Forum:Hey, I have an idea that could help fix Pee Review...

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Hey, I have an idea that could help fix Pee Review...

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6289 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

What if we required that you must have posted a review of Pee Review within the previous 24 hours when you post an article to Pee Review? You can post to any previous Pee Review article that you want (so long as it isn't yours), there are no requirements for how useful your post must be (though constantly posting crappy reviews will probably hurt your chances for getting a useful review yourself), and you may post as many pee reviews as you want within the 24 span. What do you guys think? Good idea, bad idea, dumb idea, hopeless cause?

Good idea?

Score: -1

• Comment. I think this could work, but it'd need a volunteer that uses Pee Review a lot to implement it. Since I'm not volunteering for that, I don't think I can vote for it, myself.--<<>> 01:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Against. Some better ideas have shown up at IRC.--<<>> 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It's a good idea, but it might stop noobs from getting help with their articles through not realising about the review process. Also, how would it work? Would there physically be something stopping you from posting there if you haven't reviewed in the last 24 hours? -- 13:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that there would be a reminder from the "Pee Review policer" reminding the poster that

they must review another pee review candidate to post to pee review, and a template be created for pee review entries that seem to have violated policy. The reviewer in question would then have one week to review another article or their article would be taken down off pee review. I think after a little intial confusion, this would increase the useful of pee review for everyone. As it is, a ton of stuff is just getting ignored at pee review, but a lot of people are posting stuff to it, so this is trying to harness that fact to actually make pee review useful for people.--<<>> 14:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It'd be kinda like an NRV for pee review articles of people that are just trying to leech off the system without helping others, only instead of a judgement of the value of the article, it'd just be a reminder that it's a violation of policy.--<<>> 14:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, lock the pee review page. Or would that be too much to ask from the "enforcer?". And the whole idea is that it would be a whole mess to sort out the dispute, that they would just review someone elses page. —Braydie at 14:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is yet another thing that I think would be "self-policing". I think if people saw the tag indicating that the person was trying to "mooch" off the the pee review system, they would move on to another pee review article. So they could get one week of reviews before it got taken down, if people were so inclined.--<<>> 14:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea, but it will take a super uncyclopedian to enforce all of this.. an uncyclopedian of the month maybe. —Braydie at 14:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominating list

An idea from IRC. We could keep a list of users who nommed articles in the last day (or week, whatever), and only these users would be allowed to nom. Anyone could get on the list by reviewing, but if you aren't on the list, you can't nom. This would reduce the numbers of noms AND raise the number of reviews, which would kill two birds with one stone.--<<>> 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a list as such, just include a link in the nomination: For and nom (eligible to nom from this edit). Anyone could check the link and see that it was within the last 24 hours and a valid review. -- sannse (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing committee

Like the welcoming committee, these users would make it their duty to review articles at pee review, then get a template and honors as a result. This could give people honor for being part of a active group in the community, which could help them promote themselves as possible admin candidates in the future.--<<>> 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Add to this some templates... something like "reviewed 100 articles", or "reviewed and article leading to its eventual featuring" -- sannse (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm.. obviously, like that only funny. It's too early in the year for me to be awake enough to think of something suitable -- sannse (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Image for awards or whatsoever

Just uploaded this, I think it's funny for awarding reviewers or maybe a symbol for the reviewing comittee.

What do you think? -- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, a humorous pic. I like it!--<<>> 19:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sign up here for reviewing committee

The charter of the reviewing committee is to review every article on Pee Review. We seek to do this in a kind, fair manner that respects the author, even if they have no talent and their work is tripe. The committee will need a template that labels us as useful, important folks, and we should strive to improve pee review (and thereby the quality of work all over the site) through our efforts. Unless someone else takes over this, I'll start us rolling completely on Feb. 16 (after the PLS is over).--<<>> 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• --<<>> 17:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 17:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• —Braydie at 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• -- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• -- ----OEJ 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting to put something together here, I can see a few people have already signed up anyway. Perhaps if we add things that we want as we go along this can grow organically. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

• 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• I WAS HERE -kjhf!- 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Why not.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing guidelines

