Forum:Pee Review and How It's Changed Uncyclopedia

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Pee Review and How It's Changed Uncyclopedia

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5567 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Ever since Pee Review was put back on track, Uncyclopedia has changed dramatically. If you came expecting me to be singing the praises of this change, you clearly haven't been around the Dump very long. Now, let me be clear. Having Pee Review functional is absolutely fucking beautiful. It provides a forum in which one can finally promote their article in an "acceptable" manner. And it can be made better at the behest of the reviews.

However, that's where things get a little awry. I've been noticing that a lot of the featured articles are a bit....what's the word? Samey, that's it. Sometimes we'll get a nice little surprise, as with the monkeys and footballs UnTune today. But, for the most part, articles seem to follow a formula even more than they used to. There's always been a featured article style, which has changed depending on the userbase. That's not a fact I deny, as I once wrote to that mold (though hopefully broke it a bit too).

The fact is, when people were left to their own devices to figure out what was funny and how to be funny, every writer had a distinct style which allowed for a little bit of variety. Modusoperandi was always good for a nice romp that made you scratch your head just a bit when you weren't trying to stifle your laughter so your peers wouldn't think you were even weirder. Mhaille was always good for crass, British, and textured writing (even when he didn't take credit for it). I was always good for aping other people's styles.

I, of course, ramble and reminisce. The point I'm trying to make is, now that almost every article goes through the great machine that is Pee Review, that seems to have been lost. Even when Pee Review was semi-functional and the reviews were little more than "HUMOR: 1 - Sucks", it allowed for difference in opinion. Each REVIEWER had a different style. Everyone read for something different, everyone concentrated on something different. Hell, One-Eyed Jack's superb reviewing style still, in my opinion, outshines the current reviewers.

And here's why. There are more guidelines than most Wikipedia policies. Everyone, for the most part, follows them. And thus, all reviews are essentially the same. I know that all the reviews I've gotten with the new method seem to say many of the same things. This is partially because of the Pee Review whores, who have been known to do something like 4 a day and thus define what a "good" review is.

The point of this long rambling essay is this. Shake it up a bit. Variety is what Uncyclopedia needs now more than ever before. Try to promote that a little bit more.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do say:

“It is (of course) up to you to decide how to go about doing your Pee Reviews and all of the above should be considered guidelines. So long as your intentions are good and you put a reasonable amount of effort into the process the submitter will be grateful. Users will probably find your reviews the most useful when you offer alternative suggestions for how things might be done rather than just highlighting mistakes.”

~ PEEING

At the end of the guidelines... Other than that, I'm not sure what you are suggesting Lj? What should we do? We are talking about offering a Forum:Need a quick PEE? option...MrN 17:41, Jul 27

The idea that someone can "claim" a peer review has always amused me. "You can't peer review this, I'm peer reviewing it!" Ha ha ha. I've also always said that featured articles all tend to follow certain "humour templates". In short, I have nothing to add here. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 19:58, 27 Jul 2008

Pick a mental disorder and write with that disorder's "voice"--instant FA if it doesn't suck. That's one that I've noticed, but I want to see some more examples of these humor "templates." Not so I can abuse them, obviously. Not for that reason. Obviously. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:42, Jul 27

1rd: Speaking in a silly voice/accent/disorder/character is the path to madness, if not a feature. Sweet, sweet madness. 2st: As for "humour templates"...*cough*. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spang's "claiming a pee review" comment - me and Cajek started using the templates after we both reviewed the same article. Twice. That was a grand total of about an hour of either his or my time wasted, so we started using the templates to stop that happening. The idea was "I'm already in the process of reviewing this, so you might want to help someone else". Nowadays a lot of people slap a tag on then don't review an article for days. I don't like that. That wasn't the point. As I'm going to comment elsewhere, we were just trying to help! --UU - natter 09:53, Jul 28

