Re: Suggestion for inline review points

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:
Charles F Bell wrote:

Why do you insist on criticism of the points system?

Do you even understand plain English? I'm the one defending the point system as it stands,

No.

Good, you at least admit to one thing. That's enough for me, so I hereby withdraw from this discussion unless .... Take care. Vern

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

vern wrote:

I hereby withdraw from this discussion

You never entered it.

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

You two make a cute couple.

29

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

Or Anti-Couple.

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

Norm d'Plume wrote:

You two make a cute couple.

blatherosexual is next on the list of permissible marriages .

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

Norm d'Plume wrote:

You two make a cute couple.

LOL. Yeah, maybe like Kermit and Miss Piggy. I'm Kermit (ribbit) and well we know who that leaves as Miss Piggy and of course she's jealous because I can sing better.
http://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/69895716262
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGfX1QV4hfw
Take care. Vern

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

I'm new to this discussion- sorry to see it degenerate.

I don't think (unless I missed it mentioned) anyone spoke of the free groups. As far as I know, there are only two groups that require the point system. Maybe someone should compare the amount of reviews one receives from a free group against the number from the group with a point system. People who just want to post their work and not offer thoughtful feedback can post away on one of those groups.

Points or no points, it comes down to developing relationships with other reviewers and putting in the necessary time reviewing each others work in order to give valuable feedback. And that takes a while. I personally like the long chapters, but not because of points. Longer chapters give you an opportunity to see more of the story arc as well as get used to a writing style different than your own.
And I've said it many times, I (as a not-yet professional author) learn from others' writing (mistakes and gems). I've improved as a writer as much by reviewing as I have by being reviewed.

And Vern,
I don't see anything wrong with the point system. It satisfies my goals: improve my craft as I improve my story.

And Charles,
Why are you so angry?

Take care, CJ

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

C J Driftwood wrote:

I'm new to this discussion- sorry to see it degenerate.

I don't think

You're funny. I like you.  As far I know, anyone not Premium member after a month cannot leave or read an inline review, so what they may or may not do  w/re: poinst is irrelevant..

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

Well said, CJ!

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

jack the knife wrote:

Well said, CJ!

??  The part about earning points by no means that earns points ??

"People who just want to post their work and not offer thoughtful feedback" is not any sort of helpful comment on the point system or well-considered feedback on my suggestion for those who want and give feedback through the point system via inline review.

36 (edited by vern 2015-11-19 23:47:11)

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

C J Driftwood wrote:

And Vern,
I don't see anything wrong with the point system. It satisfies my goals: improve my craft as I improve my story.


Take care, CJ

If you read my posts instead of getting misinformation from someone else I won't mention, then you would know that I also support the point system AS IS, and not any change being suggested. That has been the whole crux of this discussion.Take care. Vern

Edited for clarification

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

vern wrote:
C J Driftwood wrote:

And Vern,
I don't see anything wrong with the point system. It satisfies my goals: improve my craft as I improve my story.


Take care, CJ

If you read my posts instead of getting misinformation from someone else I won't mention, then you would know that I also support the point system AS IS, and not any change being suggested. That has been the whole crux of this discussion.

The 'crux' is you never once commented on my suggestion about the fixed number of comments it takes to post an inline review but rather went off on how the points system sucks whatever one might want to do to change it. [And you inserted rude and vicious personal attacks against me for having any opinions.] I never was suggesting a change to the point system but rather on the relationship of the inline review to points awarded according to five and only five comments whatever the length of the chapter. Perhaps it might have been better at some point if someone knew how that fixed number came about and how it makes sense regardless of the length of the work being reviewed. Other people managed to address what I actually said and offered their opinions, but you chose to offer opinion on nothing I mentioned and voiced repeatedly how the points system sucks because it is for fools who think it can work without being taken advantage of.

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

I suppose this is UNLESS...

Charles F Bell wrote:

I never was suggesting a change to the point system

Really? What is this:

Charles F Bell wrote:

. . that the number of points be proportional to the number of comments left.

Do you know what a change is? Is the point system now proportional to the number of comments? If not, and I assume you wouldn’t be asking for it to be if it were, then that would constitute a change. Of course you can close your eyes and imagine it to be otherwise as you do most every other point brought up. You read into things only what you want to see. Another case in point:

Charles F Bell wrote:

The 'crux' is you never once commented on my suggestion about the fixed number of comments it takes to post an inline review

If you read things instead of just making up what you wish was there, then you might see I’ve been commenting on your suggestion from the beginning which of course is your problem, you don't like the differing opinions. The following begins my first comment:

vern wrote:

From one who typically leaves comments numbered well over the minimum and often into the teens and beyond, I fail to see how basing the points on the number of comments would increase the number of reviewers getting to the end of a story.

