I want a merit point system that utilizes authors to review reviewers

[COLOC_Kid]

I want a system that allow people who honestly review books to be known by having authors review reviewers based on four characteristics of their text.

1. clarity (1-5) shows how clear the reviewer is in their points
2. detailed explanations (1-5) how well they understand their story and its flaws.
3. point of reading (1-5) why they began reading
4. ways to improve (1-5) ways authors can revise and improve novel flaws in the future.

In addition these four will be put into merits and percentages that will go to the reviewer and help other authors understand that the review is credible. lastly these merits can be also given by readers but they will only count toward reader support of the review. group reviews may also help such as a review that is open to other readers to edit and adjust as long as it's not the author.

In the end it will allow authors to face a group of people willing to help them to improve.

Devils in the details.

 

[TheMangaGod]

I want a system that allow people who honestly review books to be known by having authors review reviewers based on four characteristics of their text.

1. clarity (1-5) shows how clear the reviewer is in their points
2. detailed explanations (1-5) how well they understand their story and its flaws.
3. point of reading (1-5) why they began reading
4. ways to improve (1-5) ways authors can revise and improve novel flaws in the future.

In addition these four will be put into merits and percentages that will go to the reviewer and help other authors understand that the review is credible. lastly these merits can be also given by readers but they will only count toward reader support of the review. group reviews may also help such as a review that is open to other readers to edit and adjust as long as it's not the author.

In the end it will allow authors to face a group of people willing to help them to improve.

Devils in the details.

Sounds interesting but also like a literal nightmare to implement fairly.

 

[Discount_Blade]

I want a system that allow people who honestly review books to be known by having authors review reviewers based on four characteristics of their text.

1. clarity (1-5) shows how clear the reviewer is in their points
2. detailed explanations (1-5) how well they understand their story and its flaws.
3. point of reading (1-5) why they began reading
4. ways to improve (1-5) ways authors can revise and improve novel flaws in the future.

In addition these four will be put into merits and percentages that will go to the reviewer and help other authors understand that the review is credible. lastly these merits can be also given by readers but they will only count toward reader support of the review. group reviews may also help such as a review that is open to other readers to edit and adjust as long as it's not the author.

In the end it will allow authors to face a group of people willing to help them to improve.

Devils in the details.

This is impossible to implement fairly. First off, most authors will automatically review any reviewer in a negative light if the initial reviewer did not have good things to say about his/her work. You can work up all the excuses and other nonsense you want, but regardless of whether is it true and the story really did suck, any good and (snort) honest advice about a genuinely badly written story will still piss the author off and so they will attack the reviewer in their own review of the reviewer. A few won't I'm sure, but most will, because most here are not even half as mature as they pretend they are, and anything negative said against them is automatically taken seriously and so they react accordingly.

And seeing as everyone is so easily offended by even their own shadows nowadays, what else do you expect?

The amount of times I've read "they just don't understand what I'm getting at" or "they just didn't read enough of it" and a plethora of other excuses.

It would devolve into nothing more than yet another attention-seeking-whore tool for authors to add a few more support beams to the foundations of their fragile egos. And oh Gods, I can see the back-dealings already. "You give me a good review and I'll do the same for you." I mean people already do hearts and follows that way on the main site.

 

[COLOC_Kid]

This is impossible to implement fairly. First off, most authors will automatically review any reviewer in a negative light if the initial reviewer did not have good things to say about his/her work. You can work up all the excuses and other nonsense you want, but regardless of whether is it true and the story really did suck, any good and (snort) honest advice about a genuinely badly written story will still piss the author off and so they will attack the reviewer in their own review of the reviewer. A few won't I'm sure, but most will, because most here are not even half as mature as they pretend they are, and anything negative said against them is automatically taken seriously and so they react accordingly.

And seeing as everyone is so easily offended by even their own shadows nowadays, what else do you expect?

The amount of times I've read "they just don't understand what I'm getting at" or "they just didn't read enough of it" and a plethora of other excuses.

It would devolve into nothing more than yet another attention-seeking-whore tool for authors to add a few more support beams to the foundations of their fragile egos.

again if they aouther doesn't like it other readers can upvote it in the audience thoughts thus balancing.

