Forum:Does anybody think...

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Does anybody think... (talk)

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5314 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I was just wondering if anyone thinks that maybe pee review would run more efficiently if we had it set up more like the reefer desk--ie, lots of people make little comments on everything instead of one person making big comments on a few things? Just kinda throwing this out there, I know pee review is actually doing pretty well right now and I certainly don't want to invade PEEING's territory. What do you people think? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:33, Sep 1

I don't know if this would make it any better for other people, but I think it would help make things more community-based than a couple of people staking their claim on a part of the site. I think it'd be worth a try. Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 05:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it will work. We tried something like that if the forums a while ago (winter 2008/09), and it failed because it was too labor heavy. --Mn-z 05:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As I say whenever Spangy mentions that this is how proper peer reviews work, the problem lies with getting people to do it. There are so few people who review regularly at any one time, and generally, more articles to review than there are pics to help on Reefer Desk. In a perfect world, I'd love to see something like this work. In practice, I can see it falling apart very quickly due to lack of participation. --UU - natter 08:36, Sep 1

Yeah. I started something like that in the forums (what Mnbvcxz mentions) and there was a complete lack of participation. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does say: "Alternatively reviewers can make brief comments on the page above the table, providing suggestions on improvement or useful advice. Adding brief comments will keep the review in the queue of waiting reviews so that other people can still see it. If you wish to do a full review (using the table) please make sure that you have thoroughly read the the Guidelines. Please don't fill out the table unless you have. When a full review has been given the review will be removed from the queue." People sometimes do make comments without doing a "full" review (which removes it from the queue) so that's kinda what Led is suggesting no? MrN 12:58, Sep 1

Oh, I forgot to whore UN:WHORE which may be kinda along the same lines... MrN 15:13, Sep 1

That's sort of what I'm suggesting, but I always hate to bump things to the top of peoples' watchlists for such a small piece of info when they're expecting a full review. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 15:38, Sep 1

I don't know about other people, but the only reason I don't contribute to the reefer desk is because I have no experience at all with any program beyond MS Paint. Plus, I don't think the communal pee method would necessarily prevent people from making longer, more complete comments, though it may discourage them a bit. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 14:57, Sep 1

Yes. I've said that about a million times, give or take. Just sayin'. Also when I tried to change the guidelines to make it more obvious that multiple smaller reviews are OK, I was reverted in short order. Same as when I tried to discourage the "I claim this review" template. Pee review might actually be useful if it was like how you said - as of now, it's just one person's opinion, and one who is unlikely to be the target audience of the article at that. Which incidentally is also why it shouldn't be part of the VFH rules. But that's another story, kinda. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 16:00, 01 Sep 2009

Like I said, it would make it more of a community thing, because (as stated), one reviewer isn't exactly the target audience for an article. Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 17:58, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

And like I said, I'd be all for it, if we can make it work - my strong suspicion is that it will either not get off the ground, or will start well, then falter quickly under the weight of articles. Last month, 112 articles were pee reviewed. Given how some people find looking through VFH fairly regularly a bit of a chore, I suspect most users would quickly get bored looking through 100-plus articles a month before too long and stop contributing to the process (look how many people regularly look at VFD - although that's not exactly a great comparison, I freely admit).

I would be very happy to see this happen - perhaps a trial system can be put in place side-by-side with what we have now: people who want an in-depth "traditional" review go to the usual place, people who want to try a new "community" review go elsewhere, and we see how it works? There would have to be a guideline or so, such as "constructive contributions only - no 'this is shit'", and possibly someone to keep an eye on it to ensure said guidelines are adhered to. I do think there will always be a place for "traditional" pee reviews, because often one person giving you 30 minutes of their time takes more care and gives more insight than 30 people giving you a couple of minutes each, but I would love to see a community approach, if it works and keeps working. C'mon folks, who wants to prove the English curmudgeon wrong? --UU - natter 20:53, Sep 1

I thought about having it as another option, but that wouldn't work at all--people would do either one or the other and the community style thing would have like 2 contributors. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 00:10, Sep 2

I don't know whether it would work so well based mainly on the fact that a bunch of little comments for an article review aren't really that useful, and that's not even considering how many people would be willing to actually do it. I remember reading on of the old threads about the poor state of pee review at the time, this page pretty much perfectly represents what was wrong with it. Now how useful is that? I mean he gave an article with no images a ten for images. Similarly a bunch of small comments from people don't really help an article because what an article needs are suggestions for where it can be funnier, pointing out if something isn't funny, explaining if it is going in the right direction or wrong direction etc etc. Some comments like "Pretty funny but could use more jokes" doesn't really tell the writer anything. The other thing I wonder about is when exactly is the article considered 'reviewed' do we just chuck it in an archive after enough time has passed, or is there meant to be a set number of comments made. With the current pee review it is easy to know when you've gotten a review. --Sequence 15:59, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the hell that pee review of babble has to do with anything I've suggested. I want to do away with the table altogether, because I find it unnecessarily constrictive, and I think it encourages people to fill their reviews up with filler text that isn't helpful. I'm not suggesting that everyone write "lol pretty good but needs more jokes," I'm suggesting that people read it and add two or three suggestions at a time. It would be like, as I said above, the Reefer Desk. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 02:52, Sep 3

