Forum:Pee Review problem

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Pee Review problem

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4925 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

All right, everyone knows we have a Pee Review problem, and I hardly even need to mention that. We've tried Pee weeks, mastheads, and every other form of begging we can think of, but the queue just keeps filling and filling. So we probably need to start thinking about what to do about it.

Thoughts

Here's my thoughts. Pee Reviews are genuine requests for help improving an article maybe 30% of the time. The other 70% of the time, they're basically a way of saying "I'd like to self-nom my article; would you read it and clear it for VFH?"

Considering that it takes almost as long to do an in-depth review of those articles as it does to write the fucking things, I think we probably need a new way of giving clearance for self-noms. That could slash the rate at which the queue builds up by more than half, and limit it only to people who genuinely want help with their article. It would probably fix our Pee Review problem overnight and turn Pee Review into what it was meant to be - a system for improving articles, not a convoluted requirement for whoring-before-nominating.

How about some alternate ways for getting clearance for a self-nom? They could include:

1. Anyone listed on UN:HS can self-nom without a pee review; we trust them.

   Or: any CUN or better can self-nom without a pee review; we trust them.

2. Any article voted "good" on VFG can self-nom without a pee review.

   Or: We could start a page called "VFH candidates" that would only need one or two "seconded!" votes to go to VFH.

3. We could drop the self-nom requirement for VFH entirely, because it takes only 5 seconds to vote Against, whereas it takes an entire hour to write a negative Pee Review.

I know it's tempting to say "Look, the problem with Pee Reviews is that people aren't doing them; shut the fuck up and work your way down the queue." But the thing is: if I'm going to put in a lot of hard work on Uncyclopedia, I'd rather write an article or even do site cleanup than tell someone in excruciating detail that their article is okay to go to VFH. And isn't it better to have people writing and maintaining?

What do you think? pillow talk 22:17, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. I'd say that the idea of a new page, with three seconding votes needed. This should catch any major holes in the pages, and proofreading problems. At first just the "ones we trust" sounds good in some form. I have a page up now which I want to self-nom when the seven days are up (Cemetery of the Absurd, if it gets featured I was aiming for around Halloween) and although pee reviews have always helped me I know that the que and workforce cannot always pick up my pages. So a for, with those "new rules". Aleister 23:00 18 10

I agree, and would support any of those alternatives Hype proposed. I do, however, think that the articles currently on the queue should be reviewed, though. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 00:02, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Aye, Hyperbole is correct - out with the review requirement for self noms would probably help with keeping the whoring out... the specifics of how might need more beating about with a frying pan, but... eh. I'd support that as well, I guess. And of course we should get through what's there, assuming the users are still around. What of the ones that seem to have left in the interum?

There's still another issue in which the Flamingo and I have been the only ones even somewhat consistently reviewing of late, though... what's with that?! ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101019 - 00:39 (UTC)

Well, a lot of other users (myself included) are in school of some kind, which accounts for the sag in activity that always happens at this time of year. (Though this year seems distinctly worse than last year, if I recall.) —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:56, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Psh, school... it's a perfect place to be on Uncyclopedia. Seriously, I've had my best laughs while on this site sitting in boring economics lectures and then getting subsequently kicked out of the lecture... er... ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101019 - 02:10 (UTC)

While I believe that school is a perfectly good excuse reason for things not getting done around here, I think that the problem lies with VFH as well as Pee Review- the two go hand in hand. Pee Review determines whether an article goes to VFH, and VFH determines whether something gets on the main page. I remember reading something somewhere about the problem with voting on VFH. But this is not about VFH; it's about Pee Review. I agree with Hyperbole's proposed rules for Pee Review, and I'd also like to add one:

Have a set limit of pee reviews per week. For example, users can put their articles on a waiting list, and if that waiting list gets filled for the week, then the list is full and a new one won't open until the next week. That way, we won't have more of what we have now- a backed up queue and not enough reviewers. I've made a mockup template here as a basic idea of how it could work.

