Clarity in Story Reporting Process

[Tabula_Rasa]

Currently, when reporting a story it looks like this

And the words "please be as detailed as possible" disappears as soon as a user starts typing.

While pressing "report chapter" rather than "report story" may give the moderation team less material to look thru for the proof of offending material, It still takes time.

And I'd say, majority of people have no concept of what "actionable intelligence" is and might think simply making an accusation is enough.

SO I'd suggest while it would be less aesthetically pleasing it would be better if the instruction or "clarification text" does not disappear as soon as user types and is fixed outside of the text field.

And also, having worked in customer service industries always assume the end-users are idiots and need all the instructions that would leave them no chance to do any guesswork. Since even when you put a big red stop sign saying danger don't touch people will still try to kill themselves. Therefore the maximum amount of instruction will reduce the margin of confusion to only the people that don't / can't read.

And I suggest instead of "Please be as detail as possible"
use
"Please state clearly, which chapter or chapters a problem have occurred, and if its a content issue, please quote specific text, so to expedite the assessment process"

or something like that, maybe the "writers" can workshop a good phrase they'd like. But I feel, clarity will go a long way. And may make mods' life easier.

 

[Moonpearl]

No really, it was stupidly obvious that it was sarcasm...

Though what surprised me the most was that people called you out for being a clone... I figured most active forum members would know who you are already... >.>

I don't, but then they've only made 9 posts? Plus the account is relatively recent, they restrict who can view their profile, and this writing style and several of the things they've said are almost identical to a certain other member.

And that member absolutely would say something dumb like that in earnest. In fact, I know several members who might propose that with all seriousness.

People are so nuts, you really do have to signpost your sarcasm to distinguish yourself from an actual idiot.

 

[AliceShiki]

I don't, but then they've only made 9 posts? Plus the account is relatively recent, they restrict who can view their profile, and this writing style and several of the things they've said are almost identical to a certain other member.

And that member absolutely would say something dumb like that in earnest. In fact, I know several members who might propose that with all seriousness.

People are so nuts, you really do have to signpost your sarcasm to distinguish yourself from an actual idiot.

>.>
<.<

Guess I'm just used to his writing style~

 

[DreamOfRen]

Surprised this didn't get flamed and down voted.
Seems like virtually any ask for accountability on the reporting / reviewing process on SH does.

 

[AliceShiki]

Surprised this didn't get flamed and down voted.
Seems like virtually any ask for accountability on the reporting / reviewing process on SH does.

That is correct, you'll get rejected if you ask for accountability in those processes.

Which is quite different from asking for actual improvements in the system to make people actually make Tony's job easier. Those suggestions are welcome.

 

[DreamOfRen]

That is correct, you'll get rejected if you ask for accountability in those processes.

Which is quite different from asking for actual improvements in the system to make people actually make Tony's job easier. Those suggestions are welcome.

I did ask for changes to the system that would make the owner's job easier.

So..what's the excuse that people have now?

 

[Tabula_Rasa]

I did ask for changes to the system that would make the owner's job easier.

oh? good for you, which suggestions were those?

 

[DreamOfRen]

oh? good for you, which suggestions were those?

Essentially, what I proposed was adding accountability features to the review system.
As the review system stands now, basically people can say whatever they want -- even if it's untrue. There's many obvious flaws with that, for example if someone just hates you they can downrate you, lie and their review can affect others reading your work. In the "real world" you suffer consequences against this, getting sued, for example. Online, people seem to think it's their right to lie or embellish unchecked, but in reality they are just arguing for their freedom to abuse without having to deal with the consequences of their actions.

So I asked for measures that would make reviewers more easily held accountable for their reviews.
In other words, you could more easily see if a reviewer was just embellishing, or if they actually gave a review based on the merits of the work.

The things I suggested would have been hard coded into the site itself and add a system that allows readers to make an informed choice about whether reviews posted were accurate portrayals of the story, or just something made up. (Peer to peer review of the review/ratings themselves from other readers)

I also suggested disallowing people to rate stories unless they were accompanied by a review. By forcing this caveat it would cut down on habitual low ballers.