Back in the day that sort of was what Pee Review was, except that you were lucky if you got any constructive criticism, and people sort of did it on a one-on-one basis anyway. ~

Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

3/09/2009 @ 02:53

Ape's Opinion

I think this is a good idea. One of the things that stops me doing reviews is the time commitment, as well as the fact that one is required to put a lot more info into the box that one might be able to come up with, rather than making more targeted comments about things that struck them. -- congruent Ape (quantify) (Riot Porn) 19:09, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Chief's opinion

I think that the current PEE setup is fine and that while having just one person look at an article gives a limited perspective it does give an insight into what may need to be improved. As I frequently say, an article shouldn't really have a target audience, humour is for everyone and if a reviewer doesn't respond to it and can provide reasons for that, then I think it is a very good mechanism for helping make an article better.

The idea is a good one, and input from the community would definitely help people aspiring to put their articles on VFH. In the past I have found myself giving an article a high grade, but still explaining the many many reasons why it may fail on VFH, and if we can implement a system that makes it easier for authors to get quick feedback from the community in generalto give a feel for how the article will be received then I would agree with it. Ultimately perhaps a system where articles could be submitted by reviewers rather than by authors, for consideration by the community would work better, or even just for consideration by members of PEEING. This would provide a good support mechanism for newer reviewers and would let the community voice an opinion on articles that are possible VFH contenders. Though this does raise the possible issue of making VFH a bit redundant.

But having a system where PEEING members take a look would mean that participation would be less of a problem, in that there are usually a fair number of active reviewers but would severely limit the number of people able to give feedback. What does everyone think? --ChiefjusticeDS 22:03, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Humour is for everyone? What kind of bullshit is that? Humour that appeals to everyone is usually bland and hackneyed. Good humour, like good art, often divides people. (Which is why I have issues with people voting against articles on VFH.) -- congruent Ape (quantify) (Riot Porn) 22:44, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Or do you really mean Ape  : I have issues with people voting against my articles on VFH.. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 23:21, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

No, and I don't like the insinuation. I have a problem with the way you vote, because you haven't a clue, but that's not at all what I'm talking about. -- congruent Ape (quantify) (Riot Porn) 00:56, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Yo, COOL IT! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 01:36, Sep 3

I'm suggesting we rework a system which I find constricts participation in order to streamline things. Somehow I don't think adding another level in our already-retarded bureaucracy would work towards that end. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 02:52, Sep 3

Keep things as they are. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 05:49, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Why? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 16:40, Sep 3

Its actually takes a good bit of work to get feedback. Which is why VFH is always struggling for votes and VFG is effectively dead. --Mn-z 16:59, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Pages that have been on VFH over 3 days average about 10 votes not counting abstains. If half that many people are looking at pee review, we're still getting 5 comments per article, which, if people are willing to give 2 or 3 decent suggestions, amounts to a great review in less than a week's time. VFG is dead because it's not linked anywhere and no one cares about it. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 17:09, Sep 3

Some people car about VFG, and I try to whore it whenever possible. --Mn-z 18:49, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Boomer's Opinion

Shut up and do a review. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:39, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

no u • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 01:35, Sep 3

I would, if each one didn't take 45+ minutes. If helping someone out took 10 or 15 minutes, I might do it more often. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 02:52, Sep 3

Hey, less arguing with me, more doing a review. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:23, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

I would, if each one didn't take 45+ minutes. If helping someone out took 10 or 15 minutes, I might do it more often. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 03:26, Sep 3

Really? I take about 5 minutes. When I'm not watching tv. And well, who.  –              zh              09:26 September 3

Nobody thinks...

...they feel. --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 06:32, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Stop pointing your finger to the moon. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:49, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

What about

Doing post-review fly-bys? I.e. commenting on the article after the review has been done. That way, the regular in-depth reviews get done, and Leddy can spend 10-15 minutes helping on a review? --Mn-z 06:50, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Or spend 10-15 minutes commenting on an article before it's reviewed and just not fill out {{Pee Review Table}} if you don't want to. It's when you fill out that table that you take the review off the list of waiting reviews. I think some people do this now. If we got rid of the table, how would we "close" the review? MrN 08:28, Sep 4

How do they do it on Wikipedia? -- congruent Ape (quantify) (Riot Porn) 12:27, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

They make it no fun. At all. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:39, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

That would work too. The only issue is the pre-review fly-by will probably mention what would have been said in the review. I think if he allowed post-review fly-bys, it would allow for more community feedback and maintain the in-depth review. Of course, that would run the risk of review-of-review drama, but you'd have that in any system of multiple reviewers. --Mn-z 18:48, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