This is just an idea I have, feel free to ignore it at will. Also, I don't like doing it, but if need be I'll review articles. Thatdamnedfollowspot 03:11 Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Two things... one, that's overly complicated and made my brain hurt. Seriously, ow. Two, if I'm actually understanding what you're saying (which is actually kind of unlikely, considering how out of it I am right now) that's not really fair to people who review as many as they submit to be reviewed... that's another problem, folks requesting reviews and not doing any themselves, you know. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101019 - 03:21 (UTC)

What do you mean? Thatdamnedfollowspot 03:28 Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Pineapples... there are pineapples infesting these little... froggies... ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101019 - 03:30 (UTC)

All that would do is move articles from the queue to a group of articles waiting to get on the queue. The only thing that would do is cause of rush of review requests whenever the queue waiting list re-opens. Since established users would know when it opens, all it would do is send the "please check this for VFH" articles to the front of the line at the expense of noobs who actually need a review.

Also, we don't necessarily review stuff in order, nor are we able to keep a constant review rate. Some reviewers are better are certain types of articles. For example, I generally look for noob articles to review, and most reviewers tend to avoid topics they have little knowledge of. Granted, most reviewers try to take into account which article was on the queue first. While this system is prone to back-logging on occasion, there is nothing we can really do about it. Any system that limits requests or removes articles without them being reviewed is only hiding the problem. --Mn-z 01:21, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Mn-z, what do you think about the idea of simply giving anyone whose name appears on UN:HS the right to self-nom? I bet that would cut the Pee Review influx in half overnight, and I don't see any real downsides to it. pillow talk 02:16, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Mnbvcxz, I think the present system is fine and does lapse at certain times throughout the year. That said I do see part of the issue as being people ignoring the request to review someone else's article when you post yours, it was originally instated because a lot of people simply submit articles which fill up the list but don't do anything to cut down the others waiting especially since at times there aren't enough people reviewing to deal with all the requests. It would be nice if we could get some support from writers who are expecting feedback on their work. This isn't a sweeping critique of all those who have submitted an article, but simply a request; since Pee review is currently struggling, before you start moaning about nobody reviewing your work could you review another persons article? I'm not looking for a novel as far as a review goes, just some well thought out criticism and suggestions for improvement. Multiliteralist suggests a system of quickly giving help, well why on earth can't you just read through an article and then fill out the table? I realise we can't immediately solve the problem but I think this would go some distance to keeping numbers down. I realise writing takes effort and reviewing is extra on top of that but a review doesn't have to be done immediately you post yours, just at some point. This would help the few Peeing members who are currently doing their best to keep the queue moving. As for Hyperbole's idea, I think it is a reasonable one and would be worth a try especially at times when the queue is getting quite long. --ChiefjusticeGameBoy 08:20, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Do not derail!

This is a good idea, Hyperbole. Self-nom all you like... but will there be a lot of work for someone if the VFH queue grows uberfucked? Not as much as with Pee queue I guess.

Another, related idea

In addition to Pee Reviews, there could be a list of editors willing to read through and help with articles. I'm basically one; it's not a lot of work to suggest some fresh ideas to work with, or to tell the author go fucking proofread the thing a few times. -- Style  Guide 19:05, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

You knew this was going to turn into voting eventually

Let's get some feedback on this...

Allow anyone who appears on UN:HS to self-nom

Score: -2

1. For. Would significantly reduce the rate at which the Pee Review queue grows; anyone with three features can be trusted not to nom shit. pillow talk 02:19, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
2. For. Sure, why not? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:22, 20 October 2010
3. Fuor. If they can also verify that they consistently proofread or get proofread their work... seriously. *shudders* ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101020 - 02:30 (UTC)

   Actually, yes. Bad idea. Very good points to the ones saying against... so against. ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101025 - 19:40 (UTC)

