Phoenix Wiki Moderation
The Basics
An improved flow for moderators to process new entries and proposed changes for the wiki platform used by Comic Vine and Giant Bomb
Examples
Context
Giant Bomb and Comic Vine, both running on the Phoenix platform, had wiki platforms for games and comics respectively.
Wiki Entry Improvements
The wiki platform was updated to considerably improve the flow for users to add and edit existing entries – originally, wiki entries were all large, singular blobs in the database tables that made it nearly impossible to load or edit in some cases. The platform was updated and modernized to allow for wiki entries to be a collection of smaller portions which could be individually created or edited.
Opportunities for Better Moderation
While the user-facing side of the wiki was improved, the moderation queue and processing entires still were not updated to mirror these changes. User submissions were still displayed monolithically, approvals/denials/edits were still framed around the entire submission rather than the granular portions within the submission. Points awarded were only displayed for the whole submission, so if a moderator needed to adjust them for any reason they would have to manually change this themselves which often led to subjective adjustments.
Working with the Moderators
We had the opportunity to work directly with moderators for both Giant Bomb and Comic Vine to get a better understanding of how to change their workflows for the better. We had multiple user interviews with them and had each individual moderator walk through how they used the tools that existed and identified pain points along the way. Throughout the process the moderators were sent versions of wireframes and mockups of proposed changes to gain feedback.
Outcomes
Increased Efficiency
Moderators reported a significant decrease in time spent moderating individual user submissions for both Comic Vine and Giant Bomb. Moderators also expressed that information displayed was clearer and that they felt more confident in assessing each section of an overall user entry. Other features like the inclusion of counters for remaining unmoderated entries also proved to be helpful.
Better Submission UX
Moderators were provided an experience that better reflected the UX of the user-facing wiki features – potential points awarded per portion in a submission were displayed along with approval/denial/edit features for each section as well. Moderators could also approve or deny an entire user submission as well. Counters for the number of approvals, denials, and remaining items to be moderated were clearly displayed in a bar adhered to the bottom of the viewport.
Features Audit
Features in the moderation UI were carefully pruned where necessary while ensuring useful features were not discarded thoughtlessly. Moderators across both sites expressed that star ratings were unnecessary and only added to the processing time for submissions with no true value. Live data and proposed updates where still displayed side by side so that moderators could keep the context needed to better understand the changes users wanted to make. While points were awarded per-section after the update, the total was still displayed in the bottom toolbar with the option for moderators to edit the total if they feel the user deserved more or fewer points for their contributions.
Moderation Queue
The moderation queue themselves were updated to be more streamlined, allowing moderators to expand or collapse the UI and filter given helpful parameters at the top of the interface. Batch actions remained available for moderators to take in the queue as well.