User talk:Boomer/People for the Evaluation of Excrement and Influencing Nominations for Greatness
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
|
Contents |
[edit] Hyperbole for Attending?
- Nom & pointless For. Hype's a very active reviewer, very clear and concise, he knows what a good review is, his presentation is near flawless and he's at the review number mark we like to see in an Attending. A little harsh with his scoring maybe, but that didn't stop me did it? Plus, I feel we should have more than one Attending, personally. Thoughts? ~~Heeren ["Meh"] [tech] [kurk] [6/07 09:24]
- Yes. Orion to, but he's probably going to make it via another route... Boomer will kick me in the balls for sure... MrN
09:29, Jul 6
- A it's an A, ok? I'm not a publishing company or that star. but thanks for the support. I'm not sure if I'll get RotM this month either, java and Hyperbole are both very good. As Hv said clear, whereas I know I can be a bit Blagh sometimes. bassically no objections from me. Have Fun! MuCal. BFF Sir
10:01 6 July 2008
- Well if we're going to get picky, it's a constellation, not just a star... But I'm down with Hype getting AU, he's cool. As for Orian, I think I may have made my views known on that topic a while back, so I'll not repeat them! --UU Blah / Pee
10:14, Jul 6
- Well if we're going to get picky, it's a constellation, not just a star... But I'm down with Hype getting AU, he's cool. As for Orian, I think I may have made my views known on that topic a while back, so I'll not repeat them! --UU Blah / Pee
- A it's an A, ok? I'm not a publishing company or that star. but thanks for the support. I'm not sure if I'll get RotM this month either, java and Hyperbole are both very good. As Hv said clear, whereas I know I can be a bit Blagh sometimes. bassically no objections from me. Have Fun! MuCal. BFF Sir
- Yes. Orion to, but he's probably going to make it via another route... Boomer will kick me in the balls for sure... MrN
[edit] What Yettie said above...
About the list appearing on Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Menu... I think this deserves a heading of its own. So lets talk about it here... When Cajek started that list it was a bit controversial at the time, but now it has become well established. There are good reasons why it should and should not be there... What do people think? MrN 
11:09, Jul 6
- What would the objections be? I say this is a simple change for convenience, most of all. Also for people who are new to Pee Review and who don't know about PEEING keeping checks on every review....well there's a tiny chance that this may change that (very tiny though). - [17:23 6 July] Sir FSt. Yettie (talk) {PEE}
- Well, "officially" PEEING and Pee Review are not the same thing. PEEING does not "control" Pee Review, we are a user run group, and Cajek's list is not moderated by Sysops. There are also a lot of links on the menu as it is now, and adding more might just confuse matters. There is a link on the menu to our page now... I'm not opposed to adding another one, but less is sometimes more... If someone is not bothered enough to click on the PEEING link they will probably not be bothered enough to click on a link to Cajek's list. Given the choice, I would rather a new user clicked on the PEEING link rather than one to Cajek's list... MrN 17:38, Jul 6
- Well, "officially" PEEING and Pee Review are not the same thing. PEEING does not "control" Pee Review, we are a user run group, and Cajek's list is not moderated by Sysops. There are also a lot of links on the menu as it is now, and adding more might just confuse matters. There is a link on the menu to our page now... I'm not opposed to adding another one, but less is sometimes more... If someone is not bothered enough to click on the PEEING link they will probably not be bothered enough to click on a link to Cajek's list. Given the choice, I would rather a new user clicked on the PEEING link rather than one to Cajek's list... MrN
[edit] While we are talking about changing stuffs...
What would people think about us (Pee Review I mean) offering two different levels of review? The normal long in-depth reviews which we all do, as well as a shorter option. I sometimes think that it actually takes a lot more time for me to explain how I think an article should be changed in a pee review than it actually would take if I just made the changes myself. Now obviously one of the main points of a pee review is for people to pass on their understanding of articles so that the author in question can learn to become a better writer. That's why we need in-depth reviews, and that's why Pee Review kicks arse soo much. We teach people to be better writers here...
