Review Moderation & Trusted Users/Reviewers [DONE]

[DonGato]

Well, I don't see a problem with the rating of the reviews for those anime. Are you seeing something I don't ?!

[nwa]

Berserk...look at the ratings for Gambit's review...he gave it a low score so he got a lot of No votes...ah why am I even trying to explain anything to someone as stubborn as you are DonGato

afterall you want AniDB to have the same review system as AnimeNFO so...

[wahaha]

Berserk...look at the ratings for Gambit's review...he gave it a low score so he got a lot of No votes...

I guess that's what you get for starting with "I fell asleep about 6 times during the first 10 episodes, and that`s not a good sign." since that triggers negative votes.
Don't get me wrong: I just want to express that readers might not want to read such a sentence as an introduction, so it can be seen as a hint what could be improved.
If it was just about the detailed votes or the general attitude towards the anime, the review just below gambit's (from fusiongt) wouldn't have a similar rating, so this example simply doesn't prove your point.

ah why am I even trying to explain anything to someone as stubborn as you are DonGato

Because that might help solving problems, so I hope your comment was just a joke...

[DonGato]

Well, as wahaha said he deserves that because of mixing personal opinions expressed the wrong way in the review. I don't see anything wrong in that even being a Berserk hater (it seems not the official now ).

Well, I might be wrong back then but the current system isn't some of the proposals I was against. Going elitist was my objection and now I'm fighting against again.

[kamenoko]

Okie Dokie, let's state it in plain and simple terms.

I do not want:

1. A clique of anidb users to deciding what I see.
2. A clique of anidb users deciding the value of my reviews.
3. A clique of anidb users deciding the value of other people's reviews. (Notice the order).
4. To become part of that clique in any way, shape or form.

Why do I feel a Trusted Review system will become merely a clique?

1. Because it is supported by some people who will by default become a trusted reviewer. (Conflict of Interest)
2. Because a Trusted Reviewer is human, and is not free from prejudice. A TR will have to use his own opinion to decide whether a review is worthy or not. Thus we run into the Ad hoc fallacy.

Why do I feel an unmoderated review system will not degenerate into a version of AnimeNFO?

1. Because only registered users can post reviews. That eliminates people too inept to register for the anidb from posting reviews.

2. Because not a lot of people are motivated enough to write reviews. There are about 8 at last count with more than 10.

3. Because despite the rapid growth of the anidb, reviews have not increased proportionately.

Why do I (kamenoko) care?

1. Because I despise elitist groups.
2. Because I despise two tiered societies.

Does my (kamenoko's) opinion really matter?

No.

If your opinion doesn't matter, why do you bother arguing about it?

1. I'm an opinionated prat.
2. I've nothing better to do.
3. I believe in the anarchistic nature of the internet.

Are you done yet?

Yes.

--
Kamenoko,
FF

[DonGato]

Well finally! I thought I was the only martian against this kind of 'clique' groups ( new word for me ).

[egg]

I believe that the current system is not perfect, but on the other hand it doesn't seem like it is broken either. Granted there are probably some good reviews with a bad rating and bad reviews with a good rating. That will happen in any democratic system.

I think what is happening though is that people are trying to hard to fix the problem. Making a more complex and convoluted the system will not necessarily make it better.

1) If the users of the system do not think it is useful, then it will not get used and you will have people not put in their comments just because they think it is not right or is too complex.

2) Making a more complex system will require significant resources to implement and will lead to more bugs and other challenges.

3) Having Trusted Reviewers are not infallible. Already it appears that the proponents want particular reviews to have higher ratings, and others think those reviews are fine. This system will create the elitism that people have been talking about.

4) In the current system, a small number of users can influence a rating of a review, for a short amount of time. After a number of people read and vote on a review, then popular opinion will win out. In the new system a few people would control the rating, and there is no recourse to correct it.

5) Currently there are not a lot of reviews. It is not that difficult to scan throught the reviews and see for yourself what is well written. The ratings are handy, but are not a necessity needed at this point. If we had many more reviews, and the good ones were truly getting buried, then I might agree that there is a problem.

I say leve it as it is, if things continue to deteriorate, then come back and revisit it. Right now, there are plenty of other opportunities to address.

[Iceman[grrrr]]

1. well basically it was supposed to be anonymous... so you don't know who you are voting for and can't adjust your vote!

