Tracking MP Admin Edits to User Submitted Content?

Could the tracking of MP Admin changes be improved? If you know of another topic already submitted on this with answers to the below, please just add a link(s).

Background - just giving a concrete example, not intending to debate the merits of the actual change; but we can if someone thinks it important:

• I shared beta via an original area page many years ago.  Later, the beta was changed by another.  My first notification of the change was when a third party commented to the area, objecting to the new beta in a comment.
• The change wholly replaced the approach information.  The new approach information assumed each reader would be prepared to use a navigation device on the day of the approach (i.e., download two GPX tracks, follow latitude and longitude coordinates in the beta).  And the original approach beta was excluded.
• Notes: I'm sharing the above just to show that the change was substantive.  I don't mean to debate here the merits of navigation devices versus standalone descriptions.

I have observed the above type of anonymous change once before with a route description I shared, although the changes in that case were more subjective / minor.  And, after conferring with an MP Administrator, such a change can occur when an MP Administrator makes direct changes to the beta.  This brings to mind a few questions / points.

1. Point on Volunteered Time:  Clearly, MP Administrators are volunteers, donating their own time which is much appreciated.  And the users who provide content are also volunteers.  Honoring volunteered time on both sides has merit.
2. Question about Updates by MP Administrators: Users have been provided an update feature which retains the suggested change.  Would it be too time-consuming for MP Administrators to use this feature as well?  Could an MP Administrator easily submit and approve their own changes through that feature for documentation purposes?
3. Question about Original Beta:  My impression is that the current Update feature only presents the changed text.  However, I believe it was added so that MP could revert changes.  If so, this means that the original text is available.   Does MP plan to make original beta available to users - such as it is today?

Changes to software - as '’3” suggests to me - may of course simply be added to a dynamic priority list as opposed to being given a scheduled date; maybe it never reaches high enough priority to get implemented. 

MP policy changes - like suggested in '3' - seem relatively easy to apply even if not perfectly so (e.g., it seems fine that MP Administrators correcting typographical errors needn't do anything different than today). 

Peace.

This one is important in my opinion. I keep finding edits on my contributions and had no idea they were made! Some of them not correct (for different reasons). Not sure why admins sometimes edit the existing text instead of adding a comment like any other users. But more important, the contributor should be notified a change was made, preferably like any other user when they submit proposal of changes.

BLUF: I am seeking input on a notice that I plan to add to the MP pages for which I am identified as “shared by”. The notice is just a couple sentences. Still, collaboration on it here may be helpful. Or just register your “Yay” or “Nay”’ if desired.

The types of changes that concern me are unannounced route & approach changes by other than the originator that could lead to serious issues. One such case led to my creating this topic. Another case occurred more recently. I do not plan to litigate those here.

Certainly, changes are now tracked by the software allowing after-the-fact discovery; but this is not readily available to the public. And so the average land manager or lawyer may attribute the last version visible as being wholly written by the “shared by” person. Certainly, with enough effort, an initial mis-attribution could be corrected. On the other hand, perhaps that expenditure of scant resources could mostly be avoided - hence the “beta change notice”.

What about notification to the originator at the time of change or just before so the originator can suggest different words before the change? Given the limited time that volunteer MP Admins have, I am hearing they won’t be able to routinely notify the “shared by” person. And of course the MP software does not yet automatically notify (based on personal experience).

See below draft notice I have in mind for MP pages of routes and approaches.  I am imagining, say, a brief note at the top of the page like “See notice below about beta changes.” And then somewhere below most of the usual stuff would be the notice. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

‘Beta Change Notice:  Although this MP page typically lists a “shared by” person, that person is often not contacted or consulted when MP Admins make or approve changes by others. If problematic beta results and is observed, please explicitly message the “shared by” person during notification of the issue as that person may not be aware of the change.’

Edit 10/10; The posted notice will include a link back to this topic.

I started a similar thread years back and received defensive and unproductive feedback from the admins. The response was basically that the admins are volunteers keeping this site running, and handle a lot of poor entries. 

The untracked edits were/ are substantially incorrect, unverified, or non-consensus changes to the beta, along with often incorrect spelling/ grammar preferences. I've had admins change names to routes I named as a FA based on random comments, with no dialogue or notice. 

About a week ago, I did talk on the phone with someone from MP (not a regional Admin) asking for my concerns in related areas.  We talked for about an hour.  That conversation and openness to further communication reaffirmed to me that there is a fair amount of professionalism within MP.

Still, perhaps MP as a sole entity has bitten off more than can be chewed by the Admins.  Or maybe the Admins need to be more careful about blurring User versus Admin responsibilities / activities and so feeling over worked (edit:  e.g., should they be eschewing User activities in deference to Admin activities)?

In the meantime, I feel I need to better defend my user content on MP.  I know there are other beta platforms, though they have been hampered by the MP database being closed by the MP Admins / OnX.