User talk:Boomer/People for the Evaluation of Excrement and Influencing Nominations for Greatness/Archive3

Hyperbole for Attending?

• Nom & pointless For. Hype's a very active reviewer, very clear and concise, he knows what a good review is, his presentation is near flawless and he's at the review number mark we like to see in an Attending. A little harsh with his scoring maybe, but that didn't stop me did it? Plus, I feel we should have more than one Attending, personally. Thoughts? ~~Heeren ["Meh"] [tecħ] [kurk] [6/07 09:24]

Yes. Orion to, but he's probably going to make it via another route... Boomer will kick me in the balls for sure... MrN 09:29, Jul 6

A it's an A, ok? I'm not a publishing company or that star. but thanks for the support. I'm not sure if I'll get RotM this month either, java and Hyperbole are both very good. As Hv said clear, whereas I know I can be a bit Blagh sometimes. bassically no objections from me. Have Fun! MuCal. BFF Sir Orian57!Talk!PEE!Read!UnProvise!Awards! 10:01 6 July 2008

Well if we're going to get picky, it's a constellation, not just a star... But I'm down with Hype getting AU, he's cool. As for Orian, I think I may have made my views known on that topic a while back, so I'll not repeat them! --UU - natter 10:14, Jul 6

For - I still don't why we have these votes on a talk page and not a specific PEEING Voting Page. Also I still don't get why the list is not in the Pee Review header thing. - [10:39 6 July] Sir FSt Don Yettie

We have the "vote" here cos it annoys Boomer. Simple really... MrN 11:12, Jul 6

What Yettie said above...

About the list appearing on Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Menu... I think this deserves a heading of its own. So lets talk about it here... When Cajek started that list it was a bit controversial at the time, but now it has become well established. There are good reasons why it should and should not be there... What do people think? MrN 11:09, Jul 6

What would the objections be? I say this is a simple change for convenience, most of all. Also for people who are new to Pee Review and who don't know about PEEING keeping checks on every review....well there's a tiny chance that this may change that (very tiny though). - [17:23 6 July] Sir FSt Don Yettie

Well, "officially" PEEING and Pee Review are not the same thing. PEEING does not "control" Pee Review, we are a user run group, and Cajek's list is not moderated by Sysops. There are also a lot of links on the menu as it is now, and adding more might just confuse matters. There is a link on the menu to our page now... I'm not opposed to adding another one, but less is sometimes more... If someone is not bothered enough to click on the PEEING link they will probably not be bothered enough to click on a link to Cajek's list. Given the choice, I would rather a new user clicked on the PEEING link rather than one to Cajek's list... MrN 17:38, Jul 6

While we are talking about changing stuffs...

What would people think about us (Pee Review I mean) offering two different levels of review? The normal long in-depth reviews which we all do, as well as a shorter option. I sometimes think that it actually takes a lot more time for me to explain how I think an article should be changed in a pee review than it actually would take if I just made the changes myself. Now obviously one of the main points of a pee review is for people to pass on their understanding of articles so that the author in question can learn to become a better writer. That's why we need in-depth reviews, and that's why Pee Review kicks arse soo much. We teach people to be better writers here...

Sometimes though I think an author just wants someone to give their article a quick run through giving scores and just brief comments as to if it sux balls or not regarding VFH. If we had two options then those only wanting a quick look would get their reviews much faster, and we could put more focus into those people who wanted an in-depth review, and had a serious intention of taking the comments of the reviewer on-board. I no that sometimes people say in their comment when they submit what they are looking for, but I wonder if there might be a way of making this process work better... I have no idea about how this could be implemented or anything, I'm just throwing it out there to see what people think... Thoughts? Trousers? Pants? Aardvarks even? MrN 11:49, Jul 6

You know you shouldn't throw ideas, someone could get injured. I was also have a think about Pee Review. Maybe there should also be a section of Pee Review (or some method) for reviewing reviews...if you see what I mean...so that new reivewers can get pointers on their reviews. IT could use the same style table we use for articles, but with different categories. Also I think on the normal pee review table it would be useful if you could customise the name of the "Misc" field to one which is more suitable/appropriate for the article. I, too, am just throwing ideas around, but gently, so no one gets hurt. - [14:29 6 July] Sir FSt Don Yettie

We've got something like thsi already. It's called under user. seriously though it think it's pushing it a bit far. how long would it be before we wanted to review the reviews of the reviews? Have Fun! MuCal. BFF Sir Orian57!Talk!PEE!Read!UnProvise!Awards! 15:04 6 July 2008

Well I was going to raise that right now, actually. :-) I'm just saying that this would be quite a useful thing for new reviewers - reviews of reviews by AUs or SKs. Maybe not as formal as the rest of Pee Review, but meh. - [15:12 6 July] Sir FSt Don Yettie

Let's not get carried away. I think what we have is fine - the reviews are checked, and if people contribute several crap ones, someone (usually me) has a polite word about it. The problem with adding on extra regulation to stuff is that often it starts off meaning well, but then people get bored of it, and drift away, and stop doing whateveritwas that was being regulated at the same time, completely defeating the point of the exercise. Besides, people reviewing reviews would leave them less time to do reviews, and that's the most important thing, right? And when things are slowing down a little anyway, the last thing we want is to put more obstacles in the way.