Some ideas on how to review, to make it easier for reviewers -- sannse (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate goal will be to review 100% of articles posted at pee review, preferably using the form below, but not neccesarily.--<<>> 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

people have to give a fair and just review, though, one that constructively criticises reather than just,"it Sucks", but how it sucks and what can be done to help it out.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 13:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We started a guidelines page yesterday. Suggestions for more guidelines welcome. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I knew that, honest, dammit, why don't people keep me in the loop.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pee Review Form

To make Reviewing easier, a set form of basic review criteria could created and scored on a simple 1 to 10 scale, like this (Stolen from VFD):

UnBooks:The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Drifters reviewed by ENeGMA

Humor	10/10 - Truly a masterful piece of writing; had me in stitches. I especially liked how you made fun of Hobos, as they are inherently funny.
Concept	10/10 - a brilliant meshing of Drifter lore and the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Much like chocolate and peanut butter, this is a delicious marriage.
Formatting	10/10 - Properly uses section headers, the images sync properly with the text, and there are satisfactory amounts of wiki-links, along with few Red links.
Images	10/10 - The images help to convey the central theme of the article and do much to add to the overall hilarity.
Comments	Dear author, you truly are the voice of our generation. Bravo. Bra-vo. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Another potentially useful review exammple is below

Fisher Price reviewed by Brad

Humor	9/10 - Bizarrely funny in a way I just can't describe. Maybe it qualifies as anti-humor, I don't know.
Concept	10/10 - Very funny stuff, and an original idea. Good work.
Formatting	0/10 - Though that is part of the idea of the article, yeah. The formatting is non-existent on this one. I don't think this necessarily hurts the article as a whole, but some voters will probably hold that against this one.
Images	0/10 - No images on this one. You might consider adding one, but then again, the simplicity adds so much to this article, it could ruin the whole concept. Maybe write a retrospective to get this a chance at feature.
Comments	This article is very original, and I have to admit I laughed, so it could have a chance at VFH anyway, though the very simplicity that makes this brilliant could hurt it at VFH. Maybe make this a part of a retrospective or a series to improve its chances. See Euroipods Crusade for an example.--<<>> 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. You can whore your articles in a review. Happy reviewing, ladies and gents.--<<>> 17:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Other Possible Ideas for the Form

Which, if any of these do you think should be added?

Personal Opinion

• As always, I feel this should be considered when reviewing an article, because if you don't, it is figured in subconsciously.--<<>> 18:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• “A personal opinnion is an opinion given by a person. An unpersonal opinion is an opinion not given by a person. I'm yet to see one of the later”

  ~ Captain Obvious on Personal Oppinion

In other words, the "Comments" field should do. -- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 21:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Though I meant 'personal' as in subjective, and the comments for objective qualities about the article that didn't fit into the present descriptions. But you're probably right. Maybe "Summary" would be a better title. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

VFH Possibility

• I think this one is redundant and the review itself already speaks towards the VFH potential. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• I remember ENEgMA saying some articles of mine were fine but still too much narrow-ranged to fit VFH. There are good articles about untasteful or obscure subjects that, despite being well-constructed, have no chances in the lions' pit of VFH. -- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This could, perhaps, be like a final score or tally. You could have a perfectly decent, funny, article, but it could be just under that notch for VFH, if you know what I mean. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 21:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Prose Style

• My personal bugbear, of course. Many writers, new and old, have trouble with splelling, teh grammars, sentence structure, coherence, flow, etc. ----OEJ 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Good addition. If an article just has bad writing, it cannot succeed. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add any others you might think would help in reviewing an article. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Revised Form

This is a revised edition of the form, by no means complete, but with some of the aforementioned ideas included. A more in-depth explanation:

1. Humor: Is it funny?
2. Concept: Is the article original? Have you seen something like it before? Does the overall concept add to the humor of the writing, or subtract from it?
3. Formatting and Prose: How does the article look? How does it read? Are there a bunch of red links, grammatical errors, errantly placed pictures, ect.
4. Images: How do the images or lack of images influence the overall appeal of the article?
5. Miscellaneous: Does the article have it, that special quality that makes a well-written article different from a Feature Worthy star?