No, you misunderstand my point... in an actual peer review, many many people review the article. Never one peer. Those two people got a review that's twice as useful (or more) as anyone else's, and that's wasted time? That's exactly how peer reviews are supposed to work, with several opinions! A peer review with only one person's opinion isn't a peer review... it's one person's opinion. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 16:06, 28 Jul 2008

Thing is, there is only so much reviewing effort to go around. If two people review one article, that means that another article will not get reviewed. There is no limit to the number of times you can re-submit the same article to Pee Review, and hopefully the several opinions thing ya is talking about will work a bit better with the Forum:Need a quick PEE? option. You will be able to get several opinions in a faster time. I think it's probably better if people take on-board the comments made in the first review before submitting for a second time. MrN 16:19, Jul 28

I don't think I misunderstood your point: that's the way real peer reviews work. But that doesn't happen round here, partly because there aren't that many regular users interested in contributing to regular reviews. It would be great if we could get 5 or 6 people to make a few comments each on a review, but that's not likely to happen, so in the meantime, making sure two people don't duplicate their efforts instead of helping twice as many people is probably the most helpful thing we can do. --UU - natter 08:23, Jul 29

"...Modusoperandi was...", "...Mhaille had...". Let me be the first to say "Harumph!". You should've used future-tense. Then you could've talked about rocket boots and electric ham. However, since I very rarely Pee Review, I fear that I have little else to add. Pee Reviews are hard. OEJ is my hero. *swoon* Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have always taken Pee reviews as guides for improving my writing and a gauge of VFH. I always thought that this was the intention of Pee review and that stale work on VFH was on the part of the writers and them alone--Sycamore (Talk) 20:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that HowTo's and Why's are formulaic as hell. Not that that fact has stopped me from writing several of them. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:01 Jul 27, 2008

Don't forget user talkpages. If I never read another samey one of those, I'll be happy. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

They all start with the same joke. "Raep!" It's not even funny, really. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:09 Jul 27, 2008

Untrue! SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 21:13 27 July 2008

And we're back to my worries about requiring the pee review before it's up on VFH. It made a TON of sense at the time, but now it's largely unecessary (since there aren't the hordes of voters there once were). But I digress. The real point here is that OEJ is gad made flesh. Let's get him!--<<>> 22:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Need a quick PEE Brad -- Hea, I'm going to keep whoring this idea. Someone will say something sometime surely! MrN 22:26, Jul 27

I already have and you told me to shut up... SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 22:29 27 July 2008

Oh you fibber! I told you to shut the fuck up. :P MrN 22:52, Jul 27

I agree, Pee Review is the tits.--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 04:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything, really. I'm observing, and allowing you to interpret it in your own way. Some would say that the Pee Review Guidelines could use a bit of condensing. Some would say that I need to be skinned for suggesting such heresy. Some would say that I have done absolutely nothing with this forum.

I will tell you this, though. The thing that I notice the most about Pee Reviews in general is that they gravitate toward a more "insert-joke-here" approach to humor. That's what everybody asks for. Certainly, jokes help make things funny, but people always suggest adding more "jokes" in, never adding more humor. One isn't always necessary for the other. But that's just me.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

When Cajek and me wrote the Pee Review guidelines we were aware that they had become overly long... Trouble is knowing which bits to remove. We could have just given the reviewer a link to HTBFANJS, but that probably would not have helped much... If anyone wants to have a go at trimming the guide back, or improving it, go for it! MrN 22:52, Jul 27

Well, I started throwing some stuff together at User:TheLedBalloon/PRG. Hang on, I'll C+P some of what I've done into UN:PRG, lemme know what you guys think... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:26, Jul 28

Again, it's an individual thing. I try to review each article on its own merits, and suggest ways not to make the article more identikit with the rest of our stuff, but to improve it in keeping with the original idea. Or to avoid it getting deleted, in the worst cases. Now, people keep putting stuff up for review, and not just the ones who just want to self nom, so people clearly want reviews. And the majority of us are just trying to help. I object fucking strongly to being called a Pee Review Whore (OK, not directly by name, but nonetheless). I am giving up at least half an hour of my time each time, trying to help people out. Not for any other reason. We're not trying to stop people writing more individual articles - there is nothing I'd love to see more - and I'm going to stop typing now before I get really annoyed. --UU - natter 09:53, Jul 28

