Category talk:New report

Perhaps we should have a bot that removes the "New Report" tag from reports that are no longer new. - Robyn

I've always thought "new" applied until someone who knows how things works goes through and validates the result codes on the report. If I work on a report and I'm sure I've got the codes right, I just remove it. If I hope someone else will have insight, I'll leave it on for a few days. (And then forget to go back!) Jiml 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed any discussion when this was introduced, but it makes sense: anyone adding proper categories should remove the "new report" category - it's there to indicate reports that haven't yet been properly classified. If there are expeditions that have both "new report" and real categories, we might need to reword the default template. --davidc 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Experienced users using the expedition template don't read through all the parts, just edit the bits they want, and the New Report category ends up on a lot of otherwise properly documented expeditions. It happened to me, and I thought it was a bot thing. I think there are a lot more falsely flagged new reports now than there ever were completely uncategorized reports before. I still think the new Expedition template is great.-Robyn 01:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up the backlog. I'd love to have help from others - it's pretty quick work.... Jiml 00:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I try to clean up a few reports from the backlog every day. With luck I'll have cleaned out everything more than a year old soon. --Eldin (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm working on this cleanup as well. And grant some achievements along the way. Palmpje (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

---

Have done a bunch of them now. I'm looking on opinions / "rules" for the following:

• Empty expidition page with no links to them except the autogenerated lists
  • Mark for deletion with the tag
• Expedition pages with just a remark such as: "someone should go there", "I may get someone to go" .... and that's it.
  • I'd prefer to delete as nothing really happened
• Expedition pages with New Report only and a well documented story
  • Fix the codes and maybe grant a ribbon now and then
• Expedition pages with New Report and also good results codes
  • Delete the New Report tag

--Palmpje (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Responding point-by-point, your suggestion for 1 seems reasonable, and is what I've done on some occasions. Your suggestion for 2 seems reasonable, as long as a distinction is made between pages with things like 'someone should go' or 'I wish I could go', and pages indicating that the person who posted it actually planned or intended to go. The later shouldn't be deleted, in my opinion, and I sometimes try to solicit confirmation from the original poster as to whether an attempt was made or not. Your suggestions for 3 and 4 seem reasonable. In either of those scenarios, what I generally do is to remove the New Report tag, check that all appropriate categories are assigned and that all assigned categories are appropriate, adding or removing categories as necessary. I also sometimes add ribbons if appropriate, and I try to remember to check that the report is linked from the graticule's page and add it if it isn't. --Eldin (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I also agree, this seem like good guidelines to follow so that new expeditions don't get lost. I would suggest one change to #4, before I move the list to the main page: if a page is tagged as "Expedition planning" as well as "New report", just remove "New report". I see interesting locations that I promote for expeditions on Twitter (@geohashing), and making a page by posting a message from Geohash Droid is a really convenient way for me to do that. -- Jevanyn (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2013 (EST)