Forum:Peer review lite

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Peer review lite

Note: This topic has been unedited for 869 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

The biggest loss to this wiki is that of peereview. While I doubt it will come back in it's old form...I thought we could at least have some kind of peer review lite where users can critique each other's work without having to write a 1,000 word essay on it. If there is enough interest (even just three or four users) in doing so...and anyone who'd like to help me format it...I'd be happy to set it up. Doesn't have to be anything fancy. The simple the better. --ShabiDOO 22:19, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the great majorities I do are not Pee but a couple paragraphs or a list of observations. The number grades in our form are meaningless except to traumatize a new Uncyclopedian, as he often neglects phrasing or photographs and deserves one or more 0's even alongside his 10's. But this problem is separate from the one you raise; if you've got 1,000 words of things to say, there is rarely an alternative to writing 1,000 words--and in fact the Pee table was meant to be just such an alternative. Spıke Ѧ 22:37 11-Oct-13

I couldn't agree more with you SPIKE. Those low numbers and flashing red panels gave me a heart attack the first few pee reviews I had done on me. It would be nice to have a pee-lite. An extremely simple space without the forms we used to use and a simple forum-like-wall for users to leave whatever comments they like (as many or as few words as they want). The site really needs it. --ShabiDOO 23:24, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

But return to my question: Are you looking to avoid "having to write a 1,000 word essay" or to get around our form, as intimidating to the reviewer as to the author? It seems to me it is one or the other. Spıke Ѧ 23:30 11-Oct-13

I want to jumpstart pee reviewing again...and I highly doubt people are going to write long in depth pee reviews as before. I'm hoping a new space will invite people to write critiques of whatever size they choose and allow users to comment in a wall like format instead of being obligated to fill up a table and write more than they perhaps want to. An added bonus being not just one user will review or crituqe as was the custom on pee reviews. No custom format...no specific expectations. Just a wall. --ShabiDOO 23:33, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

"Community wall" sounds like the thing Wikia rolled out on all of its wikis last year, except us. Anyway, I am enthused to have you flesh out your idea. (Sheesh! and the Chief Justice's website avatar has not even reached room temperature!) Spıke Ѧ 23:40 11-Oct-13

Enthused reminds me of Regular K ... my favourite article. I'm interested to see what other users think about this. --ShabiDOO 23:47, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

This forum leads with both nudity and coffee. Ergo I support it completely.

One thing I did notice and has always been a concern is the removal of the “an article must be pee reviewed before it can be self-nominated” rule. This rule did push people into asking for reviews, and as a result then completing reviews themselves in a mutual handshake thingy. Once this rule was removed this sounded the death knoll for peeing.

There has never been an official rule on what length a review should be, but there has always been an expectation on a certain level of quality of reviews, and novice reviewers have been shot down for giving reviews are are too light. This has also tended to push people away from reviewing.

I have no idea how well the above suggestions would work, or have any other suggestions that I would put faith in, but that's my thoughts on the reviewing process in a nutshell. Hopefully that will help. • Puppy's talk page • 06:49 13 Oct 2013

Yeah...you're totally right. I wish that rule had never gone away. It's a bummer. At least UnNews right now is at top notch quality again. --ShabiDOO 07:24, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

I had always thought a 'good pee' was worth some extra weighted votes on VFH but don't know that could be regulated. --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:22, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

What does it look like?

Sorry for bumping this, but Anton was discussing it on my talk page, and TBH I'm not sure what we want the review to look like now. I uncovered User:POTR/PEE a little earlier today, which was my previous recreation of the review form, but that's really just a different formatting off the same thing.

Are we breaking this into sections, or is this just the one section that allows a reviewer to say what it is they need to say? Should we incorporate a link to HTBFANJS into the completed review view, given that is or quasi-style guide? What do people have in mind?

