| EDIT: There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what the main purpose of this change is. Reducing the spam problem is not the main purpose of this rule; it is merely a positive consequence of it. The real purpose is to stop people posting multiple reviews in quick succession, pushing the work of other reviewers to the bottom of the 'New reviews' page, preventing them from getting valuable exposure. This is the problem I am attempting to resolve. Please try to keep comments focused on this issue. For some of us, writing reviews is something taken relatively seriously. We spend an hour or two, and sometimes even more, agonising over each word to make our reviews the best we can. Then there are the people who reject the concept of 'quality not quantity' and publish several reviews in a very short space of time. It is possible that some of them are not trying to be obnoxious on purpose, but they are a a small minority and it doesn't negate the frustration felt after spending a long time working on a review to find that one person has published three others in quick succession immediately afterwards, placing your review at the bottom of the page before anyone has had any chance to look at it. The solution is obvious: just as there are limits to prevent you posting too many replies in quick succession there should be a limit to the frequency you can post reviews. I propose that a good limit is 24 hours. Such a policy would have many advantages, besides just sparing the frustrations of the more serious reviewers. It will reduce the workload for review moderators, as the amount of content generated per day will be reduced. I think it may also encourage people to put more effort into writing their reviews if they know they can only submit one review everyday. It will also solve the problem of trolls spamming multiple short reviews. The downside is that people will have to wait a while before their next review can be posted. I have more sympathy for those who spend more time on a review, but even so there is a chance for respite- either by using some kind of back catalogue system where posts are scheduled, or by giving users a place to save their reviews before they post them. Saving them as word documents, or on blog posts are two easy ways of doing this that are readily available. I think I have discussed this idea before, and I would really like to see it implemented. It seems like the most obvious step to take in order to improve the reviews section of the site. |
AnnoKanoMar 15, 2016 10:09 AM
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| So if I come from an another listing site, and I want to post my reviews from there I must wait god knows how many days/months. I saw this several times before. So no. |
| Sounds like a reasonable request. I've only seen 1 user in months sharing a lot of well-written reviews at the same time. But dozens of people submitting really short and hardly useful reviews that could perfectly work as tags in their lists instead. It's something that can do way more good than harm, since reviewers willing to share really huge amounts of content at the same time are really scarce. |
 |
| I support the suggestion, not for the same reasons. |
 |
Delenai said: So if I come from an another listing site, and I want to post my reviews from there I must wait god knows how many days/months. I saw this several times before. So no. They would indeed have to wait longer. What is the bigger problem though: the small handful of people who are established reviewers who will join this website and post reviews here, or the people who spam reviews in a short space of time, which happens frequently? And it's no good to simply delete those spam reviews later on: by the time this happens the damage is usually already done. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| @AnnoKano Yeah, I understand that. But just because they can only post 1 review/day it doesnt mean the quality will improve. More likely they will send the same trash that they would send, just a day later. And I don't think this would reduce the workload eighter, It's true, that on the first day there would be fewer review, but from the second day or third day there would be more. So this would make the daily average closer to the overall average. But I agree this could be a good starting to some things. But if somehow we could make an exeption to the group that I mentioned previously, I'm not aganist it. |
DelenaiMar 14, 2016 8:12 AM
AnnoKano said: Delenai said: So if I come from an another listing site, and I want to post my reviews from there I must wait god knows how many days/months. I saw this several times before. So no. They would indeed have to wait longer. What is the bigger problem though: the small handful of people who are established reviewers who will join this website and post reviews here, or the people who spam reviews in a short space of time, which happens frequently? Well the thing is, I'm pretty sure that this idea will be a problem at the end of the season as many seasonal anime ended in the same day, not to mention there's a chance that other anime finished in the next day and so on. This could be frustrating to many seasonal reviewers who apparently already giving much effort by made a draft (or already full review) a week/more before for many anime (ex: @Stark700), as "Helpful" count reach its peak once the show reach its completion and it won't get many attention as time goes on. |
