Review Moderation & Trusted Users/Reviewers [DONE]

[wahaha]

Doesn't anyone listen?

[:p-smiley here]

TRs are not told who posted a review.

Ideally, they don't know it. But in practice, it's not that hard to recognize some well-known reviewer's writing.
This is nothing that one should (or could) prevent, it'll just happen.

TRs (as a group) are an elite, even in your suggestion. When keeping a minimum amount or TRs [as you said], I'd consider them a non-closed elite - at least a "class" (in kamenoko's words).

Some questions left:

• How public will TR-decisions be?
• Should there be any way to ask for an explanation/add a comment? (both sides)
• Should a reviewer be able to re-submit his review (in a special way) if (s)he considers the TR-decision unjustified?
• Is there any other suggestion than "posting at animenfo instead" if one's 'review' does not get approved?

[Elberet]

• How public will TR-decisions be?

Not public, there's no need to. If denied, the review author gets notified via his myreviews page and disappears from the TRs' open reviews list. If approved, the review is added to the anime's review page. The names of the voters and their votes are kept hidden in the DB for moderators to have a look into suspicious cases.

• Should there be any way to ask for an explanation/add a comment? (both sides)

Yep, feedback from the TRs to the reviewer should be possible. It should even be mandatory for a TR to give a feedback when they wish to vote to reject a review. The feedback should be made available to the reviewer, but without the name of the person who wrote the feedback. A "complain" link lets the reviewer file a complaint against a comment, moderators can look into these complaints and identify and discipline a TR who writes offensive feedback.

• Should a reviewer be able to re-submit his review (in a special way) if (s)he considers the TR-decision unjustified?

Since rejected reviews are not supposed to be deleted (immediately), it should be possible to simply copy&paste and submit the same review again.

• Is there any other suggestion than "posting at animenfo instead" if one's 'review' does not get approved?

I figure it should be possible to, say, track how likely a review is to one that was rejected before. (I think there's a linguistics package for Perl that does that nicely and represents the similarity of two texts as a float...) Very similar reviews reviews are grouped together, and if four reviews in such a group get rejected, the user has an option to forward the review to a moderator or admin. However, this should not happen frequently, since the top rule for the TRs should be to "reject only the really, really bad stuff - if it's a review but bad, do approve it but rate it as bad".

Unrelated rambling:
In order to reflect that users can "forget" how to write good reviews, alter the TR condition: Among the last 10 reviews posted, a TR must have at least 8 with an approval rating of 5.5 or better (old system) - or - at least 8 must have been approved with a rating of "fair" or better (new system).

[DonGato]

• How public will TR-decisions be?

Not public, there's no need to. If denied, the review author gets notified via his myreviews page and disappears from the TRs' open reviews list. If approved, the review is added to the anime's review page. The names of the voters and their votes are kept hidden in the DB for moderators to have a look into suspicious cases.

So you say that citizens shouldn't review politicians decisions?
And this is nothing like a Nazi government.
Now you make sense.

[wahaha]

And this is nothing like a Nazi government.

Unless exp decides to delete every user with an ID that divides by 7, I don't think that comparison fits at all.

Anyway, I see the same problem as DonGato. I'd rather want to have disapproved reviews visible to all users (not neccessarily on the review-page, I rather mean something like "latest reviews (disapproved)") just so that everyone can observe what the TRs do.

[DonGato]

The Nazi government didn't started by 'removing' people.

[kamenoko]

Okie Dokie, we're getting into flamewar territory. It usually happens as soon as the word 'Nazi' comes up. I sincerely feel that this topic should become closed since all we're really doing is restating our ideas (I'm guilty of it myself.)

I must also apologize for my cavalier use of the word "Anarchy". And must ask, though i'm sure your intentions were benign, to stop saying what I meant by using sed word. To clarify, what I meant by "The anarchistic nature of the internet" was the freedom to create, go, and not go where you please. But it is also the right of every webmaster to delete, ban, or ignore whatever you say. If we had a review that stated "I hate everyone except White Anglicans" I'd suggest deleting it, and banning the ip of the user who wrote the filth.

That's all, I said what I wanted, I won't be posting in this topic again.

[Elberet]

DonGato, I won't even comment on your last two posts. Seriously, if this forum had an "ignore posts from this user" feauture, I'd use it now.

Kamenoko, I agree. The final decision is up to exp anyways, so we don't have to start flaming ourselves here. Just one thing: IP bans don't work. The vast majority of Internet users have dynamic IPs, so banning a single address can be easily evaded (reconnect) and will eventually affect a totally different user. And what do you do if a T-Online customer writes junk like you suggested? (T-Online has several different /8 subnets and the hostnames do not give away any info on where the user comes from.) Would you ban all T-Online users because of one moron?

