Comment Required When Rejecting a Description

[Sundew]

Yeah, that makes sense. :I Though even then, would a mod make sure they really are abusing the reviewing system, or would it be automatically disabled from their account?

[Ponystar17]

Yeah, that makes sense. :I Though even then, would a mod make sure they really are abusing the reviewing system, or would it be automatically disabled from their account?

I would vote for a temp-ban until a mod is able to review their record and see whether or not they deserve a ban from description-reviewing. It would stop trolls quickly, and wouldn't hinder honest reviewers for long (assuming there were active mods on the job).

[Ashes The Second]

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.

This. I would like this implemented. :3

[Obscure_Trash]

~Merged; if you know a thread exists, but can't find it, why not contact a mod before re-making the thread?~

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I really don't see any point to this. Is it annoying to get rejects without a given reason? Yes. But at the same time you have to realize that a good majority of those worldless rejects (at least if you're fairly good at writing, ahaha) are just coming from trolls where I would rather not see anything from them but a reject stamp.

 

The mod's opinions are all that matter in the end. I've had descriptions with a few wordless rejects approved without the slightest issues. So I see little reason to change things up.

[Sundew]

~Merged; if you know a thread exists, but can't find it, why not contact a mod before re-making the thread?~

Sorry about that. D: Will definitely do next time.

 

I have had descriptions with wordless rejects approved - usually they are with no problem. But it's just plain frustrating to keep getting rejects and not knowing what they're for. Even if it becomes more annoying (to receive rejects from trolls not containing real words...), I would rather know for certain than to have to guess.

[Ashes The Second]

Sorry about that. D: Will definitely do next time.

 

I have had descriptions with wordless rejects approved - usually they are with no problem. But it's just plain frustrating to keep getting rejects and not knowing what they're for. Even if it becomes more annoying (to receive rejects from trolls not containing real words...), I would rather know for certain than to have to guess.

This. I only stop writing because it gets tiring or I can't word what I want to say properly. (haha, English makes no sense anyway).

[Herk]

I still think this would be a great idea

 

After reviewing tons and tons of stuff I can say it's not that much effort (yay for cookies) as most rejects are standard stuff (No 1st person, use full sentences, use punctuation, etc.). I only rejected without comment ONCE after the n-th resubmit without changes and I really got angry with the describer.

 

And if you are a a commentless rejecter - I'll ignore you, simple as that. I've written enough descriptions to have achieved a certain amount of confidence. But I know that lots of people get riled up about comment-less rejects and start doubting themselves, which in most cases is inappropriate.

 

I do however do commentless Abstains - mostly because after 6 or 7 resubmits I really can't spot the differences (probably commas) or because I personally don't like the style and wouldn't be objective.

 

So I hereby bring this up again (I was planning to creating such a topic if it hadn't existed), because one should be able to give a reaon for one's opinion and rejects should be a away to make descriptions better- so CONCRIT

[Dimar]

I second Herk.

 

I don't describe my dragons, I only review, but I still think that this is a good idea. Personally, I use Google Chrome when I review so I can comment pretty quickly if it's standard Reject material - Chrome remembers what I've typed in the past, so "Use 1st person and use full sentences. ~D" only takes two seconds to comment. Therefore, I almost ALWAYS leave concrit. And for those who don't use Chrome, they will take the time to type out a comment if they take their job seriously.

 

The only times I silently Reject are when the author refuses to make changes and says in the description: "To Reviewers: I am writing this the way I want. Stop telling me to change it because XYZ."

 

Since TJ said someone's reviewing permission can be revoked if their comments warrant such, I think this is a good idea.

 

And I know this is from a long time ago, but I wanted to address it:

If anything will be cut down, it's the amount of actual reviewing that takes place.  At best you'll be spammed with repeated unconstructive one-word comments like "grammar" and "spelling" because people who go on reviewing binges tend not to type much in order to get through more of them.

