Forum:Peer review lite

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 16:35, October 29, 2013 by SPIKE (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Peer review lite
Note: This topic has been unedited for 329 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

The biggest loss to this wiki is that of peereview. While I doubt it will come back in it's old form...I thought we could at least have some kind of peer review lite where users can critique each other's work without having to write a 1,000 word essay on it. If there is enough interest (even just three or four users) in doing so...and anyone who'd like to help me format it...I'd be happy to set it up. Doesn't have to be anything fancy. The simple the better. --ShabiDOO 22:19, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the great majorities I do are not Pee but a couple paragraphs or a list of observations. The number grades in our form are meaningless except to traumatize a new Uncyclopedian, as he often neglects phrasing or photographs and deserves one or more 0's even alongside his 10's. But this problem is separate from the one you raise; if you've got 1,000 words of things to say, there is rarely an alternative to writing 1,000 words--and in fact the Pee table was meant to be just such an alternative. Spıke ¬ 22:37 11-Oct-13
I couldn't agree more with you SPIKE. Those low numbers and flashing red panels gave me a heart attack the first few pee reviews I had done on me. It would be nice to have a pee-lite. An extremely simple space without the forms we used to use and a simple forum-like-wall for users to leave whatever comments they like (as many or as few words as they want). The site really needs it. --ShabiDOO 23:24, October 11, 2013 (UTC)
But return to my question: Are you looking to avoid "having to write a 1,000 word essay" or to get around our form, as intimidating to the reviewer as to the author? It seems to me it is one or the other. Spıke ¬ 23:30 11-Oct-13
I want to jumpstart pee reviewing again...and I highly doubt people are going to write long in depth pee reviews as before. I'm hoping a new space will invite people to write critiques of whatever size they choose and allow users to comment in a wall like format instead of being obligated to fill up a table and write more than they perhaps want to. An added bonus being not just one user will review or crituqe as was the custom on pee reviews. No custom format...no specific expectations. Just a wall. --ShabiDOO 23:33, October 11, 2013 (UTC)
"Community wall" sounds like the thing Wikia rolled out on all of its wikis last year, except us. Anyway, I am enthused to have you flesh out your idea. (Sheesh! and the Chief Justice's website avatar has not even reached room temperature!) Spıke ¬ 23:40 11-Oct-13
Enthused reminds me of Regular K ... my favourite article. I'm interested to see what other users think about this. --ShabiDOO 23:47, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

This forum leads with both nudity and coffee. Ergo I support it completely.

One thing I did notice and has always been a concern is the removal of the “an article must be pee reviewed before it can be self-nominated” rule. This rule did push people into asking for reviews, and as a result then completing reviews themselves in a mutual handshake thingy. Once this rule was removed this sounded the death knoll for peeing.

There has never been an official rule on what length a review should be, but there has always been an expectation on a certain level of quality of reviews, and novice reviewers have been shot down for giving reviews are are too light. This has also tended to push people away from reviewing.

I have no idea how well the above suggestions would work, or have any other suggestions that I would put faith in, but that's my thoughts on the reviewing process in a nutshell. Hopefully that will help.                               Puppy's talk page06:49 13 Oct 2013

Yeah...you're totally right. I wish that rule had never gone away. It's a bummer. At least UnNews right now is at top notch quality again. --ShabiDOO 07:24, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
I had always thought a 'good pee' was worth some extra weighted votes on VFH but don't know that could be regulated. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:22, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

What does it look like?

Sorry for bumping this, but Anton was discussing it on my talk page, and TBH I'm not sure what we want the review to look like now. I uncovered User:POTR/PEE a little earlier today, which was my previous recreation of the review form, but that's really just a different formatting off the same thing.

Are we breaking this into sections, or is this just the one section that allows a reviewer to say what it is they need to say? Should we incorporate a link to HTBFANJS into the completed review view, given that is or quasi-style guide? What do people have in mind?

I need guidance here!                               Puppy's talk page12:07 28 Oct 2013

