I like making a reader think by using a word they're not familiar with, it's good for increasing their vocabulary

I like making a reader think by using a word they're not familiar with, it's good for increasing their vocabulary

I don’t see there being any problem with the OWC, nor am I simply an observer as I take part in most of them.  It’s understandable psychology. To thine own self be true. When I enter these OWC’s  my ego wants my script to impress and be the among the top scores, if not the overall winner. Therefore no matter how good my intentions are, I know there will be a certain bias on my part when reviewing. When I do come across a script that impresses me despite this bias, I then heap praise where I think it is due unreservedly.  

Based on my observations over the years, there are a number of participants in every OWC who want to find fault. Their review is an attempt to influence those who read comments before reading the script and to cast dispersions. There are those who skim read scripts, trying to review them all in one sitting. They tend to drop out early in the script at the slightest irritant or miss important elements. There are those who mimic what the majority of the comments say to make it appear that they’ve read the scripts. And of course, you get those who enter but do not participate in the feedback stage at all.

All the above is understandable – basic human psychology.

On the plus side,  you get those who not only read the scripts properly, but take the time to offer some detailed constructive feedback to most scripts. I’ve read and offered feedback to pretty much every script since around 2014 (not sure about the year, roughly then anyway) in every  OWC I’ve entered (and a few I didn’t). The level of feedback I give depends on how advanced I believe the writer to be and how useful the advice could be, especially if someone has already stated what I would suggest. I’m not always as constructive as I should be – I get cranky sometimes. I’m certainly not as constructive as some who offer amazing and very detailed feedback. Those are to be commended.

For me, it’s important I recognise and accept all the above because I always go through a bad stage in the OWC and hit rock bottom when my script receives brutal comments. The first comment on Ganglers floored me and I wanted to throw my laptop through a window.  I was in a sulk for a whole day lol.

At the end, when I filter out comments that are not useful in the slightest and find the pattern of comments that are, I end up realising what needs addressing in the script and sort it out. My OWC scripts have ended up being the best things I’ve ever written (IMO of course) because of it.

I don’t think the OWC, warts and all, needs changing much. Maybe changing the wording like Britman has suggested is enough. There are plenty of participants, a range of reviews to help the writer and it’s been going for years. If there was a fundamental problem, these would have stopped years ago and folks wouldn’t get hyper with excitement when a new one is announced.

I had to Google vocabulary

I had to Google Google.

Last thought (well -probably not). My preference would be for reviewers not to comment on other reviewer comments until after the vote is in. In many  OWCs a thread can get hijacked (I guilty here as well) by cross commenting.

Guilty as well, I agree that this shouldn't happen. I won't be doing it in the future. I did try move my comments to another thread but that got shut down.

It's become impossible to predict what people will embrace or not embrace.  That being said, I am seeing a trend these days (The Creeps as a prime example) that the easier something is to read, the better a review that script will get.  

"It's an easy read!"   Is the first thing I see in a positive review.  But an easy read does not equal a good script.  It just makes it an easy read.    

I think sometimes people throw story, character, mystery, plotting, subtext, foreshadowing, all those silly little details to the wind and think any easy read = great script!  I didn't have to think too hard or anything!  5 stars!  

Don't get me wrong.  This isn't a rant against the importance of streamlined action and descriptions and making the script reader friendly.  I'm just saying.  There's more to a script than not making someone think too hard.  

End of rant.    

Easy to read isn’t just about making sure the script complies to some formatting standard from a book, most professional script readers will ignore formatting issues as long as they are not terrible; there’s data to back that up as Anthony posted earlier.

Easy to read means reading a page and understanding it without having to re-read sections or to stop, go out of the story and think for a bit. The reader also has to buy into the story to stick with it. The most critical part of ‘easy to read’ is writing a line that makes the reader want to read the next line. If the line doesn’t hook the reader, if what you are saying to the reader is “This bit may be dull or confusing but read more lines and it will all pay off in the end, I promise” then you will lose the attention of most.

I sometimes read comments, other times I do not. But they never affect my reviews.
But yeah, a few readers seem to repeat comments. That's always strange to me to understand why.

Most of the time (not all), I write my review before reading other's. This leads to quite a bit of repetition in my comments, as many times we're all seeing the same issues.