Scrap the current review system

[Quik 4,113]

So as some of you know, I think the current review system sucks, or rather, the idea of capping TPE earned from reviewing PTs sucks. Reviewing takes time, and only allowing for 2 TPE/week means it's not even worth it to some people. Hell, I know that I don't even plan on touching anything other than GFX with the current system, since it already takes up at least 20 minutes to hit that cap, and reading Media Spots and then giving a thoughtful review means more time for the same amount of points.

 

So you have the issue of the cap dis-incentivizing grading, because who wants to put in that kind of work for nearly no pay, especially when nobody else is doing it anyways, and then you still have to go and complete a PT of your own, which takes even more time and for some can get monotonous and just straight annoying to do. I know it's meant as a bonus, but to most people it's clearly not worth it to add an extra 2 points/week when they've still got to do other things to earn points, or else we wouldn't have this problem. And the people who are most active/would probably be willing to do it are already earning pay that caps them out anyway, which means they're not reviewing anything anyways.
 

Just look at how old some PTs that still haven't been reviewed are:

 

• GFX nearly 2 weeks.
• MS over 3 weeks.
• Podcasts over a month.
• Rookie Profiles almost 3 weeks.
• Bios over 3 weeks.

 

My suggestion is to pretty much scrap the current system entirely, and start over on reviewing. This would pretty much be my plan:

 

1a) Raise the TPE cap. I would raise it to 7, but 5 would work just as well. Basically, you're allowing people to grade a lot more, and some can earn their full weekly TPE by grading and then claiming welfare or doing a 590 and Trivia. You're still promoting activity by having people review others' work, but people who don't want to do a PT every week don't have to. I'd still keep the rule on no carry-over. That way people have to review every week and can't just bank up a shit-ton of points from a week or 2 of reviewing.

 

1b) Cap Non-Podcast PTs at 1 less than max. That way you still have to grade at least 1 podcast, which are generally much more time consuming, in order to get the maximum TPE.

 

2) Change the Points System. The way it is right now is broken. RPs should have more value than an MS, which should have more value than a GFX. Making a (good) GFX is more difficult, but reviewing it only takes the first look and a few glances. Reading takes more time. This is how I would structure the new points system:

          A) 10 Points needed to earn 1 TPE

          B) Point Values as follows:

               i) Graphics = 2 Points

               ii) Media Spots = 3 Points

               iii) Rookie Profiles = 4 Points

               iv) Biographies = 5 Points

               v) Podcasts = 10 Points (I was going to say 5 for every 15 minutes, but it starts to split hairs when someone posts a 22 minute podcast)

 

3) Require Reviewers to tag OP in their review. This is just so that whoever posts the PT can actually read the feedback they're getting on their PT. For GFX, it can help newcomers to improve on what they're doing. I know that in the old days, this was mostly done in the graphics discussion forum, but with the auto-6, people don't really feel the need to improve all the time. Seeing the reviews might help with that. Same goes for writing PTs. Plus, it's just nice to know that someone has seen your work lol. I'd also like for reviews to be easier to pick out of other comments made in some of the PTs. I think starting with a bold/underlined "Review:" should also be mandatory.

 

4) Review Placeholders. In order to prevent extra reviews, when you are in the process of reviewing a post, you can post a placeholder for your review by replying "Review: in progress" while you are reviewing the post. The placeholder would last up to 30 minutes (or 30 minutes longer than the podcast if that is what is being reviewed, in order to allow a bit of leeway if they have to pause/rewind the podcast), and each member can only post one placeholder at a time. in the event of 2 placeholders being posted, only the first would be honoured.

 

Basically, this system allows people to earn most of their TPE through being active, but not having to actually come up with their own PT every week. There will still be weeks where stuff doesn't get reviewed as fast, depending on how many people participate in reviewing and if the core reviewers decide to post a PT or not, but it will eliminate a lot of the old PT submissions lingering in their forums, and I think promote a bit more activity. I know there's a feeling that by allowing people to make most of their TPE through reviewing, it's unfair, but it's something that needs to be done, and isn't getting done as it is. This won't lead to a league-wide epidemic of people using only reviews as a means to earn TPE, since there can only be so many PTs reviewed before people have to start posting their own.