Article reviewed by Reviewer

Humor	1-10/10 -
Concept	1-10/10 -
Formatting and Prose	1-10/10 -
Images	1-10/10 -
Miscellaneous	1-10/10 -
Final Opinion	1-50/50 -
Comments

Any other opinions/ideas? Is this better? Should we perhaps change the scoring system some? I myself like a uniform style, it's much simpler, but others may disagree. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 21:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. I like.--<<>> 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it the way it is shown. Nice and simple and not mind perplexing. I WAS HERE -kjhf!- 10:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Awards suggestions

Rejoice, Hey, I have an idea that could help fix Pee Review...! You have been entitled to the
Golden Shower Award

For donating high quality material to the Pee Review.

---

Yet the embrio of an idea, you are free to edit or clone whatsoever. -- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 00:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Great name as well. —Braydie at 00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Form revised again

I redid the table (sorry, whoever did it before) to be more streamlined both internally and externally. I wrote a perl script to generate the red->green color steps from 1-10 and 1-50, and created two new utility templates called Color10 and Color50. Both accept one parameter and return an HTML color between red and green based on the input number. If anyone is unhappy with the current shades that are used, it is extremely simple to change them with the new system of templates. Usage remains the same as before, except instead of a Comments section (which is redundant, given the Final Score section has comments), I have replaced it with a Signature parameter for signing the review (instead of putting your name in the comments section).

Humour:	8	I certainly laughed, though length is an issue, as is the fact that it's really just one joke, restated. But it's still funny.
Concept:	7	I absolutely UnTunes, so that automatically moves it up in my book, though I must say the concept of song about how bad someone smells is, inherently, somewhat offputting, no matter how good it is.
Prose and formatting:	8	The lyrics are good and stay to true to the original song. The singing was...impassioned. I like.
Images:	10	Not applicapable.
Miscellaneous:	9	I just have to tack on some bonus points because I like the whole UnTunes "thing" and the execution of this was flawless. Clearly effort was point into this, unlike a lot of what I see here.
Final Score:	42	Very good, overall. I hope to see more of this kind of thing. Keep up the good work Mr. Lyons.
Reviewer:	Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 00:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

--Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That... Is a thing of beauty <starts weeping> --Sir Jam 10:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Love it! Just one thing. If there aren't any pictures in an article, shouldn't the score be 0 for images? -Kjhf!- (feeling chatty?) 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because that would deduct 10 points from the score, which is not what I want. That would imply that article would be deserving of a 32 out of 50, not a 42, which is not what I decided the final score should be. See? --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like maybe no images should be a baseline of 5 and then any good images add to the score and bad images subtract. Also excellent job Silent Penguin on sprucing it up a bit. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because if an article screams for images, but has none, it should get zero. But if an article has none, but has no need for them, it shouldn't be docked anything. It should be case-by-case, as I see it. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 23:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Think you could add support for decimals on the two template? I believe there's some bit of wikicode to do a mathematical operation, you could probably find some way to return anything within a gradient. And that function also makes fscore an unneeded variable. --User:Nintendorulez 21:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can work on it, i dunno if it will work though, as i know this table inside out as i designed it, or if its supported, ect.i did think of it but I didn't bother.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, The final score calulates itself now, lazy gits. However the colours won't work with decimals yet. Im still working on that--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Decimils are now allowed, the colour will come from the nearest colour avalable,however you cant put N/A anymore, you will have to put 10 or 5 or 0 or something, i would suggest 0,--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Although it is very convenient that the score calculates itself now, I do notice that a lot of people leave the 'misc' category blank, which automatically deducts 10 points from your possible score. Can't it be schanged so that blank fields do not weigh in the final score, or possibly that the final score is displayed as eg "32/40" instead of just "32"? - Dutchy 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

God, you flipping people want everything, god ill give it a try, it may take a while, it doesnt say out of though, and your supposed to use the misc section to say its chances of VFH.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember the review template doesn't actually affect anything. It's just an easy (or at least I thought so) way to have your work reviewed. There's no point jumping through hoops to make it do everything automatically. If something is N/A, put a 10 in that spot. Simple as that. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we could, but isn't it much more fun to see people bend over backwards to satisfy our every whim? - Dutchy 09:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not when I'm one of the ones bending over backwards! Otherwise sure. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)