I’m not sold on this new “unlock your reviews first before reviewing” rule. I believe there are a number of problems with it.

1) When I’m reviewing pieces, I will unlock the text and perhaps paste some of it into Word to review it later, meaning I return to items in the queue. This gives me time to make a thorough, considered review away from the clock-ticking pressure of the “next page” system. When I return to submit the review, I have to go through the rigmarole of messaging the user and asking him/her to kindly unlock their existing reviews. Problem is… they might not have enough credits! Meaning my review takes aeons to get processed, and I never get the friggin’ credits when I need them.

2) I can’t randomly review any of my less active friends’ items. I enjoy dropping reviews for friends, but some of them might have the odd rogue unlocked review hanging around somewhere. I’m not sure if the new function helps the user identify WHERE the lost review is, but if it doesn’t, they aren’t going to be that active at finding out where it is because it is too bothersome.

3) The new rule seems to fly in the face of the freedom of experiencing different styles of writing and the spontaneous ability to review them as is your wont. I dislike the fact you are barred from commenting or seeing some items since the review might have left a few stingy reviews unlocked. I would naturally override this and send them a freebie review, which is generous but unlikely to be reciprocated.

So I have doubts about this. It seems to be stymying my Urbis enjoyment. More Byzantine rules we can do without on the site.

I too have been meditating on this subject in my Nez garden. (Wind chimes and sparkling fountain are the newest additions!)

I recommend that only reviewers with locked “PRO” items should be disallowed to receive further reviews. This would prevent John/Jane Doe from signing up for a new account and posting a 10K piece that many people put their good time and effort into reviewing, just to never see their review unlocked. Also would allow more space for dedicated members to get their items into the Focused queue. Also would allow for less “dead” items in the general queue.

All members should be allowed to receive “random” or “friend” reviews, no matter what. (Even if they have unlocked PRO items.)

Soooooo . . . To reiterate:

1.) PROlific members could be allowed 5 (or 6) locked reviews before their items are taken out of the “Focused” queue. For all others it’s 3 (or 4). Unlocked reviews attrition still applies to both in terms of the “General” queue.

2.) “Friend” or “Random” reviews should be allowed even if a user has their allotted amount of locked reviews used up—NO matter what.

3.) Members would be allowed to turn off their items for review with PRO, but would be removed from the “Focused” queue until previous reviews were unlocked. Items would still remain in “General” queue, but would be subject to attrition.

4.) Aaaand something else, but I forgot.

I think this is an easy and simple method. If the user doesn’t want to PRO their item, the usual rules of unlocked reviews attrition still applies.

OK people, get your noggins working on how to improve this system in addition to just complaining about how it isn’t working.

Much love for the Claire_D.

Interesting. I’ve just been writing a comment on this very issue in another thread.

Hmmm, let’s see… what were my ideas again…?

I think it was something along the same lines as Curt in terms of raising the limit for Pro members.

Buuuuuuuuuuuut having mulled this over a little more I am beginning to wonder if this “no more than 2 locked reviews” rule is creating more problems than the initial problem it hoped to solve – that of people receiving reviews of their items and then never unlocking them, even though they are still active on Urbis (and so keep on building up reviews they never intend to open), maybe because they submitted another piece and prefer to work on that.

This was annoying, but not as annoying as not being able to review friends, or not having anything in my focused queue for a week (apart from 6 word memoirs), or not being able to write spontaneous reviews for people that request them.

Maybe this rule should be taken away completely? I can live with the twinges of irriation I feel when seeing how many of my reviews remain locked. As one of the people who started the original moan that led to this rule (I think, or do I have an overinflated opinion of my role in this?!), I feel that this rule is upsetting the people who use Urbis the most.

OK, Steve, very important question/issue:
I submit a piece, it goes to the queue; I get 1 review.
At the same time 9 people are writing a very extensive and time consuming review of my piece.
Person A (of that 9 persons) finishes first and submits his review.
I have 2 unopened reviews now—> my piece is taken out of the queue.
Each of the remaining 8 persons runs their fist through their computer screen for being messaged that I have 2 unopened reviews and they should message me about it, but their reviews are lost.
Is this a possible scenario or have you thought of it and found a solution?

Yes, Jebozid! That was the crux of what I was trying to get at. You are pink and saintly.

Steve? Are you there, my twirling Urbis darling. This is a most pressing matter.

Me feel smart. Queen Claire too good. Steve, we feel pain from that 2-review shenanigan. Me like using the word shenanigan in ways only clear to me. And my army of magenta bunnies.

I just logged on to unlock my first two reviews on a piece I posted last night and found 6 waiting for me.

Hmmm. Confused now.

I don’t like this. I ask for refunds for a million reviews, and, as a consequence, learn which reviewers blow and just don’t open their reviews. Except now I can’t.

I also enjoy reviewing my friends who may disappear for a week or two before coming back to check on a piece. And now I can’t.

