Quoted from bert Haha you guys must be high. If somebody doesn't want to read they're not going to read. Not trying to be a wet blanket, but honestly, this has always been a problem, and no fix you can propose will capture people acting like jerks in their first OWC which is (often) the problem and then they (sometimes) get better next time after people bitch at them.

Maybe you're right. But, could this possibly be the time to do away with the anonymity thing, then? One would figure, at this point in the site's history, people can be trusted to leave objective reviews, regardless of whether or not they know who's writing a script?

You could always take into consideration the fact that if you know the writer is a veteran of the site, they may not need help in regards to structure, but a more specific targeting of their actual weaknesses, whereas a completely new writer might still be struggling with the basics before people move on to commenting on more advanced things. Maybe?

Quoted from Mr. Blonde Maybe you're right. But, could this possibly be the time to do away with the anonymity thing, then? One would figure, at this point in the site's history, people can be trusted to leave objective reviews, regardless of whether or not they know who's writing a script? You could always take into consideration the fact that if you know the writer is a veteran of the site, they may not need help in regards to structure, but a more specific targeting of their actual weaknesses, whereas a completely new writer might still be struggling with the basics before people move on to commenting on more advanced things. Maybe?

NO!!!!  No one would even read mine if they knew it was mine before they opened it up.

This is not really my business, I'm not a regular anymore. But I think newbs stay quiet because they are shy and think they don't know enough. You can draw some of them out just be reassuring them that their opinions are just as useful as an old veteran writer.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Improve my writing how?

By learning from people who know something you don't. And, I don't just mean the technicalities of writing, I mean: people know stuff about your own script/story that you don't know.

Like, for example, if you're too close to a script and you can't see that one of your characters is acting inconsistently. The same note from several reviewers might alert you to the fact that you're blind to a problem.

Every single writer gets too close to their script. Every single one. And, I'd argue it happens on almost every single script.

Why ignore such a valuable tool as audience feedback? (Unless, of course, you don't care if anyone else reacts well to your work. If you're goal is to only write for yourself, then by all means, ignore the audience. Which is, of course, your right to do.)

Quoted from leitskev Jeff...You trash scripts, but you never trash comments...

I dunno - Jeff wasn't pleased with my comment on El Camino Infierno lol

Quoted from Dreamscale NO!!!!  No one would even read mine if they knew it was mine before they opened it up.

I would. After all, I've only hated one of your scripts in all my time here. =)

Quoted from Matthew Taylor I dunno - Jeff wasn't pleased with my comment on El Camino Infierno lol

HA!!!!  

I was actually shocked.

INT FRONT DOOR

INT FRONT WINDOW

INT MY ARSE    

Quoted from leitskev This is not really my business, I'm not a regular anymore. But I think newbs stay quiet because they are shy and think they don't know enough. You can draw some of them out just be reassuring them that their opinions are just as useful as an old veteran writer.

I've tried leaving comments in the general threads to convince newbs to comment/get involved - The problem is, we don't know who these newbs are until the names are released - by then, it's too late.

I don't think people have a problem with the newbs anyway - Afterward, we can reach out to them and be like "Look, if you enter the next OWC, get involved" - It's more the names that pop up more than once, who are perfectly capable of leaving comments, but refuse to do so.

Count me as a vote for continued anonymity. I believe reputation would absolutely change people's comments and voting -- both for people with "good" reputations, and for people with "bad" reputations.

I like knowing that my script has to stand on its own. If it sucks, it sucks. If it's good, it's good.

Dustin, fine and well. I didn't mean to provoke you. My point was regarding the proposal to make commenting a requirement. I'm against this because many people just zip through reads making useless comments so they can say they read them all. I HAVE seen you make useful and intelligent comments. And I don't doubt that if an OWC grabbed you you would be more inclined to do this. But I think some of your comments do fall under the category of "checklist" comments. Making writers read all or most of the scripts would only encourage this kind of behavior.

In the past, I have submitted OWC's that were well received. Such a script might get 20 or so reads and comments. But only a small percentage of those comments were actually useful. That's one of the reasons I stopped doing OWCs years ago. I'd put a lot of effort into trying to give constructive comments, but the return in terms of useful criticism wasn't worth it.

Quoted from PKCardinal By learning from people who know something you don't. And, I don't just mean the technicalities of writing, I mean: people know stuff about your own script/story that you don't know. Like, for example, if you're too close to a script and you can't see that one of your characters is acting inconsistently. The same note from several reviewers might alert you to the fact that you're blind to a problem. Every single writer gets too close to their script. Every single one. And, I'd argue it happens on almost every single script. Why ignore such a valuable tool as audience feedback? (Unless, of course, you don't care if anyone else reacts well to your work. If you're goal is to only write for yourself, then by all means, ignore the audience. Which is, of course, your right to do.)

My goal isn't to only write for myself. This past 12 months, I've sold six full-length audio plays, five short audio plays, three short screenplays, a TV pilot, a monologue, and more than sixty, five-minute animation scripts. I've also sold three feature-length scripts in previous years.

My goals are to sell a script to Hollywood and also write for a big game like GTA. I already have a plan of action. It doesn't involve taking advice on a script I wrote in 4 hours for an OWC.

It's supposed to be a fun challenge. The last thing we want is to put up barriers to entering the OWCs.

It's also supposed to be a collaboration. Peer reviews are an integral part of the process. This isn't a competition with hired readers, all the reviews come from other writers. The bulk of those should be other entrants. We can't rely on non-participant feedback, though it's appreciated.

Reviewing has to be a requirement for entry, but we don't want to overburden anyone, and we don't want to intimidate new writers. The review process itself has to have some guidelines, I think, but that's a different matter.

I'll build on what others have already said for my suggestion:

When an OWC is announced, it should state that all participants are required to review at least half of the entries. A review must be substantial to count; there must at least be an opinion given, not just "I didn't understand it." Yes, substance is subjective, but let's set the bar low and not quibble over it.

Anyone who fails to meet the minimum requirement for providing feedback is put on probation for the next challenge. If they enter and fail to meet the minimum feedback requirement again, they're barred from entering until they provide feedback in a subsequent OWC.

Life can get in the way for anyone. A probation period gives anyone the opportunity to make good in the next OWC, but will identify the habitual offenders and bar them from subsequent OWCs.

One thing that will also help with the intimidation factor is to put a moratorium on shooting down other reviews in the review thread. Take it up elsewhere if you really must, keep review threads purely for reviews. Commenting or supporting other reviews is constructive, keep it positive.

Why can't it just be a friendly contest where the winner gets a mug? People shouldn't have to review, but they should be obliged to read and at least give the script a score.

If I want a real review, one I can trust, I know I have to pay for it.

Yes participation is a factor but only because we're missing out on votes. That's my angle, anyway. Clearly, I should refrain from insinuating things regarding the choices of others. Sorry.

Quoted from DustinBowcot My goal isn't to only write for myself. This past 12 months, I've sold six full-length audio plays, five short audio plays, three short screenplays, a TV pilot, a monologue, and more than sixty, five-minute animation scripts. I've also sold three feature-length scripts in previous years. My goals are to sell a script to Hollywood and also write for a big game like GTA. I already have a plan of action. It doesn't involve taking advice on a script I wrote in 4 hours for an OWC.

I hear ya. Again, just wanted to push back on the idea of finding reviews helpful as "desperate."

Drop the reviews, just have ratings.

Boom!

Sorted.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect most folks are more interested in winning the respect of their peers than the feedback that people may or may nor feel obliged to leave, and probably won't take onboard anyways.