|
AllieO
|
|
|
|
The article is called I'm a panto villain but you need me, and is by food critic AA Gill. The main story (about how a remark he made to a waiter ended in a court case) isn't the bit that particularly interested me. It's this:
'Then we returned to the 21st century and I wrote a review of the restaurant which was pretty favourable. The sub-editors gave it four stars. I don't award the stars; the subs read the review and extrapolate from that. It seems fairer.' (The italics are mine.)
Having had what sounded like another good review yesterday, that produced 3 x 5 and 4 x 3, I think this would be a good idea. Since some reviewers won't put their money where their mouth is, this would do it for them.
Quite how it would work on YWO, of course, is another matter. But the article does show that there is an accepted problem getting food reviewers to match their stars to their comments, and it's probably the same with other kinds of reviewers.
|
|
notleyab
|
|
|
|
Quote: AllieO, Monday, 22 Aug 2011 12:06The article is called I'm a panto villain but you need me, and is by food critic AA Gill. The main story (about how a remark he made to a waiter ended in a court case) isn't the bit that particularly interested me. It's this: 'Then we returned to the 21st century and I wrote a review of the restaurant which was pretty favourable. The sub-editors gave it four stars. I don't award the stars; the subs read the review and extrapolate from that. It seems fairer.' (The italics are mine.) Having had what sounded like another good review yesterday, that produced 3 x 5 and 4 x 3, I think this would be a good idea. Since some reviewers won't put their money where their mouth is, this would do it for them. Quite how it would work on YWO, of course, is another matter. But the article does show that there is an accepted problem getting food reviewers to match their stars to their comments, and it's probably the same with other kinds of reviewers. Except there'd bn even more bunches of 5s on the basis of putting scores into the moujths of people who don't want to upset with their comments. You got 3X5 so why whinge? In other areas you were marked 3. Can't you accept tt the reviewer thought yr excerpt was average in those areas? - And tt there is room to improve.
|
|
AllieO
|
|
|
|
Quote: notleyab, Monday, 22 Aug 2011 12:23 You got 3X5 so why whinge? In other areas you were marked 3. Can't you accept tt the reviewer thought yr excerpt was average in those areas? - And tt there is room to improve. Of course there's 'room to improve.' I think that's a given when someone bothers to join a peer-review site. I am happy to accept negative comments about my work when they are matched by the ratings. But the text of the review didn't seem to reflect the five 3's to me. Nowhere did it suggest the work was merely average. I don't know why you always have to comment when you don't have anything useful to say and keep referring to valid comments as 'whinging.' And it's obvious you just plunged in this time, as you have my ratings wrong. I think you meant to say that in other areas I was marked 4.
|
|
notleyab
|
|
|
|
Quote: AllieO, Monday, 22 Aug 2011 18:23Quote: notleyab, Monday, 22 Aug 2011 12:23 You got 3X5 so why whinge? In other areas you were marked 3. Can't you accept tt the reviewer thought yr excerpt was average in those areas? - And tt there is room to improve. Of course there's 'room to improve.' I think that's a given when someone bothers to join a peer-review site. I am happy to accept negative comments about my work when they are matched by the ratings. But the text of the review didn't seem to reflect the five 3's to me. Nowhere did it suggest the work was merely average. I don't know why you always have to comment when you don't have anything useful to say and keep referring to valid comments as 'whinging.' And it's obvious you just plunged in this time, as you have my ratings wrong. I think you meant to say that in other areas I was marked 4.  OK, I read yr scores the wrong way round. Anyway, the bones of the argument are still the same - there are people who don't like to upset with the wording of thr reviews. Given AA Gill's past record, the remark abt leaving the scoring to the subs can probably be taken with a large pinch of salt. And how such a system wd work within YWO falls into the genre of fantasy. Who wd do the scoring on here?
|
|
AllieO
|
|
|
|
Quote: notleyab, Monday, 22 Aug 2011 19:57 And how such a system wd work within YWO falls into the genre of fantasy. Who wd do the scoring on here? A difficulty I pointed out myself in my original post.
|
|
LTMS1479CSP
|
|
|
|
Hi AllieO, Just had a quick glance at your latest work on the site and found it very appealing. Mine is much further down the line from yours. However, I just wondered if you'd like a Free Will swap. I'm having a little break from tinkering with my story at present. I feel I need some space from it, so that I see it more clearly. I intend to do a re-write or make changes based on new insights from other recently received FW reviews that have been most valuable. However, I do read a great deal and enjoy most well written stories, whatever the subject. Just a thought. This may not be what you'd think helpful to you, but if you do let me know. No pressure. I may need a little time to complete this, if so.  Catherine
|
|
Sammy
|
|
|
|
Quote: notleyab, Monday, 22 Aug 2011 19:57Quote: AllieO, Monday, 22 Aug 2011 18:23Quote: notleyab, Monday, 22 Aug 2011 12:23 You got 3X5 so why whinge? In other areas you were marked 3. Can't you accept tt the reviewer thought yr excerpt was average in those areas? - And tt there is room to improve. Of course there's 'room to improve.' I think that's a given when someone bothers to join a peer-review site. I am happy to accept negative comments about my work when they are matched by the ratings. But the text of the review didn't seem to reflect the five 3's to me. Nowhere did it suggest the work was merely average. I don't know why you always have to comment when you don't have anything useful to say and keep referring to valid comments as 'whinging.' And it's obvious you just plunged in this time, as you have my ratings wrong. I think you meant to say that in other areas I was marked 4.  OK, I read yr scores the wrong way round. Anyway, the bones of the argument are still the same - there are people who don't like to upset with the wording of thr reviews. Given AA Gill's past record, the remark abt leaving the scoring to the subs can probably be taken with a large pinch of salt. And how such a system wd work within YWO falls into the genre of fantasy. Who wd do the scoring on here? I'll do it. I'll be fair, and unbiased and . . . oh, screw it, who am I kidding. You're all getting 1s unless you send me vast quantities of booze! BUT, back to a topic that was raised a while ago. If everyone had to make their scores public and qualify them, then we wouldn't get this disparity so much. Notleyab is right - there probably are some soft-centred, mushy types (or devious and competitive, take your pick) who don't like to offend anyone with their reviews, although they're more than happy to down-score in secret. Less niceness and sycophancy, more straight-talking and honesty, please. x
'Stay away from your potential. It's like your bank balance. There's never as much of it as you think.'
|