Summary
Once an idea or project has been approved, allowing unrestricted editing creates trust and moderation issues.
Problem
Today a creator can significantly change an approved idea or project after review, potentially replacing it with misleading, inappropriate, or harmful content. The "approved" signal loses its meaning if the underlying content can be silently swapped.
Expected behavior (options)
Pick one — both preserve trust:
- Re-approval on major edits: substantial changes (title, description, kind, repo) revert the entry to "pending review" until re-approved. Minor edits (typos, formatting) bypass this.
- Versioning: the last-approved version stays canonical on the public page; edits create a pending draft that only becomes visible once approved.
Either approach should surface a small indicator on the entry showing when it was last approved and whether an edit is pending review.
Source
Amit's feedback — https://medium.com/@itsamit2506/near-builder-feedback-c188ad7ac2e6
Summary
Once an idea or project has been approved, allowing unrestricted editing creates trust and moderation issues.
Problem
Today a creator can significantly change an approved idea or project after review, potentially replacing it with misleading, inappropriate, or harmful content. The "approved" signal loses its meaning if the underlying content can be silently swapped.
Expected behavior (options)
Pick one — both preserve trust:
Either approach should surface a small indicator on the entry showing when it was last approved and whether an edit is pending review.
Source
Amit's feedback — https://medium.com/@itsamit2506/near-builder-feedback-c188ad7ac2e6