4. For. Not that I ever self-nom, or anything, but why not? —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:37, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
5. Against It should be the same rule for everybody. VFH is already full of the same faces over and over again. If anything we should be encouraging people who've not been featured. There's already too much reverence for certain writers who get sub-standard articles featured. mAttlobster. (hello) 11:46, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
6. Against for now. Matt lobster is right, should be the same for everyone. Why not H's idea of a pre-self nom vote? You put your article on this list and four non-noob members have to sign on for it to go ahead. They are then kind-of putting their reputation on an article too, so proofreading and spelling errors--one of my big probs that Lyrithya and others have helped me with--can be caught. The page can only, say, stay on this list for a week. This way anyone can put up a page and get the same treatment. And it would also help pee review if more reputable writers would nom other users' pages. I try to keep a semi-balance of self-noms and nomming others. Aleister 11:58 20 10
7. For. per above. --Mn-z 22:20, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
8. I wasn't even aware that there was a rule like this. What the fuck guys. Everyone should be able to nominate anything they want whenever they want. For, I guess. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 22:35, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
9. Strongly Against. For pretty much the reason that this change would make getting onto the HS list almost impossible as a new user would need 3 articles to be put on VFH by other users and featured, which is pretty much impossible given our culture here. -- Sf13 0110 EST 21 Oct, 2010
10. Against. - I think it would be unfair towards new editors to excuse some writers from the usual route to features. I've only written one feature with a sock of mine, and didn't even notice it get featured until someone put a template on the sock's user page for it... I may be selfish, but this concern isn't limited to my opinions; when a less-established writer wants to try their toddler feet at getting a feature, they go via Pee Review, as is the established custom. I am severely bogged down IRL, but I tend to first review before I put an article of mine up for a review. Others could, too. Also, I think that the self-nom pre-filter system would benefit the community and users as a whole better. So it's a no from me, with a long rant. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 19:35, 25 Oct
11. Strong against. I think this would discourage new editors from self-nomming at all. Why? Because people are lazy. If people are new at something and think they're being unfairly forced to work on something voluntary, they usually leave. It's the cold, hard reality, and plus, this would make the system a bit biased.--HM (T) 20:43, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Although how would others go about self-nomming, then? Those of us who really fail, would we still be able to go the pee review route, or would that be disabled entirely? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101020 - 03:55 (UTC)

  I was picturing the Pee Review route as still being valid. pillow talk 09:12, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

• Comment.I see a problem with VFH getting overloaded instead. Should there be a limit on how many self noms you can put in there?--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:07, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

  Probably! Maybe... no more than two at a time? I don't know. We might be worrying about a problem that wouldn't even occur. pillow talk 09:12, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against. A two-tier system is, and I hate to use this word ever since the Rightwing ruined it, elitist. Besides, the popular writers can't be trusted. The more features they have, the less they can be trusted. Unless it's with your sister. Then they can be trusted. When is she alone, by the way? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:36, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Screw Pee Review

I put mine there and no one reviewed my article. And everyone else's articles haven't been reviewed yet! Go review on Pee REview for the love of Jah, you're feeding it to obesity! |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Giratina CUN|IC Kill | 07:17, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

On top of what Chief said

Looking at the issue from a "historical" perspective, this was initially implemented to ensure we don't get an overflow of crap articles on VFH. While I don't object specifically to remove this, we need another solution to ensure we don't have VFH overran by crap. Here's the problems I have with the suggestions Hype had:

1. Giving people on UN:HS exception - very much against creating anything that resembles the good old English class system, this gives the people on the list an unfair advantage.
2. Using VFG - for the Nth time, this is a private operation not an Uncyclopedia one. And why would I object to ever bringing that as an official one? Take a look at the grim status of VFH. If we can't fill it with good articles, I don't see any reason to bring yet another voting page into play.

Possible solution- just drop the self nom rule for a pilot period, and if we get an overflow of crap we can always reinstate it. Seems like the easiest solution.

However, I have an obvious question, and I'm sorry if I missed that part somewhere in the text above - did anyone actually checked if most pee requests are related to the self nom or this is just speculation? If this is just speculation than I think the current situation is not related to the VFH self nom and we'll be attacking the problem from the wrong angle. ~ 11:22, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think Hype hit the nail on the head. The whole reason I quit doing reviews is because I realized that the 3,4, or 5 hours I put in to doing a quality review was more often than not just for someone to self nom their article. Out of the 35 reviews I'm responsible for, I can probably count on one hand the number of authors who actually took any of my advice. Most were on VFH before my review had been checked by the comittee. I even said something about it a month or two ago here. Mordillo does have a good point though. Giving UN:HS an advantage just because "They're cool" is not right. I'm all for just dropping the review requirement and seeing what happens. Consider that my two cents for the month. --—John Lydon 12:14, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

