw. The quality field might need a little more attention or could be represented for example as Tested? Yes/No in the frontend (I don't think imported and scraped are useful options for the average user here). One could even only allow/show needs-id-document and required-elements if tested is true.

By the way: The JSON-generator already has all those features. You could use that in the meantime if you didn't already knew about that.

I would suggest we merge this issue with #808 as a generic "company editor improvement".

[baltpeter]

Hiding this field (among others) was a deliberate decision:

https://github.com/datenanfragen/website/blob/da3de0306abbbea967b522546ae96e49cbffbee6/src/suggest-edit.js#L61-L74

The suggest page is meant for people who only want to submit a new company or a correction every once in a while. And we usually (you're an exception to that, @WebworkrNet :D) have no way of contacting them afterwards.

When we had this field enabled, we'd get a lot of suggestions where the value that was set didn't really make sense to us. But as we had no way of verifying this or contacting the person who submitted the suggestion to confirm whether they had understood the field correctly, we ended up distrusting all the needs-id-document suggestions we got, even the ones that did make sense on first glance, and just pretty much always removing that value from the suggestion.

[moriarty-jim]

This makes sense, I haven't thought of that aspect.

However, I would argue that nsfw could still be added as the verification is not any different from other company details. (If we want to discuss this further, we should open a separate issue.)

[moriarty-jim]

When we had this field enabled, we'd get a lot of suggestions where the value that was set didn't really make sense to us. But as we had no way of verifying this or contacting the person who submitted the suggestion to confirm whether they had understood the field correctly, we ended up distrusting all the needs-id-document suggestions we got, even the ones that did make sense on first glance, and just pretty much always removing that value from the suggestion.

Another idea that comes to mind would be to "upgrade" the comment feature to allow for specific/structured feedback from people that have sent a request. (I could imagine a few, short, interactive questions regarding success, required data/documents, maybe even response time.) In addition to displaying the feedback as a comment, it could then also be (semi-)automatically incorporated into the mentioned fields. However, this is more of a vague vision for sometime in the future than solution for now 😉

[baltpeter]

However, I would argue that nsfw could still be added as the verification is not any different from other company details. (If we want to discuss this further, we should open a separate issue.)

Yeah, that's true. But that field only applies to a tiny fractions of the companies in the database. And we're also hiding the PGP fields for example, to make the form less intimidating for users.

Another idea that comes to mind would be to "upgrade" the comment feature to allow for specific/structured feedback from people that have sent a request. (I could imagine a few, short, interactive questions regarding success, required data/documents, maybe even response time.) In addition to displaying the feedback as a comment, it could then also be (semi-)automatically incorporated into the mentioned fields. However, this is more of a vague vision for sometime in the future than solution for now wink

Great minds think alike: #321 :)

The main thing blocking the actual implementation of that right now is that we've haven't put any thought into which questions to ask. So, any ideas in that issue are definitely appreciated.

[moriarty-jim]

Great minds think alike: #321 :)

The main thing blocking the actual implementation of that right now is that we've haven't put any thought into which questions to ask. So, any ideas in that issue are definitely appreciated.

👍 Haven’t seen that before, pretty much exactly what I imagined as well.

Maybe I‘ll find some time to think about it in more detail. Definitely a very interesting feature that I - as an end user - would appreciate and use frequently.

Another aspect is data storage, especially regarding possible aggregation of metrics like success rate or response time. This probably needs quite some work on the backend side too, as it’s a bit more complex than the current comment storage.