Sounds interesting but also like a literal nightmare to implement fairly.

yeah probably the creators of this site might not be able to do it but that makes sense they have other stuff to do right?

 

[UnratedX]

This is impossible to implement fairly. First off, most authors will automatically review any reviewer in a negative light if the initial reviewer did not have good things to say about his/her work. You can work up all the excuses and other nonsense you want, but regardless of whether is it true and the story really did suck, any good and (snort) honest advice about a genuinely badly written story will still piss the author off and so they will attack the reviewer in their own review of the reviewer. A few won't I'm sure, but most will, because most here are not even half as mature as they pretend they are, and anything negative said against them is automatically taken seriously and so they react accordingly.

And seeing as everyone is so easily offended by even their own shadows nowadays, what else do you expect?

The amount of times I've read "they just don't understand what I'm getting at" or "they just didn't read enough of it" and a plethora of other excuses.

It would devolve into nothing more than yet another attention-seeking-whore tool for authors to add a few more support beams to the foundations of their fragile egos. And oh Gods, I can see the back-dealings already. "You give me a good review and I'll do the same for you." I mean people already do hearts and follows that way on the main site.

bad day eh mate?

 

[Deleted member 45782]

I want a system that allow people who honestly review books to be known by having authors review reviewers based on four characteristics of their text.

1. clarity (1-5) shows how clear the reviewer is in their points
2. detailed explanations (1-5) how well they understand their story and its flaws.
3. point of reading (1-5) why they began reading
4. ways to improve (1-5) ways authors can revise and improve novel flaws in the future.

In addition these four will be put into merits and percentages that will go to the reviewer and help other authors understand that the review is credible. lastly these merits can be also given by readers but they will only count toward reader support of the review. group reviews may also help such as a review that is open to other readers to edit and adjust as long as it's not the author.

In the end it will allow authors to face a group of people willing to help them to improve.

Devils in the details.

1. Define the subject of clarity.

And as for the other points, that should be what a good constructive feedback looks like. But what you're saying is authors reviewing if these reviews are good. That is subjective. Some people don't take kindly to feedback, even ones that is meant to be helpful and assume they're attacking and/or insulting them or their work.

This sounds like a guide for authors on how to accept constructive criticism than actual implementation. What would be interesting is for every rating (regardless bad or good, you have to comment on why you rate it so).

I believe I've also seen a few reviews that state what chapter they have also completed up to by.

 

[EternalSunset0]

bad day eh mate?

He always talks like that

While I won't get involved with the more confrontational parts of the post, and I personally am, on the contrary, very cool with the idea of having ways of adding "support beams" for authors as he called it, he does have a point on the last sentence. This idea of grading reviewers can be easily gamed with people trading good reviews and back-dealings. I personally don't have anything against that, but it kinda defeats the purpose because people who get around well can just farm their good reviews regardless of the quality of their work/reviews/whatever.

I mean, technically speaking, any kind of grading/rating system on a place like this (and other writing sites, tbh) a nightmare to implement "fairly," if possible at all.

 

[COLOC_Kid]

He always talks like that

While I won't get involved with the more confrontational parts of the post, and I personally am, on the contrary, very cool with the idea of having ways of adding "support beams" for authors as he called it, he does have a point on the last sentence. This idea of grading reviewers can be easily gamed with people trading good reviews and back-dealings. I personally don't have anything against that, but it kinda defeats the purpose because people who get around well can just farm their good reviews regardless of the quality of their work/reviews/whatever.

I mean, technically speaking, any kind of grading/rating system on a place like this (and other writing sites, tbh) a nightmare to implement "fairly," if possible at all.

you have deciphered some of the contract.

 

[Ai-chan]

While this request is not necessarily a bad one, Ai-chan would say no to this.

Why? Because this is nothing more than red tape. You know how you want to complain about the potholes, and you go to the town hall, only to be told that you actually need to complain to the civil works ministry, only to find out that you need to have the mayor make the complain through the town hall before you found out that the mayor has no time to see you? This is the same thing.

