|
Straylight
|
|
|
|
It’s happened a few times- I review something that I think is, ahem, some distance away from being a masterpiece, and afterwards I see that more of the other reviews are glowing than I would have expected. Mentioning no names (and nobody should!), but the ones I mean have often been published as eBooks or have it implied they are already written, and at least one of the authors has NOT reacted well to my review! Was wondering what’s going on here? I got the impression that the reviewers became tougher as I went up the charts, does the system try to match people with similar marks some of the time? Is it just that people who don’t like the stories quit them and look for another assignment? Or am I being biased in some way? James
Skye is unimpressed by the sock monster
|
|
Majordave
|
|
|
|
It's all subjective. You may hate something that the next person loves and vice versa. The system should be random. I don't believe reviewers are categorised - offered work to review based on their past critiques. I certainly don't believe reviewers are chosen to give tougher/harsher crits because a piece is climbing up the charts. Although, an individual may chose to give a low score if they don't want to see something pass them on the steps, so to speak. I imagine, everyone has at some point removed a story they felt was too bad to crit on, passing, rather than slating a piece.
This post was last edited by Majordave, 04 Jul 2012, 21:17
-------------------------------------------- Know not what you know and know nothing in return. (Confuseus)
|
|
denna
|
|
|
|
Quote: Straylight, Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 18:40It’s happened a few times- I review something that I think is, ahem, some distance away from being a masterpiece, and afterwards I see that more of the other reviews are glowing than I would have expected. Mentioning no names (and nobody should!), but the ones I mean have often been published as eBooks or have it implied they are already written, and at least one of the authors has NOT reacted well to my review! Was wondering what’s going on here? I got the impression that the reviewers became tougher as I went up the charts, does the system try to match people with similar marks some of the time? Is it just that people who don’t like the stories quit them and look for another assignment? Or am I being biased in some way? James It happens a lot. Problems are always going to surface when scores and chart positions are involved. Ideally a TT story should be treated no better or worse than a number 40 story. When I get a TT story assigned I expect to see less obvious technical issues than I might in one sitting at number 40. Unfortunately, (for me at least) it's not always the case. If I see problems I think others might've overlooked (though I won't know for sure until after I post my review) I struggle over my scores. I don't want to knock anyone out of the TT, but neither do I want to keep more deserving writing (in my eye) out because I was afraid to score a TT story low. As far as placing novels up that are already published, I have to admit, if I notice, I usually pass on them. I'd rather place my energy into a work in progress than one already published. It isn't likely the author will change anything at this point. If I do like a published story, I'll offer a review at Amazon or Goodreads, not here.
This post was last edited by denna, 05 Jul 2012, 00:13
|
|
willow55
|
|
|
|
Quote: Straylight, Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 18:40It’s happened a few times- I review something that I think is, ahem, some distance away from being a masterpiece, and afterwards I see that more of the other reviews are glowing than I would have expected. Mentioning no names (and nobody should!), but the ones I mean have often been published as eBooks or have it implied they are already written, and at least one of the authors has NOT reacted well to my review! Was wondering what’s going on here? I got the impression that the reviewers became tougher as I went up the charts, does the system try to match people with similar marks some of the time? Is it just that people who don’t like the stories quit them and look for another assignment? Or am I being biased in some way? James I’ve had the same experience of reviewing excerpts that I feel need a lot of work, only to find afterwards that a large proportion of their other reviewers are gushing in their praise. I guess it often comes down to personal taste but when I see glowing reviews for work that is glaringly flawed I wonder if there’s a certain amount of mutual back-scratching going on. If you read down some people’s reviews, you see the same names giving the same high marks to the same people – and those high marks and glowing reviews are usually reciprocated at some point. I used to like Notley’s idea of transparency in scoring but I think it has its down side. When someone has given a gushing review of something mediocre, ending with the words ‘I have scored you all fives’ (or similar), it’s not hard to imagine that the compliment will be returned at some point, particularly if emails are exchanged and friendships formed. Then it becomes a game of networking rather than of genuine critiquing. Not saying it’s always the case, but I think the disparity of opinions sometimes points to that.
|
|
youngun
|
|
|
|
I know this issue comes up regularly but willow55's remarks will give pause to all those considering posting new work.
From time to time we all have dark thoughts about stories we may regard as merely average but that seem to enjoy wide popularity. I have always put this down to the extremely subjective nature of this activity of writing and reading. And surely we can all name even acknowledged 'great' authors who leave us personally cold.
I would like to continue to refuse to believe that people who call themselves writers would stoop to such influences. And for what? Just to get themselves or their friends a 'pro-crit.' Isn't life just too short?