[DonGato]

Well, it's easy to ignore other people when they don't think like you do or when you don't like what they say. Without using the N*** word I don't like:

- Elite groups (even as you say this is not it will be in no time that kind of group)
- Closed communities
- Restricted access to services
- Lack of trust in people

You're showing all that with the system you propose. As kamenoko said, there is something driving the Internet and is the freedom. On the other side if you have a review that should be deleted you have MODs for that, and if you have somebody registering bogus accounts you have admins for that.

In fact not only reviews will be affected by this tactic but the database. I care more for the last than for the first. And I don't care what others think of my reviews, your reviews or any other review. I read them all (at least if I think they are useful).

And again... you're asking for a system before something ever happened. There is no problem with the current system and the new system won't get you more *new fresh* reviewers that is what you need now.

If you follow with this, the first thing to do is to forbid current top reviewers and MODs to be elite reviewers. Start looking for new ones without conflict of interests.

EDIT: my apologies to use the N*** word but I have to make all understand what you're heading to. The best way is going to an extreme. We won't achieve that in real terms, but the relation is nearly the same for me.

[nwa]

hrhrhrhr
ok let's see now...

And what a forum had to do with a review system?! Man, you are overdoing it.

AR forum, or this forum has mods, an elite group...like TR's..actually i don't understand why do you still call them TR's as Review Moderators would be a better name and yes, the RM's will also be an elite group, whether by Gambit's suggestion or by Elberet's one

Again, get real... that is only fun, nothing more!

you say it's fun, nothing more...but you are the one actually overdoing it, bringing in Nazis and shit like that even it it has nothing to do with out current discussion

So you say that citizens shouldn't review politicians decisions?
And this is nothing like a Nazi government.

we do have the "hidden" mod forum in AR don't we...you are actively posting there and so far I havn't seen a single word of complaint from you

- Elite groups (even as you say this is not it will be in no time that kind of group)
- Closed communities
- Restricted access to services
- Lack of trust in people

so you don't like them...Elite groups, you don't like mods in other words while you are one...
Closed communities...not everyone can be a mod in AR or in here now can they, meaning it's a closed group that you are part of
Restricted access to service, the forum and sub-forums are services where you can read stuff...the mod forum is restricted to mods only, talking about AR here again...and again you are part of it yet no complaint about it being restricted
Lack of trust in people, you seem to lack it indeed, although Elberet's system practically avoids any personal opinions on the review writer as it's all anonymous, all the RM has to do is check the review, not the person, it's not a matter of trust but quality

so in other words, why don't we just make the AR forum modless and let ppl post whatever they want for the sake of democracy (anarchy), so if we get some lame posts by n00bs or posts in the wrong forum, well..we just bare with that, as there won't be that much foul doings and if you don't like the "freedom" system then you can just stop vieweing the forum


now speaking more of democracy...shall we make a poll whether to start thinking about how to implement the RM(TR) system or will we keep it as it is now...a fair democratic vote so nobody can blame it on being a Nazi system..let's hear what the ppl want

[DonGato]

And what a forum had to do with a review system?! Man, you are overdoing it.

AR forum, or this forum has mods, an elite group...like TR's..actually i don't understand why do you still call them TR's as Review Moderators would be a better name and yes, the RM's will also be an elite group, whether by Gambit's suggestion or by Elberet's one

Wrong, a MOD doesn't confirm posts to be available for other users.

So you say that citizens shouldn't review politicians decisions?
And this is nothing like a Nazi government.

we do have the "hidden" mod forum in AR don't we...you are actively posting there and so far I havn't seen a single word of complaint from you

Wrong again. That forum is for us to discuss people doing wrong things, not each post every user do and if it can be made available to other users.

A MOD is not an Elite group member but more like a "policeman". As well as aniDB mods.

I don't want access to discussions about administration and policies on aniDB, but yes... I want to know every user posted review.

Lack of trust in people, you seem to lack it indeed, although Elberet's system practically avoids any personal opinions on the review writer as it's all anonymous, all the RM has to do is check the review, not the person, it's not a matter of trust but quality

Wahaha already stated that this can't be achieved.

now speaking more of democracy...shall we make a poll whether to start thinking about how to implement the RM(TR) system or will we keep it as it is now...a fair democratic vote so nobody can blame it on being a Nazi system..let's hear what the ppl want

Then make a poll on aniDB main page so every user can vote, not only the registered users here.

You started from a wrong assumption MOD = TR and Forum = aniDB.

[Iceman[grrrr]]

A MOD is not an Elite group member but more like a "policeman". As well as aniDB mods.

Good! Then Review Moderators won't be elite, they will be the review police! héhéhé
Why are you against then ?? Because they are not chosen by somebody like you were to be a mod ?

[nwa]

nah..wrong in your eyes and right in mine, a TR is a mod and a mod is an elite or "policeman" however you want to call it as it dosn't make much difference...

Wrong, a MOD doesn't confirm posts to be available for other users.

a mod can influence others posts just as TR can influence reviews, it's not the matter of the method but the matter of principal.