| I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. |
| @Nashetania @Luxun @Delenai If the limit is set at one review per day, that would mean that a user will only have a single review in the front two pages of the 'new reviews' list. I thought this would be a good place to set the limit because my concern is more for the victims of spammers (who have no means of recourse other than reposting their reviews) than it is for those who publish more than one quality review in a 24 hour period (a small minority who will be inconvenienced slightly by having to wait between their reviews). At the very minimum, I think there should be a two hour delay between publishing reviews. Writing a good review should take at least one hour, plus the time it will take to finish watching an episode makes this a reasonable absolute minimum. and this will inhibit those spam reviewers who post junk reviews somewhat. But I am still in favour of the longer limit. It means that all reviewers will have a fairer chance at getting their reviews exposure, which is essential for determining where they will place on the front page. Even if we have a good reviewer posting more than one serious review after you, it is still unfair for the people who post immediately before them. It would be nice to get some impact from some other reviewers, or from the review moderation staff. I suspect that most serious reviewers will agree with me, although I could be wrong. For those of you who are against the idea, many of you seem to be saying this because it will disadvantage some reviewers, but please appreciate that the current system disadvantages all reviewers. Even those who do post more than one good review in a day are vulnerable to having their reviews displaced by a spammer. There will always be a downside to any new change, and it's always tempting to sway towards maintaining the status quo unless the change has no bad aspects about it whatsoever. But being stubborn about this will just hamper any possibility of progress. Consider it a choice between inconveniencing a small minority and exposing everyone to unnecessary risk. That is the choice you are making here. Regarding @Delenai 's specific concerns about reducing moderator workload: I am in no doubt that it will have this effect. If a user spams pointless reviews, only one will appear per day. This gives the moderators ample time to delete the offending review and punish the user if necessary. Having to wait a long period of time between posting will also disincentivise trolls because they will have to wait a longer period of time or create multiple accounts to circumvent the limiter. Few trolls will put this much effort into trolling. If one user is posting multiple accounts to post garbage reviews, it's not difficult to spot who is responsible by examining the writing style, user account activity and IP addresses. On the subject of moderators, I shall invite them to discuss this topic. @Snakes @Maffy @Veronin |
AnnoKanoMar 14, 2016 1:13 PM
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| @AnnoKano 1 review per day? Whatever. What's much MUCH MUCH more important is that the majority of garbage reviews regularly come from accounts that were created inside of one month. Typically the ones I see are from throwaway accounts that were created and posted the review on the same day, or at most, within a week. I've proposed many times that there needs to be a holding period on accounts before they can post a review. I've generally said 30 days, because that's standard, but I think even 45 days is fair. If you're not going to stick around the site for a month, why do we need to have to scroll past your word vomit that took 5 minutes to bang your head on the keyboard and produce? Also, my signature (which has been that way since the august 2015 review "update" thread) |
| How to fix the review section, detailed here The average reader (HS level) reads at about 200 WPM. So a 500-800 word review should take 3-5 minutes to read. That's an acceptable length for something you're interested in spending 25 minutes to 4.5 hours of your life watching. Oh, and ANN requires any and all reviews to be 800-1200 words, no matter the length of the show. |
Indeed. lawlmartz said: What's much MUCH more important is that the majority of garbage reviews regularly come from accounts that were created inside of one month. The most likely explanation is that these are troll accounts. Placing a limit on how long one must wait before posting a review certainly might do something to help that problem, but it's slightly unfair on newer users who want to post serious reviews. I think the problem with that suggestion is that it is disproportionately unfair on those new users who do want to post reviews, while my suggestion limits the damage caused by people who do write throwaway reviews without punishing newcomers. lawlmartz said: Typically the ones I see are from throwaway accounts that were created and posted the review on the same day, or at most, within a week. Indeed. But I think you will find that if they are only able to post a single review