Finish up QC

[saracarl]

• [ ] It took a very long time, mostly here: ↳ app/models/collection.rb:88:innever_reviewed_users'` to load the review dashboard for wwI service cards. The dashboard then showed "zero pages to review". Maybe we should check for no pages to review before we "do stuff"? and we should improve the performance here.
  • I just verified that it does not advance to the next page until the current page is approved
• [x] If you only do ~5 pages, every result is "high" or "very high" -- desired or not?
• [x] For this text: "Quality sampling allows you to spot-check contributions, gathering data about quality as you review each contribution." can we add "At this point you have X sample pages left to review. This number may grow as more pages are transcribed."
• [x] The values displayed in the user listing and work listings don't make any sense under the new, whole-collection logic. We should discuss this, but I'm thinking something as follows:
  • for users:
    • [x] approval_delta should be the total/avg for the pages the user has been last_editor on. (note that we may need to calculate that average completely differently than we do now) -- I think that pages have approval deltas, but users should have a "quality score". It's easier to understand.
    • [x] corrected_page_count should be the count of pages that had an approval_delta > 0 -- yes, but we're missing the "good page count" concept. Not sure where that goes. Implied with "reviewed page count", but we're getting rid of that.
    • [x] replace reviewed page count with count of pages (still) needing review. -- good.
  • for works:
    • [x] total page count should be the total pages in the work -- yes
    • [x] approval delta should be the total/average for the pages in the work that have one and are in a completed state (since reviewed pages can be opened again) -- again, let's call this "quality score"
    • corrected_page_count should be pages in completed state with approval delta > 0 -- again, we should also represent "good page count"
    • replace reviewed_page_count with pages needing review.
• [x] The "approve all" button on the transcriber page would only be visible to project owners
• [ ] Pseudonymize usernames for everyone but project owners
• [ ] make lists sortable by quality and quantity
• [ ] alert in 24 hour owner report for "prolific new user" (isn't this obvious?)
• [ ] new transcribers should be sorted by quantity & recency
• [x] make the table values correct & test them
• [x] investigate silenced bug in list of works (bad record)
• [x] recalculate sample set over time
• [x] breadcrumb from user contribution list always points to Recent Contributors, even when visited from a Quality Sampling screen.

[saracarl]

Found another issue. If there are no pages to review, but review is still on you get an error (which I've lost, sorry) when you "start sampling" on the review tab. I'm not sure how often this will happen, but maybe?

[saracarl]

Also, with no pages to review the sample view looks like: I think we should just hide the "review" tab if there are no pages to review.

[saracarl]

If no pages reviewed I could click on users (different from the last update?!!!???), but their quality score was 100%, which is wrong.