Some possible methods are the following:Using expert judges to verify the quality of submissions and decide which to pursue. This is usually a good course of action when the submissions are less plentiful—so government staff can manage the workload—and when selecting the best inputs is more reliant on technical know-how or knowledge of government capacity to carry out projects.Asking the crowd itself to verify the quality of the activity performed by voting for the best choice or ranking submissions. This is common for e-petitioning or proposal-submitting platforms such as the New Jersey’s Innovation ENJINE Challenge, where, for Stage One, participants rated the top ideas submitted by simply “liking” proposals. This method works best for open innovation processes in which the volume of proposals or ideas and the number of participants are both high and when maintaining transparency, participation, and representativeness is crucial.Creating a peer-review mechanism through which a self-selected group of peers will verify the quality of the activity performed, similar to the way Wikipedia users and editors maintain the quality of the crowdsourced content on the site. One approach involves a “double-verification” process in which, if you are asking the crowd to classify an image, for example, the response is not officially recorded until a minimum number of other people give the same response. This is a useful method when you want to ensure that the quality of contributions is high and when the outputs are critical, such as an open innovation project in which the decisions are binding.Seeking supporting evidence, for example, requiring people to upload a picture that verifies their submission or other data that back up what they are claiming or asserting.