in 24 hours, they will have get bored quickly. lawlmartz said: I've proposed many times that there needs to be a holding period on accounts before they can post a review. I've generally said 30 days, because that's standard, but I think even 45 days is fair. If you're not going to stick around the site for a month, why do we need to have to scroll past your word vomit that took 5 minutes to bang your head on the keyboard and produce? I sympathise, and I would like to get rid of those reviews and those users as much as you do. I just have a different idea on how best to approach the problem. I'm quite sure that even if it seems like what I am suggesting may not address the problem as directly as what you are suggesting, it will have the same desired effect in the long term. Perhaps we could even combine them, and place a limit of a week on accounts before they can post reviews. The combination of only being able to post one review per day and having to wait a week for a new account to post reviews should stop all but the most persistent of trolls. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Limiting spam is effective, sure. But many of these aren't troll reviews at all. They just suck fat donkey wang. They seem to be overwhelmingly written by young, non English speaking foreigners, who almost ALWAYS put that info up front. "hi guise dis my first review srry I don't speek engrish go E Z on miii desuyo". Then proceed to post 5 sentences like "art:10/10 the animashun was normal, the loli boob girl was 2 cayute" and "characters: 1/10 wow everyone in this animu was so DUM like how cud any1 be that stupid", etc. What I call a "facebook review". A minimum word count would also work wonders for people who actually try, but still come out with low quality stuff. More =/= better, but less is not more when you're analyzing a series. Of course, this wouldn't filter our trolls who copy paste their junk to beat the word count, but it would help. |
| How to fix the review section, detailed here The average reader (HS level) reads at about 200 WPM. So a 500-800 word review should take 3-5 minutes to read. That's an acceptable length for something you're interested in spending 25 minutes to 4.5 hours of your life watching. Oh, and ANN requires any and all reviews to be 800-1200 words, no matter the length of the show. |
AnnoKano said: For some of us, writing reviews is something taken relatively seriously. We spend an hour or two, and sometimes even more, agonising over each word to make our reviews the best we can. Then there are the people who reject the concept of 'quality not quantity' and publish several reviews in a very short space of time. It is possible that some of them are not trying to be obnoxious on purpose, but they are a a small minority and it doesn't negate the frustration felt after spending a long time working on a review to find that one person has published three others in quick succession immediately afterwards, placing your review at the bottom of the page before anyone has had any chance to look at it. The solution is obvious: just as there are limits to prevent you posting too many replies in quick succession there should be a limit to the frequency you can post reviews. I propose that a good limit is 24 hours. Such a policy would have many advantages, besides just sparing the frustrations of the more serious reviewers. It will reduce the workload for review moderators, as the amount of content generated per day will be reduced. I think it may also encourage people to put more effort into writing their reviews if they know they can only submit one review everyday. It will also solve the problem of trolls spamming multiple short reviews. The downside is that people will have to wait a while before their next review can be posted. I have more sympathy for those who spend more time on a review, but even so there is a chance for respite- either by using some kind of back catalogue system where posts are scheduled, or by giving users a place to save their reviews before they post them. Saving them as word documents, or on blog posts are two easy ways of doing this that are readily available. I think I have discussed this idea before, and I would really like to see it implemented. It seems like the most obvious step to take in order to improve the reviews section of the site. Totally agree with you bro, won't fix the system, but will make it less like utter shit |
| You know, this kind of actually makes sense. I most like how the pros greatly outweigh the cons in this instance. +1 |
   I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it  |
| so because YOU feel that a review should be taken more srsly everyone else should as well. ya no thx u. besides if a person who is very good with words can dish out an amazing review in 30 minutes and watches another anime and reviews that in 30 minutes he should be able to have both reviews up. the biggest down side to this is how can i write 10 reviews a day after watching 10 one episode ovas |
