Hmm…

I just had a refund of a teensy-weensy review declined, a review that:

a) offered erroneous grammatical ‘proofreading’ notes
b) did not understand that UK spellings are often different
c) rearranged a sentence a different way and said “this is how it should have been written”

Then…

There followed a sentence of gibberish, rife with grammatical errors and indecipherable “advice.”

So the question we need to ask ourselves is… does one teensy little grammar point justify letting a bad review stay? By this logic, someone who has written a 1000 word review and puts in the work gets almost the same amount of credits as the dufus who found one error and based their shoddy critique around this.

“Meets minimal guidelines” is baloney, all y’all review guardians… you need to understand that giving people the benefit of the doubt is not going to improve the quality of critiques on Urbis. Most of the time, you are wrong about reviews “meeting minimal guidelines” as if something is blatantly unhelpful, but has the appearance of being so, this is simply not that same thing.

Sharpen your perception, please. Grr.

While I agree with Claire mostly here, I think we also have to accept that the reviewer does not have to be right to meet the guidelines; he/she simply has to show an attempt to give the author criticism. The British English/American English problem goes both ways, although British writers are more likely to have seen American spelling differences than the other way around. In the end, you can’t expect everyone to know every little difference. I’m sure Claire already does this, but it couldn’t hurt to put something in the Reviewer’s Notes requesting the reviewer to be sensitive to spelling variants.

It would be a good idea to point this out somewhere, Steve: something to the effect “Please be aware that Urbis is international and that spellings may vary from country to country. If you think a word is misspelled, look the word up online before you comment on it.” I always have answers.com open to check spellings and seldom rely on my own brilliance.

I understand Claire’s concern here. Allowing ill-informed reviewers to think their review was acceptable only hurts Urbis. And it pisses Claire off.

Since I am perpetually guilty of correcting bad grammar, I probably don’t have the right to state an opinion on this… I do think, however, that anyone who cannot use correct grammar ought not try to tell someone else how to do it.

I’ve gotten my share of blatantly unhelpful reviews that nevertheless weren’t quite bad enough to get a refund (and I knew it, which is why I didn’t ask). Someone cut-and-pasting a list of generic and simplistic advice without telling how said advice applies to my writing is unhelpful. Someone talking in the review about how they’re a published poet and thus know all about how I should be writing my contemporary fantasy story – and by the way, I should go read their online article that they get paid a bit for every time someone reads it, because they don’t want to waste my Urbis credits by saying too much in the review… That’s not helpful. (That’s also dishonest and sneaky.) Someone who wouldn’t know a haiku if it bit them telling the writer ‘this is a bad poem because it doesn’t rhyme’ is not helpful.

As I’ve said a few times, this topic is difficult. It comes up quite often. I think the best way to deal with this right now is to explicitly warn reviewers in the Notes that they’d better know what they are talking about if they give advice pertaining to grammar or spelling. If the author is concerned that the differences between British and American spelling could lead to superfluous and erroneous comments, the author should indicate this in the Notes.

When you submit an item for review, you open yourself up to a wide array of reviewers with varying degrees of knowledge and experience. The best way to filter is to be exact in your Notes. I’m on medication, so I think I’ve said the author should put this in the notes three times. OK, four. Yes, I’ve caught a cold. And I think pity is the best medicine, so if anyone has some for me, I’m here.

“explicitly warn reviewers in the Notes that they’d better know what they are talking about if they give advice pertaining to grammar or spelling”

Can we get a refund if they say something stupid anyway…? :)

Here, DC, have some pity. I know what it is like to be on medication that messes with the brain. (The trouble with pain meds is, the ones that work at all still don’t make the pain go away. The pain stays; you go away.)

I believe you can get a refund if you specifically warn reviewers NOT to comment on grammar or spelling and then they do. Then, of course it’s up to you to make your case with the Review Guardians (telling them what you wrote in your Notes).

Thanks for the pity. I feel a little better already. :)

Have some hot tea, too. Even if it does nothing for the cold, the caffeine should help counteract the brain fog caused by the medication…

Thanks for the advice. I’ll do that the next time I submit something.

I do think a “I write in English, not American” notice is necessary. (In my case, a “I will drop kick you into next f-ing month if you tell me that I have to spell my protagonist’s name G-R-A-Y” warning…) Some people simply aren’t aware that there are different spellings, and even different styles of punctuation sometimes.

Claire_D, there’s a great difference between a valid and a helpful review.
A valid review is the one who meets the guidelines and rules.
(un)helpfulness of a review is decided by you and other people who review your piece and is veeery subjective.
Your a)b)c) point that that person tried to give a useful and constructive feedback. It’s just that their knowledge didn’t meet your level/expectations.
Anyway, I agree that the “notes to reviewer” should point out exactly what you want and what you don’t from a reviewer.
Or not…
::remembers his notes to reviewer were “Let your criticism be constructive, specific and concise.” but didn’t seem to have any influence::
Ah, well…

Alas, one and all… I failed to mention that I did not explicitly ask for certain points of grammar to be taken into consideration in my notes. I think I need some of that medication, DC.

Frankly, it is so time-consuming having to lead some people by the hand and try to in some way doctor their critiques to my expectations (which are admittedly too high). Mostly the speedy reviewer ignores you, or in some way offers a glib critique as though it was scandalous of you to ask for certain type of help.

Some reviews however scrape through with pitiful advice, and ‘tis these ones that are making me go prematurely grey-haired.

There’s a review guardian forum?

I thought your hair was purple.

If people haven’t guessed by now, I’m not an RG. Sorry people, I’d help you out if I could. However, please feel free to keep sending bribes.

