I have a question about how tool suggestions are evaluated form start to final decision.
Is there minimum number of votes or minimum discussion period required before a tool can be accepted/rejected? Who makes a final decision, users voting for a tool or Mods? Can Mods not accept a tool even if it fully qualifies under the category requirements?
I am asking all this because of the app that I use and like, which was first suggested in 2023. After a few months of discussion it was rejected by Mods due to a specific missing feature. Recently a company has implemented that exact functionality, which means the original reason for tool rejections is no longer applicable.
I noticed that another PG user mentioned this update in the original thread but nothing followed. So I decided to also join the discussion. I thought Mods didn’t see that user’s response since the topic was already marked as “rejected”, so I made a new tool suggestion post and listed the same app there with highlighted update.
My post was up for a short time until Mods merged it into original discussion, which is perfectly fine since it was the same tool suggestion. But the original thread remained marked as “rejected” which I don’t quite understand why. A few days later I replied to Mod’s comment in that original thread asking whether they had seen the recent update. I didn’t receive any response. After about a week I followed up by tagging the Mods but still nothing.
So I’m trying to better understand how the process works in cases like this one. I saw that with other tools Mods sometimes give waiting flare if a tool is not quite mature or doesn’t have a certain functionality rather than rejecting. But with a tool I am talking about this missing functionality has been already implemented, that’s why it is strange to me it is still marked as “rejected” under this reason. Shouldn’t this topic be at least open again?
Just for more context: the tool I’m talking about is very mature, like a decade or so and it’s a tool from a well known company. It also now hits all category requirements and provides additional options that current recommendations don’t have, so PG community would actually benefit from having more tools to pick from.
No. Votes are just used as a barometer to gauge community interest in the tool.
My understanding is that the entire staff is involved in making the final decision. I am not sure if that includes moderators or just the paid staff.
There is no guarantee that a suggestion, even if it meets all the requirements will be added as a recommendation. There is a human factor to this, its not just a set of check boxes to mark off.
The status of a suggestion can change. Typically you should not make new posts for the same tool. That is most likely why it was merged. If you have some reason for why a tool should be reconsidered just comment on the original thread.
I can see this tool got many votes in this short period of time when voting was open, so I wonder if “human factor” you are talking about relates more to Mods preferences, if they like certain tool or not. If that’s the case, could it mean that the PG website’s list of recommendations is somewhat subjective?
I agree, I saw someone commenting about the update in original thread but Mods didn’t react, that’s why I decided to create a new post. I just thought Mods probably don’t pay attention to new comments if a topic is marked as “rejected”.
I’d love to hear some clarification from the Mods about the process, weather they might not accept a tool even if it fully qualifies and PG community wants this tool to be added.
Just because you have a comment on a tool suggestion, regardless of status, doesn’t mean the moderators or staff will comment on it. Go through the tool suggestion part of the forum. There is no ETA on when or if a tool will be approved. Do not expect an answer in a short period of time.
I mean, I don’t expect something to be approved overnight, but at least I would expect to change invalid status. It’s marked as “rejected” for a reason that is no longer applicable.
Also it’s ongoing discussion from 2023 so definitely it’s not short period of time.
I don’t expect Mods to answer under every new comment but if you reply to their direct comments and tag them, and you see Mods were active in the discussion before, then it is a little strange to me, especially when discusion is about very important update.
Yeah, long standing PG members here know that PG team is infamous for their inaction of things at times, albeit, more so lately. The entire process itself is still not properly established with themselves as I understand having read some other threads that speak on this.
So, many things take time or don’t end up happening. It’s not a structured in any way for sure though. So, it’s not like the community can make their case and lobby for one even when a certain product meets all their criteria. I think waiting years for a product/service to exist while meeting their criteria is likely why they don’t “rush” into recommending something officially. But even then, that in and of itself doesn’t make it certain that a product won’t worsen in the future. So, if this is the real rationale, I no longer buy it.
In my view, they should be more active on this, audit all official recommendations and the criteria they have annually and be more fluid with it all. This way, if something changes with the product (and falls out of criteria or we see a big red flag), PG recommendations can always reflect that right away.
There are definitely other factors at play here, but I do think this incident could provide some insight into the current hesitance of Privacy Guides staff to approve recommendations in a speedy pace.
The “slowness” from PG’s end to those who don’t know the inner workings only reads like a non profit run with bureaucracy.
Yes, avoid the next Skiff by de-listing things when a product goes bad. Like I said, I no longer buy the argument that a product needs to be a veteran for years on end meeting PG criteria while not being listed when its objectively a great tool, before even being considered to be listed as an official recommendation. Things always and do change. We need to roll with them. It’s all technology afterall.
They should at-least have another list of sorts where they name the tools under active consideration so folks reading and learning about all things privacy can learn about them too. And sometimes, those tools may fit better in the threat models of those reading. Not everyone wants the best of the best with privacy products all time - many are okay with great. Mind you, these great ones are still almost fully if not fully meeting PG criteria.
In fact, many will likely not like the best of the best because it’s just not what they’d want to use (Ex: Tuta. Great product for what it is and supposed to be. Terrible UI/UX still to a point where not using it and using Proton instead is better. And for those with the highest of threat models, this isn’t even a consideration because they’d use it anyway as their life probably depends on it).
I don’t know.. they should do something. Stop taking too long. Their focus now is on improving their videos and other content. Website appears to have taken a back seat. You have to do it all at the same time.
I’d expect the Mods to at least jump into this tool suggestion thread and comment something like “thanks, we’ve seen the update and will take a look into it”, so users know what’s going on. I tagged them and still nothing even though they’re active in other discussions. I might keep tagging until someone responds.
I would be cautious about repeatedly tagging the mods in such a case, as this may incur a forum account suspension if the mods determine that such behavior is “disruptive”.
I hope the Mods won’t think that way. Users just want some more clarity and I believe we are allowed to tag them if we need their response on important topics.
