You guys must really be bored, huh? I know SS is a bit flat this time of year...

I think it's a very fair system Don has in place.

It wasn't always there and Don introduced it for the benefit of potential reviewer frustration (not to waste their time with unwanted reviews) and for the writer who doesn't want anything else other than exposure.  SS is terrific that way, unlike some other sites that have come and gone (and still operate?) where there's conditional requisite reading and reviewing etc.

Dave,  I get your point it can be frustrating! When a listing indicates the Writer is nterested in feedback, you give it your best and they don't respond. Ugh. I gave up long reviews with non active members long ago for this very reason cause it's time consuming and we all like to know our efforts have not been in vain. The only way to safeguard your efforts is what you've been doing - post a short line (paraphrasing here:. ... I'll be glad to read and comment on your script but would like to know first if the writer will be partaking in the discussion

Another variable of this is that you provide a lot of feedback and the writer responds with: Thanks.  That's a particular bugbear of mine.  

It's part and parcel.

As for Zack's locking a thread? That may also lock the script? I'm not sure on that, Don would need to weigh in. It would also mean a Producer may not be able to comment re contacting the writer if the @ contact details are not visible on the script.

I think the way it's set up is very democratic for all.
And I think it actually encourages people to the site, not the other way around.

Some people are not joiners, they just want exposure.

And yes, some people are also not good with criticism and take exception to some comments.
Overall, it's not without its frustrations but I think the system is as good and fair as it can be.

That's just my opinion, of course.

Carry on...

Quoted from LC You guys must really be bored, huh? I know SS is a bit flat this time of year... I think it's a very fair system Don has in place. It wasn't always there and Don introduced it for the benefit of potential reviewer frustration (not to waste their time with unwanted reviews) and for the writer who doesn't want anything else other than exposure.  SS is terrific that way, unlike some other sites that have come and gone (and still operate?) where there's conditional requisite reading and reviewing etc. Dave,  I get your point it can be frustrating! When a listing indicates the Writer is nterested in feedback, you give it your best and they don't respond. Ugh. I gave up long reviews with non active members long ago for this very reason cause it's time consuming and we all like to know our efforts have not been in vain. The only way to safeguard your efforts is what you've been doing - post a short line (paraphrasing here:. ... I'll be glad to read and comment on your script but would like to know first if the writer will be partaking in the discussion Another variable of this is that you provide a lot of feedback and the writer responds with: Thanks.  That's a particular bugbear of mine.   It's part and parcel. As for Zack's locking a thread? That may also lock the script? I'm not sure on that, Don would need to weigh in. It would also mean a Producer may not be able to comment re contacting the writer if the @ contact details are not visible on the script. I think the way it's set up is very democratic for all. And I think it actually encourages people to the site, not the other way around. Some people are not joiners, they just want exposure. And yes, some people are also not good with criticism and take exception to some comments. Overall, it's not without its frustrations but I think the system is as good and fair as it can be. That's just my opinion, of course. Carry on...

I agree with all of this. I just think that if it was automated so that the default was you received an email when comments were made yeah, we pick up some more interaction. Who knows

Quoted from LC As for Zack's locking a thread? That may also lock the script? I'm not sure on that, Don would need to weigh in. It would also mean a Producer may not be able to comment re contacting the writer if the @ contact details are not visible on the script.

I don't believe locking the actual thread would stop the link to the script from working. About the potential for a producer not being able to contact the writer... Shouldn't there be an email on the title page of the script?

Quoted from eldave1 ... I just think that if it was automated so that the default was you received an email when comments were made yeah, we pick up some more interaction. Who knows

Good point, Dave. Something to suggest to Don. It could also bring retired members back into the fold when an older script is dug up and commented on.

Quoted from Zack I don't believe locking the actual thread would stop the link to the script from working. About the potential for a producer not being able to contact the writer... Shouldn't there be an email on the title page of the script?

Zack, you're probably right on the first point but I don't know.... Something for me to check
As far as the script writer's email being provided on the front page, yes, there should be.... That's 101, right? Astonishingly some people include phone numbers and practically a map to their front door, yet others fail to include their email address. Rare, but it does happen.

Quoted from LC Good point, Dave. Something to suggest to Don. It could also bring retired members back into the fold when an older script is dug up and commented on. Zack, you're probably right on the first point but I don't know.... Something for me to check As far as the script writer's email being provided on the front page, yes, there should be.... That's 101, right? Astonishingly some people include phone numbers and practically a map to their front door, yet others fail to include their email address. Rare, but it does happen.

Thanks

I'll also just throw this out there if it makes you feel better about leaving unacknowledged reviews.
I read almost every review left, sometimes opening the script to see what the reviewer is talking about - It all helps me (and probably others, too)
So even if the writer of that particular script doesn't respond, I'll say thank you for all of the reviews left on all scripts I've learnt a lot from them.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor I'll also just throw this out there if it makes you feel better about leaving unacknowledged reviews. I read almost every review left, sometimes opening the script to see what the reviewer is talking about - It all helps me (and probably others, too) So even if the writer of that particular script doesn't respond, I'll say thank you for all of the reviews left on all scripts I've learnt a lot from them.

This is a pretty fair point. Never thought of it quite like that.

Thanks Libby for pointing this out to me.  