I do like MrN's idea though - sometimes people are just looking for a quick review, a few lines, bam, you're done. THINKERER for one, mainly just pops in when he thinks he has something good enough to self nom and needs to get the formality out of the way. Perhaps for those we need some way to flag up people are just after a quick capsule review. That could help clear the queue a bit quicker too - I could certainly find a few minutes for a short review while I'm at work, but finding time for a UU special, no dice... --UU - natter 15:44, Jul 6

Sounds good to me. Another idea just popped into my head: something that would be useful would be a category or list using <forum> tags which contains all current pees that have been tagged. So if you're looking to do a review you can look at current pees and have all tagged reviews on a separate list. Meh just a quick idea, that I remembered from a week or so ago. - [15:52 6 July] Sir FSt Don Yettie

I vote For UU doing all the actual work. It's a great system, especially since it means that I get to sit on my arse as much as possible. If anyone wants a review of one of their reviews then they can always ask someone (UU obviously)... I'm not sure about your idea about the tags MrTimetoEdit sir... Trouble with people needing to put tags on, is that this kind of thing only works if everyone actually bothers/knows to do it. I normally just look down the list on the right, and if the last edit name is different to the name of the person who created the review request, I click and have a look. Sometimes there is a conversation going on, and the review has been booked, but in this case it's actually not a bad thing to generate a bit of traffic in that direction anyway... Anyway... We are supposed to be talking about my idea!!! ME ME ME! Assuming we did implement some kinda "two levels" of review thing how would we do it? Remember, ideally it needs to be something which will be understood by people who have not actually bothered to read the guidelines. As we all know, people usually don't bother to read through them until they have been around a while and UU has given them a good kick in the balls a couple of times... This 2 level thing needs to be considered carefully, it's a dam big change in how we are doing things now... MrN 17:18, Jul 6

Boomer's über-reply

Good lord, people. Three topics in one day? I'm replying here, because damned if I'm going to bother posting in each header. I'm cool like that.

Hyperbole 4 teh tendin

Done. I guess we finally have our hard-line reviewer. To Hyperbole, it's admirable that you take the reviews that nobody else wants to touch. You do it surprisingly well, too. Whereas I (and most others) would hardly be able to do a complete review on the articles, you continually write ones that go off the bottom of the page. Well done, welcome to the relatively big leagues. Now get reviewing!

*cough* Melty Blood *cough cough* Have Fun! MuCal. BFF Sir Orian57!Talk!PEE!Read!UnProvise!Awards! 19:34 6 July 2008

/me passes Orian a bucket. Try and keep the blood off the carpet eh? MrN 00:23, Jul 7

User:Cajek/Pee appearing in the header

I'm rather impartial on this matter. While I can certainly see the potential use of doing so, most drive-by reviewers wouldn't bother clicking it. They'd just write up crappy reviews like they always do and leave. If there's somebody who's actually interested in making their review good, they can certainly find the links for the guidelines and PEEING. Whether they do or don't find the review table is relatively inconsequential so long as they read and understand the guidelines. On the other hand, inserting the table into the header wouldn't hurt anything, it'd just be another box with all the others. The question here is, as MrN said above, is really "official" enough to be put in? We may regulate Pee Review to a certain extent, but we still don't control it. I'm really not leaning in either direction on this matter. Discuss it and do what you will.

Pee Review Review

I'm against this idea. While it would certainly help any new reviewers that pop up, there's no real reason that evaluations can't be done one-on-one. If a reviewer shows potential, somebody can just go onto their talk page and talk about what could be improved. Granted, it'd be unasked-for and potentially offending advice, but how many new good reviewers actually show up each month? We usually only get one reviewer each month, two if we're lucky, that actually shows interest in doing good Pee Reviews and continuing to do so. They can easily be dealt with on an individual basis. There are also other methods that wouldn't create a new group that, as Under User said, would probably be dead by the fall anyway. For instance, a couple weeks ago Vampiregirl/Ethine showed interest in doing a review and talked about it in the Uncyclopedia chatroom. Because I'm almost always on IRC, I linked her to the guidelines, a few good reviews (and a couple bad ones), and discussed what to do in the review with her over the two days that she worked on it. As a result she had a very good first review, and she didn't even have to submit a request at some community page to be able to do so. I was also able to walk her through the procedure in real-time, so that I could answer any questions she had right after she asked them. It would be extremely difficult to actually implement a system to help new reviewers like I did with Ethine, partly because I rarely actually see any Attendings on IRC ( >:( ), but it was good way to introduce a new user to Pee Review. I personally just think that helping reviewers on an individual basis of your own free will is a better way to go about doing things than by making a new bureaucratic system to do the same job.

Tagging reviews

lolwut? Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits PEEING 19:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yays!

Two of those four ideas was were mine! Yay,wait...three of them! So what one of them was most rubbishable and the other was borderline. Pah. - [19:34 6 July] Sir FSt Don Yettie

Yea, Nice one Boomer Lets just talk about things in lots of different places...

Firstly we all know you are only going on about Vampire girl cos you want everyone to believe that you actually spoke to a girl. No one believes you anyway. Also, what about my god dam suggestion! Da one about the different levels of Pee Review! To much of a tricky subject eh? Also, give a dam opinion about da putting of Cajek's list onto the menu thinggymebob. Cos if you don't I'm going to say that I don't think it's a good idea as we have the link on PEEING anyway. I do think however that the top five list on PEEING should be expanded to be the top 10. Firstly and most importantly that would mean that I would squeeze my way back into the list, and also it would inspire the N00bs a bit more. Currently I suspect that they look at the list and think that they have no chance of ever getting on. With a list including the lower numbers it would be more possible, and just might inspire some more people to try. Also, as I never actually bother to update that list myself due to being a lazy arse I have no say in this matter whatsoever... MrN 21:41, Jul 6

