What's Wrong With Writerscafe? : Forum : My Suggestion


[reply] [quote]

My Suggestion

11 Years Ago


I would suggest a system without built in insults and class distinctions. In this system each writer would simply describe the sort of review that they would like for example.


I want my grammar and spelling policed. (Y/N)
I am open to harsh reviews. (Y/N)
I am looking for editing suggestions. (Y/N)
I prefer to hear only encouragement. (Y/N)
You may ask to read your writing. (Y/N)

A simple set of parameters like this in everyone's bio would do the trick. Your proposal attached a level of proficiency with each choice. You call a person who does not want any grammatical corrections and welcomes harsh reviews a "Veteran Writer", thus associating a desired status only to those who see the site as you see it. How very republican of you! i strongly suggest the use of categories without stigmas or artificial nobility.

[reply] [quote]

[no subject]

11 Years Ago


You're on the right track with this.  In the old days, the stars system had one big flaw in that it was not anonymous so if you liked someone you gave them 5 stars and if you hated them you gave them 1.  The flaw was that they could see who gave them which rating.  The problem was that you were rating the writer and not the quality of their work.

[reply] [quote]

[no subject]

11 Years Ago


5-28-09

The responses of Sean Allen and Creepy Pig Guy

are right on the money.

The one huge problem with us is probably the

judging eash other by personality rather than our

potential as writers.

----- Eagle Cruagh

[reply] [quote]

[no subject]

11 Years Ago


I definatly agree, you can't just a group of writers as a whole, such as young writers, poetry writers etc.  Everyone has different skill levels etc.  We need to help those who need it in their writing and not baby them.  We can't let our reviews be biast by the poerson who's writing it is.  We have to look at the writing itself, tell them whats wrong and what needs improvement.  Give praise where it is deserved and tell the truth.
[reply] [quote]

[no subject]

11 Years Ago


Originally posted by Creepy Pig Guy

I would suggest a system without built in insults and class distinctions. In this system each writer would simply describe the sort of review that they would like for example.


I want my grammar and spelling policed. (Y/N)
I am open to harsh reviews. (Y/N)
I am looking for editing suggestions. (Y/N)
I prefer to hear only encouragement. (Y/N)
You may ask to read your writing. (Y/N)

A simple set of parameters like this in everyone's bio would do the trick. Your proposal attached a level of proficiency with each choice. You call a person who does not want any grammatical corrections and welcomes harsh reviews a "Veteran Writer", thus associating a desired status only to those who see the site as you see it. How very republican of you! i strongly suggest the use of categories without stigmas or artificial nobility.


The author can manually type such instructions in the authors notes box. I think it should be on the author to specifically express such in their own words, but I certainly wouldn't object to something like this. I'd just like an option to turn such stuff off if it is added.
[reply] [quote]

[no subject]

11 Years Ago


I like everything except for only wanting good reviews. That's going to absolutely destroy constructive criticism. What's to stop every writer from turning that option on?

For instance, I just reviewed a writer literally right now. He was breaking the golden rule: show not tell. This made the story not really work at all. The concept was good enough but the writing was not. There's really no other way to tell it like it is but to say "look, this just isn't working, if I were a publisher I'd toss this," and the hard truth is that a publisher would. You don't get a why when a publisher rejects your work, you just get a sorry letter.

Look guys we would all like to receive only good reviews on everything we do, we would all like to believe that everything we write is the best thing ever written, but the truth of the matter is that it's not and we can't require members to give only good reviews. That's not the real world and to only allow good reviews is like living in a fantasy. It's not going to happen.


[reply] [quote]

[no subject]

11 Years Ago


"Everyone has different skill levels etc.  We need to help those who need it in their writing and not baby them."

Well we can't help them if we don't know who they are. How do we know who needs it? This is exactly what I've been saying this whole time. We need writers to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES as needing help because if we identify them for them they get antsy.

How hard is it to really put a label on your profile that says "I'm here for casual writing," or "I'm here seriously trying to get published" or "I'm published up and down the east coast and I'm here to network and build an audience." ??? Other casual writers and serious amateurs and published authors are going to come to your page then, it will INCREASE your site traffic.
[reply] [quote]

[no subject]

11 Years Ago


You are saying the opposite of what you said earlier.  Besides by "Good Reviews" he meant reviews that are constructive and tell them how to write it better, not just saying you liked it, that is the opposite.
[reply] [quote]

[no subject]

11 Years Ago


Okay, tell me, what's a constructive review?
[reply] [quote]

[no subject]

11 Years Ago


This sounds very good in prinicple.  Some of the problems here started when the site standards lowered and everyone expected rave reviews when their work was less than adequate. 

If we are here to become better at the art of writing, then let's do that.  Otherwise, maybe the site should pass off into the great unknown