Forum Announcements Site Revamp

Ok here's a suggestion - make a difference between "comment on this work" and "review this work":

A comment can be any length, gives you a few points.

A review has a minimum word count (say 200), gives you more points, and allows you to leave a rating score out of five.

That way the score of a piece would be calculated based on actual reviewers feelings who have put some thought into it - might help differentiate between stories more.

Also, I think there is a problem with the current stars out of five system - as far as I am aware in the current system if you choose not to give a score out of five (say because you just wanted to say a quick, well done) then this is equivalent to leaving a score of zero. If that's right then it can skew things.

i think some kind of opt in workshop where a piece gets featured and worked on would be a great way to help people improve their work.

i also wouldn't mind seeing a featured agent or publishing company of the week -- it might draw more attention to the site from legitimate publishers and increase the number of opportunities that are available to people.

i was thinking -- perhaps the points can be used in a constructive way -- if you started with say -5 as the points awarded for every piece and you had to write at least 25 words to get it up to a single point then people would have to work a bit harder. then if the writer of the piece feels you don't merit the 1 point they can click no on the 'was this review constructive tab' and take your point away from you. that way you have to earn it. it might be a more reflective picture of how good someone is at reviewing.

i think the only way to choose featured writers or top writers is by having a panel, perhapse the moderators or another hand selected group, aatually read the work. raw data such as points, reviews, views etc. is a good first step to flag certainpieces or writers, but i think the final decision on the top 20 should be done by qualified readers. you could even make it a rotating panel, maybe the top 20 writers of the first week could vote on the top 20 the following week. each of the panel could select their top 20 and then the 20 with the most votes getis in the list for the week.

i would love a feature to notify all of my friends that i have a new piece up. something seperate from mail or read requests. thanks

featuring links for outside magazines would be great, connect the writers here to some of the current work that is getting recognition. i was doing that on my daily blog for a while but it took a lot of time to research and write (2 or 3 hours a night). i would love to volunteer my time to help on this. i keep an eye on about 30 differant literary magazine websites so i have a good base to work off of. anything i can do to help?

I agree with you Ice Vampiress!!! Well said! ::smile::

Hi charles,

I haven't heard this recommended yet (and it seems everyone is singularly interested in featured writer/story/poem, etc.), but this is something a friend of mine complained of months ago:

The cafe has aspects that double up that could be done without. what comes immediately to mind is the ability for adding friends (which allows us to keep track of people we've met, read, and speak to), adding friends allows us to send read requests. However, we also have a "subscribers" feature.
both do basically the same thing.
I say stick with the subscribes feature since it allows you to keep track of friends and their writing, and it essentially cancels the need for read requests. You don't need to request readings if you can see your subscriptions and their new work.

besides, the add friends feature is more of a social networking phenomena. we are here to write.

moving on.

messages and inbox stuff:
i think check boxes next to each message will help when we try to delete unwanted or read messages. One at a time deletion is time consuming, and all at once is epistolocide (if that's even the correct etymological root for message/letter).

guests:
maybe this is elitist, but i don't think guests should be allowed to write reviews, comments or effect the cafe in anyway. i think the cafe should be membership only participation.

member participation:
i also think that in order to be a member a they must post writing to their profiles before they are allowed access to other's writing, i also think it is important to know that the members are reviewing others. i frown upon members who do not review and question their participation status.

too many profiles exist that have posted nothing, have reviewed no one and for all i know just sit around (probably writing in the forum) -- you know how many people join a site just to fart around in a free forum? it's retarded.

points:
i think getting members to read and review each other is the key, i like paul's idea above. I think returning value to the points system may help. I don't know what is possible, but i was thinking of a system that allows members to earn points by reviewing (i'm still old fashion in thinking that reviews should be the only way to earn points, nothing else), and then be able to trade those points in for added features (i don't have anything specific in mind, but i don't know "stars?" or barring silly stuff like profile graphics and letting members earn that luxury. Maybe members with a certain "point level" can do more things, like before a certain level they can read and post. but until they reach a higher level they cannot start contests, or start groups.

I'm not interested in keeping people down, i'm interested in encouraging people to read and review.
The points system now only lines members up and there seems no end to the points. I think a point level system (kind of like an RPG, final fantasy, etc., leveling up characters and stuff) may encourage members in participating so that they can unlock more mobility within the cafe.

this "point level" idea is not a social strata. it is cafe mobility. i can imagine a cafe where higher point level members can start a group (because by god, they've earned it) and can restrict membership to their private group by point level (thus encouraging only serious participating members, and encouraging other lower point members to read more, review more. of course, i still tihnk that a private group can choose what kind of membership they want, whether it be open and free or invite only (those options should always exist).

