Forum:Expiration time for Pee Review?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Expiration time for Pee Review?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3994 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

• Well, again, trying to find a solution to the massive amount of dry articles waiting for a golden shower. I'm removing my own older entries despite still being uncertain if they just suck or consist in brilliant works of high humor. As a suggestion to sysops, I don't know if it's technically feasible, but I feel we could stabilish a time limit for entries to stay active in Pee Review, the same way we do it in VFH. Being conservative, maybe one month or one month without receiving comments would do. I also suggested in a previous topic an award for good reviewers as a way to incentivate people to peeing at more articles. Opinions? herr doktor needsAV2  [scream!] 14:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think pee review is in great shape, and the main problem with it is one of maintenance (as in, no one wants to remove articles that aren't theirs, but also aren't getting reviewed). In my experience, people are not willing to read more than 20 articles at a time in one sitting (thus my disposal of the weak articles over 20 at VFH), and would think that something to this effect at pee review would be a good idea, as well (since so much ISN'T getting reviewed right now, maybe setting a cap or time limit on the articles would increase traffic by reducing the amount of reading is necessary there. I definitely think that one month with stagnation is sufficient to take off of pee review (but then, I'm the guy that thinks if an article is ignored for a week at VFH, it's not worth saving, so you might wait for another admin to chime in before you start slashing away).--<<>> 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This award has been created to thank a user who helps you out with a useful review.

Oh yeah, a "thanks for the review" template for a useful review at pee review would do WONDERS for increasing them, methinks.--<<>> 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make it so the template flagging a 'finished' pee does something to make it not show up in the Current Pees list. That's what stale pees is for, right? If all the completed pees vanished from the list, the ones at the bottom that have been awaiting pee will rise up on the list, so people will see them. Then they'll get their pee. --User:Nintendorulez 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Better make it so that only the original entrant can put that tag up then, otherwise you will get people sticking the 'thanks' tag on other people's PR requests to push those down and get their own articles floating to the top... Dutchy 13:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bah! Poirot has uncovered my plot! /me rubs goatee nefariously. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion

• Add the original pee review creator in a new column. We have favourite writers here and by so a "fan" would be incentivated to search for his "idol" entries. herr doktor needsAV2  [scream!] 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not them that need the most help; they mostly need tweaks or a second opinion (not that I'm a "fave" or anything, but I mostly use pee review to see if something I wrote has gone off the deep end, or to see if someone has tips on formatting, as that's my weakness). It's the n00bs that really a require a full critique.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it still would be handy to relate one pee to another by the author's name and even track a n00b author you have found interesting - I don't think this would be unfair to n00bs, it just make things more clear. herr doktor needsAV2  [scream!] 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against it, I just don't think it would help those that need it most. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)