My current thinking on the submission queue is still pretty much to gut it completely. What I'd like to see is an ability to provide more meaningful feedback to the author, to give the author much more discretion on when to post or pull a story, and to essentially vote on stories the same way we do on comments, with the story voting affecting placement on front page and section.

Unlike the moderation system, I think submissions should be more complex (it's a harder task), but with a shorter time-to-run maximum than we're seeing (though this has been improved of late).

For the author, the following tools:

• Deadline. This is a post-by-or-die date. For time-sensitive material, the date can be advanced. For other stories, the default (maximum ?) can be specified on a sitewide basis, eg: 72 hours, 5 days, etc. Eliminates the "stale queue" problem.
• Pull story. This kills a story.
• Push to site -- this dumps the story, in its current state, to the site, whether it goes to front page, section, or morgue depends on additional stuff, keep reading. Possibly "auto" and "manual" settings -- on auto, the story is disposed of when quorum (below) is met, on manual, it can be pushed or pulled at author's discretion up to the deadline.
• Edit. This is a versioning system, possible that prior versions are visible (at least as diffs), it reinitializes feedback, and may or may not iterate some version counter. Hmmm, yeah, that would probably be a good idea. Editing (revising) a story would clear current moderation and problem flags, and restart quorum counts. Comments on prior versions would remain, with an indication on what version of the story they applied to.
• Author's notes. This is seperate from the feedback section and the article. It's a place for the author to note any additional facts or issues regarding the story. Such as the fact that this is a repost or resubmission. Visible only in moderation mode.

For editors:

• A moderation score, 0-5, on the story. This effects ranking and placement (front page, section, morgue) of story. The morgue is a place in which dead stories go. Comments aren't allowed in morgue, only trusted users can see stories in morgue (maybe?). Value can be changed.
• Disposition flags. These are principally advisory, though they may be functional. Suggested categories: "Post as is", "Minor Revision" (spelling, grammar, URLs), "Major Revision" (content/facts), "Pull" (this ain't worth looking at and isn't fixable). Only one option is valid (radio box).
• Issue flags. These are also principally advisory, though they may be functional. Indicate errors or problems in story. "Spelling", "Grammar", "Style", "URL/Link", "Tags", "Facts", "Content", "Troll", "Spam". Multiple choices may be valid (checkbox).
• Sectioning preference -- unchanged (default), or alternative.

When a story comes in, it's placed in queue and the feedback cycle starts. A site can set both min and max quorums (quora?) on a story, say 30, 60, 90 responses. Actually, in most cases, I'd think 30-60 should probably be more than sufficient, even for a very highly trafficked site, though a very small one might chose a smaller number, anything from one to a dozen, say. Variable by section.

The reviews consist of a moderation score plus any additional flags or comments the reviewer cares to make regarding the story. Comments are not visible once the story is posted (except by viewing , say, a "reviews" link). Topical comments are not supported. Though there's nothing to stop someone from making such a comment, all comments during the review process are treated as editorial, are not carried over with the article when posted, and may not be followed up to once the article has posted. The abbreviated review cycle should reduce the tendency to generate large "in-queue" discussions.

A particular author's a-mojo (author mojo -- derived from moderation of stories) is both effected by, and helps to determine, the queue experience. Good authors get a bit of a boost through the queue (faster track, better placement). Poor authors get more hang time, and, if sufficiently poor (eg: untrusted), can't submit stories at all.

On meeting quorum and/or deadline, the story is posted or pulled according to its score. Moderation score (helps to?) determines placement to/on front page, or section, or morgue. Configurable by site. The sectioning input may change the section a post is made to, or (my preference), make a post available in multiple sections if this appears appropriate.

Even after a story is posted, it remains subject to moderation -- a story itself can be moderated up or down. This won't (usually?) result in its being pulled, but might adjust placement up or down.

What's the point and advantages?

• No more interminable stories in queue.
• Feedback on what did or didn't make it through queue (morgue).
• Better feedback to author on issues with submission.
• Clarification of the role of the submission queue.
• Better content placement within Scoop sites.
• Accountability to authors for their submissions. Spamming the submission queue with many low-rated posts will result in mojo loss, and (ultimately) loss of submission privs or preferential placement.