lawlmartz said: Limiting spam is effective, sure. But many of these aren't troll reviews at all. I think that most of these people are trolling. On several occasions where I have caught someone posting 5 reviews in quick succession, I have asked them about it and attempted to explain that it's a bit of a dick move for everyone else. Every time the response has been an expression of indifference, saying "I don't care" or posting a smilie. I seriously doubt people could be this idiotic unless it is deliberate. lawlmartz said: They just suck fat donkey wang. They seem to be overwhelmingly written by young, non English speaking foreigners, who almost ALWAYS put that info up front. "hi guise dis my first review srry I don't speek engrish go E Z on miii desuyo". You should have asked for an Amen, I would have given you one. I used to downvote anyone who said that 'this is my first review' or similar. If it were possible I would remove reviews that are not written in standard paragraphs in a format cohesive with the rest of the website (ie. no reviews broken into subsections) but alas we must be content with changes that are realistic and practical. lawlmartz said: Then proceed to post 5 sentences like "art:10/10 the animashun was normal, the loli boob girl was 2 cayute" and "characters: 1/10 wow everyone in this animu was so DUM like how cud any1 be that stupid", etc. What I call a "facebook review". Report them. But I suspect the reason you keep seeing these reviews is that there are so many in the report queue that nobody gets around to dealing with them until a week or two after they're posted, unless a review mod spots it right away. lawlmartz said: A minimum word count would also work wonders for people who actually try, but still come out with low quality stuff. More =/= better, but less is not more when you're analyzing a series. Of course, this wouldn't filter our trolls who copy paste their junk to beat the word count, but it would help. Remember that there is no way to make sure only good reviews get promoted directly. All of these suggestions need to be indirect. I'm in full agreement that introducing a minimum character count would also make a big difference. But for the moment, I'm suggesting this rule since it would be fairly easy to implement, would probably make a big difference and appears to have the support of at least some of the userbase. Protaku said: You know, this kind of actually makes sense. I most like how the pros greatly outweigh the cons in this instance. +1 Glad to have you on board, sir. moodie said: so because YOU feel that a review should be taken more srsly everyone else should as well. ya no thx u. besides if a person who is very good with words can dish out an amazing review in 30 minutes and watches another anime and reviews that in 30 minutes he should be able to have both reviews up. the biggest down side to this is how can i write 10 reviews a day after watching 10 one episode ovas Very satirical, love it. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKano said: You should have asked for an Amen, I would have given you one. I've used this statement or a very similar one in so many places, I should probably just make a copy/paste for it. That and "generic ecchi school harem LN adaptation magical battle pussy MC moe blob kawaii oppai nanodesuyo garbage." I use that one a lot. I used to downvote anyone who said that 'this is my first review' or similar. If it were possible I would remove reviews that are not written in standard paragraphs in a format cohesive with the rest of the website (ie. no reviews broken into subsections) but alas we must be content with changes that are realistic and practical. Because I'm not above calling people out, I present this "review" to you, @AnnoKano http://myanimelist.net/reviews.php?id=209077 I asked this person about why they write incredibly choppy pieces like this and they claimed that it made it easier to understand and digest. Funny, because ADHD 2 or 3 sentence paragraphs in a non-flowing format is exactly the opposite of what I'd define as "easier to understand and digest". So you could say I'm with you on having defined sections for reviews, but it's not necessary if you can form coherent thoughts and publish them in a cohesive and flowing manner. (One that also makes sense, not just a stream of consciousness review.) Report them. But I suspect the reason you keep seeing these reviews is that there are so many in the report queue that nobody gets around to dealing with them until a week or two after they're posted, unless a review mod spots it right away. You're right, nobody is dealing with them because there aren't enough review mods. They claim that help is sorely needed, and that's been many months ago that the "open applications" post was put up. So, this many months-long waiting period for them to even contact anyone about being a review mod says to me: "maybe they don't actually want the help, or don't want to do anything about repairing/cleaning the section". Pure speculation, of course. |
| How to fix the review section, detailed here The average reader (HS level) reads at about 200 WPM. So a 500-800 word review should take 3-5 minutes to read. That's an acceptable length for something you're interested in spending 25 minutes to 4.5 hours of your life watching. Oh, and ANN requires any and all reviews to be 800-1200 words, no matter the length of the show. |