/me rolls a FUCKING BIG fat pure Mary Jane Doobie, lights it up and passes it to UU... I'm sure Lj is not expressing criticism of the efforts which we (mostly UU actually) have put into the process of making Pee Review the awesome resource of helpfulness which it is today. I think he is just concerned that we are getting a bit stagnant, and tending to follow a similar format. What we need are ideas for how we can make the process better. I hope the Forum:Need a quick PEE? thing might help do that a bit... When I joined Uncyc (back in November) most of the reviews went along the lines of "It's OK, but add moh pixs, OK bi"... If that's how you chaps say it... Cajek and I re-wrote the guidelines, but actually it's been UU who (on the whole) has done the difficult task of politely asking people to put more effort into their reviews. It's basically a result of UU's efforts that Pee Review now works so well, and that the standards have been raised. We all owe him a hell of a lot for the efforts he puts in... As has been said, at People for the Evaluation of Excrement and Influencing Nominations for Greatness, we find that authors who submit articles to Pee Review want to know how to make them features. We try to do that. Maybe we need a process which allows articles like That time I was nearly raped by a yak during my sojourn in Canada to actually seriously get featured sometimes. Maybe once a month or so we feature a "different style / stub" article or something, I don't know. People as a group are not going to change how they vote, so we would have to make something like this policy if we wanted it to happen on a regular basis. Oh, did I mention Forum:Need a quick PEE? - Maybe, I forget... UU, you finished on that smoke? MrN 10:27, Jul 28

They call it a doobie in Europe? Odd, I'd thought that was an Americanism. -RAHB 10:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another viewpoint

If we're ultimately talking about the content of featured articles here, the fault would not lie in Pee reviewers but rather in the VFH voters. I think there are plenty of articles out there that don't fit the mold of your typical feature, but they just don't do as well on VFH because by nature they appeal to less people. What is featurable is dictated by the voters, and if people want to get their stuff featured, which many people do, they've gotta put out something marketable. My understanding is that many Pee reviewers try to guide the writer into making it so. Also, I'm not saying what people should and shouldn't vote for. Rather, I'm saying that VFH naturally promotes the perceived staleness. --So So 02:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So... Am I the only seeing parallels to the music industry and the recording companies here, or what? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:24, Jul 28

So... what you're saying is my articles need to be featured immediately, or what? --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in nutshell, what I'm saying is that all of Dexter111344's articles should be featured every day starting tomorrow and loop for the rest of this site's existence. --So So 04:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That would undoubtedly be a benefit to us all. -RAHB 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would cripple society. That would be a minor inconvenience, I think, compared to not featuring everything that Mooses Dexter wrote. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My take

This didn't need another header, but I'm very obsessive about keeping points separated. I do it even when I'm writing with pen and paper. Not that I do that very often. But I digress. I think both Spang and Ljlego touched on this a bit, and I'd like to make the point more blatant. I don't know what this would have to do with featured article quality, but I'd like to see less of this rank system and review counting system, and more of just being a good reviewer. Naturally, a good review is something that deserves just as much praise for the time spent on it, as a good article does. Especially with a lot of the better reviews coming out lately. The problem I have is offering these rewards (other than RotM, which is a decent enough award) and ranks, and this whole caste system of reviewers, and this ordering of how many reviews someone has done, and an ordering of how many good reviews have been done (assuming that "Good" is a definite adjective, and can be easily interpreted). If you'd like to keep a personal record of your reviews for historical purposes, that's perfectly fine, and if it's something you take pride in, by all means, flaunt it around a bit on your userpage or in your sig or some such. But, as with many of Uncyc's groups, I have to strongly disagree with doing things for ranks. I also seem to remember a weekly pee review quota, that I'm not sure is around or not anymore, but if it is, I oppose that as well.

