Website Review Forum

  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8740
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I have noticed that in recent months that quite alot of the people that sign up for this website to have reviews to their sites tend to ignore most of the rules. Its got to the stage where reviewing websites dosnt appeal to me as they end up being locked as the new member has failed to read the rules.

It got to the stage when i went to the forum last night i discovered that the top 5 topics had been locked because the members failed to follow some simple and fair rules, this seems to happen quite alot recently and i just thought i would just vent some of my feelings to whoever cares to read.

I love helping people when i can and the Website Review forum is really the only place i can help people in that i can give opinions and when visiting the forum and seeing most people not caring to read the simple rules it just gets annoying.

To be honest i know there isnt much that BWM could do to sort this as there is alot of emphasis on the rules when people create posts in that forum, I just thought i would let you all know that its become a small problem.

Maybe its just me that is getting a bit annoyed at this :oops:
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • lucassix
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2350
  • Loc: Indiana

Post 3+ Months Ago

When you make a new thread in Website reviews, the rules are blatantly displayed before you:

http://www.ozzu.com/posting.php?mode=newtopic&f=39

so everyone that posts in that forum is notified of the rules.


The vast majority of people that do not follow those directions are only spamming their site on multiple forums and do not really care about getting any feedback. Chances are they will never return to Ozzu to see them anyway.
  • 613flavah
  • battlestar
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3289
  • Loc: Hurricane...

Post 3+ Months Ago

I don't know how much clearer the rules have to be for someone to follow them appropriately.
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9086
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

I have to agree with lucassix and 613flavah. I am not sure how much clearer it would be possible. The area also prevents people from making a website review if they do not have at least three replies in that forum category, which I am sure weeds out many of the spammers. Of course that system is still not perfect, as some will still get through. The fact that everybody is forced to agree to the rules before making a website review just means the ones not following it are choosing to either not read it, to simply ignore it, or they are just ignorant.

If anybody has suggestions to improve on this, feel free to make them. I welcome any suggestions to improve an area. The only thing that I can think off my mind is to make it so that any new site review is not displayed until approved by a moderator. I am not too fond of that method however, because it puts alot more work for our moderators (especially flavah), and also makes it so that people have to wait for their site reviews to get listed.
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8740
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

Of course its good the way it is, i believe i mentioned that.

Its just the other day in particular i kinda got a bit annoyed when going to reply a post and noticed that a large amount were locked because some people were that ignorant and didnt consider other peoples thoughts.

Maybe its just me, i just thought i would comment on the situation as its something that has kinda got to me with regards to a couple of sections of this site.

Oh, and for the record, I dont mean to be a pain. I just thought i would bring this to whoevers attention that its a minor problem. Although i do agree that there is alot of good settings available to let people know the rules of play.
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9086
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

I know you are just trying to help SB, and I appreciate the feedback, it is always welcome. I can see how what you describe is irritating, as when people cannot follow instructions it irritates us to. We do our best though.
  • katana
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2391
  • Loc: Edinburgh, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

We should maybe post an angry pic of flavah to show potential rule breakers what they're gonna have to deal with :lol:
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8740
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

katana wrote:
We should maybe post an angry pic of flavah to show potential rule breakers what they're gonna have to deal with :lol:


:lol:

I am sure we could find one from all the photos she has put in her avator :wink:
  • 613flavah
  • battlestar
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3289
  • Loc: Hurricane...

Post 3+ Months Ago

hardy har har boys! :P

But who knows, maybe that message will be a lot clearer than the rules.
  • daremedy
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • daremedy
  • Posts: 911

Post 3+ Months Ago

I noticed the website review thread digressing a while ago, which is why I rarely contribute to it anymore. There's no point wasting 10 minutes reviewing a site that may be locked soon after.

I've always thought that newbies ( < 5 total posts) should'nt be allowed to post sites for review. A lot of the people in that thread just sign up, make 3 posts and the 4th post is their site review. One way to fight back is to impose a 5 post minimum (in addition to 3 website reviews). This will at least ensure that they're making some relevant contributions to the forum and deserve other peoples time. Of course that theory has its loopholes. You can also do a time check on the 3 website reviews, the useless reviewers will usually post their 3 three reviews within 3-5 mins. And if you really want to get down and dirty, you can check if the post contains more than 3 sentences. You're never going to beat good moderation though, its just a thread that people have to learn to deal with.
  • ATNO/TW
  • Super Moderator
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 23456
  • Loc: Woodbridge VA

Post 3+ Months Ago

I'm thinking a better alternative would be for the moderator team to simply delete offending posts vs locking and PM the offender. We trend towards catching them pretty quickly, and it would help prevent respected members from wasting their time on useless reviews. The slight downside is that a quality review will get deleted along with it.

It's a tough call, because the reviews board does lend to excellent traffic draw from the search engines. I can't recall if it was implimented or not, but I do recall discussion about putting a minimum word limit on replies in that board, thereby making it impossible for 3-5 word reviews.
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13502
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

I'm not fond of a minimum post count on top of 3 reviews, that means debate over "Posting games", "General Discussion", ect counting towards the count, & potential spam in other areas to make that count.
I like the idea of a word count on review posts, but with the vast amount of multi-lingual members Ozzu has/recieves..... I just had a brainfart,

How about a box on top of all review threads, much like the posting preview which would display say, the first 200 chars of & links to the thread starters last 3 reviews ? That would both make it easier for moderators to spot spammers, & give easily accesable insight to members who don't want to waste time reviewing a site in a thread destined to be locked/deleted.

katana wrote:
We should maybe post an angry pic of flavah to show potential rule breakers what they're gonna have to deal with :lol:

I don't think one exists. lol
  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1853

Post 3+ Months Ago

I don't know about the minimum word count. A valid post can have only a single word (such as a url) if in response to a question that somebody else asks. (E.g. in response to a mid-thread question, "Where is this HTML validator you speak of?", somebody might answer "http://validator.w3.org/")

A length minimum could also be foiled simply by altering a post such as "looks good, nice colors" into "looks good, nice colors. i like the web site. very nice." This doesn't increase the quality of a review.
  • whatlikesit12345
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1211

Post 3+ Months Ago

what you could do is have that rule page there. but also make it so a mod as to accept the post. that way less posts will be made that will be locked. in turn that the mod will look for the 3 posts that the user has made and if they deem the qualifying they accept the topic and it gets posted. Now how to do that I have no idea i think there is an option in the forum set-up that will allow you to set that up.
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8740
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

That will only happen if Mods start getting paid to do this.

It wont happen. I think its wrong to make the mod decide on whether a post is acceptable as potential members might be put of posting if there post wont appear instantly.

When you think about it, its probably the best it can be at the moment. I just left the original post at a point in my life when anything could have wound me up as things were getting to me in a way i cannot explain.

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 15 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.