Could market boards add a consistent flood-risk filter?

C

CuriousSignal

First-time buyer
Flood exposure comes up repeatedly on the Jakarta board, but adding another compulsory entry could make mobile posting slower and leave moderators chasing incomplete information.

I wonder if a short optional marker would be enough, provided it distinguishes a poster’s direct knowledge from a broader neighbourhood concern. It could feed search results without blocking a new thread. Would that be useful, or would the labels still be too subjective to compare?
 
I’d use an optional field that feeds a search filter. Free-form tags will drift into variations that mean the same thing, while making the field mandatory could discourage quick posts. The filter could simply ignore threads where no flood-risk information was entered.
 
The difficult part is defining the choices. Is the poster reporting personal knowledge of past flooding, a broader neighbourhood issue, or some other assessment? Those are not interchangeable. Regional differences also make a single label harder to apply consistently. What values would the field actually offer?
 
Perhaps keep it deliberately basic: reported risk, no reported risk, and unknown, with a short note box for context. On mobile, those could be three buttons rather than another long form section.

I wouldn’t ask moderators to classify the whole archive. Older threads could remain unknown and be updated by members when they are revived.
 
I disagree that it should be optional. An optional filter looks useful but produces incomplete results, and users may mistake missing entries for low risk. Requiring a selection while allowing “unknown” preserves posting speed without implying certainty.

A Jakarta-only trial would expose whether the labels are understandable and whether moderation becomes burdensome. Start with new threads, leave old-thread migration aside, then adjust before considering other regional boards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top