I, for one, go on reviewing binges for as much as 6 hours at a time and I type a lot and comment every time. I know that other reviewers do this as well, and most of the legitimate reviewers who you see in the threads and #descripdoom do leave concrit because they take their job seriously. So I think that a suggestion like this would only help, and hurt minimally.

 

[Obscure_Trash]

As a mod, I still do not support this. People may just start typing "reject" which really isn't anything to have their commenting privilege taken away, nor their reviewing privilege. Or maybe they'll just abstain without comment. I know that phantom rejects really bother people, but that disappears once your description is approved anywhere and I really don't think forcing people to comment is going to accomplish anything. If it helps, those people likely have an awful review score and would never be chosen as a descrip mod. :3

[love_HP]

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.

This.

Personally I make comments on my accepts and rejects. When I accept I leave a comment because I think the description writer may feel happy seeing his/her description being actually read by another user. When I reject I write very specific things like "add a comma between 'his words' and 'which are' ".

Though I don't know the percentage of trolls, I believe forcing people to comment on rejects makes it obvious to tell apart the trolls who smash the mouse/keyboard from those who actually read the descriptions.

True, trolls can ctrl+v "reject" into all the rejects, but I suggest giving a warning if someone does that for many times.

Trolls may turn to using "approve" or "abstain" on everything, but it makes description writers less confused and frustrated.

I can't think of a way to stop people from abusing the approve button, though the mods may already have a way to do that. Forcing comments doesn't seem a good idea to me though I won't be affected personally.

And I will definitely say no to forcing comments on abstain. Much of the time I use abstain is when I find the description tl;dr and want to skip without a comment, or I'm not sure what to say. And it doesn't do any harm anyway if trolls decide to hit abstain without comment on everything.

[Amaterasu-sama]

I accept there have been times I've rejected without comments. But those were really extreme cases where the description was plain ridiculous (judging by terms of "how to write a proper description" guidelines given) or makes no sense whatsoever. for eg. a half line (incomplete sentence) description with just 5-6 words that don't even mean anything when put together. The ones I've rejected in this manner were those that I was 100% sure of being rejected by staff as well, and they would (I hope) provide a reason so I didn't feel like writing something absurd like "Your description makes no sense to me". What I would LOVE though is the ability to skip voting for a description instead of having to choose abstain, just in case I feel like coming back to re-read it because there are times I only feel like reviewing smaller descriptions and need to devote more times for the big ones so I choose to abstain instead because I can't see the next in line description until I do that.

 

I usually just about never reject for small errors, I mention them in my approve/abstain comments.

 

And anyway, I've had my description approved despite a reject vote so I'd say unless you really see something wrong with your description or agree with a correction someone has posted you should leave it be and let staff make their decision about it.

 

[Fuzzbucket]

I don't always comment if I have nothing I want to say. If I were required to, I think I might stop reviewing descriptions anyway.

[siliconrose]

There have been a couple of cases where I specifically did not leave a comment while rejecting a description because any commentary I could have made would probably only have angered the user in question.

 

One description had at the end something along the lines of: "If you don't like, well that's your problem, STOP REJECTING MY DESCRIPTIONS!"

 

I suppose I could have skipped it, but it wasn't an acceptable description. Given that I was to reject it, I could have chided the user for being unpleasant? Regardless, clearly they weren't in a frame of mind to accept criticism.

[love_HP]

What I would LOVE though is the ability to skip voting for a description instead of having to choose abstain, just in case I feel like coming back to re-read it because there are times I only feel like reviewing smaller descriptions and need to devote more times for the big ones so I choose to abstain instead because I can't see the next in line description until I do that.

I like this idea, too. Sometimes I don't feel like reading longer descriptions also...

[Kiya_Felixea]

I like this idea. The only time I reject without comment is if someone clearly hasn't bothered to follow the description guidelines. If I had to comment, I'd simply say "read the guidelines".

In any other instance where I'm not sure, but know quite know how to comment, I simply abstain. Usually it's because I know there's something wrong with the grammar, but my own grammar is bad enough I'm not quite sure what is wrong. so I abstain and hope someone else will leave the corrections for the writer.