I knew I was forgetting something. I think being able to pick four out of five topics from that drivel was an achievement in itself, so I don't want none of your sass. On a less hostile note (really, I was joking (please believe me (I love you!))), I like the idea of having two different levels of review. The trick would be implementing it. Dozens and maybe hundreds of pages would have to be edited to accompany it, and every past review since ever will have to be altered to show what category it belongs in. I know I'm not willing to do the work, so it will be up to you pawns to do it for me. Now get working!Edit this section. Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits PEEING 23:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dam, Boomer, now you are actually too lazy to write your comments on the page, you are making us edit to view them? Dam. You are just trying to break your record for the lowest score on Reviewer of the Month, we know you. Hea everyone! Go vote For Boomer! No actually, what am I saying... Anyway. Why would we need to change all the old reviews and what are the hundreds of pages which would need editing? We would need to change the actual main UN:PEE page and maybe a few others, but other than that? MrN 00:04, Jul 7

Well, I was lying for my entire comment in the visible spectrum (except for knowing that I forgot something). What I wrote invisibly is what I really think. Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits PEEING 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you explain which pages would need changing in invisible ink? MrN 00:30, Jul 7

Well, first we have to figure out how we're going to do this! There are loads of things we'll need to change, as well as pages that would need to be created to accommodate the new system. Do we direct the "minor" reviews to the regular reviewed section or do we make a new one? In either case, how do we do it? Will we create another submission box below the normal one for the minor reviews or do we put the submission area for the good reviews somewhere else entirely? Will we create a new guidelines page to explain the system in detail? Who will write it? There are plenty of questions that still need to be answered. This isn't a minor change, we're altering something that's been in place for years now. We have to be sure of what we're doing. Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits PEEING 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, did Boomer just say something useful? /me faints. One option would be to just copy the code which is there now and create new pages for "short" reviews. Leave things as they are, but just have two different submit boxes, and two new boxes on the Pee Menu to reflect them. The old reviews and everything related to them would stay the same, but people who just wanted a short review would put their request into the appropriate box. I could probably do the coding for this, but I think some of the pages which would need editing are protected. I suspect we would need help from Spang... I don't think my suggestion is ideal though, as it is a bit complex, and would make a mess of the Pee Menu. Hopefully some other people will make some better suggestions... Do people really think all this would be worth the bother, and does anyone have any suggestions? Chaps? MrN 01:28, Jul 7

A more simple option could be if we adopted a convention whereby if you want a "short" review you just type "(Short)" after the article name when you submit your review. Kinda like what we do now for articles which are resubmitted for review... MrN 02:40, Jul 7

Or you just uncomment a category, something like "Category:Short Pees" if you want a short review. - [07:46 7 July] Sir FSt Don Yettie

Yay another header!

Who likes that nice little archive box, I made? How awesome is it on a scale of 10 to a trillion gazillion? Maybe that scale's too small... Oh and spot the hidden whore! - [21:45 6 July] Sir FSt Don Yettie

Ahh, that was you was it! Pesky kids! I'm considering archiving it actually. (I like it really) MrN 21:51, Jul 6

MrN's suggestion for a new type of "Short" Pee Review

People who have been paying attention to the above discussions might have noticed that I suggested that we consider implementing a new type of "Short" Pee Review for those writers who just want someone to give their article a quick run through giving scores and a few brief comments as to if it sux balls or not regarding VFH...

If we had two options, those only wanting a quick look would get their reviews much faster, and we could put more focus into those people who want a more in-depth review, and have a serious intention of taking the comments of the reviewer on-board. People appeared to think that this was basically a good idea, but we were struggling to think how it could be done.

Obviously there are a lot of different ways we could do this. It would potentially be possible to completely re-work the whole Pee Review system, but obviously it's best if we keep things as simple as possible...

Assuming we do decide to go ahead with this (I will ask TheLedBalloon for some input before making a post in the Village Dump. Led helped Cajek and me write UN:PRG, so he's probably the best admin to consult...

OK, enough of MrN spouting bollocks, what's the suggestion?

Oh, you are still reading this? Wow, I thought everyone had gone to bed already... Oh. You have? Wake up you bastards!!!

I think that all we need to do is get people to change the submission name that they use when requesting a new Pee to be something like Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Get a Life (Quick Pee) or perhaps Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Get a Life (Long Pee). Kinda like people should do when requesting a (Resubmit). As with making a Resubmit the user will have to remember to change the article name on the newly created Pee request so that it points to the actual article.

We have two choices here. I'm suggesting one of the two options above, but when nothing is added that's considered the "default"... Do we make the "Quick Pee" the default whereby if user does not specify the type of Pee they are looking for they will get a "full" review, or do we make it so that it's the other way around? There are arguments for both options, and I'm interested to hear what people think...

I think the above suggestion will only take a small modification to the main UN:PEE page, and also some minor additions to UN:PRG. I think we would also need to change what we do on Cajek's list. Presumably we would need to make a new column, so that people's good/bad review ratio are not all messed up, I'm not sure. As I don't update Cajek's list myself, I can't really comment on that one.

Whatever we decide here, don't forget that we tell those lazy arses who never bother to review anything what to do need to get agreement from the non Peeing community before we make any actual changes to how Pee Review works... Comments chaps? MrN 18:11, Jul 15

I'm sorry MrN, I can't remember if I said or not, but I'm bassically against this idea. I think that A) It will over complicate things. But more Importantly B) I think that it's always better to get someone else's full opinion on an article and feedback suggestions like we do now; if we don't it'll mean we end up wasting alot of time telling people that they flat out suck. I mean I very rarely see anything that can go straight to VFH, most infact are on the cusp of VFD and I think we should always give a long winded opinion for the sake of those that are going to listen and that are trying to improve. We keep talking about quality at PEE review and I just don't think this will help. Sowee =[ SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 18:50 15 July 2008

Um, yea that's news to me Orian. You did comment above, but said nothing about any objections. The point is that we are just giving another option here for if people just want a quick run through and score. Sometimes people do just want that. I have spent hours writing some reviews which were basically ignored and the user has not made any changes to the article afterwards. I would rather put my efforts into those people who intend to take my comments on-board and just give a quick score to those who do not intend to make any changes. We will see what the other guys think I guess... MrN 19:14, Jul 15

