ERPGenie
commented
4 years ago Maybe the “reviewer in the loop” could be a community-elected Reviewer consortium? Potential reviewers would volunteer their services, potentially for a reward or donation, and the community would cast votes for them. The top “10” then get awarded the task for a year and then the process repeats itself...
What is the problem you are seeing? Please describe.
High ranking apps don't represent the Can't Be Evil ethos or the Spirit of app mining. As a consequence, many leading apps are an embarrassment to the community, and would be undesirable as "breakout apps" with massive reach.
How is this problem misaligned with goals of app mining?
The wrong apps get incentivized and funded, encouraging more of the same. Apps in app mining should be held to a higher standard, as argued by #218.
What is the explicit recommendation you’re looking to propose?
Add a qualitative human-in-the-loop reviewer that scores based on how well an app adheres to the Can't Be Evil ethos and the Spirit of app mining.
The reviews could be organized by digital rights related non-profits such as the EFF, Mozilla Foundation, and the Internet Archive.
Members of such organizations could volunteer for the task, with a donation in their name given to the non-profit for each app they review.
Describe your long term considerations in proposing this change. Please include the ways you can predict this recommendation could go wrong and possible ways mitigate.
Adhering to the Can't Be Evil ethos and the Spirit of app mining should be required to get a high rank on app mining. The score should thus be a multiplier like proposed by #217 for NIL.
There are likely scaling challenges as the number of periodic reviews grows linearly O(n) with the number of apps. This can be mitigated at scale by only reviewing the top apps, or primarily review debuting apps and only perform subsequent reviews after relevant changes.
Additional context
219
225
226