Seems like we're mixing two different issues here: the Checker as a PL tool and how available it is, and the "reader vs. listener / how much should PLs require readers to fix" debate.
Note that I said I wasn't familiar with the project you were referring to, so I don't know how bad the background noise was. What I was saying was that a lot of the PL duties aren't covered in the Checker, and the Checker cannot be a substitute for a "real, live PL" listening to the files. I don't think making the Checker something web-based will ease any shortage of PLs we might have.
lets get down to FACTS ...
1) Some PL'ers use checker
2) We'd like it to be available on a mobile platform (although as Annise and Tricia kindly pointed out the readers are what matters here)
3) Installing on the server is easier than building a mobile platform from scratch.
4) We're short on PL'ers (Still waiting a year for one of my projects to pick up a dpl) and the ability to assist with newbie testing when you're not at your PC and have 5 mins is ZERO.
5) PL'ers have a thankless task...
6) Most readers want to give their best recording possible and the PL'ers are the people that help them.
7) Best way to keep volunteers is to make things easy for them.
Admin's (or Gods) should actually try to LISTEN to what the volunteers on the site want every now and again, rather than completely shutting them down with "we don't want it, so why should you (see Annise's comment above)".
2) Granted (This has nothing to do with readers mattering).
3) EDITED due to Cori's more experienced opinion on this point.
4a) I'm unsure on this point. Just because projects don't have DPLs doesn't mean they don't get PL'd. Every project doesn't need a DPL; they just need to get PL'd. Are there sections in your year-without-a-DPL project that have waited a long time to get PL'd?
4b) Yes, the ability to assist with newbie tests without being at your computer is low/zero. Granted.
5) If PL'ers aren't having fun doing their volunteer task, they probably should rethink their volunteerism.
One of our values here is to have fun doing our volunteer work. I'd hate to have any PL's feel like a slave.
6) Yes, within reason. This is where the endless debate about reader vs. listener starts.
7) No disagreement here.
8 (the "gods" comment) So far you're the only one who has suggested this. And it hasn't been shot down by the admins as a whole. You've gotten one neutral opinion on the idea as a whole (annise's isn't negative - read it again) and several positive ones. The one item that is a big sticking point is your conclusion: readers must submit their Checker results with their recordings. So far I think 3 admins have weighed in and one non-admin BC/DPL, all against the reader-side mandatory Checker usage.
I know of no organization, no matter how ad-hoc, that sees an idea submitted by someone, that has such implications (a change of ethos and procedure, development time/energy/cost, etc.), and jumps right to it to implement it. Give it time to percolate before accusing the admins of being gods.