2. I am for this knid of thing even though I won't be a TR, I haven't done a single review!

3. Wahaha: Seems we lost! héhéhé
Let's concentrate on something else until someone abuse this system!

[requiem]

I just realized something...if a fanboy gets pissed at me, and has an account at anidb...he could ruin my avg rating just by hitting no on every review that I have. Therefore, the more reviews you have, the more it'll hurt if someone rejects anything you write.

Doesn't that show how much the system can suck?

As kamenoko once asked, "Is reviewing for the reviewer or the reader?" In my opinion - it is both. Nobody here has to do it; reviewing is a way to express myself as an otaku...as one who appreciates anime and wants to give a detailed explanation why.

Unlike kamenoko's desire for anarchy, without hierarchy there is no order in this universe - anarchy sucks to be blunt...ruling over oneself is fine, but if one rules over him or herself, one cannot make contact with anyone - as doing so will force some sort of change. When one changes, they must either accept or reject whatever exchange they have with another, and in doing so has just made an opinion. However, with opinion come imperfections such as stereotyping and prejudice. Therefore, without a system of rules, these dangerous opinions can develop conflicts, and eventually result in people attacking each others' computers, or possibly ruining the lives of others (such as the guy in the AR forum who had a sick fetish for panties...) - and it sucks. We can say "that's part of life," but nobody here really wants life then; since we sit and watch anime, hang out, and have fun all the time. If anyone here relishes in the misery of another, I feel sorry for you.

With that being said, I state my reasons for a hierarchy. Maybe it's temporary anger that is fueling this post, and I'm overreacting...but after some debate, I'm coming to understand just how problematic the vote system can be. Maybe I'm being arrogant, and you are free to tell me to "shut the fuck up."

Also, think about the AR forum - though the hierarchy doesn't really give any authority (just like being a Trusted Reviewer wouldn't), it does aspire people to post more and become active in the community. Of course, the forum has much more control, and therefore spamming is too difficult. Altogether, I don't see any problems with AR as of now, so obviously working out a hierarchy could prove successful.

~requiem

[wahaha]

I just realized something...if a fanboy gets pissed at me, and has an account at anidb...he could ruin my avg rating just by hitting no on every review that I have.

Even better: That fanboy can get himself multiple accounts and let your review-rating go down the drain.

Therefore, the more reviews you have, the more it'll hurt if someone rejects anything you write.

Doesn't that show how much the system can suck?

Yes, in theory.

[...] though the hierarchy doesn't really give any authority (just like being a Trusted Reviewer wouldn't), it does aspire people to post more and become active in the community.

With hierarchy, there's authority.... and being a TR does give a certain authority as it allows one to influence which reviews will be considered worthy. This might of course work out with a large enough base of "trusted reviewers", but with an initially small group that decides new TRs on their own, the hierarchy might become fixed, which is IMO a big flaw in the current TR-suggestion.

[DonGato]

So it's better a Nazi government than a Democracy?
Good... good.

Well, if you can't bare that your 'rating' goes down then do not review. As already stated this will be managed when more users vote, and if somebody starts to create bogus accounts I think exp will take some disciplinary measures.

And you mistaken kamenoko's proposal with anarchy but is not. Is leaving the current system that is not anarchy but democracy.

If you're that paranoid disconnect the ethernet cable to your computer and live in your nice isolated environment. This world is not for you, you know?!

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

[requiem]

Forgive the above bitching, however I don't think you got the right idea:

Hmmm...I never referred to a Nazi Government (and I probably should have to avoid confusion), as in their terms Hitler was the supremacy. I'm not asking for a supremacy, I'm simply asking for an exception. And what I meant about the "hierarchy" at the forum is the levels from aka-chan to sensei...with that system people understand their place in AR's kingdom, and from what it looks like we all have the same rightsl it's just that there are "respectable" statuses that are earned through participation in the forums. Something similar to that could be implemented in the idea of TR's, however I agree that there is no guarantee that such a system would work.

Paranoia is one of my attributes - forgive me if it's best that I should get isolation from time to time, but in this case I think a little paranoia is necessary when it comes to having people care what I have to say. It gets me attention so that things can get done - for example, the above statement where I bitched, I managed to gather more attention than I have here in a long time - thus I simply made sure that my words got in edgewise before anyone makes a decision.

Also, kamenoko distinctly said that he prefers the anarchistic environment of the internet...I'm sorry to say that having random people register cause they don't like a review of mine and basically reject it isn't my fault at all. And why shouldn't I get angry or feel a need for justice when I can't even get a reason?

If someone puts a lot of work into the reviewing, one can understand my feelings a little better - it's a pain in the ass when someone rejects you and doesn't even tell you why.