This might have taken a bit of work to implement but in the long run, like any other feature to the site it wouldn't have required any consistent maintenance. Also I think what you would have seen is that people would be less hesitant to recklessly review because their reviews would follow them around. Eventually, if they posted enough biased reviews (which were then marked as biased by other readers), people would begin to see that they were just purposely acting that way.

Many people came out against these idea, much like what's going on with the social media bans right now, and when I suggested that their motives were less than enviable, they got upset. The reality is, no one should be allowed to attack you without you having the right to defend yourself or at the least hold them accountable -- in any form. That's common sense, so at that point I had to question the people who were so strongly opposed to it.

Likewise, if you look at it from a different angle, if you truly wanted things to be free, you'd also do this -- because if one side is free to attack another, then both sides should be free to attack each other. The current system is only beneficial to one side, that is the reviewer, because it does not currently support a way that the author can object to what reviewers post, write or rate in a substantial way. I think that's why posts like yours often appear on site. Even when you look at it from a different vantage point, the answer still seems to be fixing the system so that both parties can participate, and not slanting it to just one side or source.

I know that most people don't like to be held accountable for their actions and will attempt to avoid consequences at any given time.
However, accountability is the only way to improve the current reviews and ratings system.

 

[Moonpearl]

Essentially, what I proposed was adding accountability features to the review system.
As the review system stands now, basically people can say whatever they want -- even if it's untrue. There's many obvious flaws with that, for example if someone just hates you they can downrate you, lie and their review can affect others reading your work. In the "real world" you suffer consequences against this, getting sued, for example. Online, people seem to think it's their right to lie or embellish unchecked, but in reality they are just arguing for their freedom to abuse without having to deal with the consequences of their actions.

So I asked for measures that would make reviewers more easily held accountable for their reviews.
In other words, you could more easily see if a reviewer was just embellishing, or if they actually gave a review based on the merits of the work.

The things I suggested would have been hard coded into the site itself and add a system that allows readers to make an informed choice about whether reviews posted were accurate portrayals of the story, or just something made up. (Peer to peer reviewing)

I also suggested not allowing people to rate stories unless they were accompanied by a review as well. By forcing this feature alone it would cut down on low ballers.

This might have taken a bit of work to implement but in the long run, like any other feature to the site it wouldn't have required any consistent maintenance.

Also many people came out against it, and when I suggested that their motives were less than enviable, they got upset.

But as I said, most people don't like to be held accountable for their actions and will attempt to avoid consequences at any given time.

Accountability is the only way to improve the current reviews and ratings system however.

We already told you: outright lies are against site rules. If someone makes a factual lie in their review (e.g. stating a character committed suicide when they didn't), you can report it and it will be removed.

It even turns out that we have review guidelines you have to meet before your review will be accepted. They can be found here: https://www.scribblehub.com/review-guidelines/

The rest of your suggestion was either a bad idea (would lead to the few reviews and ratings we do get being massively reduced) or wasn't feasible according to reality.

People debating whether or not your suggestion can even be carried out, or pointing out flaws in your plan, does not mean that they're trying to protect themselves from consequences. It just means that your suggestion is impractical.

 

[DreamOfRen]

We already told you: outright lies are against site rules. If someone makes a factual lie in their review (e.g. stating a character committed suicide when they didn't), you can report it and it will be removed.

It even turns out that we have review guidelines you have to meet before your review will be accepted. They can be found here: https://www.scribblehub.com/review-guidelines/

The rest of your suggestion was either a bad idea (would lead to the few reviews and ratings we do get being massively reduced) or wasn't feasible according to reality.

People debating whether or not your suggestion can even be carried out, or pointing out flaws in your plan, does not mean that they're trying to protect themselves from consequences. It just means that your suggestion is impractical.

What your suggesting is actually more work for moderators.