As naive as it may sound, reviews should be done with the thought in mind that "this user needs help, I'm going to give them help." Nothing less than that, and it shouldn't be a self-serving thing. Now, I'm not inferring that any particular users are self-serving in purpose with this, and I greatly enjoy getting reviews nowadays, because there's actual things in them for me to read and say "that was nice" or "that was a good idea." However, there's always going to be the subconscious "if I finish this and two more reviews, I'll get my next rank," or "if I finish these five, I'll pass up <insert name here> on the list." While it's probably not a primary motivator for people doing reviews, it still irks me. I'm sure it irks a lot of people. And I'm sure a lot of people are just fine with it. But from what I can see, I can only perceive one true problem with the new review method, and that is the ranking and counting system behind it. I think that the requirement to give out good, full reviews is a good thing, and that it has only positively benefited writing, and I've actually entirely strayed off of Ljlego's initial point and words at this juncture. But there's my two cents on that.

As far as feature quality, as has been said, there's always been style "templates," if you will. I remember, about this time last year, second person articles with elegant engagement with the reader was a pretty popular one, and it eventually influenced my first two features greatly. Cajek and some others have recently popularized the escalating absurdity style, which I've greatly enjoyed, despite the fact that that style is also becoming stale nowadays. Tomorrow, the style may change to third person adventure stories, or deadpan HowTo's, or self-referential UnNews. It may change to always being sure to reference a monkey and the olympics within each article. I think the only way to continue writing original material is for the individual authors to take note of what is stale, and to write something that isn't. I don't think it's the voters, I don't think it's the reviewers. Because to vote or review on something requires that an article already exist. And the article's existence is solely dependent on its creator. An article is original because its creator made it so, or nonoriginal because of the same reason. Like I said, the point is to break out of the mold. And while pee reviews can help to encourage that, it all comes down to the author in the end. -RAHB 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm utterly cool with the idea of ignoring ranks and so forth - the whole thing was set up to get people to review when there was stuff on the queue for over 2 months. Again, I can't speak for the other members, but I review purely to help people and for no other reason. I've won awards and been given ranks and shit, but I still review because I want to help out. And from a lot of the reviews that I see, I'd say that applies to the majority of the others as well.

The ranking table started off with Cajek because he wanted to see who was doing a consistently good job. I keep it maintained because I find it very handy. For me, it's a great way to spot people who give a number of one-line-per-box "OMG this unfunny article is TEH ROXXORS!" style reviews, and ask them politely on their userpage to be more helpful in future. If it gets others reviewing, and that means articles don't stay on the queue forever (like some of mine did last year), that's a good thing, in my book.

As to the idea of rating a "good" review - I agree, it's a difficult thing to do, so I just try to reflect who has made an honest attempt to help the author improve their article, against who has just said "this is good but make it funnierer", which is no help to anybody. Beyond that, if I disagree with their points, it's not my place to comment. As I say at the end of every review, it's a matter of opinion, and nothing else. And I've calmed down considerably now. --UU - natter 10:32, Jul 28

For me, Pee Review does an awful lot of good and has left a positive mark on Uncyclopedia. The issue of "style" templates has always been there, even before Pee Review first appeared, in that if you were an observant type you could see trends, ways of formating content, etc, that "worked" and those that didn't. We do often fall into the trap of the "If you loved THAT, you’ll love THIS" Methodology, and sometimes you have the feeling you've read an article before even when its brand new. Having said that, I've been around the site long enough to recall that we've had this very same conversation before too. The pattern seems to be lots of accusations of shark jumping, followed by a period of intraspection, followed by a series of original and zany articles that take us up to the next level. Then the cycle starts again.

