I've just read the cri de coeur from majordave about having a cracking review and shoddy scores (in the thank-you slot) This is followed by the YWO cognoscenti explaining that some of our fellow writers actually give low scores to boost their own places on the charts. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised (even Cricket isn't Cricket anymore these days).

I have not been on this site long enough to see all the issues aired and aired again, and I am sure that this suggestion/question is not original. Is there not a way that reviews could be rated as well as the 'assignments'. About one in three reviews in my experience, are so very thin the reviewers might as well not bother. Perhaps one in four are really useful in terms of informed comment.

At the very least there could be a way of rating in terms of:
1. Overall usefulness to the writer
2. Use of evidence (rather than sweeping statements)
3. Value of specific suggestions

Others will probably be able to suggest better criteria; it could even simply be the first. A method like this would show if a reviewer was seen generally in this community as skilful or lightweight, and suffer or celebrate accordingly when we get a glowing report or a blasting.

Just a thought

Rob

I wouldn't want to try to curtail discussion on this interesting topic but to me this seems a pretty definitive summing-up of the core issue.

All I could add is that a writer must worship intellectual honesty above all other gods. And, yes, that does mean suppressing any childish urges to mark someone else down for ignoble reasons.

Without understanding the programming work entailed, there are two things that would increase the function of this site as a learning tool, IMHO.

The first is being able to view all the reviews a person has written - right now we can only see our own, so my guess it's a question of changing permissions to access that database.

This would be helpful in learning to review, as one could follow the work of talented reviewers and see what they said about others work. One could then read those same stories and compare one's own impression. (This reflects how I approach things - some people might have no interest in doing this)

Another feature that would only involve database permission as far as I know, and I'm not a programmer, is to enable everyone to see the ratings breakdown of every story, which now can only be seen by the author.

This has to do with comparing the relative strength in the 8 categories of various pieces of writing.

Presumably the ranking is done done by numerical total points, so an 8x5 review = 40 points and on downward. So presumably all stories with 30 points will be ranked at the same level. However, there is a difference between a story that has had its highest scores in plot versus use of language, for example.

Perhaps I want to look at work on the site that has received 5's for "use of language" , for example, and try to gauge why those stories were considered best in that area, and how my own use of language compares, or to put it another way, what do I have to improve about my use of language to bring it to that level etc.

It would be helpful I think, for a writer to be able to look for, "science fiction stories highly rated for use of language" which one could do if we could see other's scores.

Maybe some people feel this is "private" but why is it any more sensitive than having every be able to read what others have written about the piece, which is already the case?

I don't know if others think about scores this way, but it seems to me there is little purpose to having those categories if one can't use as way to pinpoint the weak areas of one's work that need special attention.
It's one thing to be told something wrong, but it's hard to fix it if one doesn't have a sense of what it looks like when it's right - anyway, that's how I look at it.

Very true. It's the odd pertinent criticism that matters.

I've posted three separate extracts since I joined, each of which has averaged 4-and-a-bit. And I can't see that changing no matter how many different beginnings I post.

Now it might be they're not very good. It might be that admitted genre-dislikers give average scores that skew the overall rating. But this is only frustrating in the sense that even if we believe we write well we still need the approbation of our peers. And in most cases that's not going to happen because, let's face it, I can find something to criticise in even my favourite author's work. And on here, a misplaced comma often means a mark deducted.

So never mind the numbers: feel the comments.

http://cavalrytales.wordpress.com www.cavalrytales.co.uk

'The battle that never ends is the battle of belief against disbelief'

To put an end to my pedant's day, for future reference hombre doesn't have an accent, Sulk.