This week I started working on an extension for reviewers in the Utopian.io community on Steem. It aims to make reviews more flexible, slowly add features also for community members and contributors, and see if the community would like to see an alternative to what the official Utopian tools offer.
I don't present a huge update. It is still not possible to download the extension from the store. I am not sure when I will look into that part. Anyway, let's see what this update of UTmod brings.
List of updates:
- added max score to the nav bar
- styled range sliders
- added advanced options for a reviewer to change the default values and write an additional comment
- included the review results into the review comment
- score adjustments
I made a few changes in the layout style. Most of them are insignificant, and one can't see them. On the other hand, there are some apparent changes. The first change is that the maximum score has been added to the navigation bar. Although there may be nobody questioning what the score range is, I believe that having a clear range will make the interface more user-friendly.
The other change is about the slider and a new "advanced" section at each question. You will see better with the images what the changes look like.
You can now copy the score by clicking on the number in the navigation bar.
Advanced options at each question
A reviewer can change the default weight value (impact the score) with a slider. It is hidden in the advanced section, which will show if you check the option. In case you decide to change the values, you have to provide additional comment to explain your decision. You will not be able to get the review results otherwise.
The comment must be longer than 20 characters. In other words, you should write at least one sentence. In case that you change your mind and don't want to adjust the value, you can uncheck the option, and the value will update to the default one.
Score adjustments and full review results
The scoring is experimental, and as such, it is not perfect. I found out that some of the answers across categories had insufficient score weights assigned. Therefore I made some minor changes in that regard as well. I repeat that the scoring system is different from the official one. Some categories have unreasonably high points at some quite funny questions, which disallows to evaluate a submission better.
More importantly, I was thinking about a way to make the review results somewhat persistent. I wanted the extension to be quite simple, which means that I did not intend to run a server and I'd like to avoid posting on behalf of users as long as possible.
For those reasons, I thought about bringing the results into the comment body. There has not been any consensus whether it should be a part of the comment or not. The review itself may not enhance the review comment. On the other hand, I saw a few times that people tried to get the results of old submissions but failed because the results did not persist.
The review body also includes the score and how the score was calculated — all for better transparency of the review process. I suppose an example will be better to understand.
Let's say someone reviewed this post, which was submitted into the development category.
Here goes the usual review comment summarising the whole contribution. ***Results of the questionnaire used to evaluate this contribution are included below.*** Q1: How would you describe the formatting, language and overall presentation of the post? - Answer: The post is of decent quality. - Factor: 0.98 Q2: How would you rate the impact and significance of the contribution to the project and/or open source ecosystem in terms of uniqueness, usefulness and potential future applications? - Answer: This contribution adds some value to the project and/or open source ecosystem. - Factor: 0.707 (orig. 0.85) - Additional comment: There are some great updates, but I believe that you could have covered more updates in the submission. Q3: How would you rate the total volume of work invested into this contribution? - Answer: This contribution appears to have required an average volume of work. - Factor: 0.95 Q4: How would you rate the quality of the code submitted? - Answer: High - it follows all best practices. - Factor: 1 Q5: How would you rate the proficiency and expertise necessary to fix the bug / implement the added feature(s)? - Answer: Average - some research and proficiency were required. - Factor: 0.98 Q6: How would you rate the accuracy and readability of the commit messages? - Answer: High - they are concise, descriptive and consistent. - Factor: 1 Q7: How do you rate the quality of the comments in the code? - Answer: High - everything is well-commented and adds to the readability of the code. - Factor: 1 **Final score: 65/100** Score calculation: 100 * 0.98 * 0.707 * 0.95 * 1 * 0.98 * 1 * 1 ≈ 65 --- Need help? Chat with us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/uTyJkNm). [[utopian-moderator]](https://join.utopian.io/)
The extensity of such comment may not be wanted. Let me know what you think about this approach.
There should be no issue with the functionality. Though, I could notice that some of the transitions are not as smooth as they could be and one can see box shapes changes.
I received some feedback at the first post. I am yet to focus on refactoring the popup.js file to split it. Also since the extension may be installed only locally, I have not addressed the restrictions in the manifest.js file.