Pee Review itself isn't the problem (especially for me as I never use it!), we have enough quality contributors out there to keep us going for decades. The beauty of this place is that new people will always arrive with new ideas, many of which will not have even had time to read some of the tired old "styles", so there'll always be something new, something untried, something that keeps us inspired. Now I'm off to write about some monkey taking part in the Olympics....articles about monkeys are always comedic gold. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I agree with everything Mhaille said, ESPECIALLY the last bit about the monkeys. -RAHB 10:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with your comments about the "ranks, and this whole caste system of reviewers" RAHB. At PEEING, we only have 2. One given to everyone who joins, and another for users who have shown themselves able to advise other reviewers. User:High_Gen._Grue/GrueArmy - Now those guys have a lot more ranks, but I think that has been shown to be a useful thing. If the "ordering of how many reviews someone has done" is a bad idea, then we had better get rid of Uncyclopedia:Hall of Shame also. It's the same principle. Cajek's list is probably the single biggest thing which has inspired people to review more. I see no harm in that. MrN 11:02, Jul 28

Fair enough, I obviously haven't been paying attention to the group's evolution very closely. For some reason, I remember quite a few ranks. It could be all this nonsense with other groups confusing me though. Other than that, I had no criticisms with PEEING, so good on ya then. -RAHB 11:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

/me passes RAHB the spliff... is that a better word? MrN 11:17, Jul 28

"Doobie" will do just fine. I can't say I've ever heard the word "spliff" in my life. Thanks though. -RAHB 11:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the Britishism. Not that I know very much about these things, obviously... MrN 11:29, Jul 28

Yeah, but the Hall of Shame doesn't tell you that you've done a "bad" (or atlease, not "good") Featured Article/Image, now does it? -- The Zombiebaron 11:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you get plenty of vote comments such as "text-based-image" to do that instead! --UU - natter 11:33, Jul 28

/me starts franticly rolling more joints and passing them around the room... MrN 11:35, Jul 28

A joint, now that'll do, no matter where you live. -RAHB 12:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A Serious Point From Zombiebaron, Which Required Anouther Header

• I agree with Lj. Completely. I remember the old days of Pee Review: people would drop by, write some thing like "Great article. Perhaps the second paragraph could do with some work. I'll make an image, hold on a second.", and it was done. Finished. Complete. Now, not only are there "guidelines" that border on "rules", but there are people who enforce these "guidelines". Does that not make them rules, then? Laws, even? And, before you all run around telling me that I have no idea what I'm talking about, that nobody enforces these guidelines, witness the fate of the last Pee Review that I did. Pee Review is great, but people should be able to do it however they like, and as often as they like. Articles shouldn't only be reviewed by one person, but by many. And, ummm, people should vote for articles no matter what kind of funny they are. Especially if they are Zombiebaron Funny. Yeah! -- The Zombiebaron 11:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hea, I have got a good idea! Let's make quick reviews an option. That way, people who want to do long reviews can, and those who want to just have a quick look can also. MrN 11:26, Jul 28

• We do not enforce the guidelines strictly. As I said elsewhere in this threat, if someone gives more than one wholly unhelpful review, I tend to have a polite chat on their talk page about possibly being more helpful. I've been thanked by several of them for so doing. At the time you gave that review (half a year ago), things were just getting off the ground, there was the drama incitement in template form that was the "poison pee" template, and yes, that was over the top. But we don't, generally, revert reviews unless they are obviously complete bollocks (such as one I saw recently giving each category a score of 99999 or something like that). Instead, if someone's received a review they may not be happy with, I tend to let them know, either on the review or on their talk page, that they can request another review if they like. Then it's up to them to decide if they're happy with the advice they were given. /grumbles: I don't know, you just try to help... --UU - natter 11:30, Jul 28

  Also, the user Dr who reverted your last review ZB is not a member of Peeing. We know reverting reviews can piss people off (we explain about the process in UN:PRG), which is why it's generally only done by PEEING members who have been around a while and know what they are doing. I would not have reverted it, neither would any of our other "Attending Urologists"... MrN 11:49, Jul 28