lawlmartz said: Because I'm not above calling people out, I present this "review" to you, @AnnoKano http://myanimelist.net/reviews.php?id=209077 I asked this person about why they write incredibly choppy pieces like this and they claimed that it made it easier to understand and digest. Funny, because ADHD 2 or 3 sentence paragraphs in a non-flowing format is exactly the opposite of what I'd define as "easier to understand and digest". This is not what I had in mind. I meant the people who break up their review into sections like: ART: 8/10 BLAH BLAH BLAH STORY: 9/10 BLAH BLAH BLAH These are not cohesive with the rest of the website because MAL does not offer a means to break down reviews in this way, they are added artificially using text. Consequently it looks terrible when reviews are written like this. I agree that writing in short paragraphs can appear choppy and may not be the best to read but this review was clearly a serious attempt and not written for spamming purposes. And like I said, while I would prefer it if there were not reviews written like this, I accept the fact that no-one is going to agree that this format shouldn't be allowed. lawlmartz said: So you could say I'm with you on having defined sections for reviews, but it's not necessary if you can form coherent thoughts and publish them in a cohesive and flowing manner. (One that also makes sense, not just a stream of consciousness review.) I'm not sure you have understood what I meant by cohesive. lawlmartz said: You're right, nobody is dealing with them because there aren't enough review mods. They claim that help is sorely needed, and that's been many months ago that the "open applications" post was put up. So, this many months-long waiting period for them to even contact anyone about being a review mod says to me: "maybe they don't actually want the help, or don't want to do anything about repairing/cleaning the section". Pure speculation, of course. I would caution you to avoid speculating on matters which you do not know much about. The idea that the admin team are not interested in improving the website is just ridiculous. The problem is that there are very few people who are both capable of doing the job and who are actually willing to do it. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| i agree with the suggestion but make it 3 reviews per a day since 1 per day seems to low and add minimum character limit to reviews too if it does not have one yet |
j0x said: i agree with the suggestion but make it 3 reviews per a day since 1 per day seems to low and add minimum character limit to reviews too if it does not have one yet You mean one every eight hours? |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKano said: j0x said: i agree with the suggestion but make it 3 reviews per a day since 1 per day seems to low and add minimum character limit to reviews too if it does not have one yet You mean one every eight hours? even 3 consecutive reviews at a time is good to me since not all reviewers i think will have a lot of free time through out a day |
Nashetania said: @AnnoKano Why should other users suffer because of these individuals? For example, a person A wrote 30 something reviews on MyChineseCartoonsList, but that person wants to abandon that site and become a member of MyAnimeList. This person will have to wait way too much time to repost all reviews on MyAnimeList. So the question is, why should that person suffer? Troll reviews? Hire more moderators. However, I do agree with AnnoKano that the process of writing reviews does require time. Perhaps these individuals that will have a desire to repost their reviews will reread their review one more time, and in result we will get a better quality of reviews. On top of that, there might be anime that will end on the same day. Someone will surely want to review both anime, why should they wait? Troll reviews? Hire more moderators. With that being said, I agree that AnnoKano’s suggestion will be helpful to our community, but I am against introducing the “1 review per day” limit. I explained the reasons already. Here is a summary.
Nashetania said: I guess that even two reviews per day won’t be enough; however, 4 reviews per day will also be a bad idea, since hardly 20 reviewers on this site will be able to write 4 good, readable, and adequate reviews per day. I would say there are zero users who can do that, and even if there are, that doesn't mean they should. Even if the reviews are good it still sucks if you lose your chance for exposure to one individual, and this isn't fair either. Nashetania said: AnnoKano, I hope that you will increase your limit to 3 reviews per day. EDIT: This ^ If it is one every 8 hours, sure. But otherwise it dilutes the effect and will not improve anything. Rule changes have to be meaningful. |
AnnoKanoMar 15, 2016 3:27 AM
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKano said: That'd basically reduce it to 2 per day, unless the reviewer posts one immediately when s/he wakes up and the next ones almost exactly 8 hours later. Unless you can upload several reviews at the same time, whenever the limit expires, or if you can queue them for uploading (which would make the wait useless).If it is one every 8 hours, sure. But otherwise it dilutes the effect and will not improve anything. Rule changes have to be meaningful. I'd say that it might be better to reduce it to every 4 hours or so. Maybe someone won't be able to make 4-6 well-written reviews in a day, but that doesn't mean that that s/he can't write them all during a week, edit them for a few more days, and then decide to post them all the next day. |