Well, I was going to be for making short reviews the default, mainly because it could effectively eliminate all those old requests that smell like wet, radioactive socks, but Orian's somewhat convinced me to go the other way on this one. Also, it would be difficult making sure that those that "deserve" a long review know how to request one without the idiots that submit requests and then leave using the same system. Anyway, I still don't have a very clear idea on how to effectively implement this system, which is why I stopped posted in the first place. I had expected some of the other PEEING members to add to the conversation, but nooooooooooo. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I see pros and cons either way here. Plus, the vicodin's making me agreeable again(TLB: 1, Wisdom Teeth: 0). On the one hand, I don't want to over complicate things and confuse noobs, and pretty much everything Orian said makes sense. On the other hand, though, it is extremely annoying when someone doesn't take your advice, and causes you to waste two hours of your precious life. Think how many human souls you'll have to consume to get those two hours back! Anyways, mark me as undecided for now, at least until I stop bleeding out of these holes in my mouth. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:38, Jul 16

I do like MrN's idea though - sometimes people are just looking for a quick review, a few lines, bam, you're done. THINKERER for one, mainly just pops in when he thinks he has something good enough to self nom and needs to get the formality out of the way. Perhaps for those we need some way to flag up people are just after a quick capsule review. That could help clear the queue a bit quicker too - I could certainly find a few minutes for a short review while I'm at work, but finding time for a UU special, no dice...

I'm sure I said that somewhere already... Anyway, I think we need to keep in-depth reviews as the default, simply because no matter how you flag it up, some people won't realise and might get narked at getting a line-a-box job. But a way to flag up fast-track quick reviews would be good, as long as it doesn't lead to the longer Melty Blood type reviews being ignored for even longer!

Summary: for a quick review system, against making it the default. --UU - natter 19:33, Jul 17

I'm leaning in this direction myself UU... I think making "normal" reviews the default would represent the smallest change to things, and would accomplish what I'm trying to do... Any thoughts about what implications this would have on Cajek's list? Led is right though, we could reduce the number of people we waste time giving full reviews to if we did it the other way....MrN 20:38, Jul 17

Yeah, what those guys said above me. The way I'd do it is creating Category:Short Review commented in the auto-template and get the reviewee to uncomment that if they want a short one, and then put an extra DPL on the main page for short reviews. Shouldn't be too hard. And I'd be for discounting shorties completely on Cajek's list, but I guess that's up to UU. ~~Heeren ["Meh"] [tecħ] [kurk] [23/07 17:23]

Looking at it again, it wouldn't be difficult. At all. All it would take is a <!--- [[Category:Short Review]] ---> in Template:New Pee, a short message in Template:Pee Edit about it, and slight changes to the DPL on the main page (that I know what they would be, but can't be bothered explaining). Not hard at all, hell, it's probably about two minutes work. ~~Heeren ["Meh"] [tecħ] [kurk] [23/07 17:38]

I still don't like this. How short is short, is one thing that is unclear. I mean do we simply score it and make a flipant remark like "good" "do better" or "QVFD this now" or do we go into some minor detail like what some people do on VFH, things like "needs more jokes in section X" or "Not my kinda thing", which in my opinion is often worse than useless as advice because it's so vague and rests on little more than the reviewers whim. U.U. said that this short review would be the sort of thing people would use to get their article eligable for self noming at VFH but there's talk of changings those rules anyway. if those rules are changed (and I suspect they will be) we'll end up simply saying that "this should be deleated" which that isn't particularly encouraging and will probably push people away. Even if a low scoring in-depth review does this anyway, anyone that may want to work on the article already has some place to start improvements from. Well anyway, that's my opinion. again. SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 17:41 23 July 2008

Well I made a forum ... MrN 19:30, Jul 23

The List and Quick Reviews

OK, an observation: when assessing reviews, I look more at whether the review helps the reviewee, rather than length of review. Therefore, if (as I hope) the quick review idea catches on, I'm going to rate 'em as good if they are short and sharp but helpful - ie, if folks do the old "lol funneh but needs to be more funneh" it's still not a good review. But if they say, perhaps "this is pretty funny - I thought it sagged around the middle, and the punchline was a little weak for all that build-up" - that's helpful. If the reviewee requested a short review, the reviewer would have fulfilled the request. So it's a case of checking if the review delievered what the request asked for. Any objections? --UU - natter 15:16, Jul 28

I always thought UU was the best judge of reviews, and what he outlines here sounds great.   Le Cejak • <15:23, 28 Jul 2008>

I think there should be a new column added to Cajek's list for the quick ones though. MrN 15:33, Jul 28

Someone remind me...

Why do we put templates onto reviews to reserve them? It makes sense if you are going to review immediately, so that two people don't review the same thing at the same time, but we also sometimes leave em on for a few days or more before we actually review. Is that a good thing? MrN 22:27, Jul 29

Yes. - [22:42 29 July] Sir FSt Don Yettie

Um? Care to elaborate Yettie? MrN 20:02, Jul 30

...no. I don't know why people do it. I never did. It just ensures that the writer has to wait for the when the reviewer "feels like" reviewing it. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That was the original point - to stop two people reviewing at the same time. I don't like the way it's kind of evolved to the point where people put them on and leave the article for a week - the idea was that when you saw a tag appear, a review was in progress. (Although I've been guilty of not doing a review as soon as I put the tag on, I always do it the same day. I do (when I'm not busy) chase up on tags that have been on an inordinate length of time, but I think it would be beneficial to go back to only putting the tag on when the review starts. Particularly to the reviewee! --UU - natter 08:07, Jul 30

Reserving reviews is not cool. I can tolerate not doing the review IMMEDIATELY, because if you're looking at Uncyclopedia every second and waiting for a review then you should find something better to do anyway. However, tagging the thing and not doing it within, say, 12 hours is bad. Not doing it within 24 is just inexcusable. Here's what I'll do for you guys. I'll fix the default {{PRIP}} template so that after twenty-four hours it "expires" (if there's a category, that will disappear, as will the template itself, at least from view).~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 02:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright chaps... You heard the man! Lj has made some changes to Template:PRIP to make it so that after 2 hours it expires. Can you all change your personal "reserved" templates so that they work in a similar way... If you can't be arsed, just use Template:PRIP. Basically, we should only be putting reserved templates on if we intend to do the review immediately. MrN 02:40, Aug 1

Please sir may I...