With regard to auto emailing someone, at this point in time, technically not feasible since I'm the one creating the thread for the script.  Also, I run into Spam issues.  Several years ago, simplyscripts.com got unfairly labeled as a spammer due to a glitch in my mailing system and it has taken me several years to dig myself out from it and to get the domain white-listed.  It is hoped for future upgrades to the site that members can upload their own script directly without going through me as an intermediary and thus be able to opt in (or out) of automatic emails.  

Locking a script thread only prevents anyone from commenting to the thread. The script can still be read.  Only when asked by someone who posts for Production Consideration Only to lock the thread, I leave the thread open so someone can query the writer.  I'm not sure the rationale for posting a script and then locking the thread as it drops off the front page very quickly.  Folks who do this are only interested in showcasing the script in the hopes of getting picked up.

With regard to Zack's deleted review: That was entirely my fault.  The submitter had asked that the thread be locked and I forgot to do that, so I felt I needed to honor his request. Generally speaking, I do not delete bad reviews.  I do offer the submitter the choice of deleting his work from the site (and the associated discussion board thread).

This is a good discussion and it is a discussion like this that brought out the three tiers:
I want reviews (which is default).
I'm new and want a review
I don't want reviews, I just want to sell my work.


We may want to reconsider that.  

Also, I try to set expectations in the email to writers when the script is posted,

If you are new to the discussion board there will probably not be a lot of
reviews of your work or anyone reading beyond the first ten pages of
your script. The discussion board requires some give and take. If you
read and thoughtfully review someone’s work, the more likely your work
will get reviewed.

You might try to post a request to do a review exchange wherein you read
and review someone's work in exchange for someone else reading
yours.

In short, I'm trying to balance free and open with feasibility and labor needed to maintain.

Thanks to everyone for their reasoned thoughts and this discussion.

Don

Commenting on the initial post.

I don't think you should see a lack of response to  feedback as an insult. Some people may be offput by individuals who they see as their peers writing criticisms off their work. If you have taken the time to write a script and have the guts to post it online then you shouldn't be excluded because you are not known on the forum.

There may be people like me who feel a little out of their depth or don't want to contribute as much as others. But does this forum really want to become a place where the great few pat each other on the back, and the others get little reward.

There is quite literally nothing on the internet like this site, which is what drew me to post on simplyscripts In the first place. I truly hope it remains a fully inclusive forum that benefits all those who chance upon it.

Quoted from Marvin Commenting on the initial post. I don't think you should see a lack of response to  feedback as an insult. Some people may be offput by individuals who they see as their peers writing criticisms off their work. If you have taken the time to write a script and have the guts to post it online then you shouldn't be excluded because you are not known on the forum. There may be people like me who feel a little out of their depth or don't want to contribute as much as others. But does this forum really want to become a place where the great few pat each other on the back, and the others get little reward. There is quite literally nothing on the internet like this site, which is what drew me to post on simplyscripts In the first place. I truly hope it remains a fully inclusive forum that benefits all those who chance upon it.

It does take courage to post a negative review, especially if you are new. That goes away with time. This site would be terribly boring if it was just the select few taking victory laps. We were all new once. Heck, I still consider myself new in regards to some of the other folks here. And even some of the ones that came after me, for that matter.

Eldave: I didn't mean to cause  offence although I do stand by my original points.

I do have one other reason why you may be getting a lack of responses.

It is not a requisite for you to become a forum member when you post a script. Again I don't think it should be a requisite, but it may be a reason why first time posters don't reply.

I get that a forum is give and take and that is how it works. I have never been a regular on any forum. I don't have a social media presence and the internet scares me a little. Posting a script online was a huge deal for me, and I didn't take the criticisms of my first script well. I am posting a lot on the forum right now because I have had a few G&T's, I'm watching NFL and I feel like superman,. But after tonight you will probably hear very little. The great few make the forum work. just help the little guys out a little, especially if they really need it.

Yes I am a brit and I don't really understand much about American football. But the English media are making soccer a ballache to watch at the minute!

Marvin, are you aware of these links: ?

Beginner's Guide to SS
https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1124159895/s-0/

Scriptwriting Class
https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-screenwrite/

Getting to know you thread:
https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/

Welcome, btw.  I hope you'll stick around, gin or no gin, and get to know us more.  

P.S. I'm tempted, but will let Dave reply to you directly.

Why? If you have something to say just say it. I know eldave is going to give me a bollocking when he finally replies.

You forum members care so much about what you perceive to be your little baby. You would hate if anybody came along a told you anything different to what you perceive this forum to be.

The problem with society as a whole is that people generally feel excluded or included. Those that are included protect their inclusion beyond reasonable explanation, and exclude those that don't fit in within their remit.

This forum should protect everybody's right to post and receive feedback, or not, or to respond to any feedback.

By the way I don't know Dom. Or if he agrees with any of my statements or not. Neither do I care. It is just my opinion

Marvin, I was just welcoming you and giving you a couple of links to help you navigate the site, introduce yourself etc.

Don is Admin of SS, so it's his baby. Without Don, there is no SS.

I choose to let Dave reply to you because it's not my place to put words in his mouth. Regardless, it's pretty clear where he was coming from in that first post.

Quoted from Marvin This forum should protect everybody's right to post and receive feedback, or not, depending on their choice.

.
This is exactly how Don has designed the site. It also means, as long as someone is polite, they can also express their frustration at posting three pages of feedback and getting zilch response - when the writer clearly asked for feedback.

Inclusion means (amongst other things) becoming actively involved. Quid pro quo.