Forum:Attention Pee Reviewers!

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Attention Pee Reviewers!

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5998 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I am starting a user group for the improvement of Pee Reviews and the eradication of the incredible backlog of review requests. I have started a temporary page here for signing up, deciding on the name, and any other issues that need to be taken care of before the group is launched. The group will be similar to the Reviewing Committee, but far more active. Anybody can sign up initially, and I will be creating templates, user boxes, and ranks for the members. As of now, the only guidelines are that a)You give quality reviews and b)You give a minimum of 3 2 1 review per week. Anybody that regularly gives Pee Reviews, wants to help out the site, or wants incentive to get off their lazy asses and do something is encouraged to join. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to join, but 3 per week seems very unlikely. Maybe one per week? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:52, Oct 14

I might lower it to two per week (as Under_user suggested) but I want to make sure that reviews are good and that any articles that have potential get reviewed. I don't want the members to go searching through Pee Review once a week to find articles written by commonly featured users so they can have an easy read. Plus, a major concern right now is that Pee Review already has a massive backlog of articles that need to be reviewed. Naturally, if more members join, there will be fewer articles that need to be reviewed, and I can easily decrease the minimum. I think for now I'll bring it down to 2 per week and try to give incentive for clearing out Pee Review as much as possible. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And how would you define a quality review? ~ 18:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

One that helps the author to make the page suck less. At least, that's how I look at it. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:09, Oct 14

Actually, that pretty much sums up the big long paragraph I had typed up before I was edit-conflicted. However, because I'm an ass, I'm gonna repost it anyway. Warning: may be repetitive because I don't want to bother changing it. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I pride myself on saying just enough. :P - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:44, Oct 14

I actually just posted some loose definitions for the guidelines on the membership page. There really won't be a set definition, but I'll be going through the reviews every few weeks to make sure that the reviewers are actually helpful. As long as they are honest about what needs improvement and give one or two suggestions (if they need it) about how to improve, it'll be fine. I just don't want anybody giving an IP's article a score of 8 and telling them that the article has no hope of surviving. I have actually seen quite a few of those (though most were done by one user). Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen quite a lot of those, unfortunatly. While I value the Pee as an essential tool, I think that if you take up the position of the Pee moderator, you have to be very sure that reviews don't end up as one liners summing up as "it sucks" "meh" etc. Having said that, I'll try to help but I can't promise two per week. I'm a lazy bastard, as Leddy would be happy to confirm. ~ 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's true, but I wouldn't say Mordillo is the only one. I'm pretty lazy. In fact, the reason I'm editing this is because I have a massive test coming up that I need to avoid studying for. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:29, Oct 14

Where did I suggest 2 reviews per week? I suggested limiting the number of times an article can be submitted for review to 2 per month, to help reduce the backlog. I'm sure that would be sufficient. I'd be happy with people committing to one review a week, and more if they can manage it (I've got a busy period coming up at work and don't know if I'll be able to sneak enough time when no-one's looking have enough break time available to do more than one review a week). I'm also still keen on a reviewer of the month award, as long as the first goes to OEJ - look at the quality and quantity of review the guy produces! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)!

Fine! Because every one of you lazy bastards has complained about the number of reviews, I'm bringing it down to one. But I'm not happy about it! Look, I even have my angry face >:( Anyway, I hadn't even thought of Reviewer of the Month. It's a good idea, but I don't have any picture editing programs more advanced than MS Paint, so I'll need someone else to create the Badge/Patch/Thingy that's on all the other awards. If my award doesn't have one all the other awards will laugh at it and not let it join in their reindeer games. I think I'll put a reqest up on RadicalX's Corner. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 21:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Let the picture drawin' contest BEGIN!

I'm not signing up for any clubs, but I'll do some Pee Reviews more often. I'll do FIVE tonight, just to clear the "Articles that need reviewing" list.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   02:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)  

OK, I just did a dozen Pee Reviews. Everything from September has been reviewed. The rest is on you guys. Can you match my achievement?     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)     

Ahem, those reviews (if the others were like the one you gave me) may have missed the point we're trying to make here a little - we're looking for people to give reviews that include constructive feedback and suggest ways to improve the articles, not just give comments like "Give it a little more love"! We're not just looking to clear the queue, but to do it in as helpful a way as possible. At least, such is my understanding. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 08:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! We're trying to review the article in such a way that the writer knows where he needs to improve in order to make the article good. I may even start up an article adoption program, but for now I'm just working on getting the group started. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 13:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Constructive criticism is hard when the article doesn't have much to go on. "Throw the whole damn thing away and start over" is about as nice as I can put it for most of those articles. The reason they didn't get reviewed earlier is because they SUCKED(It has to be said. Just read them. You'll know what I mean, and the pain I felt doing the pissing). I will be making more Pee Review contributions, and of higher quality, in the coming times. But I'm still not signing up for any official functions. Cheers.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   23:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)  

That's a good point, but it's nice to at least say what wasn't awful, so that the author can know what to keep, even if it is just a line or a section. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:52, Oct 15

Or if there really was nothing good and it needs to be thrown away, (politely) let them know what sucked most, so that they don't just go out and write another terrible article to clog up Pee Review. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FREAKING UPDATE!

I have just launched the slightly official page for... People for the Evaluation of Excrement and Influencing Nominations for Greatness! PEEING is continuing to accept all membership, and we still need help setting up! Once all matters that still need to be taken care of are dealt with, I will archive the current page and the PEEING will officially be launched. On a side note, I'm changing the redirect of PEEING from urine to User:Boomer/People for the Evaluation of Excrement and Influencing Nominations for Greatness. All objections by anybody that can't ban me will be ignored, and now if you want to link to the page you all you have to do is put in a link for PEEING. Convenience! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Oh, and doing a search for peeing will also redirect to the site now. Huzzah! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

*Takes a piss* Ahhh... that felt good.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)     

i would like to offer my services as a constructive critic...i could do 1 a week NO PROB, BOB just let me know the necessary links. I already went to the main page and signed up--Finnius 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, we have to be constructive and not simply scathing? This blows. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 05:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

ok i have done 2 reviews in 2 days. There are a few that i looked over, but decided i DID NOT want to review them. Why? Sometimes it was the subject matter (no interest whatsoever), or the subject matter was so obscure (didn't want to bash something i didn't understand, maybe i was just missing the joke/point)...i will try to do 1 a day for the next week.--Finnius 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap. I think you actually deserve this. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't the norm. Once i'm back from my 'vacation', my time here will be much more limited, as work calls. 1-2 a week might be all i have time for.--Finnius 03:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We shall never forget you for those 5-6 days in which you will not be with us out of each week. We shall never forget... --EMC ^[TALK] 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)