I understand your logic in this, Steve, but it kinda seems it’s shitting on as many people as it’s helping. What about some kind of time limit?

Instead of two reviews, no questions asked, what if you implemented some kind of any reviews older than a week?

I’d like to say I’ve been active, have credits, have two piece up and no unlocked reviews and I still haven’t recieved a review. So I don’t know what that’s about either.

I have to say I’m especially bothered by not being able to review my friends whenever I want. Everyone is going to end up revieing via comments and messages which, at that point, why use Urbis? If all the members are cliquish and hidden behind each other’s pieces? No one even looking at the queue? What then, Steve? WHAT THEN??

I’m a little dramamtic. But you get the idea.

I submit a piece, it goes to the queue; I get 1 review.
At the same time 9 people are writing a very extensive and time consuming review of my piece.
Person A (of that 9 persons) finishes first and submits his review.
I have 2 unopened reviews now—> my piece is taken out of the queue.
Each of the remaining 8 persons runs their fist through their computer screen for being messaged that I have 2 unopened reviews and they should message me about it, but their reviews are lost.
Is this a possible scenario or have you thought of it and found a solution? ###

I wondered this when it was proposed.

At the time I thought it through a couple of times and convinced myself it wouldn’t be a problem. I think the key is that your items are removed from the queue from that point on.

It doesn’t mean your items won’t/can’t get reviews, it’s just that until the number of unopened reviews goes below a threshold it won’t appear in anyone’s queue from then on.

So if you have a tab/window open with it on or you do a random review or a friend review whatever, it still allows you to do your review, it’s just that if you were to refresh the list of reviewable items it would be gone.

Aha. That would explain why I got 6 reviews last night. Well done Tris.

Incidentally and, as usual, off the topic – where does your name come from trismugistus?

Well if it DOES work like that it’s OK. Does it?

Tia,

You can still review your friends work if they don’t log on for a week. It will effect their receiving of reviews, not yours. However, in the case that they have already received their review limit, I would definitely have a copy saved to word (this is a good idea anyway…ever had a really good review completed and then have a glitch erase it all? ARGH!!! I write all my reviews on word and transfer it to the submitted piece afterwards…this way, if anything happens, you can still have your review and notes…plus word will save a backup sometimes if your computer boots you and you haven’t yet saved the item), you can aways copy/paste it to them when they are ‘allowed’ to receive reviews again :)

Also, by not opening the reviews of those reviewers who ‘suck’ does not help. Those unlocked credits count against your credit balance anyway (even though it doesn’t reflect on your total). You have to open them and be refunded for those credits to truly be available to you again.

“OK, Steve, very important question/issue:
I submit a piece, it goes to the queue; I get 1 review.
At the same time 9 people are writing a very extensive and time consuming review of my piece.
Person A (of that 9 persons) finishes first and submits his review.
I have 2 unopened reviews now—> my piece is taken out of the queue.
Each of the remaining 8 persons runs their fist through their computer screen for being messaged that I have 2 unopened reviews and they should message me about it, but their reviews are lost.
Is this a possible scenario or have you thought of it and found a solution?”

This scenario won’t happen – we made sure of it. If you start writing a review, you will be able to save it. All the new rule stops people before they start. Once they start reviewing, they may finish.

FYI, I talk about how the rules will change in another thread.

Ah, this thread dealt with this issue much more philosophically than the other did (except of course trismugistus’s post, which I stopped reading when I saw the numbers).

tia_logic, why don’t you block those useless reviewers?

Happy days!

“Incidentally and, as usual, off the topic – where does your name come from trismugistus?”

There was something called “The Train of Trismegistus” in a book by Robert Rankin which I’d just read very soon before I first visited the interwebs. Forums need usernames, so a quick substitution of the e for a u guaranteed me something unique.

wikipedia has this to say about Hermes Trismegistus – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_Trismegistus – where the name actually comes from. The God of writing (scribe of the gods) thing was co-incidental :).

(I can’t work out how in the name of deep-fried mars bars you get this forum to do quotes :/.)

Only Steve knows how to quote and he ain’t telling! :)
Should go to FAQ. Quoting and those confusing boxes.
But look at this: <—it’s one exclamation mark, one question mark, one exclamation mark
Fun.

Only Steve knows how to quote and he ain’t telling! :)

Hey Jeb. Look to the right of your comment space, Formatting Help. It’s kind of not obvious even though it should be. I just found it a few days ago.

Hmmm

Curt, you show-off!

HA!!! It WORKED!!! Lookey there! I did it. If my mom wasn’t such a slut I’d ask her to be proud of me. (Sorry to offend, I have recently acquired some mommy issues.)

Slutty mothers are the best, as long as they are someone else’s slutty mothers.

Oh, damn. I think there’s a four-letter term for that.

milf?

Does that make me dirty?

What does bq. mean?

Does this work?

Like this?
Or like this?

This is weird.
damn.

Can’t start with a box.