When clicking on an item to review from the review queue, I’d like to have an indication of the date when the item was last active (i.e. when the submitter last looked at their item and its reviews).

The reason for this is because of the 10 reviews or so I have done today, several were for items that do not appear to be active – i.e. either the account is inactive (some hadn’t logged on for over 6 months) or the item’s reviews no longer appear to be being opened. Looking back over all the reviews I have written (all 153 of them), over 1/3 of them are still locked, and that’s not even counting the ones I have written this month. All that wasted time… I’d just like the option of skipping items where I feel it is unlikly that my review will ever be unlocked.

Also on the matter of dates – have you notice that the top 3s in the ratings lists don’t seem to be changing? I’d love to know the dates of when these items were first submitted. I bet they’re all at least 6 months old. Maybe I’m wrong, I’m certainly not bothered enough to copy them down and keep checking, but I’m pretty sure it is the case with short stories and sci-fi/fantasy. Proof maybe that people are getting meaner with their ratings as time goes on? This goes back to the point Squarehopper raised about ratings becoming pointless.

The authors who hadn’t logged in for a month should have all teir pieces removed from the queue. Those who hadn’t reviewed, but have logged in in a month should remain in the queue.
It just makes this comunity weaker to have people review stuff no one will ever read/open. Too much wasted time/energy.

I agree with you for the most part. But, if it’s like a piece that I have that hasn’t had any reviews in a while for me to open, I wouldn’t want that to influence some one else to not review it. I hope that came out right. It sounds a little funny, but hopefully you will be my point.

I’ve reviewed a few screenplay items that appear as though they will never be opened. The most recent one shows the author hasn’t logged in since March 25. All of the reviews posted since then are unopened. I, too, would really appreciate my time not being wasted. I gave a detailed review. If I could have seen the author’s last log in date, I would have reviewed something else.

Was a time when I was so busy reviewing that I almost every piece I had in my queue (I mean categories – not the general one) was guaranteed to be of a writer not logged in for at least 3 months. But I tell you, I rather have that then not have anything to review. Leave it be.

There is already a natural selection at play in the General Queue. Typically, those with the most credits are recently active. If you’ve already reviewed their work or blocked them, then you will start seeing older items until newer members make their way up the queue. Squarehopper is correct – removing old items from the queue would leave your queue empty. To assure item creators are more active, stick with the requested queue.

All that said, I like bravis’ idea of showing more date specific data in the queue. Namely, item creation date and last login date of item creator. I will add this to the list.

how about awarding credits to people for each day they log on, and taking credits away for each day they don’t. You could stack the numbers so that 2 days off = 1 day on, or any other way you pleased, but this would have the effect of draining credits from not active members, and building credit for active members…

“how about awarding credits to people for each day they log on, and taking credits away for each day they don’t. You could stack the numbers so that 2 days off = 1 day on, or any other way you pleased, but this would have the effect of draining credits from not active members, and building credit for active members…”

Hmmm, that is an interesting idea. Can you post that as a new thread in feature requests? I would like to get other member’s input on it.

I’m going on vacation for six weeks and really don’t want my credits to be eaten up because of it.

DC, are yu saying it’s a bad idea, or that the weighting should allow for people who are less frequent users?

As per Steve’s request I’m reposting anew so pehaps you can carry over your comment here too?

“I’m going on vacation for six weeks and really don’t want my credits to be eaten up because of it.”

Good point.

We could just increase those who log in – and leave alone those who do not.

As far as DC’s point about the vacation, why not give the option of a vacation button? For example, have it good for 6 months after you first press it. If one doesn’t return after 6 months, then start eating up their credits. I mean, come on. If you’re disappearing for more than 6 months, chances are you’re probably not coming back.

So, keep the idea of having the non-users having their credits eaten by the credit (cookie) monster. I mean, you could even have a little avatar for the guy. When people complain about not having any credits, they can go to Credit_Monster’s sitepage.

I’m going to vote against this. Here’s why:

1. We are writers and, hopefully, we therefore spend time both writing and editing our work and this is/should be(?) our priority.
Having to log into Urbis every day reminds me of pre-paid cellphones where you have to top up after a certain period even when you have ample credit or risk losing both service and money. I still call that theft. Don’t let Urbis become a thief.

2. Do we really want to encourage people to log in just to receive/retain credits instead of because they either have something ready for review or are in the mood to do some reviewing? Say I have a busy period in my real world life, trying to schedule writing and the other things somehow. Add “Sh*t, have to log into Urbis” is hardly going to make me a useful or productive Urbisonian.
We do want useful and productive people don’t we.

What are the problems we are trying to deal with here, what other solutions can we consider?

1. Aged items where our reviews are wasted because the author never logs on.
Possible solutions:
a. Enforced tagging as “Don’t review” after a certain period of author inactivity. We have gone part way along this line with the ‘only 2 unopened reviews’ restriction.
b. As Steve as already agreed, showing date/activity information next to items – personally I would suggest for all items, not just those on the queue.

2. Rating list contains inactive authors.
Possible solutions:
a. Have an “Active” marker against items on the ranking list.
b. Remove items if author inactive after a reasonable period – maybe notifying the author in advance and giving them a chance to log back on.

Any other problems?

I think the unlock limit, combined with the natural selection of the credit economy, is enough to solve the problem. If not, we can add a simple black/white flag that removes items from the queue if the creator has not logged in since x days ago. We can even send them an e-mail reminder “Due to inactivity, your items have been removed from the queue.” Chances are, inactive items will already be removed because they have too many locked reviews.

I agree, as much as I liked the ‘get credits for being an OCD level Urbis checker’ idea – this would obviously have benefited me enormously.

Ah well.

You’re right Steve. The new two unlocked reviews limit will solve the issue as originally stated, although I was stung by something similar the other day, but in a slightly different way. Someone submitted an item as Pro, got 10 reviews on it, opened all the really short ones that cost the least to open, then deleted the item and all remaining unlocked reviews. Half an hour of my time wasted writing a lengthy, thorough, insightful, quality review. Hurrumpf!

Again, I say leave it as it is. Unopened reviews are your credit eating monster. If I ever become active enough again to review a category to the point that I am getting the dregs (unactive reivewers with less than 1000 points) my review will knock them out of the queue for most of you folks anyhow.

Leave it be.