2023 02 08 Working Session Notes

Attendance

Jodi Nemser-Abrahams, Shira Rascoe, Tania Ortiz-Ashby, Cheri Lovell, Shari Carlson, Jana Walker, Chris Chen, John Kin, Deb Derringer, Raksha Sanganee

Overview

During the working session, we broke into groups to curate resources. Each group took notes on the process and then we had a discussion about the process. A lot of questions and areas for enhancements were identified.

Curation Process Notes

Issues:

• Link in approval email directs to login page (maybe only if resource is denied?)
• Look into whether or not the review note overwrites or appends
• Add Certification to “additional content areas”

Future Improvements:

• Email if denied
• Process for dealing with duplicates
• Finishing a submission brings you back to the list view page or a splash page
• Ability to give feedback on a resource
• Way to assign a resource as being “in progress” of being curated so that groups can work concurrently. Like claiming a resource.
• Make it easier to find dupes and harder for curators to miss this step
• Add line in approval email saying that submissions may be modified for searchability and/or clarity
• Categorize why something needs review (drop down with common reasons for needing review) to make it easier to follow up and for people with skills
• Change “integrations” to “apps and integrations”? (Ex resource on Form Assembly)
• Add additional guidance for description on submission form of what to include (including why useful or how you used it, spell out acronyms/include common acronyms/avoiding industry jargon)
• Include who submitted resource as public field on resources

Process Steps/Ideas:

• Check to see if it’s a duplicate by searching for the link - if is a dupe mark as Needs Review - It’s easy to forget to do it
• If easy to fix/find a link, fix it.
• Check for typos/grammar issues in resource title?
• Save progress when you’re reviewing a resource (ie, started writing in “needs discussion” but then remembered need to look for duplicates)
• How to search for duplicates. Searching by URL was not yielding a result when we knew there was a record
• How much should curators review the resource itself? This adds time but also ensures higher quality. Do certain types of resources need more exhaustive review (like blogs, TBC, articles, etc)?
• Curating cadence:
• Have sign up for certain times and need at least 2 people to do it?
• Have two step process where first pass is to revie what needs updating/modification and second group does updates?

Questions

• Should we be sending notifications today, or turn off when approving?
• If is a TBC post link, should the title be the same as the question/post title or a more descriptive title?
• Character limit on description?
• How much are people reviewing the actual resource to make sure it is (useful, accurate, up-to-date/relevant)
• Should submitter be made aware if resource details were updated/edited in curation process? Maybe just add that to the home page (or submission page)
• Do we have any concerns about links to resources that are for commercial products?
• For curation, how do we balance quality of curation and speed of approving resources? Should they be done in groups or solo (conversation for future!)
• How to manage resources that are about time-sensitive/timley things like conferences (might be outdated quickly)?
• Thinking about categories
• Do we want to have a protocol around punctuation in titles? / or : or - etc.

Reflections

• How long does it take? 1 min or 10 min! Was different for different groups. John/Tania’s group was 1 min. Cheri/Deb’s group was 2 that didn’t get finished in 20 min.

Curation Steps:

• Open link to make sure it works
• Check for dupes
• Review description