  |
What is the larger problem: A few people who want to write reviews for multiple OVAs in one day will have to suffer a slight delay. All reviewers are exposed to the risk of spammers posting multiple short reviews after they've posted, costing them valuable exposure in the new review queue that they can only get back by reposting their review. I do not deny that it's possible to contrive situations where this change may be unfair. But you appear to be under the illusion that the present system is fair; it's not. moodie said: its seems that this isnt a solution to a problem and we are using the scapegoat of spammers to push an agenda. this is the same argument that was used to take away the dislike button. We are not hear to discuss that rule change, but I will say this much: you are ignorant of the problem if you think that decision was made arbitrarily. You do not know how many reviewers gave up because of it. The only agenda I am pushing is to promote good quality reviews and taking practical measures to reduce spam. The idea that this is some kind of moderator conspiracy is ridiculous. First of all, I am not a review moderator so I have no more say about what happens than any of you do. Secondly, if the moderators were interested in making rule changes without consulting people we would do so. We have no obligation to ask the user base for their permission or endorsement. Thirdly, if I were trying to promote some moderator agenda, how do you explain the fact I am the only moderator here promoting the idea? I am suggesting this because I write reviews myself and I have been a victim of this behavior multiple times, and I am not the only person to have suffered because of it. In fact I posted this topic because I saw it happen to someone else and decided it was time to act. yazio said: That'd basically reduce it to 2 per day, unless the reviewer posts one immediately when s/he wakes up and the next ones almost exactly 8 hours later. Exactly. And if someone has to wait 8 hours between posts, chances are they won't even both be on the front page anymore. The problem is solved. yazio said: Unless you can upload several reviews at the same time, whenever the limit expires, or if you can queue them for uploading (which would make the wait useless). I think that a queuing system is unlikely. Much easier to just introduce a time limit. yazio said: I'd say that it might be better to reduce it to every 4 hours or so. Maybe someone won't be able to make 4-6 well-written reviews in a day, but that doesn't mean that that s/he can't write them all during a week, edit them for a few more days, and then decide to post them all the next day. Here's the thing: it will always be possible to dream up scenarios where this proposal will be "unfair". As you say, if someone chooses to work on five different reviews at once during a week and posts them all on the Saturday then yes, they will be forced to wait before they can post them all. But I want you to think about how many people adopt that kind of behavior. What percentage of people who post reviews regularly work according to that kind of schedule? One or two, if even that many? In contrast, how many people are affected by the spam reviewers? Regardless of your posting habits, whether you are the person who posts one serious review per day or who posts five reviews on friday that you've been working on all week, you can still be a victim of the spam problem. How much more annoyed would this fictitious person who spent all week working on their five reviews be if some asshole comes along and posts 5 or 6 spam reviews immediately afterwards? |
AnnoKanoMar 15, 2016 10:12 AM
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKano said: That's something that should be taken into account before making a decision.yazio said: I'd say that it might be better to reduce it to every 4 hours or so. Maybe someone won't be able to make 4-6 well-written reviews in a day, but that doesn't mean that that s/he can't write them all during a week, edit them for a few more days, and then decide to post them all the next day. Here's the thing: it will always be possible to dream up scenarios where this proposal will be "unfair". As you say, if someone chooses to work on five different reviews at once during a week and posts them all on the Saturday then yes, they will be forced to wait before they can post them all. But I want you to think about how many people adopt that kind of behavior. What percentage of people who post reviews regularly work according to that kind of schedule? One or two, if even that many? As others have mentiones before, it's not unusual for people to review several shows at the end of a season, like Stark700 or HaXXspetten. Also, there's people that watch many short series at once and could try to review them. For example: series with a lot of related movies/OVAs (Kara no Kyoukai comes to mind), series that are splitted in MAL yet many see as a whole (like Fate/Zero or Wolf's Rain), or even just fans of short anime/one-shots in general. |
|