  Why are you spelling "peeing" in all caps in some places, and as though it were a proper noun in others? It is a gerund. -- The Zombiebaron 11:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  Are you reviewing my writing? Dam, I hate it when people do that.  :-) I think it's meant to be in CAPS all the time... Though apparently I keep changing my mind... MrN 12:04, Jul 28

  Uh, can we keep the discussion on topic and not resort to petty sniping at other users' spelling, grammar or parsing? kthxbai -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  That's not what I'm doing, Codeine. I am genuinly confused. What is "PEEING"? -- The Zombiebaron 12:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  /me PEES on Zombiebaron... In a genuinly nice way obviously. MrN 12:24, Jul 28

  *shrug* -- The Zombiebaron 12:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  Mr. N can CAPITALIZE words when he feels LIKE it, or leave STUFF like usa OR peeing UNCAPITALIZED, because that's just the kind of WILD AND CRAZY GUY he is. Also PEEING is the pee review guild, of sorts--a bunch of users that do a lot of pee reviews. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 14:59, Jul 28

Honesty by me

• Pee Review is mostly uniform, you're right (whoever said it), but good reviews will usually be uniform in some way because they're considered good.
• User:Cajek/Pee is UU's domain. Without it, bad reviewers would probably slip through the cracks and consistently good reviewers would go unnoticed! Except OEJ who I have gotten a grand total of 2 reviews from.
• Unlike Mhaille and Modus, I need serious help starting an article so Pee Review can help. The best pee reviews are when people give specific ideas for concepts, and THAT'S where you'll get article diversity.
• So what if we have ranks? A competitive atmosphere helps in some cases, especially where your quality affects your rank and where ranks are given by popular vote as in PEEING.
• Hi guys! I'll be back full tilt in a month or so!

  Le Cejak • <14:17, 28 Jul 2008>

Pee Review can also be a process through which new users can learn to write better generally. Not just to improve one particular article. MrN 14:34, Jul 28

I think Pee Review has done more for Uncyc than any other group has, even the Uncyclopedia Anarchy Corporation or whatever it is. Those anarchists aren't following the rules me and MrN have carefully laid down.   Le Cejak • <14:42, 28 Jul 2008>

I've said it before and I'll say it again--a handful of reviews of my shitty noob articles by OEJ turned me in the right direction writing-wise, and, coupled with a few reads of HTBFANJS, helped make me write the way I do. Jack is the Man. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 15:02, Jul 28

You're right. OEJ is the man. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Man, dude. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:07, Jul 29

Mandude? I thought you were too young to remember that series from the 70's, about a man who, after exposure to lasers, would turn into a dude when he got angry. "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." *bamph* "Dude..." Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mandude...was he anything like Dudeman? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:15, Jul 29

yet another header, in which gerrycheevers questions his self-worth

i guess i'll throw in my two cents (wow, we must nearly have a dollar in this forum between us). i like doing pee reviews just to help people out. i strongly support the concept of a quickie review. excellent points have been made on all fronts, forcing me to re-evaluate my own style of reviewing (if i just tell the writer what i would do, were i rewriting the article, then that is exactly what someone described as tailoring to my own humor). i think that some people are looking for further ideas for an article, and are looking for as much feedback as possible, but some poeple are satisfied with their article as-is and are basically just asking 'is this good enough for a VFH run?' (which can get frustrating as hell when it sits in the queue for two weeks). the bottom line is, doing reviews is one way that improves the average article quality index, so that's why i do it. not for the glory. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I started working on Pee Review when I was a nub because I thought I had ideas on how to improve its functioning. When OEJ was reviewing, UN:PR was for nerds. Now look, we have a theory by the site's most VFH'd author that it's fucking up the whole site! Who's proud? Me, MrN, UU, Gerry, and lots of other people who helped to fuck up this beautiful website.   Le Cejak • <14:21, 28 Jul 2008>