Charles F Bell wrote:

you chose to offer opinion on nothing I mentioned and voiced repeatedly how the points system sucks because it is for fools who think it can work without being taken advantage of.

As always, you try to inject things you imagine. I gave an opinion on everything you suggested, you just didn't like that opinion and so chose to try to somehow turn it into me criticizing the current system. Show me one instance where I said the current points system "sucks" or "is for fools." You can't because it is strictly from your warped imagination. You want to call that rude; if the shoe fits, wear it.

I have stated that no points system is perfect and that would definitely include yours whether you admit it is a change or not. And I have stated repeatedly that the current system already does everything you think your suggestion would add to the system if used properly and not merely doing the bare minimum. I have also stated that if someone wants to take advantage of the system (or any system) they can. Do you deny that? And your suggestion would not change the fact that someone can take advantage of the system if that is their purpose. Anyone can give a shoddy or incomplete review just for the points if they so desire and that is true of any system, not a criticism of this system specifically. I doubt any "rational" person could believe that any point system could not be taken advantage of. Now, you tell me how that equates to saying this system "sucks" or "is for fools" as you spout. And you might try using my words in context, not ones from your foggy imagination. Take care. Vern

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

vern wrote:
Charles F Bell wrote:

I never was suggesting a change to the point system

Really? What is this:

Charles F Bell wrote:

. . that the number of points be proportional to the number of comments left.

Do you know what a change is?

The change suggested by the very subject line was never in your scope of the discussion. It has nothing to do with the points system, but rather on the setup of the inline review lacking proportionality and instead containing arbitrariness around the number FIVE. The explanation on the award of points per word of the posted work has been forthcoming in the past, and never once the object of my suggestion, though you certainly made it yours, but never on the number FIVE with regard to inline reviews.  You'd rather go on about how no matter what, any change impacting the point system, about which this discussion never was, is fruitless, so just keep it as it, sucky though you think it is.

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

vern wrote:
C J Driftwood wrote:

And Vern,
I don't see anything wrong with the point system. It satisfies my goals: improve my craft as I improve my story.


Take care, CJ

If you read my posts instead of getting misinformation from someone else I won't mention, then you would know that I also support the point system AS IS, and not any change being suggested. That has been the whole crux of this discussion.Take care. Vern

Edited for clarification

I was agreeing with you. smile

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

Charles, your frustration is warranted. It's something all of us have been through, especially when we were newer to the site. The point system is far from perfect, and most of us, myself included, have fought valiantly over the years to get Sol to consider tweaks. I carried that torch around for years. Loudly contributing to the discussion every time it came up. But as time went by, my priorities shifted. When it happened, the point system, with or without flaw, became a distant undercurrent. I don't know if it will happen for you, but I hope so because it was the best thing that ever happened to me.

It was simple: I finally recognized that the spirit of this workshop site is to invest in helping each another improve our writing. How that process is packaged matters little when you begin to see how it translates: The more time invested, the more significant the fruits. For me, the time invested equaled a drastic improvement in my writing skills. And not only that, but as I grew as a writer, my earnest desire to give back grew exponentially with it. And so did my points......which I could give a fiddlers fart about by that time. 

As a former torch carrier, the last thing I'd want to do is put a damper on your enthusiasm to suggest improvements. But if I could take back the time I invested in such things, I would. This is why I chose to comment, and probably why pretty much everyone commenting on this thread keeps bringing up the value of relationship building.

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

C J Driftwood wrote:
vern wrote:
C J Driftwood wrote:

And Vern,
I don't see anything wrong with the point system. It satisfies my goals: improve my craft as I improve my story.


Take care, CJ

If you read my posts instead of getting misinformation from someone else I won't mention, then you would know that I also support the point system AS IS, and not any change being suggested. That has been the whole crux of this discussion.Take care. Vern

Edited for clarification

I was agreeing with you. smile

Sorry, my bad, I misunderstood your remark; I think it was the "And", lol. Thanks for clarifying. Take care. Vern

43 (edited by vern 2015-11-20 23:53:09)

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

First you suggest a change:

Charles F Bell wrote:

. . that the number of points be proportional to the number of comments left.