 

What do you guys think (tagging everyone I saw who posted in the other thread)?

 

@Will @Beketov @Devise @DollarAndADream @Jonessee27 @JardyB10 @Phil @Kyle @Banackock @tfong @TheLastOlympian07 @BOOM @Green @diamond_ace @STZ @sterling @der meister @ADV @Beaviss @Exlaxchronicles @boubabi @Tyler @KGR @hedgehog337

[Beaviss 4,949]

I think it's a decent idea if people want to review instead of doing a media, podcast or graphic they should have that option.

 

You got one BoG's support.

[Phil 5,014]

Review:

 

I agree with a lot of the things in here, particularly the podcast bit. It takes about as much time to just LISTEN to a podcast as it does to WRITE a MS. I would love to support by fellow podcasters like @der meister and @Beketov and @JardyB10 and whoever else is doing a consistent show but even if those three are just doing 20 minute episodes (and generally they are longer) that's a solid hour just to grade 3 of them. That is a lot of time.. especially when I have 4 podcasts to record every week. POdcast reviewing by far takes up the most amount of time and I think it should be weighted much more heavily. 

 

I also agree with the graphic reviewing. All that takes is a couple of looks and then you write your review... and what's the stipulations of the review? I've seen some 2 sentences reviews? Is that REALLY fair when, if you look at my podcasting reviews.. which has probably some close to 400 words... and on top of that spending half an hour listening to the podcast itself, we definitely need to adjust the weighting. 

 

Honestly, some days I do not feel like recording.. I only have fridays and staurdays where I can. I would love to instead, be able to just review podcasts, claim welfare, and be able to reach the cap. That would be terrific. 

 

I also believe that the reviewing process should sort of be monitored. I know @DollarAndADream will be looking through everyone's Log's but we should also be looking at the content, the effort, and the substance of the actual reviews, which just brings me back to my point about the effort being put into them. Two quick glances and smash out two sentence vs 30 minutes of listening followed by 200+ words. 

 

Even this review, ffs, is about 350 words.. I think reviewing should definitely have more substance that just a "hey nice article. That was interesting." 

 

Anyway, that's my take on it

[Phil 5,014]

(and yes, I realize this isn't an MS... but it's long enough to be and I figured I could prove my point better in Review format!)

[Quik 4,113]

7 minutes ago, Phil said:

Review:

 

I agree with a lot of the things in here, particularly the podcast bit. It takes about as much time to just LISTEN to a podcast as it does to WRITE a MS. I would love to support by fellow podcasters like @der meister and @Beketov and @JardyB10 and whoever else is doing a consistent show but even if those three are just doing 20 minute episodes (and generally they are longer) that's a solid hour just to grade 3 of them. That is a lot of time.. especially when I have 4 podcasts to record every week. POdcast reviewing by far takes up the most amount of time and I think it should be weighted much more heavily. 

 

I also agree with the graphic reviewing. All that takes is a couple of looks and then you write your review... and what's the stipulations of the review? I've seen some 2 sentences reviews? Is that REALLY fair when, if you look at my podcasting reviews.. which has probably some close to 400 words... and on top of that spending half an hour listening to the podcast itself, we definitely need to adjust the weighting. 

 

Honestly, some days I do not feel like recording.. I only have fridays and staurdays where I can. I would love to instead, be able to just review podcasts, claim welfare, and be able to reach the cap. That would be terrific. 

 

I also believe that the reviewing process should sort of be monitored. I know @DollarAndADream will be looking through everyone's Log's but we should also be looking at the content, the effort, and the substance of the actual reviews, which just brings me back to my point about the effort being put into them. Two quick glances and smash out two sentence vs 30 minutes of listening followed by 200+ words. 

 

Even this review, ffs, is about 350 words.. I think reviewing should definitely have more substance that just a "hey nice article. That was interesting." 

