The purpose of this consultation is to work with the community and use your feedback to introduce ways to drive up resource quality, so that Tes can continue to be a trusted place for teachers to get their resources. For further detail and context please visit the original thread. After gathering a lot of feedback, we’ve decided to draw out the main themes that have arisen into separate discussions. This thread focuses on the first theme in our consultation: what quality is and what it means to authors. We’ve had many comments and discussions on this point and would love to hear more ideas and have more debate around this. We recognise that defining precisely how to measure the quality of a resource is highly subjective, and have had many debates internally and with teachers about this! In summary, authors have said that at a high-level a quality resource should: Be free from copyright and plagiarism Contain relevant education content and / or up-to-date curriculum standards where applicable* Have been created by and / or tried and tested by real teachers* And if paid-for, should offer good value for money. Tes is an enormous library of teaching materials and one we’re incredibly proud to run, but operating and managing such a large platform raises significant challenges. Copyright and plagiarism There are issues relating to copyright and plagiarism that we are working to address, including looking at how we can provide better support to authors in understanding the rules around copyright and there is much more on this to come. As a community platform we don’t take legal responsibility for the content shared, and operate a takedown policy in the event of any reported infringements. It is important to be realistic that as a community website we cannot implement or fully achieve solutions without your help. There have been comments from authors about having groups of teachers who help with tackling copyright and plagiarism, and we’ll be exploring ideas around this. We appreciate your comments so far and your vigilance in raising concerns. Quality stamp or measure Several authors including @thinky and @KS2History have suggested a system for ranking resources, which several also agree with but acknowledge that “any such system would need to be very well-thought and transparent.” This is an interesting idea, and we already administer something similar in our search algorithm, where we calculate a specific boost score for each resource appearing in the results. This is based off of a few key factors, including purchases and downloads. However, we’re not sure that this would work in the context as an overall score across the site for each resource, but is only really effective when comparing a group of resources in a specific set of results. Others, including @LeafandSTEMLearning, @KS2History, @EC_Resources and @Resource_Creator have suggested a ‘quality badge’ or score connected to sales, reviews or a combination of both. This is an idea we’ve discussed and begun exploring here at Tes, both for authors and individual resources; either as an automated system, that could be based on factors like sales (e.g. “Top resource in x this week!”), or as a manual system whereby specific users could review resources or authors and apply a badge. The main issues and points of contention we’ve encountered while talking about these ideas so far has been around how to define what these badges are and when to apply them (what specific measures determine when the badge gets applied), as well as how to ensure that they are properly fair and transparent. We absolutely want to avoid setting up a system that unfairly favours some authors, or that can be easily gamed. There are many ways this could be approached, and we’d love to have your take on the matter! So, please tell us what you think. Pre-moderation Several authors have raised the idea of pre-moderation, including @thinky and @ajs12345 who suggest “vetting new authors to ensure quality is being uploaded”. We agree this could indeed address issues of quality in most cases, though in the spirit of community and as an open platform for resource sharing, we would need to be very careful about this. It’s also a solution that is particularly difficult to manage! It would require a large number of people to put into action effectively, given the number of people that use Tes, and agreeing a clear and uncontentious set of policies on moderating incoming resources or new authors could be somewhat difficult. A better solution may lie in more effective processes for reviewing resources and constructive feedback, and there are a number of options here that we’d like to explore. We will cover this in additional threads. *Post edited as of 22 Jan to clarify high-level summary of quality indicators, based on summarised community feedback.