Then you deny suggesting a change:

Charles F Bell wrote:

I never was suggesting a change to the point system

Then you admit again you were suggesting a change:

Charles F Bell wrote:

The change suggested by the very subject line

You're arguing with yourself which you seem to be pretty good at. So you are free to continue arguing with yourself on your latest nonsensical claim

Charles F Bell wrote:

never on the number FIVE with regard to inline reviews.

since you insist upon not reading and/or understanding the statements presented. The discussion was centered around your 5 comments suggestion so I didn't really think it had to be spelled out in each and every comment because it is implied within the context. But as for your "never" claim, here is a specific time it was spelled out:

vern wrote:

You get 5 or 10 or a gazillion comments, what good are they if the reviewer is merely after the points and not giving any helpful input?

You might recall - if you cared to read and understand that is - that said comment was within the context of your assumption that making the points proportional to the number of comments would somehow miraculously get people intent on doing the bare minimum to review the whole story instead of front loading all the comments. And if you want to try to turn that into criticizing the point system as you have done more than once within this thread, then go for it and then you can counter the argument with your other self; you make a good team together.  However, your self delusions of what is said or not said make discussing things with your multiple selves less enjoyable and challenging/stimulating than it might be otherwise as I once naively thought. So while you're enjoying outwitting yourself, I will hopefully leave this discussion again UNLESS you continue to post more outrageous nonsense from your imagination about my position statements. Take care. Vern

Edited for clarifying the comments

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

Linda Lee wrote:

Charles, your frustration is warranted. It's something all of us have been through, especially when we were newer to the site. The point system is far from perfect, and most of us, myself included, have fought valiantly over the years to get Sol to consider tweaks. I carried that torch around for years. Loudly contributing to the discussion every time it came up. But as time went by, my priorities shifted. When it happened, the point system, with or without flaw, became a distant undercurrent. I don't know if it will happen for you, but I hope so because it was the best thing that ever happened to me.

It was simple: I finally recognized that the spirit of this workshop site is to invest in helping each another improve our writing. How that process is packaged matters little when you begin to see how it translates: The more time invested, the more significant the fruits. For me, the time invested equaled a drastic improvement in my writing skills. And not only that, but as I grew as a writer, my earnest desire to give back grew exponentially with it. And so did my points......which I could give a fiddlers fart about by that time. 

As a former torch carrier, the last thing I'd want to do is put a damper on your enthusiasm to suggest improvements. But if I could take back the time I invested in such things, I would. This is why I chose to comment, and probably why pretty much everyone commenting on this thread keeps bringing up the value of relationship building.

This is so well said Linda. I think we all understand where Charles is coming from - I have to admit I thought about it a few times as well. But I also think that no system (carrot or stick) would be able to change people's intentions - so if someone only wants points for the minimum inputs, there are ways around any system - with sufficient motivation and dedication any system can be 'optimised'.

This is not saying we should never try to suggest improvements, but we should also remember who has the final say - Sol. So if he's happy with the way the system is working, then I don't think a 100 page thread will ever change his mind. I think Charles was trying to achieve a few things based on his comments - one, to suggest a change, but also, and this is something that I think could be easily missed, to find out what others thought or experienced. Nothing wrong with that.

IMO.

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

vern wrote:

You might recall - if you cared to read and understand that is - that said comment was within the context of your assumption that making the points proportional to the number of comments would somehow miraculously get people intent on doing the bare minimum to review the whole story instead of front loading all the comments.

However crude this paraphrasing of my suggestion is, it is incorrect. The points awarded is determined by the number of points in the piece reviewed, but I suggested that the number of comments reached to obtain the points be additionallyproportional to the length of the piece reviewed. Your response has been unvarying that what may affect the points system (and my suggestion does not), the points system sucks and no matter any suggestion you allege affects the point system will not make it less sucky.

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

Linda Lee wrote:

Charles, your frustration is warranted. It's something all of us have been through, especially when we were newer to the site. The point system is far from perfect,


Let me clear, I never addressed the rightness or wrongness of the point system but rather the unexplained arbitrariness (at least until otherwise explained) of the 5 comments required to obtain any points regardless of length of the piece being reviewed. It is Vern who hates the points system by whining that no matter what, it will be taken advantage of, so my suggestion is just stupid. 



