Objective
An open submission platform creates the risk of incomplete, duplicated, inappropriate or unintentionally revealing content appearing publicly. The goal of the validation system was therefore to check the required story information, preserve contributor consent and allow each entry to be reviewed before publication.
Process Breakdown
Validating the Submission
Before a story can be submitted, the website checks that required fields have been completed. It also confirms that the contributor has followed category limits, such as selecting at least one narrative focus and only one overall emotional tone.
Using a Pending Status
Once the entry passes the initial checks, it is saved in the database as pending. It is not immediately returned through the gallery or postcard-matching interaction.
Building the Review Panel
I created a private review interface where the complete story can be read alongside its categories, language, prompt and current publication status. This makes it easier to understand the intended context of the contribution before deciding what should happen to it.
Editing and Correcting Entries
The review panel allows obvious formatting issues or incorrect categories to be corrected. I can also control whether the connected prompt is displayed publicly, since contributors may be comfortable sharing the story but not necessarily the original question that produced it.
Approving or Rejecting Stories
Each contribution can be marked as pending, approved or rejected. Only approved stories appear in the public archive. Rejected entries remain stored but are not shown to visitors.
Considering Curatorial Responsibility
Moderation also creates a power imbalance, since the archive curator decides which stories become visible. I therefore see the process as a safety and consent check rather than a way to remove stories simply because they are uncomfortable, critical or different from the expected tone.
Key Takeaways
- Story validation is not only a technical requirement but also an ethical part of managing a participatory family archive.
- The pending, approved and rejected system provides control over public visibility while preserving the original submission data for review.
Reflection
- The review panel made me think more carefully about the responsibility involved in collecting stories from other people.
- Moderation should protect contributors without sanitising the archive into only positive or comfortable family memories.
- A larger future platform would require clearer moderation guidelines, stronger access security and a process for contributors to request changes or removal.