Sometimes though I think an author just wants someone to give their article a quick run through giving scores and just brief comments as to if it sux balls or not regarding VFH. If we had two options then those only wanting a quick look would get their reviews much faster, and we could put more focus into those people who wanted an in-depth review, and had a serious intention of taking the comments of the reviewer on-board. I no that sometimes people say in their comment when they submit what they are looking for, but I wonder if there might be a way of making this process work better... I have no idea about how this could be implemented or anything, I'm just throwing it out there to see what people think... Thoughts? Trousers? Pants? Aardvarks even? MrN 11:49, Jul 6
- You know you shouldn't throw ideas, someone could get injured. I was also have a think about Pee Review. Maybe there should also be a section of Pee Review (or some method) for reviewing reviews...if you see what I mean...so that new reivewers can get pointers on their reviews. IT could use the same style table we use for articles, but with different categories. Also I think on the normal pee review table it would be useful if you could customise the name of the "Misc" field to one which is more suitable/appropriate for the article. I, too, am just throwing ideas around, but gently, so no one gets hurt. - [14:29 6 July] Sir FSt. Yettie (talk) {UNPotM}
- We've got something like thsi already. It's called under user. seriously though it think it's pushing it a bit far. how long would it be before we wanted to review the reviews of the reviews? Have Fun! MuCal. BFF Sir 15:04 6 July 2008
- Well I was going to raise that right now, actually. :-) I'm just saying that this would be quite a useful thing for new reviewers - reviews of reviews by AUs or SKs. Maybe not as formal as the rest of Pee Review, but meh. - [15:12 6 July] Sir FSt. Yettie (talk) {CUN}
- Let's not get carried away. I think what we have is fine - the reviews are checked, and if people contribute several crap ones, someone (usually me) has a polite word about it. The problem with adding on extra regulation to stuff is that often it starts off meaning well, but then people get bored of it, and drift away, and stop doing whateveritwas that was being regulated at the same time, completely defeating the point of the exercise. Besides, people reviewing reviews would leave them less time to do reviews, and that's the most important thing, right? And when things are slowing down a little anyway, the last thing we want is to put more obstacles in the way.
- I do like MrN's idea though - sometimes people are just looking for a quick review, a few lines, bam, you're done. THINKERER for one, mainly just pops in when he thinks he has something good enough to self nom and needs to get the formality out of the way. Perhaps for those we need some way to flag up people are just after a quick capsule review. That could help clear the queue a bit quicker too - I could certainly find a few minutes for a short review while I'm at work, but finding time for a UU special, no dice... --UU Blah / Pee 15:44, Jul 6
- Sounds good to me. Another idea just popped into my head: something that would be useful would be a category or list using <forum> tags which contains all current pees that have been tagged. So if you're looking to do a review you can look at current pees and have all tagged reviews on a separate list. Meh just a quick idea, that I remembered from a week or so ago. - [15:52 6 July] Sir FSt. Yettie (talk) {BFF}
- I vote For UU doing all the actual work. It's a great system, especially since it means that I get to sit on my arse as much as possible. If anyone wants a review of one of their reviews then they can always ask someone (UU obviously)... I'm not sure about your idea about the tags MrTimetoEdit sir... Trouble with people needing to put tags on, is that this kind of thing only works if everyone actually bothers/knows to do it. I normally just look down the list on the right, and if the last edit name is different to the name of the person who created the review request, I click and have a look. Sometimes there is a conversation going on, and the review has been booked, but in this case it's actually not a bad thing to generate a bit of traffic in that direction anyway... Anyway... We are supposed to be talking about my idea!!! ME ME ME! Assuming we did implement some kinda "two levels" of review thing how would we do it? Remember, ideally it needs to be something which will be understood by people who have not actually bothered to read the guidelines. As we all know, people usually don't bother to read through them until they have been around a while and UU has given them a good kick in the balls a couple of times... This 2 level thing needs to be considered carefully, it's a dam big change in how we are doing things now... MrN 17:18, Jul 6
- I vote For UU doing all the actual work. It's a great system, especially since it means that I get to sit on my arse as much as possible. If anyone wants a review of one of their reviews then they can always ask someone (UU obviously)... I'm not sure about your idea about the tags MrTimetoEdit sir... Trouble with people needing to put tags on, is that this kind of thing only works if everyone actually bothers/knows to do it. I normally just look down the list on the right, and if the last edit name is different to the name of the person who created the review request, I click and have a look. Sometimes there is a conversation going on, and the review has been booked, but in this case it's actually not a bad thing to generate a bit of traffic in that direction anyway... Anyway... We are supposed to be talking about my idea!!! ME ME ME! Assuming we did implement some kinda "two levels" of review thing how would we do it? Remember, ideally it needs to be something which will be understood by people who have not actually bothered to read the guidelines. As we all know, people usually don't bother to read through them until they have been around a while and UU has given them a good kick in the balls a couple of times... This 2 level thing needs to be considered carefully, it's a dam big change in how we are doing things now... MrN
- Sounds good to me. Another idea just popped into my head: something that would be useful would be a category or list using <forum> tags which contains all current pees that have been tagged. So if you're looking to do a review you can look at current pees and have all tagged reviews on a separate list. Meh just a quick idea, that I remembered from a week or so ago. - [15:52 6 July] Sir FSt. Yettie (talk) {BFF}
- Well I was going to raise that right now, actually. :-) I'm just saying that this would be quite a useful thing for new reviewers - reviews of reviews by AUs or SKs. Maybe not as formal as the rest of Pee Review, but meh. - [15:12 6 July] Sir FSt. Yettie (talk) {CUN}
- We've got something like thsi already. It's called under user. seriously though it think it's pushing it a bit far. how long would it be before we wanted to review the reviews of the reviews? Have Fun! MuCal. BFF Sir
[edit] Boomer's über-reply
Good lord, people. Three topics in one day? I'm replying here, because damned if I'm going to bother posting in each header. I'm cool like that.