I'm not calling into question whether moderators will remove erroneous reviews. What I'm suggesting allows you to forgo that altogether and instead implement a system that clearly shows whether a reader / reviewer is biased so that anyone else can make an informed choice.

Ultimately that results in less work for moderators since they would only need to remove reviews in extreme cases.

Also it's not all that impractical. RR just updated their review process a few months ago. It's not exactly as I've proposed by any means, but it does shift towards holding reviewers more accountable for their actions.

This suggests the root of the problem is, in fact, that reviewers currently just have too much power.

Furthermore, the truly slick reviewers will just intersperse their opinions within a poor review. I've even had reviewers give me great reviews just so that they could fabricate themes which didn't exist within my fictions on any level. People are weird. The only way to solve that is to build some kind of accountability into the system. This is why I also suggested allowing readers themselves to mark a review as informative or biased.

I think after reading a fiction, and then reading a review most would be able to tell whether the reviewer is just flat out lying. New readers coming in would then be able to see that review's skew on either side and make an informed decision as to whether to ignore it. At that point mods wouldn't need to delete it, the reviewer would either be forced to change it to be more accurate themselves or delete it because it's painting them in a bad light.

Less work for moderators either way imo.

In the same way that you feel the way you do, I have my thoughts. That doesn't mean I'm wrong about it so I really don't understand why everyone's getting so uppity.

Also, let's be honest here. Some people actually do want to avoid any system that requires them to be held accountable for their actions specifically because they enjoy being able to abuse systems. You only have to look at "real life" to see that's true.


Uncomfortable truths might be unpleasant to hear, but I haven't broken any forum rules by saying them. They also function as the vehicle of progressing society.

 

[Moonpearl]

What your suggesting is actually more work for moderators.

I'm not calling into question whether moderators will remove erroneous reviews. What I'm suggesting allows you to forgo that altogether and instead implement a system that clearly shows whether a reader / reviewer is biased so that anyone else can make an informed choice.

Ultimately that results in less work for moderators since they would only need to remove reviews in extreme cases.

Also it's not all that impractical. RR just updated their review process a few months ago. It's not exactly as I've proposed by any means, but it does shift towards holding reviewers more accountable for their actions.

It's not a suggestion - it's the current system that's in place. Yes, it means more work for Tony, but it's what works right now. Until we have an actually viable suggestion to improve the system, that's how it will stay.

Also, your suggestion wouldn't have changed anything - it just makes the weird assumption that there's such a thing as a completely objective review, without having ever provided an example of one.
Just forcing people to pick "objective" or "opinionated" would result in confusion and end up with people just picking one or the other without giving a crap about how it related to what they were going to write.

So, really, it's just extra coding for no extra gain. If you care that much, you could try to come up with a better idea, rather than accusing everyone else of not wanting accountability.

 

[DreamOfRen]

Also for a point of clarity, this is pretty much all I suggested.

Image 1 - How reviews would look to readers. Clicking thumbs up would mark their choice on how they felt the review was either more opinionated or more objective in nature.

Based on the # of reviews, and the ratings, the percentile rating would change.

Image 2 - Mr Reviewer's new tab that lists all of his reviews, along with the current make up of how his reviews are rated.


For the most part, from what I've seen SH already keeps up with comments, posts, etc unless the user turns them off.

All I proposed was a new tab with these changes. I'm not sure how feasible it is realistically, you're right. But it's actually not a far cry away from what the site already does.

 

[DreamOfRen]

It's not a suggestion - it's the current system that's in place. Yes, it means more work for Tony, but it's what works right now. Until we have an actually viable suggestion to improve the system, that's how it will stay.

Right.. and I just suggested something that I feel is viable.

Also, your suggestion wouldn't have changed anything - it just makes the weird assumption that there's such a thing as a completely objective review, without having ever provided an example of one.
Just forcing people to pick "objective" or "opinionated" would result in confusion and end up with people just picking one or the other without giving a crap about how it related to what they were going to write.

