Practical guides

Organize website contributions and moderation

Comments, reviews, corrections and proposed records require organisation after submission. The visible form is only the first step in a workflow that should support understandable decisions.

Go to the method

Contributions need follow-up

Name the contributions you actually need

Explain what people may submit and why: correct a record, ask a question or supply an authorised testimonial. Omit fields no one can verify. Put understandable rules near the form, with examples instead of an abstract list.

Mozilla’s participation guidelines provide an example of an explicit behavioural framework, not a universal legal template. Adapt your rules to the audience and available moderators, and have service-specific obligations reviewed where needed.

Define a decision workflow

Choose useful states such as received, under review, published, refused or awaiting clarification. Define who decides and when a second reviewer is needed. Preapproval may suit some contributions, whereas immediate publication creates different monitoring needs.

Announce only response times the team can maintain. Receipt confirmation should not promise publication. For a directory, request a primary source and verify the proposed record before changing existing information.

Support proportionate reporting

Provide a way to report an error or problematic content from its context. Ask for the relevant address and explanation without requiring sensitive copies for a simple correction. Define a recipient and a process for time-sensitive reports.

Test a valid submission, incomplete request, repetition and lost notification. Check that refusals are understandable and one person’s contribution is not attributed to another. Keep acceptance examples synthetic rather than publishing simulated testimonials.

Retain a useful decision record

Record state, reason and owner while limiting stored information. Separate internal notes from material suitable for publication. Plan contribution correction or removal according to applicable rules and context.

Review difficult cases to identify missing information, unrealistic timelines and confusing steps. Deliver an owner-assigned receipt–decision–publication–reporting workflow with examples and stated limitations.

Primary documentation : Mozilla — Community Participation Guidelines.

Acceptance matrix to adapt to your project

These proposed checks use synthetic cases. Decide the required behaviour with the team, record the result and assign unresolved gaps before release.

Test cases, expected outcomes and useful evidence
CaseExpected outcomeEvidence to retain
Pending contributionIts status never presents it as approved public content.Contributor view and public view of the same synthetic proposal.
Disputed informationA designated reviewer can retrieve the source and decide on correction.Request, supporting explanation and recorded editorial decision with an owner.
Refused contentThe contributor understands the applicable rule and correction options.Explained message and consistency with the participation rules published by the site.
Withdrawn published contributionSite-controlled pages, links and caches follow the withdrawal decision.Checked locations and explicit limits concerning copies held by external services.

Frequently asked questions

Should all contributions appear immediately?

No. It depends on their nature, verification capacity and monitoring. Explain the workflow and confirm receipt without promising automatic publication.

How can directory corrections remain verifiable?

Request the record, field and primary source. Retain the verification result and date, distinguishing unknown values from confirmed information.