Points will not have meaning for everyone, and for those who don;t care about points, that is fine. maybe they can turn it off like read-request, and become a "non-point earning member" -- which i may or may not be so inclined to translate into "doesn't care about reviewing."

I think points should only exist to encourage reading and reviewing, nothing else. so if you don't care about points, just read and review as you normally would. I don't think points should effect the featured works either.

featured works:
ok, nothing fancy, nothing systematic, and nothing lazy. This is a two-sided coin. meaning members participate as much as the powers that be in determining the featured stuff. There is a s**t ton of writing in the cafe, and there are a lot of genres.
if you read something that blew you away, or was particularly good, or nice or demonstrates a particular style very well, you ought to tell people. what's the best way to tell someone without clogging up their inbox. i think the cafe should have a handy check box (maybe as easy as "adding to favorites") int he info box next to the work. the box says "nominate for featured"

of course, i think there should be more than one feature at a time, preferablly of different genres, same with poetry.
same with writers.

but remember: we all have different tastes, but we all like writing. look at the writing.

so. any of these sound good charlie?

Here's just a thought - it is interesting to see the featured works. As they are chosen by computer, perhaps if they get a "look see" from a human before being automatically put in that spot. Then, the works that have sparked this debate/consideration can be weeded out. Thus, the feature would be the piece with the next highest number of clicks, and one that would answer to the specifications of a legitimate work.. (as opposed to an ad, or whatever)
The person reading through would only has to scan a limited number of works, to fill the finite number of featured spaces.

meanwhile, re: reviews;
With regards to typos, misspellings and other criticism, I try to do that in a private message. If, indeed, it is a typo...and not the writer's intent, they will edit - thus making the criticism invalid for subsequent readers on the public board.

Also, anything that I think that would be possibly be perceived as negative to the writer - or possibly misinterpreted, but beneficial to the piece, I do in a message as well. I don't personally know the writer(s), and don't want to put something in a public place that may elicit an emotional reaction that would cause them to discount the advice. From reactions that I've received through personal messages, this has worked best for me (given AND received)
I've had advice delivered to me on the review post that I found offensive, as it changed the intention of what I wrote, and put the serious stink on the piece. I would have loved to have had the opportunity to address it in private communication, reached clarity, etc, before anything got written publicly, but when the chasm is so great, one tends to just ignore.
Anyway, the long and short of it is, that although posted reviews may be short, there may be more reviewing going on than meets the eye.

PS The Writer's union features have been quite nice. It's a good balance between that, and the "featured".
PPSS Great enjoyment reading the prior posts here! I just love a good "dust up"...I mean, it's good for future generations, right?!

we used have a recommended reading section on our profile pages and this is useful especially for people who want to become better writers. any chance it could be re-installed?

[quote=Paul Grimsley Fellated Satan At The Crossroads And Got Robert Johnson's Autograph As He Gave Jesus Dancing Lessons]i think some kind of opt in workshop where a piece gets featured and worked on would be a great way to help people improve their work.

i also wouldn't mind seeing a featured agent or publishing company of the week -- it might draw more attention to the site from legitimate publishers and increase the number of opportunities that are available to people.[/quote]

What a novel idea!

[quote=Adam Joshua Heggen]Hi charles,

The cafe has aspects that double up that could be done without. what comes immediately to mind is the ability for adding friends (which allows us to keep track of people we've met, read, and speak to), adding friends allows us to send read requests. However, we also have a "subscribers" feature.
both do basically the same thing.
I say stick with the subscribes feature since it allows you to keep track of friends and their writing, and it essentially cancels the need for read requests. You don't need to request readings if you can see your subscriptions and their new work.

besides, the add friends feature is more of a social networking phenomena. we are here to write.

moving on.

messages and inbox stuff:
i think check boxes next to each message will help when we try to delete unwanted or read messages. One at a time deletion is time consuming, and all at once is epistolocide (if that's even the correct etymological root for message/letter).

guests:
maybe this is elitist, but i don't think guests should be allowed to write reviews, comments or effect the cafe in anyway. i think the cafe should be membership only participation.

member participation:
i also think that in order to be a member a they must post writing to their profiles before they are allowed access to other's writing, i also think it is important to know that the members are reviewing others. i frown upon members who do not review and question their participation status.

too many profiles exist that have posted nothing, have reviewed no one and for all i know just sit around (probably writing in the forum) -- you know how many people join a site just to fart around in a free forum? it's retarded.

points:
i think getting members to read and review each other is the key, i like paul's idea above. I think returning value to the points system may help. I don't know what is possible, but i was thinking of a system that allows members to earn points by reviewing (i'm still old fashion in thinking that reviews should be the only way to earn points, nothing else), and then be able to trade those points in for added features (i don't have anything specific in mind, but i don't know "stars?" or barring silly stuff like profile graphics and letting members earn that luxury. Maybe members with a certain "point level" can do more things, like before a certain level they can read and post. but until they reach a higher level they cannot start contests, or start groups.