I need guidance here! • Puppy's talk page • 12:07 28 Oct 2013

I did not look at details of your formatting, but I think it is a right way to do it. To clarify: what I think Shabidoo said, was that he wanted an option which would allow reviewers to write only a few useful comments and not a full essay. Your permits it, maybe we will just need a few more questions to guide him.

Spike says that he does not like putting scores, and so maybe we can make comments in the actual review optional somehow? He reviewer himself will choose whether he wants to give number-grades or not. If not, not to ruin the whole table, he can give short remarks, such as "More work needed", "A lot more work needed", "Almost perfect", etc., and the color of the table-sections would be dependent of them.

Concerning the PeeReviews as a whole system, I think that having two options: Pee Review - something we have right now for those who would like to write complete essays, and Pee Review Lite - something you have almost worked out. Anton (talk) 13:44, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pup. Each page should use the same template. The top is standardized with relevant info (htbfanst is a GREAT idea). I was hoping that for each user who writes a comment...there would be a separate box (kind of like when you look at all vfh nominations at once). It gives the look of a facebook wall sort of and is remisicent of VFH. There are absolutely no rules about how someone comments or reviews. A user can do a complete review if they choose in their own review box using the pee review template if they like. Importantly...a user can close the review page themselves (by adding the category "reviewed" or clicking a box or whatever) or a happy-hard-working-helper-user can close pages that are now featured, deleted or stagnant. This could exist side by side with pee review as Anton has said. Both of your mothers are totally allowed to give me a phone call any time they like regardless of what time zone they are in...or whatever planet I happen to be on. This we can be positive about. Does this sound pheasable? The problem with the boxes is...I have no idea how to format them without having to create new pages for every single review. Any ideas? --ShabiDOO 17:45, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask: why do we need several Pee Reviews for one article - I think this will just be more confusing. Even if only one person completes a Pee Review lite, that should still be enough for the author, as right now some complete reviews do not contain more than two sentences per section. But maybe your ideas are good.

Concerning Shabidoo's last question, I think there should be one model box for comment (if you really want multiple reviews) and if someone reviews the article, the box will be filled and the page marked as reviewed. However, if someone wants to add his comments, he can copy the box, paste it on the same page and just fill it how he wants, so there will be multiple boxes. Anton (talk) 19:39, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Okay - here's how my brain is currently working:

A template can differ it's appearance depending on what options are filled in. The present PEE review system considers itself "complete" and changes the category based upon if the "signature" section has something in it. When it first shows on a page where there is a review requested it's something like "Click here to complete review". What my thoughts are is giving that two options: the first is "click here to add a Pee review/Click here to add an in-depth review". Depending on what the user clicks this will either go to an older style review (minus the scoring aspect, which I agree was mostly meaningless), or a newer style review (which will be a two option template, the first part being the review and the second part being the signature.)

Each one of these can also pop up an intro to the editor, giving tips on how to fill in the template, or what is needed in a review.

That initial 2 question box will stay where it is, so that if any other editor comes across the same request and feels there is something that can be added, they can simply add it directly there. What can be added to that box, though, are generic tips to the original requester. ("Have you had a look at our helpful writing guide, HTBFANJS? Have a look at some of our previous featured articles for inspiration.")

The layout of the main page will be more like VFH than the current review system, where once a review has been completed it vanishes from the queue and goes to a "completed reviews" section (like the recently featured/recently failed type of sections.)

The back-end stuff created around reviewing by Boomer and Cajek can be largely ignored, as nobody really takes any notice of it any more, and the benefit we got from having it is far outweighed by how much of a bastard it was to update. Besides - if we do away with the scoring then it becomes mostly irrelevant, except for gloating rights by those in the top 10. (And I'm not likely to catch either UU or Chief now.)

Cats are a lot of fun to chase, especially when the run up trees and everyone hangs around the base of the tree and barks at them.

