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

Well, they kinda are. I was desperate for them too once. I wanted something for nothing so I participated and I believe I did so above and beyond any obligation I had. I'd churn out the same advice over and over again... but then I started getting comments like I like the sound of my own voice, etc, so I slowed it down. I was doing it because I felt I owed the site something for all I had got from it, but instead it was looked at like I was doing it to massage my own ego.

Anyway, back on track (I've been smoking joints today, hit harder than the pipe or bong), wanting something for nothing is pretty desperate. However, I had no need to make it derogatory - which is what I did. So, sorry for that.

One of the things I love about SS is how many writers are willing to help other writers. Many writers have a hard time getting good feedback, or any feedback other than "it's great." The OWC exemplifies this.

I love helping people improve their writing. I love helping people become better storytellers. I love the different perspectives reviews give me. I love getting suggestions that excite me, things I might have overlooked or dismissed prematurely. Reviews aren't just about being desperate for notes, it's part of the collaborative process and it's really hard for some people to get for free. It's what makes SS great.

Quoted from Pleb 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.

No.  Reviews are key.  Peeps want/need to see why other peeps liked or didn't like their scripts and writing.

Quoted from ReneC One of the things I love about SS is how many writers are willing to help other writers. Many writers have a hard time getting good feedback, or any feedback other than "it's great." The OWC exemplifies this. I love helping people improve their writing. I love helping people become better storytellers. I love the different perspectives reviews give me. I love getting suggestions that excite me, things I might have overlooked or dismissed prematurely. Reviews aren't just about being desperate for notes, it's part of the collaborative process and it's really hard for some people to get for free. It's what makes SS great.

Exactly... but there are more than enough good reviewers here already. What's the point in forcing somebody to do something they're not comfortable doing?

Not just that, but I gave lengthy reviews on some scripts but not all. It really mostly depended upon what I felt I could help that writer with at that particular time. If a script grabs me, it grabs me, I shouldn't feel compelled to write lengthy reviews on every script. I see it as more important that I read and vote on them.

SS is also a community. We should strive to build on that community, not detract from it by making the OWC an individual experience.

Quoted from ReneC SS is also a community. We should strive to build on that community, not detract from it by making the OWC an individual experience.

Why can't it be both?

The only thing that really helps a writer is getting feedback. I guess attaboys can be encouraging, especially when a writer is new. Paid notes can be helpful in some ways, but often they don't represent the reaction of regular viewers. They feel like they are generated by a program in that they've been taught the same things about what a film is supposed to be. I love the opinions of just regular people who like movies. Those are worth way more to me.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Exactly... but there are more than enough good reviewers here already. What's the point in forcing somebody to do something they're not comfortable doing? Not just that, but I gave lengthy reviews on some scripts but not all. It really mostly depended upon what I felt I could help that writer with at that particular time. If a script grabs me, it grabs me, I shouldn't feel compelled to write lengthy reviews on every script. I see it as more important that I read and vote on them.

I agree, and personally I don't see a problem with the status quo. But I've also seen an uptick in participants not participating, and any feedback informs the writer, even if it's to say it wasn't for you and why.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Exactly... but there are more than enough good reviewers here already. What's the point in forcing somebody to do something they're not comfortable doing? Not just that, but I gave lengthy reviews on some scripts but not all. It really mostly depended upon what I felt I could help that writer with at that particular time. If a script grabs me, it grabs me, I shouldn't feel compelled to write lengthy reviews on every script. I see it as more important that I read and vote on them.

Surely the site can't rely on the same reviewers doing the majority of the "work" all the time - The site needs to attract new members, new reviewers - Britman is a good example, if he sticks around he seems like he could add something.

If new people are encouraged to reveiw for the OWC it might encourage them to review outside of it as well, who knows.

You wouldn't feel compelled to leave lenghty reviews, as far as I can see no one has complained that you don't do your fair share for the OWC - I wouldn't expect a newbie to leave reviews as comprehensive as yours

Honestly, I don't care how indepth a newbies review would be - as long as you can see that the effort is there.

I did leave a few scripts lacking as I always do... but, like I always do, I figure others will take up the slack. As I said, the most important thing to me is that I read them all and vote before the deadline.

Quoted from Dreamscale No.  Reviews are key.  Peeps want/need to see why other peeps liked or didn't like their scripts and writing.

If I was shown that previous OWC comments regularly leads to writers rewriting their scripts then I'd have no choice but to agree with you, which I'd like to... but, I suspect the likelihood of somebody actually going back to a script and rewriting it based on reader feedback is probably very low.

Now don't get me wrong, I think feedback is great and I've had some fantastic feedback off here that I put into my rewrites, but, in the context of the OWC I'm not confident it's worth all the effort reviewers put into it. Which is why I suggested a simple scoring system.

Quoted from Pleb If I was shown that previous OWC comments regularly leads to writers rewriting their scripts then I'd have no choice but to agree with you, which I'd like to... but, I suspect the likelihood of somebody actually going back to a script and rewriting it based on reader feedback is probably very low. Now don't get me wrong, I think feedback is great and I've had some fantastic feedback off here that I put into my rewrites, but, in the context of the OWC I'm not confident it's worth all the effort reviewers put into it. Which is why I suggested a simple scoring system.

You may be surprised to find out that many of these OWC scripts have been picked up, entered into contests, etc.  Hopefully, the writer went back and cleaned it up for those situations.

An for alot of peeps, it's about learning what they did wrong, and why it's wrong, or why I'm wrong for telling them they're wrong.  

Quoted from PKCardinal 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.

I think anonymity should continue. It's a feature - not a bug

I dont think there's an OWC ive entered where ive not used the feedback given to re-write a script... and hopefully made it better, and a few of those have gone on to be picked up too.

Keep the reviews please.

So, I think the status is:

1) Reviews are helpful to some, not so much to others.

2) Since there is a voting process, we need peeps to vote to make the selection process meaningful. To have votes you need to have voters.

3) More voters are better than few voters in order to avoid skewing.

4) As we sit now, a growing number of reviews and comments come from non-participants.  The trend is not in the right direction. In this OWC, if scripts got 20 comments, they probably got 10 or 11 votes (i.e., non-participants don't vote).

5) Some (Eldave for sure) are irked by the increasingly high level of writers who submit, receive comments on their scripts but do not reciprocate. It has less to do with the value of those comments/reviews than it does with the issue of equity. i.e., do your part. Others are doing theirs.

6) Many are in the it is what it is camp - leave it alone. It's worked fine forever. The scripts that were rated high in this one were all fine scripts - something must be working. That is a valid point.

Yet - Eldave is still irked. Maybe he is a noob.  Or maybe he just doesn't like people showing up at potluck dinners without bringing any food themselves.