The pages I've put on pee review have been for potential self-nom, but there is not one review I've had that hasn't greatly helped the page. Two minds are better than one, esp. here where some good minds gather, so I've been very glad that the review process exists, and still would put my pages up for it before nommed. Aleister 12:21 20 10

Vague thought based on Al's comments and the whole "self nom" thing in general: I'm worried that perhaps the thing PEEING was trying to improve in the first place (the need to improve the quality of reviews) is now putting too many people off reviewing. Don't forget folks, there is the option of asking for a quick review, which no-one seems to be trying to take advantage of. Perhaps if people are submitting requests for self nom purposes, they could say so in their comments, and request a quick review? I wouldn't (when active, which I'm not right now) mind running a quick eye over a few articles and just saying "yes, this is VFH ready" or "no, needs more work" in response to those. Such reviews could be ignored for PEEING purposes, as that's not really the point of them. This isn't a full solution, obviously, but it might shift a bit of the queue if that's all some people are after. Also: hi folks!--UU - natter 13:01, Oct 20

This missing-in-action user's ghost makes an interesting point. Aleister 13:33 20 10

John, the purpose of an UN:HS exception wouldn't be that the users are "cool" or "high-class." Like Mordillo said, the Pee Review requirement was put in place to prevent a bunch of crappy articles from going on VFH. People who have written three features before are very unlikely to nom a horrible article, so making this requirement of them is basically just a waste of time. Limiting self-noms to UN:HS would be a bit strict, though: like I said, we could give exceptions to people at CUN rank, or simply to people who've been on Uncyclopedia for six months, or even to everyone except brand new users and IPs. (While I admire Mordillo's democratic spirit, I think if we open self-noms to new users and IPs, we will have a bit of an annoyance on our hands). pillow talk 15:13, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as much worried about UN:HS users nomming shitty articles as I am about new users becoming jaded by this. The lack of new users is a concern at the moment and anything that further isolates them isn't the best move. If the UN:HS exemption were adopted, I see two ways it could play out; 1. New users are upset by the fact that established users have a fast track to VFH, while they're stuck waiting for a Pee Review. 2. New users are understanding of the new rule and view UN:HS as a sort of status symbol and begin to bombard Pee Review with every article they can write trying to get their place in the hall.

A better compromise might be to identify the review requests that want fast tracked to VFH and allow UN:HS members the right to give a simple "yay" or "nay" on the subject. If we trust their writing ability to identify quality material when they see it, who better to judge? --—John Lydon 15:29, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

To answer Mordillo's question

My 70-30% ratio may have been off, but I've run through the Pee Review queue and divided the requests into three basic categories:

Good-looking articles by established users that are probably mostly requests for VFH nomination:

1. California Marijuana Initiative
2. Fissiparous
3. Battle of Grunwald
4. UnTweets:California Gurl
5. Cemetery of the Absurd
6. Untweets:Noah
7. Symphony in Z Minor
8. Grand Theft Auto: Somalia
9. Yogi Berra
10. UnTunes:Little Wiccan Chicken
11. UnPoetia:Poems that don't rhyme
12. Kettlebell
13. Silhouettes (song)
14. Green Cross Code
15. Why?:We Can't Have Nice Things
16. UnNews:Sputnik is launch!
17. The Song Remains the Same
18. James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie
19. Bronco McStabber's Fudge Factory

Articles by inexperienced users that would fail VFH and definitely need a Pee Review:

1. UnBooks:A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity
2. Egg sighted (not quick)
3. How the Grinch Stole Christmas!
4. UnPoetia:Necromancer's Spirit Journey Formation Anniversary
5. ATX
6. Le Mans 24 Hour Race
7. Battle of Salamis
8. Progressive Metal
9. Jay-Z (band)
10. Blexicans (quick)
11. Uncharted: Sony's Fortune
12. Humanism
13. HowTo:Club a baby seal

Articles by experienced users who wrote something that indicates they really would like help with the article:

