Forum:Pee Review Suggestion

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Pee Review Suggestion

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6197 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Although it has been said before, Pee Review seems to be one of the worst pages right now. Pages back up until the content is 2 months old, and then a user or two review 20 pages without doing more than glancing at the pictures. There's got to be something better than this! Perhaps having a 'Real Pee Review' for the articles that people really want to get featured, or get a full, decent review, and a 'False Pee Review,' where the articles are generally either bad, or for the authors that are trying to avoid VFD and IRC, the process will be less messy, and less crammed. Yes, that sentence was long. Maybe, following the vein of Conservation Week/Vigilance Week, we could even have a Review Week, where people try to clear out Pee Review. But, again, a lot of things could be better than the current page. Fresh Stain Serq Fet of Pokemon (At your service) 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I have to agree. A couple of months back, I was the victim of somebody's mass review, and I vowed never to go back. Last week, I foolishly forgot my commitment, and put something up for review. Guess what? Nothing. Nada. Zip. As for getting more than one review, don't make me laugh. Or cry. (and before you ask, whenever I put something up for review, I do two reviews myself. After all, we do live in a civilised world.) Pieface 06:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I find it's best to ask a reviewer, if you get a chance. Maye you saw somebody give a helpful review to someone else, maybe you think their username is pretty, but pick someone and ask. The trouble is that there are maybe 5 people doing pee reviews, and dozens of people are posting pages there. I'd be for a review week. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 10:35, Oct 12

Spooky, I was going to suggest such a week myself shortly. I try to do a few reviews a week regardless of if I've got something up for review myself. And I try to make my reviews helpful instead of the "it needs to be funnier" inanities that make you wonder why you bothered. But that's the problem - if we have a pee week, how do we try to ensure that all the reviews are helpful and not just the mass produced rubbish? Ideas, anyone? --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 12:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Idea! We could introduce a scoring system. When you post a Pee Review, you could post a reason why you're getting it reviewed (i.e. VFH, Move to mainspace) and depending on which category it's in, or if it's been reviewed before unsatisfactorally, only certain users with enough good reviews would be able to review. --User:Banjo2e/SIGGY 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done a number of pee reviews. I always try to give some extended commentary along with the scores. That's not always easy, and it always takes time -- which for me right now is in short supply. But when I look at the list of articles up for review and I am disheartened: there are too many being posted. Stuff is coming around for a second, third, and fourth run through the review system, yet we do not have enough people who do solid reviews to handle the influx of brand new articles. On the other hand, I absolutely agree that cursory reviews aren't very helpful, so if one gets a poorly-done review one is tempted to put the article back up and see if another reviewer is more helpful. So articles pile up. If someone asks me for a review it's a problem for me: I prefer to honor such requests, but time is always a problem and there are several classes of articles I'm not competent to review and have no interest in reading. So: pee is a service provided by volunteers and the demand is greater than the volunteers can provide. ----OEJ 16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Serq Fet entirley. Take one of my not so good articles (in fact it was so bad, I myself, the author, tagged it with {{V}}) It didn't receive the proper help because it was on Pee Review for over an entire month, and since it was an UnNews article, it was no longer funny because it was so outdated. We need better reviewers (I only occasionly Pee Review an article) and I think we need to do what TheLedBalloon suggested below.--Sir Manforman 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...

Sorry about that one. I tried to make it more constructive, but I guess I didn't do so well on that...

Anyways, I myself have been waiting for a Pee Review, and I've actually made some edits to it since it's been there. --Narf, the Wonder Puppy/I support Global Warming and I'm 100% proud of it! 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not you, it's the Pee Review system itself to blame--Sir Manforman 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, on the Pee Review main page, they should write, If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything at all--Sir Manforman 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Example

I got mine reviewed twice. Here is the wonderful second review.

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Finding Christian Symbology in Pokemon

I'm trying to get it ready for VFH. The only thing not included is one last picture, and it is still being processed in image request. Don't freak out that it says Pokemon. This article is not cliched! Fresh Stain Serq Fet of Pokemon (At your service) 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Humour:	2	i dont find it that funny at all but that is me
Concept:	2	i don't think it is a very good concept at all
Prose and formatting:	5	the formating is ok but you need to put the images in a better order
Images:	3	i don't really get the images with the captions you have put with it
Miscellaneous:	3	if find when you read it you fill like you are there for ever it might just be me but i think you have to much text
Final Score:	15	i don't really see this article getting much interest but that is me if you want you can resubmit it and see what someone els says
Reviewer:	Evil_One275 | Talk | Contribs 10 October 2007

Here are 5 ways to tell he didn't go more than look at the pictures:
1. Generic 'I don't like it' and 'bad concept.' Bad concept? The whole article is based on how original the concept is!
2. 'It seems to long.' It's somewhat short, actually, and a lot of the text fits into a list, or the analyzation of the song.
3. 'The captions aren't funny' Well, yes, I'll agree, but the pictures themselves are relevant, and the captions tie them to the text.
4. 'The pictures are out of order.' What is this one!? 3 match their point in the text, and 2 are at the top and bottom to ease the monotonous look of text.
5. 'Get someone else to review it, see what they say.' Wow. Just wow.

