@MOLLY O recently posted an excellent blog post regarding how to suggest viable niches.
A quote from this article:
Match to the Niche Name. Make sure that the description aligns with the name. If you suggest the niche named “Tigers” and your description says “The study and information related to Bengal Tigers,” then you don’t have a good match. In this case, the name should have been “Bengal Tigers.”
I recently submitted an appeal to the Tribunal regarding this niche:
The description of the niche is clearly mismatched:
"all article related to shopping online"
The problem exhibited by the description mismatch for the Shopping niche is exactly the type of problem warned against in Molly's article, and yet the appeal I submitted has so far received only votes to approve the niche.
@Rosemary, @Michael Farris, @Lori, @Brian Lenz and Bob Hope all voted in support of maintaining the niche. @Ted has yet to vote but the unanimous nature of the vote so far makes it probable everyone on the Tribunal is of the same mind on this.
Can anyone involved in the Tribunal explain how we are supposed to interpret this contradiction?
It takes time and effort for community members to perform the community service of quality control, and submitting appeals for niches that do not result in the expected outcome probably incurs a reputation hit. Unless the criteria put forth by the @Narrative Network Team can be counted on as being the criteria the Tribunal will actually vote with, aren't we left with the incentive to never submit appeals? Why volunteer the work if the reward can be a reputation hit despite the appeal being firmly based on the @Narrative Network Team's own criteria?