Well, who cares: like anything I say here matters.

~requiem

[DonGato]

Hmmm...I never referred to a Nazi Government (and I probably should have to avoid confusion), as in their terms Hitler was the supremacy. I'm not asking for a supremacy, I'm simply asking for an exception.

You mean Hitler done all that alone?
Get real... there were lots of people supporting that.
You are asking for a closed elite to do that. For me that is the same as a Nazi government.

Hierarchy in the forum? Are you kidding. Me being a Sensei is because my participation... there are lots of more useful people with just a bunch of posts? Again, get real... that is only fun, nothing more!

If someone puts a lot of work into the reviewing, one can understand my feelings a little better - it's a pain in the ass when someone rejects you and doesn't even tell you why.

Then ask exp for a feedback system but don't ask for all this as you will have the same outcome from the "Elite" group when they didn't like your review.

People, you need to restrain your egos.

[Elberet]

and being a TR does give a certain authority as it allows one to influence which reviews will be considered worthy. This might of course work out with a large enough base of "trusted reviewers", but with an initially small group that decides new TRs on their own, the hierarchy might become fixed, which is IMO a big flaw in the current TR-suggestion.

Doesn't anyone listen?

TRs can't influence the selection of other TRs.
TRs can only vote on reviews.
TRs are not told who posted a review.
Once a review is accepted or rejected, the decision is final. A TR can not change their opinion later on.
The low number of initial voters is a problem, but this can be fixed. Drop the requirements way low so that there are N possible voters. Gradually raise the requirements to the desired level, while always keeping them low enough so that there are at least N voters. Once the minimum of N voters and the desired requirements are met, lock the requirements so that there can be more then N voters.

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

Same to you. Sorry to say that, but that post of yours contained 0% fact but 100% ranting. I guess it's about time for exp to lock this thread and make a final decision.

we all have the same rightsl it's just that there are "respectable" statuses that are earned through participation in the forums.[/quite]
Hai hai, that's exactly my idea. If I were a newbie and had no clue whatsoever, who would I rather listen to? A bunch of other newbies or the 50 odd people in the forum who read and post there every day? The same goes for Perl scripts. If the script wants to know if a review is good enough to post it, it will have to ask someone who hopefully has a clue about reviews. If the script is selecting these users by itself and does not let them do anything except answer that one question - then there's no supremacy, no elitism and minimum bias.

Something similar to that could be implemented in the idea of TR's, however I agree that there is no guarantee that such a system would work.

That depends on which system you're talking about. Right now, there are two meanings of the term "Trusted Reviewer" floating around: Gambit's suggestion was to have a group of reviewers who can vote other reviewers into their group. Reviews posted by these users are shown in a more prominent place and cannot be voted on. The TRs in this scenario are a closed group and an elite, but they can not influence anyone else's reviews.
In my suggestion, being a TR means nothing more but satisfy a certain condition based on the number of words posted in reviews with an approval rating >5.5. TRs in this scenario are an open group and neither a supremacy nor an elite, however, each single user is a 1/19th review moderator and can influence someone else's review (but only if the other TRs share his opinion and only once when the script invites the user to rate a given review).

Anarchy is a nice thing, I have to agree with that. The problem is that it simply doesn't work. Given anarchy and anonymity, there are far too many ways a malicious user can exploit, undermine and damage the system. For anarchy to work, mankind will first have to climb the evolution ladder a bit further and overcome greed, spite and egoism.

Yeah, that's a rather pessimistic outlook on my end, but I've learned my lesson the first time when a community I was a part of fell apart because two out of thirty were morons and used the group's image for their own purposes. Now, I'm not saying that everything and everyone needs to be watched closely as if they were a potential thief. That's the wrong approach. All I want is a sanity check before blindly accepting something, be it a yes/no vote, a review or a rating.

[Elberet]

You are asking for a closed elite to do that. For me that is the same as a Nazi government.

Once again no comment on my argument that it is not an elitist group?

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

For you and me and anyone who cares about animes and the AR community enough to stick around, that's true. For the average newbie, the ranks do have a whole different meaning, because they tell him/her who's probably got enough experience to answer thier questions.
If you sit everyone with >500 posts in a room and ask them questions about what they think of a certain studio, anime, seiyuu or - hint, hint - review, the average of all answers yelled at you will be very trustable, even tho there are some users in the group who are mostly spammers.

Then ask exp for a feedback system

Such a system has already put in place in the form of the "send message" link below all reviews. So far, however, I've only gotten a single feedback message for a review.