I agree with SH. RGs try their hardest to be fair, keeping in mind the minimal guidelines. What is an attempt to be constructive worth? Was the review specific and concrete? Was it constructive? Was it helpful? Was it merely praise? Was it mean-spirited without any redeeming quality? Does it appear the reviewer actually read the work? Was it concise (to the point)? Was there excessive cut and paste? Did the cut and paste serve a purpose to the review, or was it a veiled attempt to merely praise the writer (for extra points)? Multiply that by 1,000. You get the idea.

There is, however, an RG who has become a bit harsh in the last few days. I don’t think the RGs’ responses should be insulting or sarcastic. If the RG leaves a comment, this comment should be focused on helping the reviewer write better reviews in an even, objective tone, without emotion.

There’s nothing wrong with giving advice. I’m not talking about the one who offers advice; I’m talking about the one who writes things like “atrocious review!” This isn’t advice. It made me feel bad for the guy who wrote the atrocious review. It really was atrocious, but I think this could have been put in more constructive terms.

Agreed. RGs need to be more careful, as they are representing Urbis. Commentary should be objective, matter-of-fact, and helpful.

Agreed, though even if you’re not a RG you shouldn’t explicitly say to someone that his review is “atrocious” as that is not constructive or helping anyone. (not to say it’s childish and uber-uncool)
If you need to comment, say to that person exactly why his review made you unhappy, maybe they’re new to the reviewing business but eager to learn – maybe their next review to you will be excellent, and maybe he’ll answer your call at once and comment on things that matter to you via additional comments/PMs/E-mails and redeem themselves (yes, decent people exist)

Yes, that’s the nice way (giving the reviewer the chance to redeem himself), but you have only an hour to get a refund. Let’s say you write the reviewer and ask him to be more specific. He’s not sitting at his computer, so of course he doesn’t answer until the next day. In the meantime, you’ve already asked for a refund. Then, you get this wonderful review in the comments. What to do? The other side of the coin is that he never responds, and you lost the credits trying to be nice.

Heh, wasn’t clear enough…
I mean, yes, of course, you request a refund in those cases pronto, but you have the option of letting the “perp” know what he did wrong, even explain him why you refunded his review. I’ve sometimes got good feedback from nice but newbie people. And sometimes it all just ends up in blocking each other :P

I realize the RGs are quite busy, but personally, I think if a review is refunded and the one that had their review refunded points out how it is they think it met the standard, one of the RGs should respond and explain why the confused reviewer’s thinking is erroneous rather than just ignore the reviewer. Some people are just simply review cheats, while others earnestly try. It is usually quite obvious which category the reviewer falls into. This is a writer’s workshop which relies heavily on good reviews. If an RG simply says it’s not construtive, that is the very definition of “not constructive”. The RGs who ignore reviewers that ask why the review was not constructive hurt the very foundation of the purpose of this website because they are not helping reviewers, which are the backbone, become better. Reveiws are to be constructive in order for the writers to become better; therefore, refunds should be constructive in order for the reviewers to become better and be more helpful to writers.

Hellbunny:
Only one hole in your argument – there is no ongoing communication between reviewer and RG.
Reviewers do not know who the RGs are, certainly not for sure who voted on their review.
An RG sees the Review, the request by the author, and the review/item itself – but that is all.

If a reviewer asks for further explanation or reconsideration, that goes to Steve or Lorrie – not to the RGs.

So, an RG has one crack only at an explanation – within their vote.

For what you would like to see happen, another step would have to be added – the reviewer notified of the request and allowed to present a defense before it all goes to the RGs.
Maybe a good idea, but doesn’t happen at the moment.

I agree. It would be nice to create a dialogue between writer/creator, reviewer and RG, however, administratively that would be a nightmare. Remember, RGs are voluntary…or conscripted (lol). Just like a thorough, thoughtful review, a thorough, thoughtful refund commentary is time-consuming. An RG gets 5 points for administering a refund request. Technically, RGs are not suppose to comment on refunds—merely, yea or nay based on constructive, specific/concrete, or concise. I think there’s some agreement that refund commentary can be helpful for reviewers, so a reviewer has a reminder of what they should be doing in reviewing work. Equally, a reminder to the writer/creator that not every reviewer on Urbis is a skilled reviewer, but that it is acceptable if they make the “effort” based upon the guidelines.

Philosophically, the higher the standards expected of reviewers, the less democratic Urbis will become. Beginning writers, many young writers, and those without much reviewing experience will be discouraged from participating in the system. The balance that’s been introduced is the PRO feature, which permits writers/creators to select reviewers to some extent. The net effect of that, of course, is writers/creators have higher expectations of reviewers.

He heh. But what do I know?

All very good comments.

Hell, I agree with you 100 percent. A flat yes or no vote is not constructive. If the RG can tell the reviewer quickly and politely why the review was refund (in more specific terms than just “not specific” or “not concise”), I think this will only improve Urbis, as well as preventing those younger, less experienced reviewers from getting discouraged. For 5 points what more can one expect?

As I’ve said before, however, I do NOT think the RG should go as far to make personal or emotional comments about the review. Humor and sarcasm are also not appropriate.

The major issue is that RG’s have to be careful as well when offering explanations of theirr votes as RG’s. They don’t want to open any lines of attack or misunderstanding. That is why the suggested “HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW MANUAL” was a good idea. Steve – what happened to that? I never received an invitation to participate in its formation.

Agreed with regards the humor and sarcasm. It is encumbent upon the review guardian to adopt and aloof persona and not to attack the writer directly. Shame on those that do.

The review guardians need to do more to solve the problems of slovenly reviews. Word up, peeps.