However, on a purely technical level, isn't the random issuing of assignment reviews by the YWO site software specifically designed to counter any such favouritism? And doesn't the large pool of reviewers involved in reviewing make this impractical?
|
|
Straylight
|
|
|
|
When I read about how to get published in books or mags, or at the seminar I went to, I get depressed how much of it is about presentation and marketing. The seminar had a session on "networking" (which was far less slimy than it sounds)... ... it still seems like an awful lot of people in the business aren't just grudgingly accepting that some of it is about the cover, but have forgotten it should be about the content. Which is a long-winded way of saying that willow's theory is credible to me. There are some pro writers behave badly in the big world, too! Thankfully it would be a pretty time-consuming and unreliable way of skewing things, and unlikely to get you rewarded. Mind you, I'm getting more convinced that some of your suggested assignments come from ones matched to you in marks. When I was in the top ten I remember getting reviews/reviewed by at least a couple of people who were also in it, which seems unlikely by chance alone. This would mean that a story further down might often get other people who aren't bothered by, say, wandering POV James PS just realised the last bit is thought-provoking. Is disliking a wandering POV something we are conditioned to, not something that's natural? Have I just internalised what lecturers say, and in fact it can work much more often than I think? New resolution: try to only "book" it when it really jars
This post was last edited by Straylight, 06 Jul 2012, 08:46
Skye is unimpressed by the sock monster
|
|
Majordave
|
|
|
|
Quote: youngun, Friday, 6 Jul 2012 08:14I know this issue comes up regularly but willow55's remarks will give pause to all those considering posting new work. From time to time we all have dark thoughts about stories we may regard as merely average but that seem to enjoy wide popularity. I have always put this down to the extremely subjective nature of this activity of writing and reading. And surely we can all name even acknowledged 'great' authors who leave us personally cold. I would like to continue to refuse to believe that people who call themselves writers would stoop to such influences. And for what? Just to get themselves or their friends a 'pro-crit.' Isn't life just too short? However, on a purely technical level, isn't the random issuing of assignment reviews by the YWO site software specifically designed to counter any such favouritism? And doesn't the large pool of reviewers involved in reviewing make this impractical? Spot on.
-------------------------------------------- Know not what you know and know nothing in return. (Confuseus)
|
|
Majordave
|
|
|
|
Quote: Straylight, Friday, 6 Jul 2012 08:34When I read about how to get published in books or mags, or at the seminar I went to, I get depressed how much of it is about presentation and marketing. The seminar had a session on "networking" (which was far less slimy than it sounds)... ... it still seems like an awful lot of people in the business aren't just grudgingly accepting that some of it is about the cover, but have forgotten it should be about the content. Which is a long-winded way of saying that willow's theory is credible to me. There are some pro writers behave badly in the big world, too! Thankfully it would be a pretty time-consuming and unreliable way of skewing things, and unlikely to get you rewarded. Mind you, I'm getting more convinced that some of your suggested assignments come from ones matched to you in marks. When I was in the top ten I remember getting reviews/reviewed by at least a couple of people who were also in it, which seems unlikely by chance alone. This would mean that a story further down might often get other people who aren't bothered by, say, wandering POV James PS just realised the last bit is thought-provoking. Is disliking a wandering POV something we are conditioned to, not something that's natural? Have I just internalised what lecturers say, and in fact it can work much more often than I think? New resolution: try to only "book" it when it really jars "PS just realised the last bit is thought-provoking. Is disliking a wandering POV something we are conditioned to, not something that's natural? Have I just internalised what lecturers say, and in fact it can work much more often than I think? New resolution: try to only "book" it when it really jars" A "wandering POV" should only really be a problem if it causes confusion or indeed, jars. Otherwise, it's like everything else in writing, subjective. Although, I do feel that people can be a little too rule book bound in these areas when reviewing a piece.
-------------------------------------------- Know not what you know and know nothing in return. (Confuseus)
|
|
notleyab
|
|
|
|
Quote: willow55, Friday, 6 Jul 2012 02:12I used to like Notley’s idea of transparency in scoring but I think it has its down side. When someone has given a gushing review of something mediocre, ending with the words ‘I have scored you all fives’ (or similar), it’s not hard to imagine that the compliment will be returned at some point, particularly if emails are exchanged and friendships formed. I don't see that as a 'fault' of putting in the scores; more an encouragement to do so. If someone has given them all 5s, they are probably more likely to reciprocate, whether it's been highlighted for other people on the site to see or not. Putting in the scores is being transparent - you can actually see what marks people have given each other. Plus, they 'should' show a clear appraisal of how each category was rated, from Excellent 5 thru to Poor 1. Just how many pieces on YWO rate 8 fives - that is, Excellent in every single category? As young'un points out, how many wd rate that way for even a recognized writer? Putting it simply, the more who do put their scores in reviews, the more relevant they will become. And open the question as to what those who don't put in their scores have to hide...
|
|
willow55
|
|
|
|
Quote: notleyab, Friday, 6 Jul 2012 09:46Quote: willow55, Friday, 6 Jul 2012 02:12I used to like Notley’s idea of transparency in scoring but I think it has its down side. When someone has given a gushing review of something mediocre, ending with the words ‘I have scored you all fives’ (or similar), it’s not hard to imagine that the compliment will be returned at some point, particularly if emails are exchanged and friendships formed. I don't see that as a 'fault' of putting in the scores; more an encouragement to do so. If someone has given them all 5s, they are probably more likely to reciprocate, whether it's been highlighted for other people on the site to see or not. Yep, fair point. Although, of course scores can't be seen for the first four reviews, so by someone stating 'I've scored you all fives' there can be no doubts who has given them the top score (should they wish to reciprocate). But, I agree - at least if the scores are stated, it's transparent for everyone not just for the person being reviewed.
|
|
Is it odd how some stories have surprisingly good reviews?
04 Jul 2012, 18:40