Linda Lee wrote:

As a former torch carrier, the last thing I'd want to do is put a damper on your enthusiasm to suggest improvements. But if I could take back the time I invested in such things, I would. This is why I chose to comment, and probably why pretty much everyone commenting on this thread keeps bringing up the value of relationship building.

Okay, thank you. It is a [yes-no-can't work-don't care] suggestion, and not a soapbox upon which people like Vern can vent on how sucky he thinks  the points system is.

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

vern wrote:

First you suggest a change:

Charles F Bell wrote:

. . that the number of points be proportional to the number of comments left.

Then you deny suggesting a change:

Charles F Bell wrote:

I never was suggesting a change to the point system

Then you admit again you were suggesting a change:

Charles F Bell wrote:

The change suggested by the very subject line

You're arguing with yourself which you seem to be pretty good at. So you are free to continue arguing with yourself on your latest nonsensical claim

Charles F Bell wrote:

never on the number FIVE with regard to inline reviews.

since you insist upon not reading and/or understanding the statements presented. The discussion was centered around your 5 comments suggestion so I didn't really think it had to be spelled out in each and every comment because it is implied within the context. But as for your "never" claim, here is a specific time it was spelled out:

vern wrote:

You get 5 or 10 or a gazillion comments, what good are they if the reviewer is merely after the points and not giving any helpful input?

You might recall - if you cared to read and understand that is - that said comment was within the context of your assumption that making the points proportional to the number of comments would somehow miraculously get people intent on doing the bare minimum to review the whole story instead of front loading all the comments. And if you want to try to turn that into criticizing the point system as you have done more than once within this thread, then go for it and then you can counter the argument with your other self; you make a good team together.  However, your self delusions of what is said or not said make discussing things with your multiple selves less enjoyable and challenging/stimulating than it might be otherwise as I once naively thought. So while you're enjoying outwitting yourself, I will hopefully leave this discussion again UNLESS you continue to post more outrageous nonsense from your imagination about my position statements. Take care. Vern

Edited for clarifying the comments

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

vern wrote:

First you suggest a change
Then you deny suggesting a change:


It is only your hatred of the point system that must turn your mind to think I ever suggested a change to the point system rather than a change to the inline review. Of course, other people think that, too.

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

vern wrote:

I suppose this is UNLESS...

Charles F Bell wrote:

I never was suggesting a change to the point system

Really? What is this:

Charles F Bell wrote:

. . that the number of points be proportional to the number of comments left.

Do you know what a change is? Is the point system now proportional to the number of comments? If not, and I assume you wouldn’t be asking for it to be if it were, then that would constitute a change. Of course you can close your eyes and imagine it to be otherwise as you do most every other point brought up. You read into things only what you want to see. Another case in point:

Charles F Bell wrote:

The 'crux' is you never once commented on my suggestion about the fixed number of comments it takes to post an inline review

If you read things instead of just making up what you wish was there, then you might see I’ve been commenting on your suggestion from the beginning which of course is your problem, you don't like the differing opinions. The following begins my first comment:

vern wrote:

From one who typically leaves comments numbered well over the minimum and often into the teens and beyond, I fail to see how basing the points on the number of comments would increase the number of reviewers getting to the end of a story.

Charles F Bell wrote:

you chose to offer opinion on nothing I mentioned and voiced repeatedly how the points system sucks because it is for fools who think it can work without being taken advantage of.

As always, you try to inject things you imagine. I gave an opinion on everything you suggested, you just didn't like that opinion and so chose to try to somehow turn it into me criticizing the current system. Show me one instance where I said the current points system "sucks" or "is for fools." You can't because it is strictly from your warped imagination. You want to call that rude; if the shoe fits, wear it.

I have stated that no points system is perfect and that would definitely include yours whether you admit it is a change or not. And I have stated repeatedly that the current system already does everything you think your suggestion would add to the system if used properly and not merely doing the bare minimum. I have also stated that if someone wants to take advantage of the system (or any system) they can. Do you deny that? And your suggestion would not change the fact that someone can take advantage of the system if that is their purpose. Anyone can give a shoddy or incomplete review just for the points if they so desire and that is true of any system, not a criticism of this system specifically. I doubt any "rational" person could believe that any point system could not be taken advantage of. Now, you tell me how that equates to saying this system "sucks" or "is for fools" as you spout. And you might try using my words in context, not ones from your foggy imagination. Take care. Vern

50

Re: Suggestion for inline review points

Star Trek, (ToS) episode Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.