Comment Required When Rejecting a Description

[Obscure_Trash]

Mods only see reviews if there are comments. On comments, there is no marker to show whether it meant a reject, abstain, or approval. We don't see the same thing users do when checking their own descriptions - only comments. ^^

[kaiachan]

I see. Then, are moderators able to see which user it was who wrote which comment?

If yes, were there cases before when users put some spam in their reviews and lost their reviewing abilities as consequence?

[RainDear]

I don't know whether the moderators can see who posts certain comments, but TJ can and he has certainly taken away reviewing rights before. I saw at least 1 person post "Why can't I review anymore?" and TJ answered that they weren't reviewing within his guidelines, though I can't locate it, now. The thread was probably deleted.

[TPishek]

Do you honestly think the mods, who go through a queue of thousands of descriptions in a single batch, are superhuman enough to remember every single person who posts just a space in the comment box?  Because I assure you, there will be many.  And by the time the mods find them, the damage is long done.

 

This took every ounce of my ingenuity and computer know-how to accomplish.

[Obscure_Trash]

No, we do not see names, but we don't need to see names to know if a comment is out of place (spam, rude, etc.). :3

[kaiachan]

@raindear Thank you for the information.

 

@SockPuppet Strangler I see. Then even if moderators see the spam in the comments, nothing can be done because they do not know who has written them except of TJ.

[Obscure_Trash]

No, we have a method in which comments can be looked at and removed/voting power removed. :3

[Avanish]

If I see a reject with no comment I assume the person just didn't like the description, that's their opinion. If they don't find it necessary to post a comment with their reject, I'm going to assume they couldn't find anything wrong with it.

 

Besides, an empty reject doesn't really matter if there's nothing wrong with your description. It will still get approved.

[Sundew]

I like this idea, but it would need to be modified a bit - spam and such. I get annoyed when I receive a comment-less reject, but as stated on page 1 of this topic, many people would write unhelpful and pointless comments. Comment reviewal would help this, but that would completely overwork the moderators. . . . But, I can see many advantages (even if there are a few disadvantages) to this suggestion. It might help discourage the members who reject without even reading the description.

[kaiachan]

@SockPuppet Strangler Sounds very complicated.

 

@Avanish It is difficult to judge if they have rejected just because they did not like the description or if there is really something wrong. Usually, I go through my text again and then I am upset when I find nothing, having wasted my time.

 

@ab613 Yes, I agree with you.

[Keriel]

I can support this.

 

i know i sometimes get lazy or simply frustrated on badly written descriptions and will just hit abstain/reject and not comment -slaps own wrist- thats naughty and lazy of me

i have never rejected based on "not liking" however have abstained if i think a description is too graphic and in this one case i commented on my concerns. don't think reviewers have any reason to not want this implemented really.

[perzephone]

I think all reviews should require a reason for approving or rejecting. And that the comment box should be a bit longer.

 

And so you get some spammy comments. We get spammy comments now, but not an inordinate amount of them by any means, mainly because this is such a heavily moderated site. There are ways to filter out certain characters (as evidenced by spam/profanity filters everywhere - and if you've ever filled out an online form at a reputable site, usually you can't make your name a series of periods or exclamation points) so that a person can't just fill the box with random spaces and ellipses.

[Keriel]

i don't think it should be compulsory to comment on approvals. there is no need for it

[Erinalia]

I have gone and put "grammar/spelling" as the only comment in rejects before. Sometime, by the fifth time you've read:

 

"Thus iz a dragon and he (female gendered dragon) iz awesome and he can kill u and i am guna haz him burn down my schul LULULULLZZZZ"

 

You get a TAD grumpy. Some of the descriptions I've seen a TERRIBLE. It seems kinder on those to just put "Spelling/grammar" and hope the person looks over it or ASKS someone what's wrong. I don't want to crush attempts at creativity, but... I just can't click accept on that ><

[Fengari]

I have gone and put "grammar/spelling" as the only comment in rejects before. Sometime, by the fifth time you've read:

 

"Thus iz a dragon and he (female gendered dragon) iz awesome and he can kill u and i am guna haz him burn down my schul LULULULLZZZZ"

 

You get a TAD grumpy. Some of the descriptions I've seen a TERRIBLE. It seems kinder on those to just put "Spelling/grammar" and hope the person looks over it or ASKS someone what's wrong. I don't want to crush attempts at creativity, but... I just can't click accept on that ><

This.