Does anyone have anything else specific that we can add/take away? • Puppy's talk page • 09:10 28 Oct 2013

This all sounds great. Pretty much what I had in mind. I think there should be three options: Indepth pee review, lite reviews (minor comments) and review (zero limits). If the author only needs or wants touch-ups...they wont waste reviewers time. If they want in-depth reviews only...then that's what they'll wait for (some time). No limits...has no limits. As for having the different reviews and comments look like a fb wall...I know cathtecolourful has a prototype for something snazzy. I'll search for it. --ShabiDOO 21:26, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Cat the Colourful - Meow?
TALK - 08:05, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Okay. Break that into two options:

{{Review template
|signature={{User:Buccaneer Batman/signature}} ~~~~~
|review=This is an unlimited review space, so I can 
blah as much or as little as I like
}}

and:

{{Review template
|signature=as above
|concept=It has one
|humour=It has some
|prose=It's speeled good, and formatted
|images=There are some
|misc=other things and a final comment
}}

The first option will look like Cat's template, but I might look at FB for better colouring (or use a similar colour schematic as twitter article), and the second option will be a hybrid between that and the current template. • Puppy's talk page • 09:46 28 Oct 2013

Hey puppy. We don't have to use cat's template...it's just an example of what I was thinking about. I'm sure you'll devise something groovy! --ShabiDOO 22:59, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

So the scoring will be gone entirely?

Also, just to clarify, a Pee Review lite will be for those who will add one or two comments about the article, then the normal (old) Pee Review will just be as it is but without scores, and there will be the third option, an in-depth review which will basically be something we often do right now (but with the old Pee template) but with more guidelines for the reviewer? Right? Anton (talk) 11:13, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was going to leave it at two options - classic without scores, and free form which allows you to do as much or as little as you like. An intro template could be introduced to give pointers on how to review, but free form would be up to the reviewer what they put in. The advantage of temllating means being able to "complete" a review so it's no longer showing as "pending". • Puppy's talk page • 04:15 29 Oct 2013

And what will happen to your template (the one in your user space with many details). I think we need some particular questions inside the template, in PR lite or somewhere else. Anton (talk) 16:27, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Make mine scoreless. On encountering, for instance, a new article without photos, the goal is to neither let the author ignore the need to eventually add photos, nor to give him a grade of zero. So the resulting structure should continue to remind the reviewer to hit all the aspects of a good article: To size the article up from a list of standpoints rather than go totally free-form and just provide his gut feeling. Spıke Ѧ 16:35 29-Oct-13

Completed

Please, check User:Anton199/Sandbox1, to see how it works. The score aspect is left, but is not mandatory and scores are not displayed anywhere they just influence the colour of the box. (What I mean by "not mandatory" is that you may choose not to put them and this won't have any negative affects on your review). All the options are inside one template. You may choose to review it completely, you may choose just to give several comments. Right now these changes are nowhere except for my sandbox, but I will transfer them to main space, if there are no objections.

A detailed guide for using the new Pee Review format will be written soon, but basically there is just a new field (ReviewLite) and Rscore (score in a Review Lite, not mandatory) and you choose to fill in any field you want, except for the Signature one, which you have to fill. There are some more innovations, such as the new Reviewer field (where you can introduce yourself) and a possible extended Prose field, but these were worked out by Pup years ago, so they are not really innovations.

Thank you for attention! Anton (talk) 19:57, November 17, 2013 (UTC)

I see a lot of colors, and an awful lot of section numbers which I wish weren't there at all, but don't understand from this example how to actually write a Pee Review Lite. The freer hand in writing a review (heavy versus light, and scored versus unscored) is a quantum leap forward, but please don't overwrite the existing files without doing and presenting the paperwork first. Whenever I did a Pee Review, I had to open an extra tab for the instructions just to remember what hscore and so forth stood for; I hope this is solved. Spıke Ѧ 20:06 17-Nov-13

It's a fantastic first step. Next thing is to edit the instructions on how to write a review, and what options the reviewer has. I'm thinking a trimmed down version of Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Guidelines#The Basics as an intro text, with a link to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Guidelines (which will need to be edited) in there as well. At present when a review is created it adds in a pre-populated review template. Adding in instructions in that should be fairly easy, along with options on how to fill it out.

