Forum:Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Reviews

Forums - Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Reviews

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. No reason for archiving given. How to get some activity This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Votes/comments made after 04:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC) will not be counted. Implement that template idea I suggested in the reception section conception forum. At the very least it would make it more obvious that we actually have reviews. Berrybrick (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I like that, although maybe we could have inventory and review links in the infobox? It'd save worrying about putting a template on every page, it could be just built in and automatic. NovaHawk 00:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I like that idea, but I also don't want infoboxes to be too long. Berrybrick (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC) This is an example of what it could look like, also: If there are no reviews of a set, the "View reviews" would disappear. "[Submit a review]" would change to "[View your review]" if you've already written a review "View inventory" would be present if an inventory was, otherwise "[Submit an inventory]" would show. NovaHawk 08:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Okay, that is a lot less obtrusive than I thought. Going out on a tangent, wasn't there something related to inventories and bots we discussed a while ago that I forgot most of the details of? Berrybrick (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Looks good. CJC95 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Ratings This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Votes/comments made after 04:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC) will not be counted. I say get rid of them. We don't really have a stylistic requirement so as long as the review is legible (which was pretty much every case back at Brickia) there isn't an issue. Berrybrick (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Agreed. I'd suggest if a review's below minimum standards, and admin can just leave the reviewer a message, saying it needs to be cleaned up in 3 days or it'll be deleted (but in a nicer way). As for what review to put on the main page for a month, we could just have a BOTM style vote? NovaHawk 00:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Standards This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. We should also set a thing about what our standards are. To be honest, since reviews are something visitors come to read and reviews can contribute a lot to our reputation, I have a really high standard for reviews to be unbiased, complete, in-depth and professionally written (same with our news), but I notice a lot of reviews that had been labeled as Acceptable in the past that personally I don't think were up to par with my high standards. I don't want to prevent people from contributing to Brickipedia Reviews because the standards are too high, but I also don't want many reviews that are below my standards, as it can lead the public to believe that we aren't a quality review source. The way we do reviews is unique to us. Usually LEGO sites have their reviews done by a dedicated reviewing team that knows the site's standards for review quality and completeness, but here we allow anyone, new user or veteran, to write reviews. This is great, but it can lead to not great things (but can also lead to good things). On forum sites that allow users to share their reviews in the forums, they do a better job indicating what reviews are done by their review staff, so random users' reviews effect the overall quality of the site's reviews. Eurobricks for example. Maybe we could have a reviewing board where users who have high standards in their writing can do reviews, and have reviews done by this group indicated (possibly posted in our news so they appear on the front page too, like EB?). I do have a written guide of basically my standards for reviews at Brickipedia:Reviews/Requirements and Guidelines#Manual of Style. --ToaMeiko (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC) This sounds fair, support Meiko's clause. -NBP3.0 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Never saw that change happen, but support, everything there looks good to me NovaHawk 04:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC) I have something to add, but can't do it right now. Hopefully I'll still remember. :P Berrybrick (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Either I don't remember it exactly as I had thought it, or it wouldn't be very applicable in the first place. Never mind. :P What Meiko has is fine. Berrybrick (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)