This is all assuming Uncyc wasn't inherently fucked up from the start. Let's make sure we get this straight. Uncyc is a fucked up place. I don't mean fucked up as in messed up by politics or something. I mean fucked up as in we are a very strange group of people. I for one would like to keep it that way. -RAHB 14:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose having our insanity all lined up in nice little rows and then fed through a "MAKE IT A FEATURED ARTICLE MACHINE" like pee review. And then given ranks. And then have the ranks taken away. I want a vote on something every day. And then I want guidelines on everything. Whaddyathinkabouthat???   Le Cejak • <14:25, 28 Jul 2008>

Talking of being fucked up... Cajek is being serious? Dude, we need to call an ambulance. MrN 14:26, Jul 28

I wrote the article on serious.   Le Cejak • <14:30, 28 Jul 2008>

I wrote the article on Campaign Leaflets but you don't see me whoring it everywhere. Also Pee Review touched me or something libelous like that. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

and stop calling him shirley. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that my intentions were hard to read, which is my worst article!   Le Cejak • <14:44, 28 Jul 2008>

I fucking stole this header from a retarded baby

Can we stop Pee from being like a freaking production line, sure it gets them done but it feels sterile, not like the nice old reviews from UU, Cajek and OEJ back in the day. Short and sweet is how they should be for (not from) more experienced users because they know how to write well and uniquely without being dragged back into some kind of formula. So 1. Don't keep it like a production line 2. Icecream! 3. More focus on writing than reviewing 4. More Icecream! --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 14:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, did I mention Forum:Need a quick PEE? - Maybe, I forget. Other than that... People need to make actual suggestions for what we can do differently. MrN 14:54, Jul 28

Well, first of all thank you DJ! 2nd, Pee Review is better as a production line than a "do whatever feels good" line. Wow... that sounds pretty kinky... uh, anyways, we need a process and I think UU and the rest of the people who review (I don't really do that anymore) are handling it really really well.   Le Cejak • <14:54, 28 Jul 2008>

I don't see why people can't just post a comment with their review request. "Hi, I wrote this, and I think it's pretty good but it needs a review. I'd like a particularly in depth one." or "Hi, I've polished this up really well, but I'd like a short review just giving me general feedback mostly, don't take up too much time on it." Something like that. Lots of times I see in the reviewing halls people just post the article with a signature and that's it. State your intentions with each post, and then everybody gets what they want. (FU edit conflict) -RAHB 14:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, can't we just vote on it and then give people ranks accordingly??? Hahaha, I'll be here all week, folks!   Le Cejak • <15:00, 28 Jul 2008>

Hea, I have got a good idea! Let's make quick reviews an option. That way, people who want to do long reviews can, and those who want to just have a quick look can also. MrN 11:26, Jul 28 MrN 15:04, Jul 28

Hea Guys!

Hea, I have got a good idea! Let's make quick reviews an option. That way, people who want to do long reviews can, and those who want to just have a quick look can also... Na... that would never be popular! MrN 15:06, Jul 28

I set up a voting page here for everyone to vote on that idea. Afterwards, everyone is promoted to lieutenant colonel. Except Olipro, who, of course, will be promoted to private first class. Obviously.   Le Cejak • <15:07, 28 Jul 2008>

What about people who are at a stage of developing their work that is before PEEREVIEW levels? I'm talking about something that is a couple of lines of quality but they need help developing the idea? Maybe a halfway house between PEEREVIEW and QVFD. Instead of just listing the things for deletion we can have them placed there by either the author or the army of Uncyclopedians who populate QVFD in the hope of saving some of the more wee small beasties from oblivion. Just a thought... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Or... We could get the same thing by not deleting articles with an ICU on them until the ICU runs out... I'm sure that's been mentioned before though. Still we continue to delete. Why we can't wait 7 days I have no idea. MrN 15:21, Jul 28

We do wait seven days. I'm telling you, if you keep track of Newpages and provide examples, then I'll believe you otherwise. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:20 Jul 28, 2008

Can't you just not use the template for a quick review? The whole template thing was put in to make things easier, but there's no actual need to actually use it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 16:30, 28 Jul 2008

Hea Spang. :-) Are you talking about the "reserved templates" which some reviewers use or Template:Pee Review Table?. If you are talking about the "reserved templates", that makes a lot of sense to me. For the normal full reviews, the "reserved templates" are probably a good idea due to the reasons Cajek explained, but for the new quick option reserving a pee review does not make sense. The point of the quick review is that it's quick! We don't want people reserving quick pees, and then not doing them for days. If the reviewer is going to do the quick review imminently I would understand them (maybe) putting a message to that effect onto the review before they start. Otherwise... No reserving quick pees unless you are doing it immediately....