I don't blame Evil One. He just wanted to clean up Pee Review, but I would have preferred if he glanced over it, not just a peek at the pictures. Fresh Stain Serq Fet of Pokemon (At your service) 13:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just had a great idea! What if, following the vein of HTBFANJS, we make a How to Pee Review without being obnoxious, or something Fresh Stain Serq Fet of Pokemon (At your service) 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean this? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:59, Oct 12

We should have more guidelines though as that clearly isn't enough guidelines as users continue to offer unhelpful advice--Sir Manforman 23:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea. I haven't read the rest of this topic so I don't know if it's been suggested yet, but maybe we can make some sort of a template/message similar to Template:Oh Dear that we give to people that give grossly substandard reviews often. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking about. It wouldn't be a welcome message or anything like that, it would be similar to User Warning templates at Wikipedia. I seriously think that giving unhelpful Pee Reviews should become a bannable offense (espacially after being warned). People get pissed off at unhelpful Pee Reviews--Sir Manforman 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Banning seems a little harsh, but I(resistantly) agree, but not a permanent ban, give them about two more chances before that. --Narf, the Wonder Puppy/I support Global Warming and I'm 100% proud of it! 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, with my proposal, we'd only ban if they continued to offer unhelpful advice after being warned on there talk page, and the ban wouldn't be permanent--Sir Manforman 23:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My proposal

So the problem is obvious. As OEJ noted, the Pee Review is a service provided by volunteers and the demand is greater than the volunteers can provide. To remedy this problem, I suggest that we initiate a "Review Week" (as mentioned above) to gain awareness of the service and encourage people to participate. Additionally, I propose we offer an award incentive such as "Reviewer of the Month", while still maintaining the Golden Shower Award. As for the issue over individuals submitting low-quality or nonconstructive criticism in the Pee Review, the "Reviewer of the Month" should prove effective in encouraging people to submit positive and honest criticism. I find the current Pee Review guidelines to be sufficient in outlining what is acceptable and what is not when reviewing. Also, I see no current problems with the Pee Review scoring system. Let's have a vote.

Vote

Score: +3

• For a "Reviewer of the Month" and "Review Week" to help encourage users to participate and give honest and constructive reviews in the Pee Review. --EMC ^[TALK] 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• For Pee Reviewer of the Month. This would encourage users take the time to do in-depth reviews. See my further comments about Pee Review Week and why I disagree with that. --Sir Manforman 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• For both, plus that "Oh Dear" idea, too. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• For a reviewer of the month, against banning unhelpful reviewers, for giving them a message on their userpage. Still for a review week, as long as it spells out the guidelines very clearly at the outset, to hopefully ward off the 20 second review brigade. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 10:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments/Suggestions

I don't think Pee Review Week is necessary espacailly if the Main Page links to it. This will only encourage noobs to Pee Review articles, and we don't want that. I think we need to encourage established users (i.e. on IRC, and/or the Village Dump) who write good articles to do Pee Reviews not just for one week, but for the entire year.

I also disagree with you |e|m|c| because some articles on Pee Review are over a month old, and yet, haven't been reviewed. And don't forget about the users who don't offer helpful criticism. We need stricter guidelines to overcome this. As I said above, I seriously think unhelpful criticism should be a bannable offense --Sir Manforman 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Conduct on the Pee Review is similar to the general conduct of Uncyclopedia: don't be a dick. If an individual reviews your article in an unhelpful manner, consider taking the issue up with an administrator or talking to that person directly. I personally don't see the need to establish a ban policy for the Pee Review. --EMC ^[TALK] 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was talking about users who "constintley" offer unhelpful pee reviews. Maybe isuuing the Oh Dear Idea TKF suggested should be limited to administrators.--Sir Manforman 00:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that users who consistently give unhelpful reviews and disrupt the Pee Review in general should face some sort of punishment or scolding or lynch mob (or all at the same time). Again, I think such individuals should be reported to administrators and dealt with from there. --EMC ^[TALK] 00:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Another idea: Winners of the Reviewers of the Month (if implemented) should be able to use the warning as well. Sort of like a poopsmith, eh? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Great idea--Sir Manforman 00:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I started {{PeeReviewWarning}}. Feel free to improve. Also, this template probably should only be issued by administrators as the "premise" is that a user ban patrols a user for consistently offering unhelpful advice, and than if the admin Assumes Good Faith, (s)he'll warn the user on the talk page. If the idea isn't needed, just delete--Sir Manforman 00:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