| For those who doubt that people posting multiple reviews in a short space of time is not a serious issue, I present my findings. This is just from going through the first page alone. Five separate individuals posting multiple reviews in a short space of time: http://imgur.com/a/4ZUoB Now most of the people in question only posted two reviews, and the most posted by one person was five. Only one of them was long enough to require use of the 'show more' button. Most of them were only a single paragraph long. One person posted 5 separate reviews. Read through them for yourself if you wish. You will find that none of them are especially useful. They have a grand total of ten helpful votes across thirteen reviews, so it seems that most people agree with me. I hope this serves to illustrate why I think this is a problem. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Checking again today I find that once again we have several users posting multiple short reviews in succession. Three individuals publishing two reviews within an hour of each other. It would be nice to have some input from other people. It seems that no prominent reviewers or review moderators have commented so far. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| I don't review as much as I used to but I have had instances where my review would be pushed down by a barrage of new ones from the same user. It's quite sad given the time I like to put into creating something that is worthwhile to read. I think this suggestion is brilliant. If there was to be some amendment to it then maybe one ever six hours or so? That seems fair. |
 |
| I'm not really for this. But at the same time reviews in it of themselves don't get much "attention" or advertising unless they are within the top of a anime page. So the time spent on this page: http://myanimelist.net/reviews.php?t=anime is minuscule to begin with even if you have a review there for a whole week lol. It would also be cool if we knew how many users are even browsing that page, then we can quantify the stats of reviews a bit better for that page. I would suggest reviewers to advertise their own reviews on social media or some shit and hope some are from MAL to upvote your review to get some feedback. Otherwise your efforts won't seem like they get enough "attention"/"exposure" that you seek.. also we are not including users who actually just read and not vote.. |
 Behold of my awesomeness~ controversial and/or sensitive topics likely devolve into the same repetitive, derogatory, abusive, and harassing comments can no longer be posted. But my feels. |
| One a day is too small. Some people might watch like several films in a day or something. It should be no less than at least 3-5. |
| @KillerNokto |
Rasco said: I'm not really for this. But at the same time reviews in it of themselves don't get much "attention" or advertising unless they are within the top of a anime page. So the time spent on this page: http://myanimelist.net/reviews.php?t=anime is minuscule to begin with even if you have a review there for a whole week lol. You are forgetting that the position on the anime front page is dependent on the number of helpfuls over time. If the length of time they appear on that page is reduced then the number of helpfuls they receive is also likely to drop; consequently the position they will get on the anime front page will drop as well. It would also be cool if we knew how many users are even browsing that page, then we can quantify the stats of reviews a bit better for that page. traed said: One a day is too small. Some people might watch like several films in a day or something. It should be no less than at least 3-5. Did you read the discussion? Because this point has been made several times already. Tozzy said: I don't review as much as I used to but I have had instances where my review would be pushed down by a barrage of new ones from the same user. It's quite sad given the time I like to put into creating something that is worthwhile to read. I think this suggestion is brilliant. If there was to be some amendment to it then maybe one ever six hours or so? That seems fair. Yes, 6 hours seems reasonable. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| So what if, for instance, as I do, you write all your reviews out beforehand in a different program and then post them all the same day? This is punishing those who care about reviews indiscriminately along with the spammers. There needs to be better moderation or something like that, because a blanket "solution" like the one you're proposing won't help the issue. |