You have someone reviewing the story, then you have the author reviewing the reviewer. What next? You'll have a reviewer reviewing the author reviewing the reviewer reviewing the story? What convoluted method of making the author feel good about themselves. Just allow authors to disallow reviews.

As an author, Ai-chan's role is to write and deliver an enjoyable story. Policing public sentiments is not included in the job description. Ai-chan finds it hard enough to find the time to write, and on top of that Ai-chan has to review the reviews section too? That's the moderator's job.

Give Ai-chan a break! Ai-chan welcomes all reviews. If the review is unjustified or demeaning, Ai-chan will just make a harassment report or take the whole story off the site. So much simpler.

 

[CadmarLegend]

I want a system that allow people who honestly review books to be known by having authors review reviewers based on four characteristics of their text.

1. clarity (1-5) shows how clear the reviewer is in their points
2. detailed explanations (1-5) how well they understand their story and its flaws.
3. point of reading (1-5) why they began reading
4. ways to improve (1-5) ways authors can revise and improve novel flaws in the future.

In addition these four will be put into merits and percentages that will go to the reviewer and help other authors understand that the review is credible. lastly these merits can be also given by readers but they will only count toward reader support of the review. group reviews may also help such as a review that is open to other readers to edit and adjust as long as it's not the author.

In the end it will allow authors to face a group of people willing to help them to improve.

Devils in the details.

The reviews would never be fair. After all, if someone told me that I am a bad writer, I would still have a grudge against me, no matter how small, and it would make my review biased.

 

[CookieCrumble]

Maybe instead of restricting it just to the author, the system should also be opened to reader who already read the story. Perhaps weighted based on the amount of chapters the reader had sunk their time in.

 

[strayCat0]

Do we recruit people to become SH's RottenTomatoes now? Or is this something else? Honestly, this is kinda useless. I can already see SHF deteriorating as authors pass through users' profile pages saying 'I reviewed your story. I have credible icon. Please review my story too.' Might as well change SH's name to WattHub or smth.

I don't see any reason why simple 1-5 star(s) and writing whatever you feel in review are not enough. This whole idea is just asking for unnecessary hierarchy and groups in SH, all because of a few users randomly locked on you then clicked 1 star or wrote weirdass reviews.

It's better if you just asked other authors in SHF their opinions about your story. It's still the same thing. Except, your idea is allowing those people to have authority to make weighted pretty 1-5 starts. So what's the use of those reader peasants' reviews? They give 5 stars then you say 'Finally, someone understand my story' or a 1 star then you think 'you know nothing,' while you puff cigarette's smoke, and giving them chances to upvote is just making their opinions literal numbers.

Just think as if your* story is equal to Lolita, To Kill a Mockingbird, or smth, man. It'll make your day better.

Edit : *

 

[Agentt]

How about a simpler system, the guy who has posted most reviews has more credit points. Tony and mods have to make sure no one uses bots, and everything will be fine.

 

[Deleted member 45782]

How about a simpler system, the guy who has posted most reviews has more credit points. Tony and mods have to make sure no one uses bots, and everything will be fine.

no. cause what if they did post many reviews like spammy reviews but ones that don't really mean anything or talks about the story is. it'll just open up for abuse by some who take advantage of it.

 

[Agentt]

no. cause what if they did post many reviews like spammy reviews but ones that don't really mean anything or talks about the story is. it'll just open up for abuse by some who take advantage of it.

Godammit,
Why do people run after meaningless big numbers so much....

 

[Deleted member 45782]

Godammit,
Why do people run after meaningless big numbers so much....

Exactly why this wouldn't be a good idea.
There'll always be ways for some to take advantage of things, but certain ways leave it more vulnerable to be taken advantage of.

 

[FlyingPirateCat]

Rather than just the author, I think it would be better to make everyone to make a judgement of a review, like wuxiaworld has done.

Agree or Disagree, and then allowed to say something in the comments.

 

[AliceShiki]

Godammit,
Why do people run after meaningless big numbers so much....

 

[bigbear51]

Kind of wish that I had these comments the last time I saw such a dumb suggestion.

But yes, this is an absolutely horrible idea that hardly serves anyone but authors whose egos are apparently more fragile than glass.