1. HowTo:Write an Uncyclopedia article without reading any of the rules or directions or manuals or policies first
2. Radium
3. Serial Experiments Lain
4. User:Luvvy/Gastrorgasmic Cuisine
5. User:MacMania/Rosetta Stone
6. Why?:Divorce Is Good
7. Alice in Sunderland
8. Eiger
9. Lucy Pinder (2)
10. Church of Scatology
11. User:Olipro/On her wedding day, saying the things left unsaid

It looks to me like clearance for self-noms by experienced Uncyclopedians could cut the queue down from 43 to 24. pillow talk 15:42, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

In case you divided them solely based on title/author... The Gastrorgasmic Cuisine article is in the pee request list for one purpose only, to get a go-ahead for VFH. (As a curious side note, I think Hyperbole would have been more likely to group the article in my user space as something that's a request for a VFH permission, had he opened the review request page and noticed it's a collab with Mhaille... Yes, I think HS listed users being able to self-nom would be unfair, since the article would have been considered "better", were it under the other collaborator's name in stead of mine.) -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 19:40, 25 Oct

Luvvy: The reason I assumed that was a request for feedback instead of a request for VFH clearance is that it's in userspace: I can't nom it unless you mainspace it, and it's frowned upon to move someone's article out of their userspace. I figured anyone who wanted their article nommed would mainspace it first, in case the reviewer decided to nom it instead of review it. Guess I was wrong... pillow talk 20:07, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

As the linky above might have suggested, the article is in the mainspace as of today. But I didn't want to create another pee review page to clutter things, so I just rewrote the links on the entry page, which few people have actually looked at. Silly of me to omit that in my last comment. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 20:13, 25 Oct

Since 3 of the listed articles were mine.... believe it or not, I actually put them there for someone else's opinion and then generally act on most of what it contains. --Sog1970 20:50, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Also, if I nommed my own articles they'd probably be half-finished, I'm easily bored. --Sog1970 20:51, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

How about this:

• an instant removal from VFH for self-noms that clearly haven't been proofread
• some kind of pre-VFH as has been suggested... like two or three fors and you can self-nom? I understand there will be whoring but so what? As long as there is no unpaid slutting it's OK.
• Rather than Pee Reviews, why not set it up some other way? The place is full of people who will help with articles - like I said, I'm one. Only, nobody ever asks.

-- Style  Guide 19:04, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

For. I agree on all counts with Multiliteralist. Including the last point- if asked, I'd be happy to shirk my other responsibilities and work on a review. I'm just too lazy to do one myself for fun. Or rather, I don't have all that much time to do it. Thatdamnedfollowspot 23:11 Wednesday, October 20, 2010

I just want to see what happens if the requirements are removed altogether, now. Like VFP... ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101020 - 23:26 (UTC)

But VFP doesn't have a -3 and you're out rule like VFH has. I like the pre-approval for VFH, that way established users also are invested in a page and put their reputation on the line by saying "Yes, this is good, let it go to the community for a vote". Aleister 23:54 20 10

I don't think pre-approval is the best solution. It might be better than the status quo solution, but as Mordillo said, "Take a look at the grim status of VFH. If we can't fill it with good articles, I don't see any reason to bring yet another voting page into play." Pre-VFH is basically just going to be... VFH, except that everyone has to look at two pages, and the first two or three people have to vote "for" twice. It might be more efficient to drop the self-nom requirement entirely than to create a pre-VFH page. pillow talk 00:15, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; extra voting would be bad. Did I already agree with this? I can't remember. In fact, the whole HS thing sounds bad... and... eh.

I was having an idea involving people proving their worth by nominating other people's stuff that gets featured. Once they nominate, say, two out of three that get featured, they'd prove they can discern what's good and are cleared to nominate their own stuff at will, but such a thing probably wouldn't work, anyway, and would be downright silly to implement and maintain and keep track of.

