Originally Posted by DrewBledsoe
After much consideration, we have concluded that this is a fair point. As such, we will attempt to provide some top level insight into the work that is being done. Discussing this matter has been avoided because we know that it will create more questions than answers and it will fuel speculation, which due to some of the unfortunate history that the community has been through, that may unnecessarily lean toward a semi-negative/cautionary interpretation of things.
For submission and adjudication, we are building an INTEGRATED system that is designed to address these items:
1.) Qualified community/peer review of submissions.
2.) A documented adjudication process per submission that is publicly accessible to all and permanently attached to the score/submission.
3.) The ability and process for the community to question and examine historical scores and permanently ratify, asterix, or expunge from the database.
4.) Adhere to Guinness-specific submission standards and adjudication criteria.
5.) A viewable historical public record of actions/successful adjudications for each participating community member which is used to calculate an overall "adjudication credibility" rating for the member. This rating will then factor into an "authoritative weighting system" that comes into play when voting on a submission.
As mentioned previously, this is an INTEGRATED system, which means that each part described above is tied to/and affects each other part in some way. A total effect is achieved and intended.
Below is all the detail we can provide at this time. Again, this posting is not attempting to answer all questions, and may in fact just create more questions than it solves, but our time is currently limited and we feel it is better spent actually doing the work required, rather than talking about it.