Along with that change, I would rephrase the current option "no subsidiary information" so that the buttons would be:
- Skip: I can't find any subsidiaries - Skip: the company has no subsidiaries - Skip: this is complicated, refer to an expert I like your phrasing "I can't find any subsidiaries", because it doesn't commit the user to saying that there is actually no info - just that they are having a hard time finding it. Alternatively, if the form were to stick to two Skip buttons, maybe just substitute the label "I can't find any subsidiaries" for "no subsidiary information". James On 2013-10-07, at 2:36 AM, Seb Bacon wrote: > Great, really useful feedback (or observations :) -- thanks. The list of > things to look for will be really useful. > > So in short, the main problem is what to do when you don't know what to do. > And the "no subsidiaries" case is the most common one. > > I'm still not sure what option to give the user in this case. I suppose one > extra button which is essentially "I've had a quick look and can't find any > subsidiaries so there might not be any, so give me another one". > > Maybe just "I can't find subsidiaries in this filing, give me another one"? > > Thanks > > Seb > > > > On 4 October 2013 15:51, James McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Seb, > > My message was less about feedback and more about learning what is the best > thing for me to do as a participant when I hit a situation where I don't know > what to do. My options right now are: > > A. Refresh Step 1 to get a new URL > B. Proceed to Step 2 and click either "It's complicated" or "No subsidiaries" > > So far I've been doing A. Before doing B (which gives you more information > than A), I wanted to confirm in which situations of those I mentioned it > makes sense to do B. I could still use some direction on that, and I'm sure > I'm not the only person who is confused as to what to do. In fact, I didn't > know what to do with the first several documents I tried (or whether I would > ever get a document where I knew what to do), and that's not a good > experience for beginners. > > The most common "I don't know what to do" is when the term "subsidiary" is > never (or barely) mentioned. I happen to know that, if subsidiaries are not > mentioned, it doesn't mean the company has no subsidiaries. However, should I > nonetheless click the "No subsidiaries" button? What's most useful to > OpenCorporates? > > I understand the issues around adding more buttons - they were questions, not > requests :) - but I am still wondering whether it would be useful to > OpenCorporates to allow partially filled-in forms, for example, where > jurisdiction info is not available. In the cases where I've seen this, it > seems to be assumed that the subsidiaries are incorporated in the same > jurisdiction, but that's never stated. > > I still think a list of key phrases/search terms could be useful, so I've > started a gist. If anyone wants to contribute, just reply with a comment on > the gist: https://gist.github.com/jpmckinney/6826932 > > Cheers, > > James > > On 2013-10-04, at 2:59 AM, Seb Bacon wrote: > >> Thanks for the detailed feedback. >> >> Yes, there actually is a standard place to list subsidiaries - >> "exhibit 21a". However, in pretty much all cases in this crowdsourcing >> game, the reason they're in the game is because we couldn't scrape >> them, and that's usually because there's no exhibit 21a. >> >> Your other points (varieties, I think, of "it's more complicated than >> the form allows me to report") illustrate a real problem with >> crowdsourcing like this. Do we add a button for "It explicitly states >> there are no subsidiaries", and another for "It doesn't mention >> subsidiaries"? How about a separate confidence level for jurisdiction >> as well as name? >> >> Eventually we end up with a forest of buttons and options, and we >> quickly end up with a game that only people who are detailed and >> dedicated are going to be able to consider playing. It stops being a >> game, and just becomes a "relationship editing tool" (which we are >> developing at the same time, but trying to work out how we induct >> people into using it -- volunteers / ideas welcome!) >> >> There should be a place for crowdsourcing for lower quality, higher >> quantity data extraction, but the only way I can think of removing >> these grey areas / cognitive blocks would be to decompose the task >> into much smaller parts (maybe "draw a box around any sentence >> mentioning subsidiaries", "click boxes mentioning subsidiaries and >> jurisdictions" or something like that). Even then I wonder if a >> crowdsourcing game is even going to much good at this kind of natural >> language parsing. And it would take vast amounts of work to get right >> for reducing returns. >> >> On the other hand, I hope we can tweak the current game so it's clear >> that if you're not sure, or you hit any block at all, it's OK just to >> continue. I think that should work OK, but haven't yet found a way to >> make it really clear in the UI. >> >> Seb >> >> >> On 3 October 2013 19:21, James McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I continued playing until I found a document with relevant info near the >>> search term "subsidiar", and it seems there is no standard place to >>> disclose subsidiaries. For example, the following document has a single >>> phrase at the start of Part 1 mentioning the company's two wholly owned >>> subsidiaries (I didn't check the document to see if it discloses any >>> non-wholly-owned subsidiaries). >>> >>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1349976/000114420413044838/v350454_10k.htm >>> >>> I've found a document where in Item 15 it lists "Active Subsidiaries of the >>> Registrant", which can then be searched