I think that doing that makes doing the actual review redundant, I may be biased as someone who has spent most of their time around here forcing people to listen to his views, but I think that you may as well scrap the full in depth review in that case. For quite a lot of people, while PEE reviewing is a lengthy process (I usually take about an hour and a half on one review) this is compensated by having someone respond to you and come back for more feedback or take your suggestion to heart (soaring music). What you suggest may lead to a less coherent outcome for a writer who may be being told completely different things by two people, and a lack of motivation to bother doing a full review for others, especially if your suggetions can be written off by someone commenting on the article talk page. While this problem is inherent to any sytem with multiple reviewers I think that it is going to be very difficult to implement a system where you have people doing in-depth reviews and then other people making comments post review. The potential for the idea to create truckloads of drama is massive and may also slow the system down further. So, while your idea is pretty sound I can't really see it working in practise. But perhaps I'm wrong, what does everyone else think? --ChiefjusticeDS 21:43, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

How about just leaving short feedback (if you feel you want to) on the article's talk page? -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 21:56, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Oh so that's what a talk page is for‼ • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:06, 05 Sep 2009

I was actually being serious... is there any problem with leaving comments on the talk page? I'm sure the author has the page watchlisted, so will get notification if you leave stuff on the talk... -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 04:47, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

No, leaving talk page comments, especially comments of a helpful nature, is strictly forbidden. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:54, Sep 5

To do a post-review thing, I'd have to read both the article and the review to avoid redundancy, and I also feel like adding additional comment insults the reviewer a little bit. It's like saying that their review isn't good enough or something. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:52, Sep 5

And, wouldn't everybody except the first reviewer need to that in a community review? --Mn-z 05:22, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Sort of, but it's like this forum--I probably wouldn't read this whole thing in one go, but I've been following it and reading it has been much easier. Plus, I think with a community system the comments would be less wordy. Helpful without being longwinded. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 12:23, Sep 5

The other things is, it eliminates the problem of the reviewer having to come up with something to say about every single part of the article, even if they have nothing really helpful to say. -- congruent Ape (quantify) (Riot Porn) 14:31, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think we have enough manpower to have a full forum discussion over single articles. And I also really don't understand why post-review comments are bad if you accept the theory that we need community reviews. The reason community reviews are advocated in the first place is because single person reviews by nature often aren't "good enough or something". --Mn-z 16:40, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

PuppyOnTheRadio's opinion

I think that the current system works as well as any system that we have in place in a systematic structure that encourages people that have no respect for authority and an aptitude toward vandalism to congregate around a central point and criticise somebody who may be seen as a potential threat to their own glory hogging ways. The only issue I have is that for some reason I felt that in-depth reviews had to be long, and I now have a sword of Damocles thing that if I write a review that is less than 3 times the original article that I am going to be censured and banned from Uncyclopedia for life. In short, It's not broken, doesn't need fixing, just needs a bit of effort from the community to keep it ticking. The only thing I'd like to see is a way to flick time wasting review requests from the queue in as gentle a manner as possible. Pup t 00:07, 6/09/2009

does anybody think.... NO! NOBODY THINKS!

'nuff said. -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 03:24, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Somebody already did that joke. Much more cleverly too... -- congruent Ape (quantify) (Riot Porn) 13:36, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming more and more ridiculous daily (this forum topic). Is anyone going to shot your fuck up about these stupid 'policy' ideas? -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 14:21, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

This always happens. You should propose some sort of policy to stop it happening again. -- congruent Ape (quantify) (Riot Porn) 15:03, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

How does changing the pee review format have anything to do with "policy?" - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 15:21, Sep 6

And why did you put "policy" in quotes with a question mark? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:47, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Why would somebody kill a man for a Klondike Bar?--Almost Sir Random Crap

Because that's the grammatically correct way to do it... - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 16:01, Sep 6

Maybe that's correct to the Asians or something.-Almost Sir Random Crap

Wait, no it isn't--apparently you only ignore the flow of logic when dealing with commas and periods. Isn't English fun? Oh, and shroom: If you edit my comments again I'm going to ban you until 2036. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 16:13, Sep 6

I was banned for that before. -- congruent Ape (quantify) (Riot Porn) 16:29, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

You're not helping your case. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:32, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

My case for what? -- congruent Ape (quantify) (Riot Porn) 18:16, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

For being the ugliest prostitute I ever fucked. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 18:21, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

That's not what you said at the time. You were all like "Oh baby. You look so hot. Sit on it." etc. -- congruent Ape (quantify) (Riot Porn) 18:38, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

I. Don't. Know. I'm guessing that I thought you were Bad Shroom. My past is muddy. Some say that it's because of the booze, but to them I say "Blamargh!" while I hit them with an empty wine bottle and chase them out of my alley. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:44, September 6, 2009 (UTC)