My suggestion isn't placed to enforce "objective" reviews. Its recommended to inform people whether a review is more opinionated or objective in nature. For someone who's arguing so vehemently against this--it seems you really didn't do a good job of understanding the proposal at all.

Saying that it serves no purpose is also wrong. It doesn't force anyone to do anything they weren't going to do beforehand. But it does make it more easy to see where their intentions lie-- and that's the main issue at the root of the problem. Someone who's intent on just disguising misleading reviews with "good" ratings for example would have a difficult time masking their intentions.

It directly fixes a glaring problem with the current review system, one that I've pointed out several times now. If I rate your story a 10, and in my review say that its filled with romance and incest when your fiction is based on, say wholesomeness. Would you be more likely to accept the 10 and stay quiet or report the review and lose the high rating?

People do things like this all the time just to have a platform for their toxic ideals. Just take a look at RR, you'll see it in action.

So, really, it's just extra coding for no extra gain. If you care that much, you could try to come up with a better idea, rather than accusing everyone else of not wanting accountability.

I didn't accuse anyone, actually.

What I said was people who have an issue with being held accountable for their actions generally get up to no good.

That's true. A lot of you see me as abrasive, but the reality is if you go look at my posts, comments and what not I haven't really done anything other than tell you something you may not want to hear. I have no problem being checked upon for my actions because I take them with the full knowledge that I may have to account for them at some point. Most people don't and will only do what they feel they can get away with in any given situation. Once again, that's fact.

Last I checked disagreeing with anyone wasn't a crime, so I'd appreciate it if you dial it back a bit and stop trying to force ideals about what I should or should not say.

As far as I can tell, as long as I'm not breaking any forum rules it shouldn't be a problem. So I'm really wondering at this point why you're so invested in arguing with me about something you clearly don't understand all that well.

How am I supposed to see your emotional investment in this conversation? What exactly are you so emotionally invested in that would cause you to react so violently to a simple suggestion that is moderately easy to implement from what I can tell? (Btw, I don't just write, I also program (C# predominantly). So I do have an idea to a degree of what it might take to implement some things. )

 

[Tabula_Rasa]

I did ask for changes to the system that would make the owner's job easier.

First things first, is it less work is it more work, is it feasible, is it not that is all up in the air until it actually made into reality with some testing and a data sample,

But do you know what I think is holding you back? and disclaimer: @DreamOfRen I am will always supporting any suggestion that is good, "Good" being a variable scale of my subjective opinion.

OK, your idea, is broken because you use the words "Opinion" and "Objective" Replace that with "Agree" and "Disagree" would make it steam, better. in the discussion on your thread, it went on to try and understand if the review can be "Objective". if its already a debatable point then It will be one after implementation. if people can agree now on the get-go. there will be more problems in the future,

Because once you get into the question about if something is Objective VS Subjective, to get stuck in an inception style investigation, where you have to question if the answer is objective or subjective and if that answer to the answer is objective or subjective. so on and so forth. it never ends.

You see, this question, there are those like me that thinks reviews ALL reviews are inherently Subjective and a person either agree or disagree with an opinion, trying to define it on that spectrum is not a realistically viable system. and to create this mechanic will add another layer of moderation to the system. And it's is an opinion.

However, this is not to say, people can not chime in and essentially "review" a "review". If reviews are opinions, people can have the opinion that they agree or disagree with it. And I'd say current;y the SH review already have a "like" button under a review so what you should be asking is for a "dislike" button.

like and dislike is vague, but the idea of "a review is Objective or not" is also vague.

 

[thedude3445]

Every time I browse a random thread on this forum it's like an apocalyptic battle between all the members...

Nevertheless I agree with the suggestion wholeheartedly. Based on this thread where a reported EXTREMELY rulebreaking chapter was not taken down due to insufficient reporting (apparently), users who send reports need to be guided more on how to send reports with the correct detail that allows the moderation team to act quickly.