Team 9 – moderation interface for the Digital Pillar

Who we are?


  • Julius Herzberg
  • Giorgi Mazmishvili
  • Deniss Lauen

We prioritized based on the MoSCoW-Method:

  • Must: Frontend and backend should be connected and the user can push something to the database.
  • Should: verification by the moderator for content as a filter.
  • Could: direct email on the website for direct contact.
  • Won’t: an own CMS to edit content. No-Reply messages when you push something.

We thought that our backend should consist of a first page with a contact formular that is one side connected to our database. When the database gets updated, the new entry gets an ID and a new no reply mail should send to the user. The message confirms the push of the content. The Moderator who has access to the CMS or Moderation User Site has a connection to the database and see’s every entry. It is should be possible to edit and must be accepted to publish the content. When the content gets accepted or rejected, the database updates and the interest gets another reply if his content gets uploaded on the display page.

Primarily our page must include a contact formular for our “customers” to push their ideas and send it to our database.

When a user pushed his content it gets updated on our database and the moderator can accept the content to be shown. For that we created an user account for our moderator, who see’s all info.


For a better understanding how we planned to work with the tool, we created a Social Service Model Canvas:

Last words

This Hackathon was our first experience to work on our own selected problem and its own solution. It was a nice mix of getting inputs from the teacher for some tools or skills (UX/UI design, design thinking and several tools).

For that we want to reflect on this journey of the 2,5 week long hackathon!

What went well and could have been done better?

  • Good Teamwork with helping each other and not only working in their niche, but also showing and explaining skills to each other.
  • We had a very good timemanagement since we knew our problem and solution very fast.
  • what we could have done better, would be a better focus and work more consistent and maybe document more from our sprints.

What our top 3 takeouts?

  • The experience we got from creating a project our own and work around the dimension of only 2,5 weeks.
  • to try new tools and deepen the experience of older projects from school or from our work
  • it was very interesting to work with a deep planing process and start to work based on the ideas.
  • we also have to add the great teamwork we had in our group! 🙂

To sum it up, these 2,5 weeks were really good and practical. Even if the whole process was in our hands and we only had to follow a few directions given by the teacher, it still had very big learning impact!

Sources and Links