I suppose it could work as long as it is limited to a few people, just remember that if you had dozens of people working on something with over 10,000 items that it could lead to mistakes that require a lot of time to fix.
In the interest of time, the work load definitly needs to be split up; however, too many hands involved will complicate things. Maybe four or five total? I'm not sure how participants would be vetted for reliablility or integrity.
I apologize Richie, as of June there wasn't a lot of free time so a lot of great suggestions I just didn't have time to work on.
I would prefer to work on these in batches, maybe 20 at a time to start out with. The item descriptions can easily cause the game to error if it doesn't like the formatting so this would be the safest way to make changes. I can get a google doc/skype group together for people interested in helping out with this project as well as providing the current formatting for the descriptions. It might help if you could let me know what current item description text you would like to see to help build the new ones.
Regarding the format, it would be helpful to have a list of what is curently known to cause errors.
I think we'd be fine working with the current tables, applying the template along the way. I suppose if someone came across something really wonky that will not conform to the template, it could be flagged and addressed later, updating the template accordingly.
You would only want to do a maximum of 100 per week anyways, since if something goes wrong at least you can refer to a smaller list to see where the errors came from.
But you would need to make sure with group access that there is an official template that people can follow.
Maybe if Richie has time he can organise an official template to follow before making this group
Definitly would want someone at WP double check the revisions before they are made live. Would a single person be able to handle proofing 100 descriptions each week in addition to their normal job duties? Don't really need a quota, but a hard cap is a good idea.
What I had in the OP should be fine, unless someone spotted some glaring inconsistancy or omition. The only things I can think of are the aformentioned formatting limitations and unusual items.
Edited by RichieDagger, 19 October 2015 - 10:53 AM.