Which brings me back to saying we should just remove the requirements and see what happens. At very least it could prove amusing. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101021 - 01:05 (UTC)

Although I think we should lock the page down the same way we do with VFD; you've got to at least have an account older than a week to nom. pillow talk 01:10, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

To nom, but not to vote, would that work? If it would, that's actually be pretty smart, methinks. They should still be able to vote, methinks. Say if they like them. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101021 - 01:19 (UTC)

Aleister: No you're wrong man. VFP does have a "-3 and you're out rule like VFH." It may not have been enforced while I was away but now that I'm back that's how it goes down. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 04:38, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

During Zb's absence, VFP had a "cleared if it's -3 (or if it's been on forever and won't pass) when Modusoperandi gets to it, damnit" rule, which worked quite well. At least, I've heard no complaints. Except the ones I heard. Those, I ignored. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:15, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Rules, what rules?

• Okay so I know I was away for a bunch of time but what the fuck. Rules for nominating things on VFH? Seriously? Do we not have enough active admins that we can clear out the failed noms in at most a couple of hours? I think everybody should be allowed to nominate whatever they want whenever they want. If some idiots wanna self nominate their crappy articles I say let them. That way we can ridicule them until they either fuck off or write better articles. It's a learning process. I've only ever put one of my articles on Pee Review (about a month ago) and it still hasn't been reviewed. I'm a little bit old school so I remember a time before Pee Review and we all seemed to do just fine back then. I don't understand why it's such a big fucking deal. So yeah I just though I'd say my two cents. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 04:36, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

For. Fuck the Rules. Obviously. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 20:23, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

A point, if I may (or a few points and a suggestion)

Ok, so here's my take after reading through all of this thread. First of all, I agree completely with Hyperbole and Lyrithya. Something needs to change, the queue is all backed up and it got really frustrating doing reviews that took 2 hours to write in which people didn't really care about what you had to say. It's why I dropped off from reviewing prior to my latest extended absence. secondly, I'd like to point out (since people are talking in this manner) that the pee review requirement isn't a pre-screening for VFH as even if a review is scored a "0" and the article is atrocious, it can technically appear on VFH. I think just getting rid of the requirement about self noms should be done away with. A majority of nominations on VFH are self-noms anyway (I think of all the features I've been involved with, only one was nominated by a user other than myself). Crappy noms without pee reviews happen almost daily, so I don't see how the rule is really affecting the VFH queue anyways. It's like gun control, well intentioned, but it just doesn't work. Criminals don't follow it (new users and IPs who self-nom crap) and the responsible wielders of weapons (committed users) are the ones caught in the crossfire. sort of. But seriously;

1. non reviewed self-noms happen all the time, and are subsequently voted down and removed.
2. A majority (or at least half) of VFH articles are self-nominated.
3. VFH is starved for articles at the moment.

Here is what I propose:

• Get rid of the pee review requirement for self-nominated articles.
• Require self-nominated articles to be identified as such.
• If a self nominated article's first three votes are all against (i.e. one for and three against for -2), the nomination is removed.
• As soon as a self-nom article reaches -3 the article is removed, regardless of number of votes.
• IF a self-nomed article is pee reviewed, it simply follows the old formula without the strict removal rules mentioned above.

In this way, self-noms can happen without reviews, but are subject to much stricter guidelines to assure crap is weeded out quickly. reviews are still encouraged in this way, but are limited to those that actually want/need them prior to VFH, and as such these users are rewarded for using pee review by not having the strict voting rules. This is a win-win compromise that doesn't involve any sort of complicated secondary voting procedure.

-- Sf13 0106 EST 21 Oct, 2010

My proposal above ^

Score: 3

• For. -- Sf13 0106 EST 21 Oct, 2010
• For. But I'll probably change my mind later like I did before. Or not. I'm too out of it to say right now, but this sort of makes sense... except how is that any stricter than anything? My brain hurts. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101021 - 05:13 (UTC)
• For. Makes sense, cannot hurt. -- Style  Guide 19:21, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Easier Idea

Why not drop the self-nom rules, and remove all articles at -1? If it gets that low, its probably not going to get featured anyway. This might cause of few articles to be removed to early, but I think its less of a problem than flooding pee review. --Mn-z 14:03, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

All this creative energy...

Would be better spent on reviewing articles. --Black Flamingo 12:54, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it would. And yet I notice a whole two reviews have been done since the whole thread started... both done by, oh, now this is strange: the two of us. People, get off your bums!

