Transparent Quality Level


This practice is useful for ensuring quality in any Collaborative translation initiative, but it is particularly relevant where you are tapping into a large crowd of unknown contributors using a Publish then Revise approach.

Problem description

Publish then Revise is a very powerful way of getting contributions to the public rapidly, and to keep contributors motivated. However, it does present the risk that poor quality content might temporarily be visible to the public, while awaiting revision.


Therefore, explicitly expose the status of a particular contribution to the reader.

For example, if you are using In-House Revision and a particular contribution made by a member of the crowd has yet to be vetted by your in-house team, then prominently display a warning to that effect.

Similarly, if you are a translation was produced by Machine Translation, and has not yet been post-edited by a human from the crowd, then make that explicit to the reader.

If only parts of a translation are awaiting vetting, then mark those parts, for example, by highlighting them in a different colour.

Exposing the quality level of a translation can act as an invitation for readers to revise or improve it, providing them with a way to move from Lurker to Contributor.

Links to related patterns

Real-life examples

  • N/A