Poll Question: I know Writing.Com has its way of doing things, but it doesn't always make sense to me. I'm pleased to be able to share my writing, but take even more pride in reviewing and what I can lend to someone else's work. The basic formula is:
Writers + Readers = Writing.Com
Imagine taking away one part of that equation like the feedback. Do you think anyone is going to post their stuff if no one acknowledges their efforts? It's possible to discourage readers from getting the full benefit of the relationship with writers.
What's unfortunate is... Writing.Com does not preserve reviews, much less the associated review credits or totals and the associated community recognition that is statistically prominent on one's webpage or behind a user handle. It is essentially false to say I have done 1,697 reviews when I've seen that total over 1,800 and would be well over 2,000 if these totals were accurately accounted.
Why allow these numbers to go into reverse? Why allow reviews to disappear with deleted items? Aren't these writings, this feedback, essentially the property of the reviewers? Yes, one could save these criticisms offline or create a book or static to preserve these reviews. But as paying members of this site, wouldn't you prefer these documents be kept as well? Doesn't it take just a little wind out of your sails to see those digits rolling backwards (especially when accounts expire bi-monthly)?
What is the purpose of community recognition and publicly displayed review credits if they do not accurately portray the effort of members? If it is intended as encouragement to reviewers to have these statistics/recognition, shouldn't the system be revised to keep people motivated?
It's been suggested one should take pride in the effort to reach out to others, not in the associated statistics and credit. I do take pride in a job well done and the interaction with other writers. It's just one part of the reviewing process. I'd like to preserve the memory of the effort, rather than the induced Alzheimers effect of the current review and recogntion record keeping.
If this review information can be touted on one's front page, it should be accurate. It should be there to remind the reviewer what they've contributed, to see how far they've come in the reviewing game. Imagine taking points off the scoreboard in the middle of a ball game. Wouldn't you want to pack up your stuff and go home, knowing the fix is in. You can't win.
Here's one more thing:
Reviews Sent Since Writing.Com Began: 2,782,313 Reviews
Reviews Currently On Writing.Com: 1,016,416 Reviews
If they can keep track of the overall total sitewide, why can't they track each members overall contributions to reviewing? Is the information tucked away in this site's system somewhere? Would it be that difficult to restore that valued member review total to date?
Let's send a message to the powers that be...no more tug of war with the review totals. No more of the putting two feet in to see one taken out. Help fight this war of attrition and vote your conscience:
Do you think Writing.Com should remedy review recognition, and how?
Poll Results | Reviewers should have all reviews and related statistics preserved | | 19
Votes | 52.8% | Just review statistics and community recognition credit should be kept | | 7
Votes | 19.4% | Losing reviews and associated recognition is okay for me, but not for others | | 5
Votes | 13.9% | Losing reviews and recognition should be okay with everyone, get over it | | 3
Votes | 8.3% | I don't want to make waves, so I won't answer | | 2
Votes | 5.6% | Total Votes: | 36 | 100% |
|
