Forum:There's been a lot of crap at VFH

Forums: Index > Village Dump > There's been a lot of crap at VFH

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5956 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

You know recently, there's been so many poor choices in VFH nominations. Half of the nominations Uncyclopedia:VFH/Failed haves scores of -3. We seriously need to do something about this, any suggestions?--Æ 16:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There's another issue, we are now featuring articles that get a plus-minus 14 votes for, when it used to be 18+. Maybe consider the following:

1. Limit amount of articles on VFH to 20 (we did that in the past when we had a similar problem).
2. Set a minimum score for a feature? Is that feasible or am I being pesky?
3. Decide that we don't have to change the feature, if we don't have an article that meets the minimum vote, and in that case the currently featured get another day.
4. The upcoming PLS should create a new and improved pool of high level articles. ~ Mordillo where is my BUTTFUCKER? 16:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of nominations by IPs, already featured articles, and articles that haven't been Pee Reviewed. Maybe we could delete these noms?--Æ 17:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't seem any reasons to delete IP nominations (except for the obvious crap ones). I do agree on the non peed for self noms and previously featured, although these are rather rare. ~ Mordillo where is my BUTTFUCKER? 17:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

there's always going to be crap nominations on VFH because anyone can nominate anything, all we can do is quickly -3 the obvious crap articles. i think the voting is down this month because of the holidays and such, and i'm confident it will pick up again after the new year. i'm not sure a minimum feature score would work out, because the voting does tend to come in random waves, but i do agree that the PLS can't start soon enough because it will defintely flood uncyc with quality articles. --SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You think that's bad. Remember that time I made #20 on Worst 100 Reflections on 2007? <Cue cutaway> -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 17:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: AE wants less crap and more piss at VFH.

I agree. I think IP noms should be regulated a little better, especially the ones that aren't peed on. Don't ask me how, though. However, I also believe that many of the problems over at VFH are linked to the fact that PLS is going on right now, so maybe this just isn't a great time for VFH and we'll see things pick back up once it's over. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF (@ 19:56 23 Dec, 2007)

"...PLS is going on right now...". Wha? As for Mordillo: I agree with #1 & #2, disagree with #3 (every new feature gets one day. If the scores aren't high enough to pick a new one, a random one from before should appear). As for #4, I was too distracted by the fact that I wrote "#1" and "#2" to form an opinion. *giggle* Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That winging n00b wanders in with some comments... How's about these (in some kinda order of radicalness)

1. We could tighten up things a little by making it compulsory to have the Pee-Review of a self nom copied onto the talk page of the article. Anyone that has not bothered to do this gets it chopped straight away. That would limit the nuisance of rubbish IP noms, as only the more knowledgeable IPs would know how to do it. It would also clear up any 'has it been peed on or not?' issues.
2. Why is it not compulsory to have a pee-review even if it's not a self nom. It's not like the Pee-Queue is huge these days.
3. The admins could reduce the size of the queue to a number less than 20 at times when there was less voting going on.
4. Remove self-noms altogether.
5. In my rather humble opinion the biggest problem with VFH is that people don't like to vote against an article, especially if they have something on VFH themselves. How can this be fixed? OK, that was the radical one...

/me looks around just in-case there is any flying eggnog about. MrN 21:21, Dec 23

I don't think we should remove self-noms altogether, perhaps enforcing that article must get at least two reviews prior to nom and removing "at least spend a week on Pee Review" seems more logical. And besides, if the first reviewer thinks it genius and doesn't think that it needs another review, she/he could nominate--Æ 21:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a secret VFH ballot? An admin just verifies that people are voting once? I don't think it's very feasible, but... Contestant CUN -- VFH NotM Buzz Ctrbs 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with self noms, a lot of damn good features have come from them. Not keen on having a minimum of 2 pees, and I think it's not compulsory to have a pee if it's not a self nom because a nom is kind of an indication that someone else read it and liked it, which is what a pee means, if you get right down to it.

On the other hand, I like the idea of a minimum score for feature - any that drop off due to ill health at a time of low votes can return from Quasiland when voters turn up in greater numbers. Particularly if this can be coupled with Modus's suggestion of randomly featuring an old feature if nothing on the current queue is up to snuff. And limiting the queue might force people to consider what they put on more (although it may also mean people get pissed off waiting for a slot on the queue to open - erk).

But in the main, I think things are just slow due to the seasonal whatsits and will pick up again soon. I'm damn sure my contributions will pick up after all this family stuff is out of the way! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Second the self noms issue. Nothing wrong with that. Also, I'm against upping the pee review to two. The pee review is just an assessment tool for the writer, he does not have to follow it through, so the self nom regulation is just for some proof of QA before the self nom. Let's not make it more complicated than we need to. ~ Mordillo where is my BUTTFUCKER? 08:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So that we can get this out of the way

Evidently, the experienced users are against changing any of the rules for self-noms, IP nomninations (though that already seems to be over), or Pee Reviews. In order to keep this forum from becoming another giant page that newcomers can't join, simply because of the sheer length, keep any discussion about changing the rules for self-noms, IP's, or Pee prerequisites here. This way new topics that get started under here can keep to new arguments without these issues popping in and crowding things. Merry Christmas! Merry merry merry edits. PEEING 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

But what about discussion about changing the rules for self-noms, IP's, or Pee prerequisites, Boomer?

Discuss below. <aside>Moo ha-ha!</aside> Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

VFH Question

So some Swedish guy voted against my article with the reason "I am not certain to understand this." Shouldn't language barriers be on the blacklist for voting reasons? It's not fair for a good article to get voted down by people just because it's not in their native tongue. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 00:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I permaban people for not voting  For.? Just as a warning? --– Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajek (talk • contribs)

I'd be  For. this. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 00:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I permaban for voting  Against.? --– Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajek (talk • contribs)

Just using those ridiculous vote templates is worthy of a ban. Unless you're using it ironically. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:59, 25 Dec 2007

 For. For. For. For. For. For. For. what spang said. --SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 04:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Can i permaban for Permabanning for voting  For. or  Against.--Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H04:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point, Mooses. It would seem to be relatively easy to sabotage VFH voting just by voting "against" for trivial reasons, like "Me no like you signature" or "The word antifallopian is used twice." It comes down to honesty and reasonableness, something humans are mostly not known for. ----OEJ 19:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)