If you are talking about not using Template:Pee Review Table for quick pees then. Um. Hell if I know! You think that would make them better? The structure is probably useful still, but I'm not sure... MrN 18:15, Jul 28

No, I mean the Pee Review Table. Just have it so you don't need to actually use it, and just have a "short review" header where people can put a line or two giving their thoughts. I think the whole big table might put people off, in that you can't use it to just put a suggestion, you have to review every aspect of the article. And seeing as you'd want several short reviews, it doesn't need to take it out of the main list either. And if someone wants to do an in-depth review, they still can. And if you want to make a quick suggestion, you can. No need to change anything except the "rules". It's exactly how pee review was before the whole table thing, anyway. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 19:42, 28 Jul 2008

My opinion copied from IRC because I'm lazy as all get out

<DrSkullthumper> I love how a short story is about to fail VFH

<DrSkullthumper> Kinda sad, isn't it

<Kalir> DrSkullthumper: Reminds me of that time that one person nearly maed a yuky doody during their sojourn in Canada.

<DrSkullthumper> Kalir: Indeed

I find it ironic that people complain how features have become formulaic, but when something comes along that breaks the formula, they vote against.

<Kalir> We want change! Except not for us.

P.S. Putting "The Frogs" into Uncyclopedia was a joke, and I have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion in the least, but I love pointing out irony, then running away. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:17 Jul 28, 2008

• Against MrN 16:29, Jul 28

We dont need no stinkin guidlines

I never followed guidlines because Im a rebel. Im telling you guys to rebel . Rebel against the establishment. Rebel against the rebel. Anyways, I think we should limit guidelines to unacceptable content. Everything else should be a free for all. One other note, how about a rotating featured vote, where in only one article is voted on at a time? --Nytrospawn 16:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• For a free for all – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:39 Jul 28, 2008
• Delete HTBFANJS at the same time... MrN 16:44, Jul 28
• Delete the word pants as well. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dammit Wood. I wish you would stop saying that word all the time. MrN 18:16, Jul 28

I'm actually pretty sure that I've said it like...twice now. But I'll switch it up.....Ummmm... Balls. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 18:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Note to PEEING members

This really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but here I am by force of circumstance. A few of you need to lay off the sarcasm a bit. I'm not going to mention any names (my mommy taught me not to tattle) but some of you have replied to legitimate comments with biting sarcastic remarks. I know you well enough to know that they're intended in good humor, but not everybody has been around you as long and they certainly seem rather insulting from an objective viewpoint. If you're going to comment, please either make the jokes more blatant, the comments less sarcastic, or everything into complete nonsense. For examples, please see Dr. Skullthumper's comments, UU's comments, and Ljlego's comments, respectively. Just kidding, Lj! <3 Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Boomer, and I love YOU like a dog likes to roll around in its own shit.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

..."very much"? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:22, Jul 29

..."go eat shit fuckers"?~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

..."<kakun> no u"? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:31, Jul 29

..."* Ljlego has set ban on kakun!*@*"? ~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 02:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

..."*TheLedBalloon has set ban on Ljlego!*@*"? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:39, Jul 29

For once, I actually didn't respond to any comments sarcastically. Thanks for the reminder! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:05 Jul 29, 2008

Given the stinkingly foul mood I was in yesterday, that was the friendly version! Feeling a lot more mellow today, as I'll now prove: FU Boomer. See? Definitely more mellow! --UU - natter 08:23, Jul 29