 

I usually respond to those with 'please read description guidelines' (though it's been a long time since I sat down to review. Ever since the link is not on my scroll anymore I just seem to forget), but if I've seen a lot of them it gets on my nerves and I want to scream terrible words in that box. I think it is better to just hit 'reject' without a comment at those times.

[HeatherMarie]

Isn't that when it's time to step away from the description-review for a bit? I know I step away from the forums when I start feeling that way....

 

I would support mandatory rejection comments, if only because it simply makes sense. If you reject, you must have a *reason* that you rejected, right? Even if it's as simple as "no 1st person please" or "spelling/grammar" or whatever, there's still a reason.

 

Not for accepts, though. I see no reason for mandatory accept-comments.

[Sundew]

 

Alright, I know this has been suggested before but I searched and can't find it so....

 

Requiring a comment when rejecting a description - keep in mind this would only be needed for REJECTIONS, not accepting or abstaining. However, it would also be useful for this to be required for abstaining, in case random rejecters switch to abstaining instead of rejecting.

 

I know it's annoying when you are checking if a description has been approved or has any criticism. The random rejectors are the worst, when there's no comment so you don't know if there's something wrong or not. In a crowd of accepts, a random reject is usually easy to pick out, but what if there are little or no accepted votes? It's confusing, even a little distressing.

 

Well, this would require users to post a comment when they wanted to reject a description. And how would we prevent people from just entering a bunch of spaces or one letter repeated over and over? Well - there really is no surefire way, not without either ridiculously overworking the mods or making the comments harder to write in order to fit the criteria.

 

But I was thinking something along the lines of this: a word or letter counter. Requiring 5+ characters (as an example) could easily be (because I forget the word I wanted to use) taken advantage of, same with requiring 5+ different characters. Even requiring spaces could easily be . . . gotten around. (Still can't remember that word. -.-)

 

But what if there was a bot to detect how many actual words were in a comment? Yes, people could still get around it, and yes, it could be difficult to code, but if it's possible, why not? The bot would be programmed with most words of the English language--OR, the mods (and us!) could find the words most commonly used in descriptions: it, describe, typo, change, space, dragon, breed, you get the picture, and the bot would be programmed with those words. It would scan a comment, and if it had less than 3 (?) of those words you wouldn't be able to reject it.

 

Yes, there ARE problems with this idea, but if we could smooth out the chinks and get everything straightened out, it might actually turn out to be useful. :3

[Pokemonfan13]

Secondarily, if a comment is required for rejects the spam rejects become really obvious. In amongst a bunch of words there's a comment that is "kabglbgje" or "nnnnnnnnn". You could then report comments like that and if someone gets enough reports, or reports on a high enough percentage of their reviews, they aren't allowed to review descriptions any more, because they're obviously using the system to troll.

 

 

A certain percentage of those no comment rejects may think it is obvious why they rejected it, and it may be for some descriptions, but never to the person who made it, otherwise they wouldn't have written that description. Forcing a comment might cause some of the legit rejectors to type something, even if it isn't super helpful, it's still a comment.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Pokemonfan13

[Sundew]

Secondarily, if a comment is required for rejects the spam rejects become really obvious. In amongst a bunch of words there's a comment that is "kabglbgje" or "nnnnnnnnn". You could then report comments like that and if someone gets enough reports, or reports on a high enough percentage of their reviews, they aren't allowed to review descriptions any more, because they're obviously using the system to troll.

 

 

A certain percentage of those no comment rejects may think it is obvious why they rejected it, and it may be for some descriptions, but never to the person who made it, otherwise they wouldn't have written that description. Forcing a comment might cause some of the legit rejectors to type something, even if it isn't super helpful, it's still a comment.

Wait, I'm not quite sure I understand - is the comment reporting already a feature, or just an idea? Stupid question but. . . .

