Suggestions for Score Details section.
The Score Details section is a bit jarring to read because positive statements of fact are immediately followed by a list of why those statements are not true. Changing to a neutral description of what the section is about would help. (A minor issue is that use of capitalization and periods should be consistent.)
Also, the phrasing used when there are no issues identified is the same for all categories and doesn't always make sense in the context. It should be modified to fit the category.
Current:
Person data is complete.
- Full marks! No consistency issues have been identified
Person Data has Tagged Sources
- Full marks! No consistency issues have been identified
Person Data is Consistent with Tagged Sources
- Full marks! No consistency issues have been identified
Person Data Is Conflict Free
- Full marks! No consistency issues have been identified
Possible Alternate Phrasing:
Person Data Completeness
- Person data is complete.
Person Data Tagging
- All person data has tagged sources.
Person Data vs. Tagged Sources Consistency
- No consistency issues have been identified.
Person Data Conflicts
- No data conflicts have been identified.
Comments
-
I would agree with this, the titles of the sections are confusing because they state a positive, but are followed by negatives. It is disconcerting.
1 -
Also, This may have been brought up elsewhere, but I haven't found it...
"No issues have been identified."
But then a whole string of issues...
Could the initial statement refer to the scoring? "There are no issues with the data used to calculate this score, however, the following are issues which do not currently affect the score."
0 -
Thank you for the feedback and suggestions. Several updates have cleared up, and improved the management of these issues.
0