Mind, I'm not going to deny the issue in which plenty of folks are, as usual, just using the thing for the vfh requirement. But as Hyperbole clearly demonstrated, there are also plenty of reviews in the queue that were clearly added for the feedback, so why are people just complaining about the other, more questionable ones, many of which could use a good review, anyhow? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101021 - 13:16 (UTC)

Er, in retrospect, that may come across as overly patronising. That is not my intent; I just like complaining. If you ever take me seriously, just remember, I have a bucket of leeches and am not afraid to use them on your significant other's shower.

Which, now that I think about it, makes no sense at all... urg. Nevermind. But sorry. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101021 - 13:53 (UTC)

Also, what do we need more articles for? The place is full of featureworthy articles that have not been featured, and articles that practically nobody has ever read. Let's keep up this redundant, brain-relaxing discussion until some of us come up with ideas for good articles instead. And by good, I don't mean mediocre. -- Style  Guide 05:05, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

But what if mediocre is the best I can do? *lip quivers* I can't be the only one, either... ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101025 - 05:32 (UTC)

"The place is full of featureworthy articles..."? What website do you think you're on?! "...and articles that practically nobody has ever read"? Okay, now I'm just confused. Clearly you think you're both not on Uncyc and on Uncyc at the same time. It's like the plot from a crappy Startrek The Next Generation episode. One that centers around Wesley, probably. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:29, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is that it? Those always confused me so much... *glares at Multiliteralist* Bad, confusing me like that! *throws a koala* ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101025 - 12:36 (UTC)

Also, what do we need more articles for? The place is full of featureworthy articles that have not been featured, and articles that practically nobody has ever read. Let's keep up this redundant, brain-relaxing discussion until some of us come up with ideas for good articles instead. And by good, I don't mean mediocre. This is what I just said. Don't talk back. -- Style  Guide 19:13, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

You have a rather nice back, though... *pokes it* ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101025 - 19:17 (UTC)

In conclusion

Everyone has about a million ideas, but everyone (including staff) has agreed (as far as I can tell) that dropping the self-nom rule for everyone, at least on a trial basis, is worth a shot. Should we just go ahead with that? pillow talk 20:09, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, was it agreed on? o_O Considering time zones and such, the odds are, I wouldn't have had a chance for a say in the matter, had I gone to bed a few hours ago as I intended. Would it be presumptive of me to propose a 24-48 hour wait for any additional input, before implementing changes. All in all, only a few users have had a chance to have their say, and those in Asia/Europe are currently not necessarily awake... This is an oligarchy run site, but we could still give democracy a go. Also for those who are time-zone challenged... -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 20:31, 25 Oct

Huh? ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101025 - 21:03 (UTC)

Luvvy, this forum has been up for a week, and at least a dozen people have chimed in, and while everyone has their own ideas, no one has objected to the idea of dropping the VFH self-nom rule entirely, at least on a trial basis. It's probably safe to say we've reached as close to consensus as we ever reach. pillow talk 21:25, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

What Hype said. There have been alot of ideas thrown out to control it, but we don't have time to vote each one up or down. --Mn-z 23:27, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well I have to tell you in that case that I am terribly sorry for not having eyes everywhere. I am considered "experienced" as a user if not yet a writer... so people like me, who only notice a forum such as this at a time like yesterday 5 minutes prior to bedtime are not allowed to chime in anymore, or defend people in a similar predicament, who might have something to say? I stand corrected, sirs.

I didn't read consensus between the lines anywhere, let alone on the lines, except about perhaps the fact that HS listed authors' self-noms is a bad idea that creates unequal castes of users and discourages new writers from ever bothering to try getting features, because they can't possibly compete with others, who obviously have more time and less demanding jobs/schools/whatever than the simple proles here. By suggesting there is a waiting period to see if anyone can still provide some form of constructive input, more out of courtesy than necessity, perhaps.