KaoruMatsuoka said: So what if, for instance, as I do, you write all your reviews out beforehand in a different program and then post them all the same day? This is punishing those who care about reviews indiscriminately along with the spammers. There needs to be better moderation or something like that, because a blanket "solution" like the one you're proposing won't help the issue. So my first question is, can you shed some light on why you post your reviews that way? I have already conceded that some users may do this, but they would be a very small minority and causing them the slight inconvenience of having to wait in between posts is a worthy sacrifice relative to the advantages this rule would provide. Another point I have made is that even if you do follow this posting habit, you are just as likely as anyone else is to fall victim to the spammers. Surely you would be annoyed if, following your review posts, one person spammed five separate reviews? The fact that you are posting multiple reviews in one day, even if they are good reviews, is still unfair for everyone else. Anyone who posts their reviews immediately before you gets less exposure than everyone else does. Why do you think that is fair? Even if you had quadruple the number of moderators, that would still not protect people from the spam problem since they will not necessarily be browsing the section 100% of the time. This measure basically removes the 'time' factor from the equation entirely since any one individual can only do so much. EDIT: Currently 5 users with multiple reviews on the first page, all posted within hour long intervals. 15 reviews posted between them, with 9 helpful votes across all of them. Note that every single time I check there have been several examples, and I don't always include them here. |
AnnoKanoMar 21, 2016 11:16 AM
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKano said: I was just using that as a example of better exposure for some reviews.You are forgetting that the position on the anime front page is dependent on the number of helpfuls over time. If the length of time they appear on that page is reduced then the number of helpfuls they receive is also likely to drop; consequently the position they will get on the anime front page will drop as well. AnnoKano said: Whats stopping you from going to page 2 or page 3 etc? I mean if we only focus on the first page then yeah it seems bad, but not if you put effort into actually looking at other pages lol. I guess your just a first page elitist lol JK I mean hopefully users look further than just the first page. Currently 5 users with multiple reviews on the first page, all posted within hour long intervals. 15 reviews posted between them, with 9 helpful votes across all of them. Also why did you quote me in other topics that I haven't even particapted in? XD for example: http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1493349&show=0#msg45266396 Well anyways it was a nice surprise. |
RascoMar 21, 2016 5:29 PM
Behold of my awesomeness~ controversial and/or sensitive topics likely devolve into the same repetitive, derogatory, abusive, and harassing comments can no longer be posted. But my feels. |
| The only problem with this as far as I can see is that people that already have written plenty of reviews will have to wait. I doubt this is that big of an issue unless they wrote over a few dozens of reviews. Compromise could be something like letting them upload their reviews and have only first one show up if it's during the same day. Alternatively have them queued up to show up once per day but still have them accessible through anime or user's page. Though that would also require a lot more work. |
 |
| Currently, reviews get a short amount of exposure on the new review tab, then once they leave the featured five shown they disappear from the public eye almost completely. No amount of exposure from the new review tab will fix anything, it won't allow enough votes to cause any reviews there to do anything but end up in a grave afterwards. On the anime page, the top reviews are shown and have an uncontested monopoly. There is simply no incentive for anyone to want to search for other reviews besides the ones immediately shown. I think a different tab must be made in the new reviews section that shows trending reviews of any kind. Reviews that get a lot of votes in the new section will end up in the trending section for a set amount of time. This might help give them enough exposure. But really without a downvote system, the oldest reviews will have a time advantage over new reviews that really can't be bridged. Older reviews for certain anime simply have so many votes that it would be impossible for any other review to end up overtaking it no matter how much better the new reviews is simply because there is no way to give new reviews an effective amount of exposure without destructively undermining the top reviews. |
ModeratelyHumanApr 9, 2016 9:05 AM
| Dislike. Sometimes I get a random spark in motivation to write that I can't save for another day. |
| "No, son, you may not have your body pillow at the dinner table!" |
| I support this. And bring back the not helpful and helpful rating. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| I'm very much in favour of it. This rule might also make reviewers spend more time on writing their reviews, which means that we might see more reviewers that will write good reviews. EDIT: |
BilgameshApr 22, 2016 10:49 AM
More topics from this board
» Corporate imagesNoctisnox - May 15, 2023 |
19 |
by himanshi122
»»
11 hours ago |
|
» Reply button should show text that will be quoted.Euthymia_Gerv - Apr 15 |
8 |
by Alexioos95
»»
Yesterday, 10:22 AM |
|
» @ sign spam/attackkuroneko99 - Apr 16 |
3 |
by Jhiday
»»
Apr 17, 11:11 AM |
|
» Preview for "About Me" sectionNubFix - Mar 24, 2022 |
5 |
by NubFix
»»
Apr 16, 10:16 PM |
|
» Could MAL match users with the most similar watched anime and ratings?mur_koshka - Apr 7 |
4 |
by mur_koshka
»»
Apr 16, 1:44 AM |