Put my clothes back on a and go home now? I kid, I kid. What I really wanna ask is can I update the list? I Don't want to seem big headed or anything but it looks like I'm in with a chance at winning RotM, and this month has two days left anyway. Plus the list is starting to be a bit out of date and no one else seems to be doing it... SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 08:31 30 July 2008

See thine talk page, good sir - please have at it. I don't think Cajek will object, I certainly don't, and if Boomer does, I'll take care of him! --UU - natter 08:55, Jul 30

Orian took my clothes... :< you don't wanna know the back story here... --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 09:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind knowing. SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 09:08 30 July 2008

Bring it, bitch. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing?

It appears that we have 12 reviews stacked up in current reviews that have received absolutely no response. Someone who can be bothered to start reviewing should do, cause I know I can't. I'm all suck and no blow, all take and no give. But yeh, we need to do something. Support the troops, send more soldiers to Iraq! Pull the troops out of Vietnam, or something. - [16:18 2 September] Sir FSt Don Yettie

I will happily do my bit when the major league stress headfuck that is this wedding is out of the way. As it is, I have a sneaky feeling that this may end up being the first month in over a year I do no reviewing at all... We just need a little injection of impetus, that's all - or at least one or two more to support the sterling efforts of Sycamore and Gerry in the last month. So how about I vow to track you down and clout you athwart the ear'ole with a golf club if you don't do a review soon Yettie? Will that help any with the impetus? --UU - natter 18:06, Sep 2

I fear your golf club very much...so it may indeed do. And I'm going back to school...so I may have more time (or less - that would be ironic). Heh, school. Yes, you're well old and don't go to school anymore, I'm well young and youthful. Also, why is everyone getting married round about now?? - [18:34 2 September] Sir FSt Don Yettie

School!? You told me you were a nurse! SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 21:35 2 September 2008

I get the feeling that there may be many cases like that right now. Many (if not most) Uncyclopedians still attend school, which, historically, has been shown to be a massive sinkhole of free time. Not like you'll notice any difference with me or anything. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Top heavy

We have almost as many steel kidneys as fresh stains. Discuss. - [16:11 5 September] Sir FSt Don Yettie

Go patrol recent pees. Spot the good reviewers. Ask them to join PEEING. We probably also need to de-kidney Yettie. :) I'M JOKING! Also, if anyone is still using a "reserve pee" template which does not expire after 2 hours... Shame on you. That's taking the piss... MrN 17:57, Sep 5

2 HOURS??!?! HOLY GA SHMOLEY! - [17:59 5 September] Sir FSt Don Yettie

{{PRIP}} is two hours. The point is only to use the reserved templates when you are actually doing the review there and then, to prevent an edit conflict kinda. We don't want to scare away reviewers just because someone has nabbed all the interesting reviews and then wandered off. /me wanders off MrN 18:07, Sep 5

Er but sometimes I take more than two hours to do a review.... Two hours is faaar too short. - [18:10 5 September] Sir FSt Don Yettie

2 hour reviews?!?!? Dammit! OK. It's 4 hours. That should do it. Also, stop running all over the place Yettie! Did your mother not tell you about running in-doors? MrN 18:18, Sep 5

Running indoors = good? - [19:03 5 September] Sir FSt Don Yettie

Only when holding scissors. MrN 19:07, Sep 5

I'm not allowed scissors. But I am allowed the plastic covering that goes around safety scissors, which is quite a big deal, you know, for me. My mum brings it out of the cupboard every fortnight, or so and let's me look at it. It's really awesome. Then we all have a quick fuck. - [19:13 5 September] Sir FSt Don Yettie

Noo award

OK folks, as we all like collecting shiny things, and as there are several people now past 50 in-depth reviews with nothing left to aim for, there's a brand new award for anyone reaching 75 in-depth reviews - the Diamond Dumper! See it sparkling there on the PEEING page. You want one, don't you? You know what to do. --UU - natter 09:55, Oct 7

Sadly this is precisely the motivation I needed. SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 12:25 7 October 2008

AWARDZ! UU has devoted most of his Uncyc life to making sure people review stuff, and I think HE deserves the "has done 75 good thingies" award. Uh, please pull up to the second window?   Le Cejak • <12:33 Oct 07, 2008>

Maybe we should create a Lifetime Peeing Achievement award and give it to UU. Obviously we'd have to kill him first for him to be eligible, but otherwise...EVERYONE WINS! - [15:31 7 October] Sir FSt Don Yettie

Well, I have just arbitrarily decided that OEJ gets one, for being, y'know, OEJ. And without counting them, he's done more reviews than me, and he is still the guv'nor. So he deserves one. Don't think he's that bothered about it, mind. Oh, and I'm gonna give one to Cajek as well. He's done, like, shitloads as well. The table only shows his post-hiatus work. Why I'm bothering to mention this I don't know. However, the race is on between Gerry and Orian to see who's next to get the award. Place your bets... --UU - natter 12:56, Oct 15

Suggestion/plea for action

So yeah, as Hype mentioned in the dump, the pee queue is backed up to about the level it was at when OEJ was the only guy reviewing, and me and Cajek hadn't long joined. In the last few days, OEJ has done more reviews than anyone, and there are 44 articles in the queue - it's like PEEING never happened.