As most of the feedback here is without scores, I'm thinking that the default layout should be:

{{Review template
<!-- Fill in this section for a free text review -->
|ReviewLite=<!-- Add your review below-->

<!--Fill in this section for an extended review-->
|Hcomment=<!--Is the article funny? What can be done to improve humour?-->
|Ccomment=<!--Is the concept well thought out?-->
|Pcomment=<!--Is the article well formatted? Is spelling and grammar goodly?-->
|Icomment=<!--Is there a good use of images?-->
|Mcomment=<!-- Any other comments that need to be made?-->

<!--Once you have completed your review, using either format, sign here.-->
|Signature=
}}

For the advanced options (including scores) we can add those to the guidelines. • Puppy's talk page • 08:34 pm 17 Nov 2013

Great! I think this is the way we need to do this. I will also reduce colours and sections. Anton (talk) 20:43, November 17, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Having any prototype at all helps us shape this up better and make comments. First...for the full pee review...I think the format looks cool. For the pee review lite...I envisioned something utterly and totally apart from the old pee reviews. No colour coded scores, no scores no formulaic anything. Just a wall where users can leave comments as they like and conversation may ensue. If a user thinks the article is "a good start" they can say so and comment away. No need for numbers or colours. If a user just wants to say "great article...polish it up and I'll nom it" they can simply say that. The only rules that need to be mentioned is

Be constructive when writing
No trash talk

And for the writer of the article

Say what you want to be specifically reviewed if anything
Don't be a primadonna

I don't think any other rules are necesary...as it's just a wall. That's my two cents. --ShabiDOO 22:26, November 17, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but in case the writer wants to add a score? It is not necessary, just an option. Anton (talk) 20:25, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

If the reviewer wan't to add a score...they can type it (i.e. I give the article a 9 out of 10). --ShabiDOO 20:49, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

To stop this becoming a sticking point, here's what has been proposed:

At this stage nobody has said that the score should be compulsory, so we have three options:
1. Score is optional but built into the review
2. Score is optional, but can be added separately
3. Score is not an option
The last of these three options is silly - adding that kind of restriction to a review system - no matter how structured - is counterproductive.

The template Anton has put together allows scores as part of filling in the template. The way I have structured the preload text (see above) leaves these options out by default, but they can be added back in by experienced reviewers. This leaves us with a compromise - score is optional, built in, not encouraged but not discouraged. This gives the highest flexibility, but the least obligation.

I also like Shabidoo's idea of leaving it out completely and allowing reviewers to add in a score if they see fit as well (using {{s}} for example), but either outcome would be okay with me. • Puppy's talk page • 09:30 pm 21 Nov 2013

At the risk of repeating: If I just want to dash off random thoughts, I don't need this at all and will go directly to the author's talk page. But if the author asks for an actual Pee and if I consent to do an actual Pee, the structure should remind me of all the components of a complete review. If someone is running with images switched off and declines to score on that basis, he won't be punished! But Shabidoo's "Be constructive and no trash talk" is not the entire guidance the structure should have. Spıke Ѧ 21:37 21-Nov-13

To be honest...perhaps just having a page that is a request for comments would take care of pee review lite and a reviewer can add a critique on the talk page. It's been brewing in my mind that this might be a lot simpler. Perhaps an extremely simple template could be designed to use on a talk page making it clear its a lite review. The forum would have a simple table ordered by date of entry with the user, name of artice, and what input if any they want. Perhaps with a limit of no more than three pages per user at a time...and a timelimit per article for maintenence/deleting. No need to keep records of any kind. Maybe this is the way for lite reviewing. --ShabiDOO 00:26, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

Do you call this simple?! Anton (talk) 11:55, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right in most of what you said, except for the part about separate pages for Pee Reviews Lite and not keeping records of them, because I am not sure that this will be simple. I also don't see a need in creating a separate template for Pee Review Lite, if all the options can be present in only one. I will take a look at how Cat's post template is structured and will see if it can be adapted as PRL option. Thanks for the feedback. Anton (talk) 12:00, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

Left field idea

One of the causes for confusion here is that we're bogged down with an older concept of PR. We know what it was, which limits us on where we want it to be.