[edit] Hyperbole 4 teh tendin
Done. I guess we finally have our hard-line reviewer. To Hyperbole, it's admirable that you take the reviews that nobody else wants to touch. You do it surprisingly well, too. Whereas I (and most others) would hardly be able to do a complete review on the articles, you continually write ones that go off the bottom of the page. Well done, welcome to the relatively big leagues. Now get reviewing!
[edit] User:Cajek/Pee appearing in the header
I'm rather impartial on this matter. While I can certainly see the potential use of doing so, most drive-by reviewers wouldn't bother clicking it. They'd just write up crappy reviews like they always do and leave. If there's somebody who's actually interested in making their review good, they can certainly find the links for the guidelines and PEEING. Whether they do or don't find the review table is relatively inconsequential so long as they read and understand the guidelines. On the other hand, inserting the table into the header wouldn't hurt anything, it'd just be another box with all the others. The question here is, as MrN said above, is really "official" enough to be put in? We may regulate Pee Review to a certain extent, but we still don't control it. I'm really not leaning in either direction on this matter. Discuss it and do what you will.
[edit] Pee Review Review
I'm against this idea. While it would certainly help any new reviewers that pop up, there's no real reason that evaluations can't be done one-on-one. If a reviewer shows potential, somebody can just go onto their talk page and talk about what could be improved. Granted, it'd be unasked-for and potentially offending advice, but how many new good reviewers actually show up each month? We usually only get one reviewer each month, two if we're lucky, that actually shows interest in doing good Pee Reviews and continuing to do so. They can easily be dealt with on an individual basis. There are also other methods that wouldn't create a new group that, as Under User said, would probably be dead by the fall anyway. For instance, a couple weeks ago Vampiregirl/Ethine showed interest in doing a review and talked about it in the Uncyclopedia chatroom. Because I'm almost always on IRC, I linked her to the guidelines, a few good reviews (and a couple bad ones), and discussed what to do in the review with her over the two days that she worked on it. As a result she had a very good first review, and she didn't even have to submit a request at some community page to be able to do so. I was also able to walk her through the procedure in real-time, so that I could answer any questions she had right after she asked them. It would be extremely difficult to actually implement a system to help new reviewers like I did with Ethine, partly because I rarely actually see any Attendings on IRC ( >:( ), but it was good way to introduce a new user to Pee Review. I personally just think that helping reviewers on an individual basis of your own free will is a better way to go about doing things than by making a new bureaucratic system to do the same job.
[edit] Tagging reviews
lolwut? Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits 19:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oh yays!
Two of those four ideas was were mine! Yay,wait...three of them! So what one of them was most rubbishable and the other was borderline. Pah. - [19:34 6 July] Sir FSt. Yettie (talk) {NotM}
[edit] Yea, Nice one Boomer Lets just talk about things in lots of different places...