Hey I agree, I love the subscribe function, It allerts you to all the new work, which is wonderful. And Charlie ya know how I feel about guests:)
Id love if there were a setting to determine if the work was private and could only be viewed by your friends ( for intimate review) and a setting where the work was open and could be viewed by everyone including guests.
Also I think getting rid of points would infact simplify everything and help bring the focus back to writing.

And I think what Paul said about returning part of the focus to publishers and agent ID would be wonderful for all.

thanks:)

[quote=Adam Joshua Heggen]I'm sure we've all thought about what we'd like to see done and how the site can be improved.

I am a major advocate of the following: private groups; reading; reviewing in a constructive, insightful, informative and intelligent manner; mature acceptance of harsh criticism; networking and referring your favorite writers to one another (among other things).

Despite what changes may come, i always encourage people to remain real and to seek experiences here. I call them the old ways: if you want to be read by others, you need to read them first. And of course what i advocate is that in reading others, you do yourself a better service than being read. Because when you read others, you get to make your own decisions about your own writing. You can evaluate others writing so that you see what works or doesn't work for you. When others review you, you are only exposed to what others like or don't like about your writing. You still get to decide what works for you.

Maybe this isn't worth mentioning, but i will -- and it is my opinion of course, as anything i say is so take it as you will -- When someone is featured, show some respect to that person. Come on. It feels great being featured for whatever it is you wrote. For some people, it is the only opportunity they have to get exposure beyond the regular ring of friends they've made here. And it isn't only that one piece, it's their profile of pieces, too.

If one person gets featured, it is not a reflection of anything you are lacking, it doesn't mean you suck. The point of writerscafe.org is not to get featured, it's just part of what the cafe does. We didn't join the site so we can be featured, we joined to read others work, find what we like and don't like about writing, find what works well with our own and what we are particularly good at. We joined to find a supportive community of writers who encourage us, reaffirm our efforts, keep us on our heels.

So, with this i offer the following: regardless of what changes come to the cafe, i encourage the members of the cafe to remember that it is in how you participate with the cafe and its members that ultimately influences your experiences here as well as the experiences of those around you. No matter how often the cafe changes, and in whatever ways it changes, none of it will matter if you and me and everyone here don't keep that in mind.

let me repeat myself: I am a major advocate of the following: private groups; reading; reviewing in a constructive, insightful, informative and intelligent manner; mature acceptance of harsh criticism; networking and referring your favorite writers to one another (among other things).[/quote]


I have to say, this is the best, objective view point I have read and agree with it 100%.

Okay here's my two cents, I would like to see a limit set so that people cannot upload more than say five or ten pieces at a time. I know one member who uploaded fifty things and I think that's just ridiculous. What made it even more ridiculous is that this person refuses to reciprocate reviews and has stated this to me. The reason given was that they didn't feel obliged to do so. So why not also add that you are not allowed to upload more work until you've reviewed a certain amount in return? That would prevent this kind of thing from happening and also promote the idea that the work of everyone here deserves respect and attention.

I agree with Adam about the friend's list. Sometimes it seems that the friend list is only there for those who send out endless read requests to everyone on their friend's list everyday of the week. This became so annoying that I turned that feature off, which thankfully is an option, but why is it an option to be able to send out that many requests each day? For me, it was like being spammed everyday and I've heard others who feel that way as well.

Not having a friend's list would also prevent those who simply add on every new member so that they end up with thousands of "friends," which for them actually translates into "reviewers." This happened to me when I joined here and stupid me thought I was being welcomed. So I immediately made sure to review some of these people's works, falsely believing that their offer of "friendship" meant that they would be interested in reviewing my work also. Some of these people even had the audacity to send out read requests, which for a time I did because I felt obliged to do, and again they just took and gave back nothing. This practice is shameless. They are using new people to receive reviews, end up in the top 10 popular writers list each week while essentially doing nothing more than clicking buttons, and give absolutely nothing back to their readers or this site. If the friendship list remains, hopefully there will be some kind of cap on that kind of activity.

a limit is a bad idea -- some people are prolific - myself for one. i have seen this problem on other sites and it is usually a new person that is overjoyed they have found a new site. it is not a common thing all the time and therefore a minor problem.

nitpicking is going to stall development of the site not aid it.

people do not have to review if they don't want to -- see how valuable they will find the site. like draws like.

friends lists if you don't abuse them are a useful way to organise the people you wish to read in a convenient grouping

turn off read requests and subscribe to those you are interested in

[quote=Adam Joshua Heggen]I think points should only exist to encourage reading and reviewing, nothing else. so if you don't care about points, just read and review as you normally would. I don't think points should effect the featured works either.[/quote]

I agree with Adam.