for in the document to determine >>> ownership %. Another document calls it "List of Subsidiaries" in Item 15. A >>> strange thing is that a subsidiary StarTrak Systems, LLC was sold to >>> ORBCOMM Inc., yet it's also described as being a wholly-owned subsidiary - >>> my understanding is that the deal has not yet been closed. >>> >>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/98618/000009861813000011/k10_063013.htm >>> >>> The same document lists subsidiaries under a "Principles of Consolidation" >>> heading, in case that heading appears in other documents. Similar headings >>> in further documents include "Basis of Presentation" and "Basis of >>> Presentation and Consolidation". It may be worthwhile to compile a list of >>> these. "Percentage of Ownership" seems to be a popular column heading. >>> >>> It may be worthwhile to add a field to the data collection form to express >>> the user's certainty as to whether all wholly-owned subsidiaries mentioned >>> in the document have been collected. For example, one document in the >>> "forward looking statements" before Part 1 explicitly says that the company >>> has five wholly-owned subsidiaries, which makes me certain that I've found >>> all five: >>> >>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1425173/000101968713003726/novagen_10k-123112.htm >>> >>> Another document helpfully says "We do not have any subsidiaries." but it >>> seems most are not so helpful. If there is no mention of subsidiaries, does >>> that mean there are no subsidiaries? Should a button be added for cases >>> where no info can be found, or should I just click the "it's complicated" >>> button? In once case the list is described as "previously filed", with no >>> other mention of subsidiaries. >>> >>> Similarly, this document says it has subsidiaries, but doesn't name them. >>> Should a button be added to report these cases, or should I just click the >>> "it's complicated" button? >>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1435936/000143593613000153/f10k_20130531r5.htm >>> >>> Have you noticed cases where in one part of the document, a subsidiary is >>> described as wholly-owned, but is later described as not wholly-owned? e.g. >>> How much attention should be paid to verb tenses? >>> >>> Some documents don't give the jurisdiction of subsidiaries. What to do? I >>> can't submit the form without filling in the jurisdiction, but I would >>> expect that a partially filled form is better than no form? For example: >>> >>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1020477/000135448813004921/robk_10k.htm >>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/825322/000121390013005438/f10k2013_mphase.htm >>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/896429/000118811213002827/t77452_10k.htm >>> >>> The instructions should perhaps warn that some documents mention the >>> subsidiaries of other companies, so it's important to check that you're >>> reporting about the right company. Most confusingly, the following document >>> starts talking about companies with entirely different names as though they >>> are the subject of the document: >>> >>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1496741/000116169713000700/form_10-k.htm >>> >>> Lastly, I'd eliminate one click and put the "Step 1" content after the >>> other content on "Step 3". >>> >>> James >>> >>> On 2013-10-03, at 1:09 PM, James McKinney wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Seb, >>>> >>>> I've tried the game, but I'm getting very long (50+ page) documents that >>>> don't seem to have any relevant information near search terms like >>>> "subsidiar", "own", "wholly", etc. It may be the case that these documents >>>> have no subsidiary information. However, I also notice that the two >>>> documents I've looked at so far have identical tables of contents. Could >>>> you provide instructions as to which section(s) within this (at least >>>> somewhat) standard table of contents would contain the relevant >>>> information, to avoid having to carefully read 50+ pages? >>>> >>>> Examples: >>>> >>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50292/000091431713000879/form10k-131780_ieh.htm >>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/874710/000114420413052878/v355226_10k.htm >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> On 2013-10-03, at 7:39 AM, Seb Bacon wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all >>>>> >>>>> If you fancy helping turn unscrapeable info about corporate control >>>>> networks into open data, consider having a go at our >>>>> fun-for-all-the-family game! >>>>> >>>>> Background: >>>>> http://blog.opencorporates.com/2013/10/02/help-uncover-corporate-networks/ >>>>> >>>>> Game: >>>>> http://opencorporates.com/games/secfilings >>>>> >>>>> We know it's a bit rough around the edges, but our goal with this >>>>> iteration was to make it good enough that 100 people could >>>>> successfully use it to add relationships. If you can give it a go, >>>>> ask your partner, your children, your grandparents, that would be >>>>> great! >>>>> >>>>> Feedback to [email protected] please >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Seb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> skype: seb.bacon >>>>> mobile: 07790 939224 >>>>> land: 01531 671074 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> developers-public mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >>>>> >>>>> Unsubscribe: >>>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/james%40opennorth.ca >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> skype: seb.bacon >> mobile: 07790 939224 >> land: 01531 671074 > > > > > -- > skype: seb.bacon > mobile: 07790 939224 > land: 01531 671074 _______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