Firstly we all know you are only going on about Vampire girl cos you want everyone to believe that you actually spoke to a girl. No one believes you anyway. Also, what about my god dam suggestion! Da one about the different levels of Pee Review! To much of a tricky subject eh? Also, give a dam opinion about da putting of Cajek's list onto the menu thinggymebob. Cos if you don't I'm going to say that I don't think it's a good idea as we have the link on PEEING anyway. I do think however that the top five list on PEEING should be expanded to be the top 10. Firstly and most importantly that would mean that I would squeeze my way back into the list, and also it would inspire the N00bs a bit more. Currently I suspect that they look at the list and think that they have no chance of ever getting on. With a list including the lower numbers it would be more possible, and just might inspire some more people to try. Also, as I never actually bother to update that list myself due to being a lazy arse I have no say in this matter whatsoever... MrN 21:41, Jul 6
- I knew I was forgetting something. I think being able to pick four out of five topics from that drivel was an achievement in itself, so I don't want none of your sass. On a less hostile note (really, I was joking (please believe me (I love you!))), I like the idea of having two different levels of review. The trick would be implementing it. Dozens and maybe hundreds of pages would have to be edited to accompany it, and every past review since ever will have to be altered to show what category it belongs in. I know I'm not willing to do the work, so it will be up to you pawns to do it for me. Now get working!Edit this section. Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits 23:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Dam, Boomer, now you are actually too lazy to write your comments on the page, you are making us edit to view them? Dam. You are just trying to break your record for the lowest score on Reviewer of the Month, we know you. Hea everyone! Go vote For Boomer! No actually, what am I saying... Anyway. Why would we need to change all the old reviews and what are the hundreds of pages which would need editing? We would need to change the actual main UN:PEE page and maybe a few others, but other than that? MrN 00:04, Jul 7
- Well, I was lying for my entire comment in the visible spectrum (except for knowing that I forgot something). What I wrote invisibly is what I really think. Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Did you explain which pages would need changing in invisible ink? MrN 00:30, Jul 7
- Well, first we have to figure out how we're going to do this! There are loads of things we'll need to change, as well as pages that would need to be created to accommodate the new system. Do we direct the "minor" reviews to the regular reviewed section or do we make a new one? In either case, how do we do it? Will we create another submission box below the normal one for the minor reviews or do we put the submission area for the good reviews somewhere else entirely? Will we create a new guidelines page to explain the system in detail? Who will write it? There are plenty of questions that still need to be answered. This isn't a minor change, we're altering something that's been in place for years now. We have to be sure of what we're doing. Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hang on, did Boomer just say something useful? /me faints. One option would be to just copy the code which is there now and create new pages for "short" reviews. Leave things as they are, but just have two different submit boxes, and two new boxes on the Pee Menu to reflect them. The old reviews and everything related to them would stay the same, but people who just wanted a short review would put their request into the appropriate box. I could probably do the coding for this, but I think some of the pages which would need editing are protected. I suspect we would need help from Spang... I don't think my suggestion is ideal though, as it is a bit complex, and would make a mess of the Pee Menu. Hopefully some other people will make some better suggestions... Do people really think all this would be worth the bother, and does anyone have any suggestions? Chaps? MrN 01:28, Jul 7
- Hang on, did Boomer just say something useful? /me faints. One option would be to just copy the code which is there now and create new pages for "short" reviews. Leave things as they are, but just have two different submit boxes, and two new boxes on the Pee Menu to reflect them. The old reviews and everything related to them would stay the same, but people who just wanted a short review would put their request into the appropriate box. I could probably do the coding for this, but I think some of the pages which would need editing are protected. I suspect we would need help from Spang... I don't think my suggestion is ideal though, as it is a bit complex, and would make a mess of the Pee Menu. Hopefully some other people will make some better suggestions... Do people really think all this would be worth the bother, and does anyone have any suggestions? Chaps? MrN
- Well, first we have to figure out how we're going to do this! There are loads of things we'll need to change, as well as pages that would need to be created to accommodate the new system. Do we direct the "minor" reviews to the regular reviewed section or do we make a new one? In either case, how do we do it? Will we create another submission box below the normal one for the minor reviews or do we put the submission area for the good reviews somewhere else entirely? Will we create a new guidelines page to explain the system in detail? Who will write it? There are plenty of questions that still need to be answered. This isn't a minor change, we're altering something that's been in place for years now. We have to be sure of what we're doing. Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Did you explain which pages would need changing in invisible ink? MrN
- Well, I was lying for my entire comment in the visible spectrum (except for knowing that I forgot something). What I wrote invisibly is what I really think. Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Dam, Boomer, now you are actually too lazy to write your comments on the page, you are making us edit to view them? Dam. You are just trying to break your record for the lowest score on Reviewer of the Month, we know you. Hea everyone! Go vote For Boomer! No actually, what am I saying... Anyway. Why would we need to change all the old reviews and what are the hundreds of pages which would need editing? We would need to change the actual main UN:PEE page and maybe a few others, but other than that? MrN
[edit] Yay another header!
Who likes that nice little archive box, I made? How awesome is it on a scale of 10 to a trillion gazillion? Maybe that scale's too small... Oh and spot the hidden whore! - [21:45 6 July] Sir FSt. Yettie (talk) {SR}