I like the idea of points having an actual value, like Monopoly money. I want to be able to use my points for something.

I know on Zoetrope, you have to review four pieces before you can post something for critique. Granted, we're talking full-length screenplays, so a review means more--it's a real commitment, as opposed to wading through a river of haiku. But the basic principle makes sense.

[quote=Blackbirdsong]Okay here's my two cents, I would like to see a limit set so that people cannot upload more than say five or ten pieces at a time. I know one member who uploaded fifty things and I think that's just ridiculous. What made it even more ridiculous is that this person refuses to reciprocate reviews and has stated this to me. The reason given was that they didn't feel obliged to do so. So why not also add that you are not allowed to upload more work until you've reviewed a certain amount in return? That would prevent this kind of thing from happening and also promote the idea that the work of everyone here deserves respect and attention.

I agree with Adam about the friend's list.[/quote]

[quote=Adam Joshua Heggen]member participation:
i also think that in order to be a member a they must post writing to their profiles before they are allowed access to other's writing, i also think it is important to know that the members are reviewing others. i frown upon members who do not review and question their participation status.

too many profiles exist that have posted nothing, have reviewed no one and for all i know just sit around (probably writing in the forum) -- you know how many people join a site just to fart around in a free forum? it's retarded.[/quote]

i'm sure without some reciprocities a lot of members will be overlooked. reading and reviewing should be mandatory: nothing justifies a posted work of writing more than a review; it shows someone took you serious enough as a writer and commented their thoughts, insights, and suggestions.

I know it is still common perception that when you post your writing the only thing that matters is getting reviewed by others. I always encourage those who would be writers, better writers, interested in the craft, that reading others work and constructing helpful reviews gives you (the would-be better writer) a better understanding of writing through the various types that you will read here in the cafe.

So i support membership contingent on mandatory reviewing. If you don't like reviewing, or don't want to review or read others here in the cafe then it is questionable why you are here at all, in my opinion.

I agree with Blackbird Song and Adam, reviewing others SHOULD be mandatory. I always reciprocate when I get reviewed and I don't feel obligated about that. I just think it is showing interest and respect for other writers. And sometimes, when reading, you can actually improve your own craft!
I don't like to nit-pick but that subject is a big one in my opinion. I could care less about the feature thing, as most times it brings on bad feelings more than praises and ego. Anyway, I like this site and will welcome any changes.

[quote=Paul Grimsley: "moderation In Temper Is Always A Virtue; But Moderation In Principle Is Always A Vice." Thomas Paine]a limit is a bad idea -- some people are prolific - myself for one. i have seen this problem on other sites and it is usually a new person that is overjoyed they have found a new site. it is not a common thing all the time and therefore a minor problem.

nitpicking is going to stall development of the site not aid it.

people do not have to review if they don't want to -- see how valuable they will find the site. like draws like.

friends lists if you don't abuse them are a useful way to organise the people you wish to read in a convenient grouping

turn off read requests and subscribe to those you are interested in[/quote]

This wasn't a person who is overjoyed about being at a new site and actually this situation is pretty common here from what I've seen and head from others. The person I mentioned wasn't prolific, they simply dumped a lot of things they'd written in the system and then sat back and waited for the reviews to pour in. They did for a time, but when no one received not even one review back from this person, the reviews stopped. Now this person is saying they're not getting all they thought they would from cafe. Duh!

I'm prolific too, but it's unfair to readers and subscribers to dump a lot of stuff in the system and then not return reviews. Being prolific, sorry I don't get that as an excuse, especially since you can actually hold back on uploading everything you've written until you've reciprocated and earned the right to upload more. None of that affects your abilities as a writer, so I don't see what the problem would be.

And if people don't have to review if they don't want to then I don't think they're here for the right reasons. Yes I joined because I wanted to receive reviews on my work, but this system is set up so that we should reciprocate in return. No one here should feel like a review machine, but also no one should feel that everyone here exists to serve, but never receive.

i think if you re-read my point i was saying that if someone chooses not to read then they will attract a like response, meaning of course that they will fail to garner any reads themselves.

this writing community works on reciprocation -- if they fail to read people will reciprocate and not read them.

this was my point.