Wrong again. That forum is for us to discuss people doing wrong things, not each post every user do and if it can be made available to other users.

what is wrong? I said the AR has a hidden forum where things are being discussed without the "normal" users being able to see it...you say I'm wrong? you said you want everything to be public while that forum isn't public..so why shouldn't the others see who did those wrong things

A MOD is not an Elite group member but more like a "policeman". As well as aniDB mods.

I already commented about it in the beginning...a mod is not an elite group? lmao

Wahaha already stated that this can't be achieved.

yea ok I agree on that, but...you really think that ppl read a review of their friend and after that vote yes? it's more like vote yes now and read later if at all so it's biased either way, although it's a little less biased with TR's

Then make a poll on aniDB main page so every user can vote, not only the registered users here.

well I can't do that and it dosn't need to be on the main page..this is a public forum where ppl can come freely so every user can vote here in the forum as only the registered members(in AniDB) can write reviews and if they are already registered in AniDB then they might as well register here in the forums although is that really necessary as I can see ppl with Guest nick posting here everywhere
all the other features(including the current review system) have been implemented only after discussing it in the forums here so why would that be an exeption?

well my point being is that don't tell me you are against Elitism generally as it is everywhere and it is needed but say that you are against the system that has been recommended here as "I don't like elitism" is not a big enough reason to deny this feature request if there are other ppl supporting it...coem to think of it, what does EXP himself think of the suggested features...

anyway you're saying that things are not as bad here as in AnimeNFO and there are only "some" bad reviews but why settle for "some" if we can have none

[DonGato]

It seems you don't want to understand.

Call it whatever you want but a person who has the right to allow a review to be made or not (before it's posted to be seen by everyone) is different that a person that can only remove the content after posted.

I didn't say I want the aniDB MODs forum public. Again, it seems you don't read what I write. It seems you missed the "I don't want access to discussions about administration and policies on aniDB, but yes... I want to know every user posted review.".

So for you is the same a policeman that tells you when you're wrong instead of one that tells you what to do and how to do (TR)?

Anyway, do as you (exp) want... what I can do is stop using the review system, as I believe lots of people do (on the forum some people already stated that).

I will stop here with the discussion as it seems you want this so bad and you wont reconsider what people stated here.

Bye.

[nwa]

hmm..it seems I managed to piss someone off

nah I understood what you were saying, but I continued to debate about your reasoning about the elite groups...as a TR would be an elite group, you shouldn't have anything against the group being there itself but the system that these TR's use or should I say method...
want you want is a review to be posted no matter what, dosn't matter how bad it is right? I can understand that but if there's a review like in AnimeNFO, would you really want to see "BEST ANIMEH EVAH! " kinda review that's what we were thinking of removing mostly and I shouldn't actually say remove but to postpone its publishing as the reviewer itself is given feedback on what he did wrong like, as you said yourself, a policeman that tells you that you're wrong, if the reviewer is not going to edit the review, it will someday be deleted (dunno where it will be kept in the meantime).

Anyway, do as you (exp) want... what I can do is stop using the review system, as I believe lots of people do (on the forum some people already stated that).

you are the first one I see to state that...but I might have already forgotten what was posted on pages 1-6

Call it whatever you want but a person who has the right to allow a review to be made or not (before it's posted to be seen by everyone) is different that a person that can only remove the content after posted.../
... I want to know every user posted review.

a TR won't have the right to allow a review to be made or not, a TR only has the opportunity to add 1/5 of his decision in allowing the review to be published on the review page but yea, there's a chance if the review is bad that it won't be seen by everyone and that's the think you are against(not the elite group) but sadly there is no other alternative in this particular system...

"a person can only remove the content after posted"
so it's ok if someone posts a review that everyone can see and he can do it without any interference by the TR's and after a mod sees how bad it is, it will be deleted like bad posts in the AR forums? I mean that should be ok with you then as the review will be seen by everyone but deleted later by a "policeman"...that has actually been done before the current review system was implemented /me winks at Gambit

maybe I got too carried away in my former posts but I don't want the system that badly, I think it's better than the current one so I support it but I won't be leaving all offended if it won't be implemented


if DonGato really isn't going to look here again then that means he's really pissed...hoo boy I'm screwed then

[wahaha]

there's a chance if the review is bad that it won't be seen by everyone and that's the think you are against(not the elite group) but sadly there is no other alternative in this particular system...

it might be a good time to seek for a compromise... my suggestions:
- Add a "latest"-page (or some other kind of public overview) for rejected reviews while allowing the reviewer to hide it from there. I guess this should be shown without any usernames, but with the TR-comments.
- Allow rejected reviews to nonetheless be posted in some form, maybe as "other reviews" vs. "approved reviews".

Pro:
- Freedom of speech should be preserved by that
- Decisions (and "unwritten laws" that might develop among TRs) are handled more transparently

Con:
- Still categorization/rating of reviews
- No democracy when it comes to these ratings, rather oligarchy