I did not look at details of your formatting, but I think it is a right way to do it. To clarify: what I think Shabidoo said, was that he wanted an option which would allow reviewers to write only a few useful comments and not a full essay. Your permits it, maybe we will just need a few more questions to guide him.
Spike says that he does not like putting scores, and so maybe we can make comments in the actual review optional somehow? He reviewer himself will choose whether he wants to give number-grades or not. If not, not to ruin the whole table, he can give short remarks, such as "More work needed", "A lot more work needed", "Almost perfect", etc., and the color of the table-sections would be dependent of them.
Concerning the PeeReviews as a whole system, I think that having two options: Pee Review - something we have right now for those who would like to write complete essays, and Pee Review Lite - something you have almost worked out. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:44, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pup. Each page should use the same template. The top is standardized with relevant info (htbfanst is a GREAT idea). I was hoping that for each user who writes a comment...there would be a separate box (kind of like when you look at all vfh nominations at once). It gives the look of a facebook wall sort of and is remisicent of VFH. There are absolutely no rules about how someone comments or reviews. A user can do a complete review if they choose in their own review box using the pee review template if they like. Importantly...a user can close the review page themselves (by adding the category "reviewed" or clicking a box or whatever) or a happy-hard-working-helper-user can close pages that are now featured, deleted or stagnant. This could exist side by side with pee review as Anton has said. Both of your mothers are totally allowed to give me a phone call any time they like regardless of what time zone they are in...or whatever planet I happen to be on. This we can be positive about. Does this sound pheasable? The problem with the boxes is...I have no idea how to format them without having to create new pages for every single review. Any ideas? --ShabiDOO 17:45, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to ask: why do we need several Pee Reviews for one article - I think this will just be more confusing. Even if only one person completes a Pee Review lite, that should still be enough for the author, as right now some complete reviews do not contain more than two sentences per section. But maybe your ideas are good.
Concerning Shabidoo's last question, I think there should be one model box for comment (if you really want multiple reviews) and if someone reviews the article, the box will be filled and the page marked as reviewed. However, if someone wants to add his comments, he can copy the box, paste it on the same page and just fill it how he wants, so there will be multiple boxes. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:39, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Okay - here's how my brain is currently working:
A template can differ it's appearance depending on what options are filled in. The present PEE review system considers itself "complete" and changes the category based upon if the "signature" section has something in it. When it first shows on a page where there is a review requested it's something like "Click here to complete review". What my thoughts are is giving that two options: the first is "click here to add a Pee review/Click here to add an in-depth review". Depending on what the user clicks this will either go to an older style review (minus the scoring aspect, which I agree was mostly meaningless), or a newer style review (which will be a two option template, the first part being the review and the second part being the signature.)
Each one of these can also pop up an intro to the editor, giving tips on how to fill in the template, or what is needed in a review.
That initial 2 question box will stay where it is, so that if any other editor comes across the same request and feels there is something that can be added, they can simply add it directly there. What can be added to that box, though, are generic tips to the original requester. ("Have you had a look at our helpful writing guide, HTBFANJS? Have a look at some of our previous featured articles for inspiration.")
The layout of the main page will be more like VFH than the current review system, where once a review has been completed it vanishes from the queue and goes to a "completed reviews" section (like the recently featured/recently failed type of sections.)
The back-end stuff created around reviewing by Boomer and Cajek can be largely ignored, as nobody really takes any notice of it any more, and the benefit we got from having it is far outweighed by how much of a bastard it was to update. Besides - if we do away with the scoring then it becomes mostly irrelevant, except for gloating rights by those in the top 10. (And I'm not likely to catch either UU or Chief now.)
Cats are a lot of fun to chase, especially when the run up trees and everyone hangs around the base of the tree and barks at them.
Does anyone have anything else specific that we can add/take away?                               Puppy's talk page09:10 28 Oct 2013
This all sounds great. Pretty much what I had in mind. I think there should be three options: Indepth pee review, lite reviews (minor comments) and review (zero limits). If the author only needs or wants touch-ups...they wont waste reviewers time. If they want in-depth reviews only...then that's what they'll wait for (some time). No limits...has no limits. As for having the different reviews and comments look like a fb wall...I know cathtecolourful has a prototype for something snazzy. I'll search for it. --ShabiDOO 21:26, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Cat the Colourful Cat
Cat the Colourful - Meow?
TALK - 08:05, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Okay. Break that into two options:
{{Review template
|signature={{User:Buccaneer Batman/signature}} ~~~~~
|review=This is an unlimited review space, so I can 
blah as much or as little as I like
}}
and:
{{Review template
|signature=as above
|concept=It has one
|humour=It has some
|prose=It's speeled good, and formatted
|images=There are some
|misc=other things and a final comment
}}
The first option will look like Cat's template, but I might look at FB for better colouring (or use a similar colour schematic as twitter article), and the second option will be a hybrid between that and the current template.                               Puppy's talk page09:46 28 Oct 2013

Hey puppy. We don't have to use cat's template...it's just an example of what I was thinking about. I'm sure you'll devise something groovy! --ShabiDOO 22:59, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

So the scoring will be gone entirely?
Also, just to clarify, a Pee Review lite will be for those who will add one or two comments about the article, then the normal (old) Pee Review will just be as it is but without scores, and there will be the third option, an in-depth review which will basically be something we often do right now (but with the old Pee template) but with more guidelines for the reviewer? Right? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:13, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
Actually I was going to leave it at two options - classic without scores, and free form which allows you to do as much or as little as you like. An intro template could be introduced to give pointers on how to review, but free form would be up to the reviewer what they put in. The advantage of temllating means being able to "complete" a review so it's no longer showing as "pending".                               Puppy's talk page04:15 29 Oct 2013
And what will happen to your template (the one in your user space with many details). I think we need some particular questions inside the template, in PR lite or somewhere else. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:27, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
Make mine scoreless. On encountering, for instance, a new article without photos, the goal is to neither let the author ignore the need to eventually add photos, nor to give him a grade of zero. So the resulting structure should continue to remind the reviewer to hit all the aspects of a good article: To size the article up from a list of standpoints rather than go totally free-form and just provide his gut feeling. Spıke ¬ 16:35 29-Oct-13
Personal tools
projects