At the same time, we have a bunch of top notch reviewers about the place who haven't reviewed a whole lot in a while. Not on hiatus like Finnius, Javascap and the like, active on Uncyc but not reviewing. (I'm as guilty as anyone, whatever the excuse). A solution therefore presents itself. How about all active reviewers on the list (and Boomer) do two reviews each in the next week? It's not like it's beyond our capabilities, and two reviews each by our active members would roughly halve the length of the queue. I further propose that we start from the oldest and work up the queue, as there's stuff there nearly 2 months old.

What do you say? How about a little concerted effort to make sure that a good thing we started doesn't kick its little legs up in the air and die a sad little death? Guys? Prove to me I'm not talking to myself here... --UU - natter 10:16, Oct 28

Sorry, I've wanted to do some reviews lately but homework is all hell this year. I have a three-day-weekend coming up so I may be able to knock together a few reviews, but I'm also having my wisdom teeth removed on Friday so, with the anticipation of large amounts of vicoden swimming around in my system, I make no guarantees. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for at least responding Boomer. The rest of you: thanks for that large round of indifference. --UU - natter 11:32, Nov 2

/me plays excerpt from "Dark Side of the Moon" by Pink Floyd: Is there anybody out there? --UU - natter 22:16, Nov 3

*Moans* stop making me feel so guilty. SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 23:25 3 November 2008

I'm here. I'm just having a little trouble getting my pants to fit at the moment. When I return I will be carrying a toilet plunger the size of Bristol. 90.211.198.122 23:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

MrN one presumes? Where have you been? SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 23:33 3 November 2008

"MrN"? Who is this "MrN" figure of which you speak? Sounds a bit pants if you ask me. Anyway, Shhh. "They" may be listening. No seriously, I'm not totally gone, I'm just taking this strike thing more seriously than I probably should be. When a statement is made about what we are going to do (whatever that is) I will return and help unblock the toilet. Until then. .... 90.211.198.122 00:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought you/he.whoever was off snowboarding again. Also, strike? Bugger that for a lark. I haven't seen it bringing Wikia to its knees yet... --UU - natter 16:59, Nov 5

Please

Please begin holding me accountable as a reviewer; I am back to full time status SK as of this moment. Thank you. Oh, I can't go and say something here without making a joke about urine. Hmm...Yellow laser. sirsysrq @ 15:11 Nov 5

Cool. List updated accordingly. Glad you didn't piss off for good... --UU - natter 16:57, Nov 5

Picked a hell of a time to come back. We missed you. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Awweh, Boomer. You're still my least favorite. ♥ sirsysrq @ 14:20 Nov 6

Yea, well, you have bad breath. ☃ Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nachlader for Attending

Since he's got here, he's done 17 high-quality reviews (I think). He has been nommed for RotM, and though the votes aren't favoring him so much, as long as he has been a contender, he meets the criteria for Attending. Discuss. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 17:07, Nov 20

See what U.U. says. I personnaly don't mind. SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 17:11 20 November 2008

Pants. Oh, you meant what UU said? Oh, right. MrN 19:09, Nov 20

Damn, it shouldn't take this long for Under User to show up. Think he got stuck in traffic? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to drop in and mention that it's more about your opinion than mine. ;-) I figured I had a while... Dunno about you, but my thought is: it's a little early, he's still learning the ropes, and getting settled. Give it another couple of weeks. He keeps going as he is, sure. I think next month's RotM could be interesting, mind you. --UU - natter 09:02, Nov 21

Actually, I'm not even sure if there's really much point in having Attending Urologists anymore. Anybody that's ready for the rank is bound to get RotM within a month or two, if they haven't already. Right now the only Attendings we have left are retired, so it seems like an unnecessary formality to keep it around. Plus, getting rid of it would reduce my already-nonexistent workload, making a win-win for everybody that's me. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You lazy arse. Actually, I take that last comment back as it's probably considered a complement. Anyway... Here's what I suggest...

For me, the point of the "attending" thing is that it's our award, which is not "official" (whatever that means, I never did understand), and that it's our way of saying who's opinion we trust to update the Pee List, and warn people about giving bad reviews. As UU does virtually all the work on the Pee List, and he's our most prolific reviewer it probably makes sense for him to decide who is allowed to update the list. That way, Boomer gets to sit on his arse (even more than before) and we get to keep a way of recognising excellent reviewers who (for whatever reason) have not won RotM yet... MrN 19:12, Nov 23

So, you want to keep it? • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:56, Nov 24

My own take on this is that we have several other awards for peeing: the golden urinal, platinum pisser and diamond dumper. Now, I realise I created those and no-one else may give a shit, but they're for doing a number of reviews which have been fully checked (again, mostly by me, but you're always free to disagree and correct me if you think I'm harsh or lenient) and agreed to be of good quality. In other words, they recognise the work they've done has been of consistently high quality. Both Nachlader and Mnbvcxz (and Necropaxx, come to that) are well on their way to getting one of those, and between that and RotM noms, I'm not sure what the point of the Attending thing is any more.

Updating the pee list? Most of the people who "can", don't. If they want to do it, they can ask, like someone did a few months back (may have been Gerry, before his deserved RotM), and if they're genuine and seem to know what they're about, I'm all for it. I don't see that as an issue, really - the main issue is still ensuring that promising reviewers are recognised and encouraged. Being told they're doing a good job and being asked to join is step one. A RotM nom, probably another step. One of the awards mentioned above another... Maybe if there's a sudden influx of reviewers, the Attending thing will matter more, but for now, I'm not sure it's a big deal. --UU - natter 22:13, Nov 24

So you don't want to keep it? Now that you've discussed it, it doesn't really seem that important. Should we keep it? I vote weak delete • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 18:05, Nov 25

In the noble and honourable tradition of peeing... I suggest that we do what we do best... Nothing. ;) Just leave things as they are. Having the award hardly does any harm, and it's probably worth keeping it around. Might just turn out to do something useful one day. MrN 20:11, Nov 25

Ahh, what a grand Thanksgiving that was. Does this mean that I have to check him out for attending now? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note...

