Content Review Process
Implement efficient and fair content review workflows that balance automation with human judgment. Create structured processes for handling flagged content, appeals, and community governance.Review Workflow Overview
Review Process Stages
Initial Triage
Initial Triage
Automated Classification
- AI-powered severity assessment
- Risk scoring based on content analysis
- Historical pattern recognition
- Community impact evaluation
- High priority: Immediate attention required
- Medium priority: Review within 2-4 hours
- Low priority: Review within 24 hours
- Bulk processing: Similar cases grouped together
Content Analysis
Content Analysis
Context Evaluation
- Review complete conversation thread
- Consider community-specific guidelines
- Assess user history and reputation
- Evaluate potential harm or impact
- Screenshots and content preservation
- Related content and patterns
- User reports and community feedback
- Expert opinions when needed
Decision Making
Decision Making
Moderation Actions
- No action: Content approved
- Edit/Redact: Remove specific portions
- Hide: Temporarily remove from public view
- Remove: Permanently delete content
- Escalate: Send to senior moderator
- Warning: Formal notice to user
- Temporary suspension: Time-limited account restriction
- Permanent ban: Complete account termination
- Content restrictions: Limit posting abilities
Resolution & Appeals
Resolution & Appeals
Case Resolution
- Document decision rationale
- Notify affected parties
- Update user records
- Archive case for future reference
- User appeal submission
- Independent review
- Decision communication
- Final resolution
Implementation Framework
Quality Assurance
Decision Consistency
Decision Consistency
- Review Guidelines: Clear, detailed guidelines for common scenarios
- Case Studies: Examples of similar cases and their resolutions
- Peer Review: Sample of decisions reviewed by other moderators
- Calibration Sessions: Regular training to maintain consistency
Performance Monitoring
Performance Monitoring
- Response Times: Track adherence to SLA requirements
- Decision Accuracy: Monitor appeal success rates and overturns
- Throughput: Balance speed with quality of reviews
- User Satisfaction: Feedback from users on moderation experiences
Continuous Improvement
Continuous Improvement
- Policy Updates: Regular review and updating of moderation policies
- Process Optimization: Streamline workflows based on performance data
- Training Programs: Ongoing education for moderation team
- Technology Enhancement: Improve tools and automation systems
Best Practices
Fair Process
Fair Process
- Due Process: Ensure fair treatment for all users
- Transparency: Clear communication about decisions and policies
- Proportionate Response: Match actions to severity of violations
- Appeal Rights: Provide meaningful appeal opportunities
Efficient Operations
Efficient Operations
- Batch Processing: Group similar cases for efficient handling
- Template Responses: Standardized communications for common scenarios
- Automation Balance: Use automation to enhance, not replace, human judgment
- Resource Planning: Adequate staffing for expected review volumes
Community Trust
Community Trust
- Consistent Application: Apply rules equally to all users
- Clear Communication: Explain decisions and reasoning clearly
- Responsive Support: Address user concerns promptly
- Community Involvement: Include community input in policy development
Related Documentation
- Content Flagging - How content enters the review process
- Moderation Overview - Complete moderation system architecture
- Community Moderation - Governance responsibilities and escalation
- User Relationships - User-level moderation actions