Post #1655931
2026-04-20 19:35 UTC
@tomstafford One way I could see that might actually be a positive move: acknowledge that quality signals in text were always fuzzy at best, and are now degraded to the point that a detailed sorting by quality (whatever that means) is not possible anymore. As a consequence, stop trying to throw a limited resource (reviewer time) after a newly limitless one (submission texts) to try discerning ever more fine-grained gradations of excellence. (1/2)
Replies (1)
-
@moritz_negwer@mstdn.science 2026-04-20 19:42
@tomstafford (2/2) Instead, radically shorten the proposal length, and spend the reviewer time for a basic quality grading: e.g. pointless / ok idea / great idea / excellent idea. If there is reviewer time to spare, use it for detailed suggestions *for the submitters* how to improve their proposal for the next round. Discard the "pointless" bucket, and put the rest into a weighted lottery. Tolerate the higher noise and embrace the larger diversity of projects it brings.