What about Mnbvcxz? I know there has been at least 1 attempt to get him to join PEEING. He's a good and active reviewer, is he just uninterested? I, for one, would love to see him within the ranks. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 22:28, Nov 22

He probably just thinks were are a talking shop who mostly just sit around doing nothing wondering why nobody is doing more reviews. Oh. (blackmail him...) MrN 23:50, Nov 22

Hey, he joined! Hooray! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:33, Dec 12

I'm chuffed to see Mnbvcxz joined up, and he's been followed by the helpful Yodel monkey. In fact, thanks to the efforts of those two, Nachlader, the promising Docile Hippopotamus, the rejuvenated Asahatter and a few of the usual suspects, the queue is once more down to a manageable level again. Good to see, I hope it stays that way for a while! --UU - natter 10:30, Dec 22

Random Question

Just of our curiosity, what does being "contender for RotM," mean, under the qualification for being an attending urologist? If, hypothetically, someone gets +0 votes, but a couple of people who voted for another person said it was close, would that count as being a "contender for RotM" or not? --Mnbvcxz 05:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just anyone that's been nomminated for it. Sir Orian57~Christmas!~Talk 05:51 2 January 2009

Own trumpets, and the blowing thereof

So yeah, normally I don't do this kind of thing. But I'm a trifle pleased at having completed my 150th review and wanted to mention it somewhere. This seemed as likely a place as any, so I mention it here, and will temporarily abandon my "British Reserve^TM" to celebrate, thus: Woo! Go me!

That's all. I'll now go back to keeping my usual low profile. --UU - natter 22:05, Jan 5

WAY TO GO! You are now officially beating me by....146! So, I guess that's something. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, your unabashed celebration and the associated achievement has made me realize something. I was going to tell you all that something in one of my customary tl;dr posts, but, unfortunately, my homework has kept me up to a decidedly non-ideal time. I'd just like all of you to know that a big announcement is coming from me tomorrow, so you can all await with bated breath as I dangle treats and hints in front of your eager and rather oversized noses. Boomsta, out. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Um, that's 100 more than me!!! MrN 00:26, Jan 10

Big announcement

I'm stepping down. I'm not anything resembling close to Pee Review anymore, and being the "captain" of a group devoted to the system is almost laughable, not in a funny way. Despite our rather recent inactivity, even being the figurehead leader of PEEING is ridiculous. Therefore, I am retiring myself. If I ever become as active as I used to be again, I'll put in a request to be a Fresh Stain, on the condition that I be judged on the reviews performed since today rather than my complete, rather unglamorous history. In my place, I am appointing Under User as the new Captain Catheter. I had this big, sappy paragraph all planned out outlining why I chose Under User and only Under User, but really it's the rather obvious choice. I had considered upping MrN and Cajek along with him, but looking at my past actions it really seems that a single malicious dictator to give final word in all actions worked better than three somewhat malignant overlords would have. As to why I chose Under User rather than MrN or Cajek, it's mainly because he's both been the most active reviewer for a long while, excepting maybe when Cajek and Finnius went on a massive reviewing spree about a year ago, and because in all that time he's scarcely been absent for any substantial length of time, a claim neither me nor Cajek can make. He's been helping PEEING since its inception, and he continues to do so today. It was a difficult pick between MrN and Under User, but I think I've made the right choice, and if anyone disagrees they can take it up with him. I'll continue giving input in matters concerning PEEING; I still care about what happens to this group. However, I'll no longer be in the position to give final word on decisions. Thank you all for your patience with my unconcerned inactivity.

tl;dr version

Boomer out, Under User in. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just realized something. Seeing as Under User has somewhat of a history refusing positions of authority, this move is not final until he accepts the position I'm senselessly pushing upon him. Under User, I await your reply. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I withdrew from VFS votes due to an impending wedding that took up most of my time. Now I'm married, of course, I have loads of time. (Er...) Therefore sure, I'll give it a go. I'd like to thank Boomer for setting this thing up in the first place, as I honestly believe it's made a difference. To uphold proud PEEING tradition, I shall, of course, subsequently accuse him of being a lazy arse. --UU - natter 09:54, Jan 7

Yay! CHANGE! Also has anyone noticed that 24's first season pre-empted last year by 6 years??? SK Sir Orian57Talk RotM 18:34 7 January 2009

Are you saying we elected a black president because a primetime TV show had one? Because if so, you're actually correct. Shhhhh The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll be a monkeys uncle. No really, he's a monkey. Anyway Boomsta, if it's any consolation, it was funny. UU, I will bring your list of additional responsibilities over immediately. MrN 00:17, Jan 10

"Standard Candles" for Pee Review

I been thinking that maybe we should create a list of articles with a generally accepted score (i.e. a standard candle, or benchmark for a given score), in order to help out new reviewers give more consistent scores. I've noticed that some newer reviewers tend to give overly generous scores. Anyway, I did some work on the idea here. --Mnbvcxz 06:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hum. In theory, I kind of like the idea. However, in practice, I'm not sure - it comes back to the old chestnut about humour being subjective. As long as people are giving their honest opinions about an article, how can we say the score they've given is wrong? (Except in blatantly obvious things, such as a 10 pictures score for an article with no pics, or a high prose score for a functionally illiterate piece). I don't see how we could enforce something like this except by having a word with people who give obviously wrong scores per those examples (which I try to do), or maybe making a drive-by comment on the review in question if you disagree with it enough (which I have also been known to do). If you or anyone else has any thoughts on how this could work though, I'm open to persuasion! --UU - natter 09:13, Jan 24