If a user is looking for simple feedback, we could do this a different way. Creating a PR request asks for a certain depth of review. But we have an unused template {{help}}. This was (before my time) designed to be added to a user page, and regular users would check the category regularly to see who was in need of help.

A similar template could be added to articles (or their talk page) which adds them to Category:Feedback requested, or something. A DPL could add these to a list on UN:PEE where users can go through and add a feedback thingy on the talk page. Using Anton's template the review could be as basic or as in-depth as the reviewer wants to delve.

This has the added advantage that feedback on a page is kept on the talk page attached. Anyone wanting to swing past a page later can read and act on the feedback, and the requestor would have it pop in their watch list - as would anyone else who worked on that page.

It's a very different angle from what we have now, but it may be a more wiki-intuitive way to work this kind of feedback. And it means we can add scores, lite or in-depth, or just a few choice comments - whatever the reviewer wants. And to “complete” a review request all that is needed is for the {{review request}} template to be removed, which will take it off the list. • Puppy's talk page • 01:27 pm 25 Nov 2013

Added 13:34, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

A fine addition! In my earliest days here, the Chief Justice cajoled me into doing some Pee Reviews and defended the formality. But one point of this (as in Decision Theory, where you evaluate two options by listing your values, assigning a weight to each value, rating the alternatives, and then just calculating the total) still seems to be to produce good numbers as you would have to do, for example, if you were comparing the quality of two articles. But we aren't, apart from competitions; the real goal is inducing communication, toward the eternal end-goal of making articles funnier. Still, the template (or something) could suggest to the reviewer the components of a complete review, including general appeal, use of photos, choice of words, comedy strategy, markup and section organization, and how it all hangs together. Spıke Ѧ 13:53 25-Nov-13

Using that template is a great idea. We need only set up a page that automatically lists the pages that have the request for view template. The only thing we have to do is decide some sort of limit per articles per user and a time limit for articles to be pee reviewed. I think two or three articles at a time per user is fair. And I suppose six weeks or so is enough time to get reviews. There's nothing more depressing than a long list of articles that have been there for months without the slightest touch to it. Or if a user slaps a template on every single article they are working on or if they just want ideas rather than a review). --ShabiDOO 14:34, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure about this. For instance, my Anna Pavlova (ballet dancer) has been on the Pee Review page for months already and same for many ScottPat's articles. I presume that we both can rewrite them and make them better but I would still like to get some feedback from a reviewer. Anton (talk) 09:30, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed

• Puppy's talk page • 07:42 am 26 Nov 2013

This is a very dull forum, with a minimal amount of sexualised pancakes. However, the template a little further above allowed me to add this lite review. So that was cool.

This was a Pee Review by • Puppy's talk page • 07:42 am 26 Nov 2013

Reviewed#2

Humour

How and why is it funny? Any suggestions?

I like writing standard reviews better, but this forum distracted me from writing one. And it is not funny, apart from that coffee image at the beginning. And I wouldn't be writing a Pe Review anyway right now, I am joking. This is not a complete review but I do not care.

This was a Pee Review by Anton (talk) 09:19, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

How should we sort out all these things?

Should we replace Template:PEE with my sandbox and change the main Pee Review page, so it redirects to it? Or should it be the template that is currently used? Anton (talk) 19:35, November 27, 2013 (UTC)