How To Help Users Get More Permissions lyrics

ScoutingScouting is not waiting for people to ask for a "mentor". Use the site naturally, and when you see someone who looks like they know what they are doing, perhaps they could benefit from having an expanded permission set.

You can also monitor places where people "request mentorship", but it will probably be easier for you to keep an eye on people who already cross paths with you organically, and it's much easier to assess their work when it is on artists you are familiar with.

For transcriber candidates:

• Check their recent scribes to make sure there aren't any glaring issues
• If you have access to it, check their activity log for LEPs. Do these suggest that they would be improving scribes if they were able to directly edit lyrics more expansively?

For editor candidates:

• Read their recent tates. Do they have a good sense of what's interesting to write about? Can they write decently?
• Read their comments and proposed edits (activity log). Do these suggest that they would be improving tates if they were able to directly edit them?

For mediator candidates:

• Are they mature? Good judgment and communication skills are especially important for mediator candidates, and these things often can't be taught.Background ChecksIt's not uncommon to find someone who looks like they know what they are doing but doesn't have more permissions for other reasons. Do a search on their username in the following places to see if they have any warnings or if there have been any concerns about them.

• Discord
• Forums
• Penalty Sheet

Past incidents usually do not disqualify people from gaining more permissions. Use judgment while considering the severity of infractions and how much time has passed since to decide if they are still a solid candidate.

Note: If you are not a moderator, consider asking a moderator what they think. Not only are mods generally experienced at assessing candidates, and ultimately a mod is going to have to click, but mods will have access to forums and Discord channels you don't, and mediators and moderators can also look up a user's history of usernames to potentially find older incidents that occurred under different names, and mediators and moderators can also access a spreadsheet of all logged penalties.
Also look at who follows them. Are they following anyone? Is their work frequently being accepted, upvoted, or marked by anyone?

Check if they are doing work in other languages. If that's the case and you don't speak those languages, you ask people who speak the languages to have a look at their work and check for issues.Pre-Click ContactIf after all of this someone still seems like a good candidate, you can reach out to them. Feel free to let them know how you noticed them. However, don't worry too much about instructing them. If you have to walk someone through a lot, it might be too much work to help them reach a level where they can be trusted with expanded permissions.

It can also be dangerous to immediately offer to "mentor" someone. Now they may think they are dependent on you to get more permissions, or they might turn out to be a bad candidate for a reason that wasn't apparent before and it will be awkward to "abandon" them.

Instead, a good approach at first would be to just send them the *good* guides and then wait and see how receptive they are to them.

Relevant guides for transcriber candidates:

• How To Add Songs
• Transcriber Guide
• Transcription Conduct
• Transcription Techniques
• How To Add Song Credits

Relevant guides for editor candidates:

• How To Annotate
• How To Edit
• How To Write Bios

It's also worth sending the Transcriber Guide to editor candidates just to make sure they don't abuse any of the new transcription-related permissions that come with the editor permission set.

If they rapidly improve with minimal prodding, then that's a good sign they won't be a hassle for you to help more actively. If they don't, then, welp, at least you never offered to be their "mentor" or to get them certain permissions.
Your other objective in the pre-click phase of things is to feel out if they are a decent communicator. Will they handle disagreements appropriately? Will they be able to act on feedback and correct mistakes they make after they gain more permissions?

If somebody is really proficient really early, it can be reasonable to ask them if they are an alt and if this isn't their first Genius account. People have confessed! This is often okay. If their new activity demonstrates growth, then people generally aren't going to be eager to enforce an old ban.

For all roles, no one will ever know everything. That's fine! Do they know what they don't know? Nobody has to use every permission associated with their role, and people are much less likely to cause problems if they don't try to do things they don't know how to do.

Do NOT remove existing tates or bios to make room for candidates to write stuff simply for that purpose. It is okay to reject a tate if it should actually be rejected on its own merits, but don't remove something decent just to try to "help" somebody. Have them propose an edit or leave a comment that can be integrated.

Do NOT encourage people to delete loads of their old tates in order to make their profile appear more impressive. Mods aren't going to withhold a click just because someone's 18th most recent tate doesn't reflect a deep understanding of every little guideline. Unspectacular tates are alright. In fact, having less spectacular older material can help mods see growth. It's better to improve old material rather than to outright remove it.Get A ClickIf you're not a mod, you can reach out to a mod to click, or you can pitch the candidate in one of the proposal channels in Discord if you would like. When assessing candidates in these channels, don't just look at showcased tates/scribes. Those are pretty much always going to be good, so if there are significant problems there, that's definitely a red flag, but to really assess a candidate, you should look deeper than that.

Also, if you're pitching someone, it doesn't really matter how long you've been working with them. It's much more compelling to demonstrate readiness for expanded permissions by showcasing strong work and assuring people that you know they understand the relevant guides.

Moderators should take responsibility for the people they click for. Don't blame people who previously helped someone if that person goes on to make a mistake. It's your stamp of approval that will be on their profile.Click And MonitorThey don't need to know everything (since that is impossible), and they should know that they don't know everything. They should never be afraid to ask questions or revisit relevant guides, and they should continue to focus on their own learning for a while before considering trying to help anyone else gain the same permissions.

Monitoring

Early on, people who have gained new permissions are usually expected to make more mistakes than people who have more experience. This is okay! Still, it's important that we address their mistakes with them and that they learn from them in order to avoid repeating them.

Skim their activity and look for common mistakes. Is their rejection judgment and reasoning sound? Are they marking pages properly? Etc.

Provide post-click feedback as necessary. There is no set time period for this. It's especially crucial early on, and you can ease up over time.