Totally agree with UU. The thing is that the scores are not actually that important. It's what is said in the text which will actually be useful to people. I suspect that those who give odd scores have not read UN:PRG... However Mnbvcxz, feel free to edit UN:PRG if you think you can improve it... MrN 12:45, Jan 24

The idea is more for a reference list than a policy per say. Humor is subjective, but there does seem to be an underlying standard for the site. --Mnbvcxz 16:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A standard for what is funny? Tricky to do that... How would a standard be defined? We do have a rather nice list here which gives one users view. I guess we could put a few sample reviews as sub-pages of UN:PRG (with links from it), I don't see the harm in doing so should you want to Mnbvcxz, I'm just not that sure how useful it would be... Don't let us na-sayers stop you though if you think it's a really good idea... MrN 13:03, Jan 25

A list of good "standard" reviews would also help, but I'd need somebody else's opinion on what is and is not a good review. As for having standards of funny, they do exist. Or more correctly, there are standards of what is not funny/formatted wrong. --Mnbvcxz 21:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that giving some examples of good reviews on those kinds of articles would be more helpful than listing the articles themselves. The way I see it, newer reviewers might end up looking at the list, deciding which category the article belongs in, and artificially adjusting the score to match. Though that would certainly help in creating scores that we consider to be appropriate, it would make it a less honest review on the whole. On the other hand, if they could read the article and then see what would be considered a good review on it, it could give a good standard for rating in each individual category. However, I personally believe that benchmarks (I have never before heard the term "standard candle") shouldn't be utilized for all reviewers in general. If an individual finds a review to be particularly unsatisfactory, then said individual could personally contact the reviewer, as a judgment call. Besides that, every reviewer has a different style, and I believe that they can judge an article most honestly if they are allowed to hold to that individual style. The preferences of others shouldn't be thrust upon them unless they are blatantly terrible. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 21:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to try to encourage some consistency in scoring. There are some community standards for funniness, and the pee reviewers should try to aim at "what would be the consensus opinion" rather than solely the reviewer's personal opinion of the article.

The author is more concerned with "what is the overall consensus view of this article". Not what does Underuser think, what does Boomer think, what does <insert name here> think, or what does Mnbvcxz think about this article. (As a side note, Mnbvcxz's personal opinion is especially irrelevant, as he has a screwed up sense of humor and hasn't gotten a featured article yet.) --Mnbvcxz 22:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But there's the point: there aren't that many community standards for funniness. There are things you can try to do, and many of those are detailed in HTBFANJS, but I'm sure it would be perfectly possible to write a funny article by ignoring most of that if you really put your mind to it. One person's funny 45/50 article is another's 25/50 needs work article, there's no way you can standardise that.

A case to illustrate this: My visit with Aunt Myfanwy - I recall a review which stated that the line about the Welsh for "Megatron" being "Megatron" wasn't funny, when to me and at least one other voter it was one of the best lines in the article. Another example: anything in Category:My sojourn. I am not fond of any of those articles, I wish they'd never been near the front page, and would give them low review scores. But others love them, so what can you do? One other point: you may have to keep revising the list as articles get rewritten, unless you copy/paste them into a userspace area and get an admin to protect them or something to preserve them - they may get rewritten, improved, a 10/50 becomes a 25/50 and suddenly our standards look harsh.

Basically, when it comes to something as subjective as humour, it's hard to have a definitive sliding scale. All you can really do is link to some of the best articles, and that's easily done: UN:BEST (just avoid the link about sojourns and you'll be fine ;-) ). I'd prefer the idea of linking to examples of good and bad reviews, that could be more useful. However, if you think you can produce an example page showing how your idea works and I am wrong, I'd be very happy to see it - I'm never above admitting I'm wrong! --UU - natter 22:58, Jan 25

I am. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think editings messing up the quality level would be too much of a problem if they are in userspace. The idea is not to "force" everyone to use the same format. However, we do want to encourage some consistency in scoring how the review is presented (hence the pee review template).

I also think a list of good and bad pee reviews might be helpful. However, that might run the risk of encouraging "just barely good enough" reviews. I.e. if they no exactly what is considered "good", some reviewers might not aim at "beyond good" quality. --Mnbvcxz 07:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I trying to work on a page for examples of good and bad reviews. I got busy with other stuff, and forgot about this idea.--Mnb'z 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from IC!

Hi gize, it's me. As many of you may already know, I'm starting up UN:IC again as a usergroup similar to PEEING and I would love it if the two groups could kinda help each other out. As it stands, we're gonna try to be done with an article every Saturday. Would someone who isn't a part of UN:IC be willing to review each week's Colonization on Saturdays? In return, we will donate one bag of muffin stumps a month. Do whatever you want with those. —Sir SysRq (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. How about I take a look if no-one else has specifically volunteered to give that week's colonisation a once-over, but if any other PEEING members decide they want to take it, they make a note on the colonisation page to that effect? Oh, and Sys gives me a gentle nudge when the latest article is done if I need to look over it? --UU - natter 10:35, Feb 18

Lol, you used present tense when you should have used future. You smelt bad. ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 11:48 18 February 2009

I used precisely the tenses I intended, thankyousoverymuch. And are you insinuating I'm a fish? Or that I'm not very good at metal extraction? --UU - natter 11:55, Feb 18

LOLNOSPACE! "A wizzard is never late, nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to." And obviously your a fish, being such a good steel worker. ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 13:26 18 February 2009

Orian, you're the last person on this site that needs to be correcting people on their grammar. Oh, and thanks UU! If there's anything I can do for you to repay you just let me know. —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 19:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)