 

And if the comments required actual words, trolls could be discouraged from rejecting, or reviewing descriptions at all. Like, actual words, not "gdyijg kdkrgb."

 

Having someone comment at all, even if it isn't helpful, is actually surprisingly nice. It feels like there's actually a person there, whereas otherwise it really doesnt. :/ And if someone doesn't point out all of a description's mistakes, forcing the author to find them on their own - well, it could definitely help you both become a better proofreader and author in the end. Just a comment like "Needs to be longer" or "Unrealistic" can be surprisingly useful when it comes to revision.

[Pokemonfan13]

I don't think it's a feature, but it would be a good one to add with this one.

 

I'm not sure there's a realistic way to force them to use words. After all, online a lot of people talk in gibberish, so you'd need to include a chatspeak and txtspeak dictionary, or someone who talks like types like that all the time would be told to use real words, when they are communicating, just poorly...

Edited August 13, 2012 by Pokemonfan13

[Chanilove]

I don't think it's a feature, but it would be a good one to add with this one.

 

I'm not sure there's a realistic way to force them to use words. After all, online a lot of people talk in gibberish, so you'd need to include a chatspeak and txtspeak dictionary, or someone who talks like types like that all the time would be told to use real words, when they are communicating, just poorly...

The programming required for such a feat as adding a proper dictionary would be ludicrous in comparison to the good it would do, though I do agree that rejections should require comments. A report feature is an interesting idea as well. I'm not sure how necessary it is, as I have never made a description myself and thus have no way of knowing exactly how badly infested with trolls the description reviews are. I'll leave that to the description fiends to decide. :3

[Pokemonfan13]

Well, judging by the fact that a good percentage of the people who reject without comment are likely trolls, and the OP things commentless rejections are enough of a problem that they feel that they need to be prevented. In the end I think you can only tell exactly how many trolls there are once they're forced to comment. The people who actually have a reason to reject will think of something to say, even if it's just "too short" or "use proper grammar". The trolls who just want to reject everything will do a keyboard mash to get through the "something in the text box" requirement.

 

And that's what I thought, forcing real words just wouldn't be feasible.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Pokemonfan13

[Ponystar17]

Coming from somebody who occasionally rejects without a comment, I would say that it's totally reasonable to force commenting for rejecting. Yes, it might slow us down and waste a little of our time for descriptions that are clearly just spam, but it makes it easier for the legit descriptions to get fixed, and harder for trolls to just play around. I also support the idea of a report button for spam comments if this gets implemented.

I would not, however, support abstaining requiring a comment. Sometimes people just don't want to review a specific description because they don't personally like the length/style/humor (or lack thereof)/general tone, and they should not be forced to review descriptions they're not going to be able to accurately and objectively review. The mere fact I don't like somebody's style doesn't make it bad.

[Sundew]

Well, the word thing was worth a shot, even if it was a miss. :I

 

I can definitely see the point on abstaining, I don't use it often but when I do it is mostly because of the style or poor word choice, and it can be hard to phrase a comment in that situation. Actually, the first time I used it I didn't know what it meant - I thought it would let me review the description later as opposed to now, without letting the writer know I'd skipped.

 

If comments are eventually required, I would definitely support the report feature. Currently when I get a no-comment reject, I frantically scroll through the description until I find something to fix and fix it. Or don't. Or I just ignore it. x3

With this trolls would probably be more annoying (unless there happened to be less of them), because it would be annoying to find "fdskhdkl fdski nehj" as a comment. Actually disallowing the trolls to review if they were reported enough times (and I'm assuming a mod would have to actually take the feature away) wouldn't just discourage them, it would actually stop them from being trolls, at least when they were here. :3

[Pokemonfan13]

I think it would have to be reports as a percentage of their comments rather the cumulative, since people could abuse the report function too, say they didn't like their description getting rejected, so they report the rejector. So if it is 50 reports period even a conscientious reviewer could accumulate that many over a year if they're honest about poorly written descriptions. But if it is, say 25% of their reviews have to get a report, if the reporting function is used consistently a troll could easily get that many or more reports, but a legit person is only going to get a smattering.