An admin really needs to place {{PeeReviewWarning}} on Evil one275's talk page--Sir Manforman 11:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I had an idea about the Pee Reviewer of the Month. Maybe, they would be elevated to CUN if they aren't at that level already?? --Sir Manforman 14:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Electrified mocha chinchilla wrote that only admins should be able to post warnings to pee reviewers, and that is very very important. Critiquing someone's work is a really touchy business, and all of us who have done it very much have written honest opinions and then been more-or-less attacked for it. It needs a double-plus cool head to evaluate a bad-reviewer complaint and take reasonably correct action. ----OEJ 14:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. Before I ask a reviewer anything I always stick my head in the freezer for at least 20 minutes. Keeps me cool. It also turns my face an interesting shade of blue. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 15:21, Oct 13

We were better off with pure textual reviews. Why pee isn't flowing like people would like is not all that hard to figure out. Why does the vote and comments on VFH and such work when the pee does not ? Simple, it's too cumbersome to use pee, It provokes polarized reviews and does not leave a lot open for moderation. I'm not in favor of going back to a pure text based solution because the ratings are nice. I think a combination model of the VFH and the PEE is a quick and clean fix. I could for example review an article then rate and comment the sections Humour, concept and images. Some other guy would agree with my assessment of concept but not images and do those two. The combination of ratings of different sections would result in a final score.Not a lot would change, but more and faster reviewing without the bodged system out there would happen. Reviewing could even become fun again.--Vosnul 11:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My(being Boomer) Proposal(being on the subject of improving the Pee Review system)

How 'bout this: instead of making a Review Week that every idiot on the site will want to participate in, we make a Pee Reviewer's Society? Anybody can join initially, and if you want a pee review you submit to one of the members. That individual has the option to Pee Review it, hand the reqest to another member more suited to handle the review (like handing an UnNews article to a regular contributer to UnNews), or simply decline. If you don't have time to handle the review you can ask another member to Pee Review the article, if you don't want to review an article by an IP or an unestablished user you can simply decline, and if you have to take a break (temporary or permanent) from Uncyclopedia you can withdraw from the society. The society itself can be moderated by specific users (or admins) that regularly submit good reviews or simply have an interest in mainataining the society. They can invite good reviewers to join and eject anybody that gives poor reviews or ignores requests. After a certain amount of time (maybe a month) the Society page could be protected and membership could be granted exclusively by approved request or by invitation from a moderator. This seems pretty complicated, but it would ensure that only competent reviewers become members of the society, thus keeping Pee Review and the Society seperate. Pee Review could go on uninteruppted, just without the incredible article buildup. Whadda ya think? Oh, and if this is approved (long shot but eh) I would like to be one of the moderators because I still have more ideas for the Society that I would like to try out. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean like taking that pee reviewers' guild thing, and sort of turning it into a grue army/unsoc-esque user-group? I like the sound of it. Perhaps with ranks and the like, just like the aforementioned user groups? Also, I can think of a couple users who give great reviews, and that I'd like to see taking part... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:50, Oct 13

The group is a really good idea. I'd join this guild thingie. Sign me up, and I promise to review a little bit more than I do now. (and if someone accidentally slips that template onto Evil One's talk page, I wouldn't be too upset...) Fresh Stain Serq Fet of Pokemon (At your service) 05:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the sound of that one - as long as people who sign up do review consistently, ie one or two a week if possible. One further suggestion - can we limit the number of review requests for an article to (say) two a month? When the same articles are coming back on all the time, it clogs up the queue quite a bit. I realise there may have to be some leeway if both reviews are of the obviously unhelpful variety, but 2 reviews a month should be enough to help most articles out. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 10:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point. It is tempting to try and get multiple pee reviews for a page, just to make sure, say, that it is ready for VFH, but I think it's actually better for the page if you, once you get a good review, really sit down, read whatever the reviewer has written, and get to work tuning up what they told you to. In fact, I'm in the process of doing that right now myself. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 13:59, Oct 13

Well, I just realized that this isn't an official part of Uncyclopedia, so it really doesn't need to be voted in for it to begin. I seem to have support from some pretty well-established users, so I'm going to go ahead and start this on Monday. I'll go ahead an make a preliminary page here where the we can start off. You can use it to sign up (I'll put Under_user in since he already expressed interest in joining), vote on the name, titles, etc., and anything else that pops up that needs to be taken care of. On Monday I can begin making templates, launch the official page (if a good name gets voted in), and establish all users that sign up as members. In the meantime, I'll keep browsing this forum so feel free to post any more suggestions here or on the talk page. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)