01-25-2026, 10:09 AM
Currently, reviews on the mainsite follow the same approval process as other submissions. They require two "yes" votes from mainsite QC staff to get accepted, or two "no" votes to get rejected. When a review submission is rejected, the content is deleted, and no one (whether the submitter or the site staff) can see it again unless someone made a manual backup of the text.
It might be OK to reject obvious troll reviews and immediately purge them. However, there are some situations where a review has significant but fixable issues - for example, an incomplete section or significant spelling/grammar issues that impede comprehension. In that case, staff could decline the review, but it would return to a "draft" status. Draft reviews could be modified by the submitter and re-submitted after the issues are corrected.
A related suggestion (one that would use this same draft-saving system) would be to allow review authors to save an incomplete review they're writing so they can finish it at a later time. This could make writing more convenient when you're writing longer, more complex reviews.
It might be OK to reject obvious troll reviews and immediately purge them. However, there are some situations where a review has significant but fixable issues - for example, an incomplete section or significant spelling/grammar issues that impede comprehension. In that case, staff could decline the review, but it would return to a "draft" status. Draft reviews could be modified by the submitter and re-submitted after the issues are corrected.
A related suggestion (one that would use this same draft-saving system) would be to allow review authors to save an incomplete review they're writing so they can finish it at a later time. This could make writing more convenient when you're writing longer, more complex reviews.