 

Anyway, that's my take on it

 

You didn't tag me @Phil, how am I supposed to know you reviewed this? But yeah, like I try to be constructive in my review of graphics, but even then there's not much I can say about them other than how they look, what I would improve on, etc. There's no way I can get more than 100 words in a review of a graphic, whereas there's a lot more that can go into a 30+ minute podcast, etc. I definitely think there needs to be some sort of system to make sure reviewers stay honest as well.

 

5 minutes ago, Phil said:

(and yes, I realize this isn't an MS... but it's long enough to be and I figured I could prove my point better in Review format!)

You can copy/paste it here if you want <3

[Phil 5,014]

Just now, Quik said:

You can copy/paste it here if you want <3

 

HAH! That's too funny

[Exlaxchronicles 415]

I'm down with what you've said.

[Kesler 1,514]

I think the key preoblem with this is, what if say half the graphics people that post sigs every week decide to review graphics instead of post them. I dont even need to bring up numbers for it to be clear that there would not be enough graphics to be graded. Sure for the first week there might but after that there would not. I feel the system right now is sufficient for enough people to earn 1-2tpe a week grading (this is just for graphics btw.) 

[boubabi 4,725]

No. Reviewing is pointless nowadays. 

[Quik 4,113]

25 minutes ago, Kesler said:

I think the key preoblem with this is, what if say half the graphics people that post sigs every week decide to review graphics instead of post them. I dont even need to bring up numbers for it to be clear that there would not be enough graphics to be graded. Sure for the first week there might but after that there would not. I feel the system right now is sufficient for enough people to earn 1-2tpe a week grading (this is just for graphics btw.) 

It's a fair question, but like I said, this wouldn't be a one or the other situation. Grading wouldn't preclude you from doing a PT or claiming Welfare/Pension or any of the other ways to earn TPE in the league. The max would be just that, a maximum allowed per week. If you only grade enough to get 3 TPE, you can still post a PT to get the other 9.

 

Plus, you are allowed to grade any type of PT, not strictly graphics. So even if graphics does run out, you can grade Media Spots, Bios, Profiles or Podcasts. And if by some chance it ends up that there is absolutely nothing to review, then you just post a PT yourself.

 

As it is, nothing is getting reviewed, so clearly it's not a problem of reviewing too much.

[diamond_ace 3,106]

I like this idea. I'm not really concerned about Kyle's point because there's so much out there - it's hard to think things will run out for review when so much else isn't reviewed. I know for me, it's always going to be easier to just write something than sit and review all these, so I think not wanting to put in effort on a given week would lend itself more to doing the PT than doing all the reviews. At the same time, there are those for whom doing a PT isn't as simple as just sitting there and doing it. This might be an option for those people.

[Baozi 1,635]

Reviewed. Also can i get doubt points for listening to beketovs codcast? Like not only is he weird but its COD...ewwwwww...

 

 

 

JK

 

But i do agree with this sentiment.

 

Next stop! Being active in chat for TPE?

Edited October 27, 2017 by tfong

[Gudnason 607]

Thanks for the non-tag?

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

I am definitely on board with this, @Quik. I have been from the beginning. I've even said for a long time that if I get 9 capped per week, I'll literally review everything myself.

 

I know some people say reviews are pointless nowadays, but they are not. We need reviews to make sure people are following the guidelines, with effort for graphics, and wordcount etc for media. Podcasts especially need some kind of change, because a lot of them are 30 minutes or over and there is a clear reason why people usually avoid reviewing them. Either review 4 medias in like 10 minutes for 2 TPE, or review 1 podcast for like 30 minutes for the same TPE. Not everyone has the time to sit at the computer and listen to multiple podcasts for 30min at a time, and according to the people who actually review them, almost nobody has that time.

 

The main thing here is the major need to find a consistent crew of people. I do go through a lot of them myself, and check everyone's logs to make sure their reviews are reviews, etc. But there simply isn't enough people at all doing them and really, for 1 TPE to be head of staff, that's not a whole lot of incentive for me to go out and grade every single ungraded PT.

 

Obviously, we have guys now who are pretty good at reviewing at a good pace, but most of the great, consistent reviewers are from the past. In my time as the Head, it's been slowly getting worse over time. This "everybody can review" thing definitely helps, but obviously after these first couple of weeks we have seen that it's not enough.