What is the total significance of the added features on the project as a whole?

I think that it would be good to make this as objective as possible. I favour the volume / value approach (which is not dissimilar to the current questionnaire).

One benefit of this approach: Looking ahead, to an era with a greater number of task requests, it would be great if users could know in advance the "volume" rating for the task that they are taking on.

So for development contributions based on task requests we could have:

• Volume: How many new features are to be added to complete the task. Are they small / medium / large new features. Combine number and magnitude to give an overall "volume" weighting. For task requests this weighting can be agreed in advance and specified in the task request.
• Value: Do the new features meet the desired requirements of the task request? (Thus adding the desired value to the project). Perhaps a bonus rating scale depending on how well they meet the requirements / going above and beyond etc.

For users working on their own projects I would suggest trying to align to the above approach:

• Volume: As above, number of new features and magnitude of those features, just not agreed in advance.
• Value: User to state in the contribution post what they were trying to achieve and why (thus why it adds value to their project) and illustrate the new features in the post. Moderator to agree whether the features add value (generally yes unless clearly not) and whether the features meet the stated aims. Again bonus scale for coolness.