If there happens to be a page break in RC, it is fully possible that someone who's less blonde than the undersigned will simply not notice there is a forum discussing a change of what is considered - if not by all users - a site policy. Some people notice this kind of conversations elsewhere, if they're brought up between idiotic rants about men, women and kids on the internet... -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 13:32, 26 Oct

Luvvy, are you even objecting to dropping the self-nom requirement on a trial basis?? I understand the need to give people adequate time for decisions, but I don't think anyone's going to show up tomorrow and say "Oh my God!! People can at least temporarily nominate their own articles for VFH and I never got a chance to formally lodge a protest against the plan!! Damn you, Uncyclopedia, you screwed me so bad!!" pillow talk 15:10, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, Hyperbole... I think it is essentially jerk-like behaviour to assume everyone is in agreement with you without asking the community first, and my main objection is about that. I will give my opinions regarding the self-nom rules and such in the vote that Mhaille suggested below after I left my comment, and that's when I'll give you my honest opinion. I am not on this site harvesting features, and if I manage to produce better than mediocre articles, I am more happy than getting one funny article featured, because in the end, it isn't about awards, it's about having fun that relaxes me. I also have some concerns about the "-2 votes and auto-fail" rule suggestions and such. It's enough that our Cyberbully trio of Ape, Dex and e|m|c decide to be mean, and an unlucky editor with a decent chance could get bashed by a few malicious "established users" in a bad mood. So there should be some sort of backlash valve of "site drama" that keeps that shite out. Just to mention a few of my issues with it. If you make your suggested voting templates and such available for review on the voting page (per Mhaille's suggestion), and let people look at it and poke their way around, then perhaps you might convince me. Right now, assuming you're in the right is mostly annoying, since I'm attempting to keep an open mind. I tend to veer towards Against. if people actively try to push my vote in one way or another. I also motivate my objections with something I attempt to make constructive criticism in stead of inane or unrelated drivel. Just because I try to be nice and fair... -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 16:44, 26 Oct

To be frank, Luvvy... ignoring a forum for an entire week and then showing up calling me a jerk for observing that consensus seemed had been reached, while having the audacity to make that observation before you personally expressed an opinion you don't even seem to have, makes me wonder how all that sand can possibly fit in your vagina. pillow talk 17:36, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole, you're an arse.

In all seriousness, though, a lot of people really don't watch the forums consistently. The question is, is there really any good way to bring more widely relevant topics to wider attention quickly, anyhow? ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101026 - 17:48 (UTC)

I know, I'm a bad man. But, sheesh. Luvvy's acting like I'm forcing change down her throat like a little wikihitler without giving her a chance to vote when: 1) I'm not an admin and I'm incapable of changing anything; and 2) no one has the right to vote on policy changes at all, as we've been reminded time and again.

So what the fuck does she expect? I bring up an idea, a bunch of people agree on one thing, I say "Hey, looks like everyone agrees one one thing" and she's like "YOU BASTARD, I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST YOU OUT OF SPITE. AND ALSO, DEXTER SUCKS." I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, here. pillow talk 17:55, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I dunno about you, but I really am taking crazy pills... they make everything so fuzzy. And fluffy. And poofy... ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101026 - 17:58 (UTC)

I think everybody is forgetting a very important factor, regardless of whether a consensus is agreed or not we have not yet had our mandatory vote on the matter and I for one am keen to exercise my democratic right. I hereby vote that we agree to have a vote on the matter. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Seconded! - Voting is good for site morale! And it creates the illusion of a fair democratic social structure, which makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 17:52, 26 Oct

So do crazy pills. ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101026 - 17:58 (UTC)

I vote we have a vote on whether or not we should have a vote on whether or not we should vote, first. ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101026 - 14:26 (UTC)

Vote for a vote and vote on Hype's idea (two ballots). Simple majority and keep the vote for at least 48 hours so that all users could have a reasonable chance to vote on this request. Also the 'question' on the ballot should be made crystal clear what people are voting about too. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 15:53, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

Form a committee to write an advisory memo on whether voting on whether or not to vote on allowing self-nominations on VFH would be fair to users who don't visit Uncyclopedia

Shaking boobies, because this post isn't de-railed enough yet

Score: 1

• For. I feel that it would be difficult to generate such a memo without having a solid committee in place. pillow talk 17:46, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
• Not for, but I don't actually care anymore. This has gotten way too confusing and instead of thinking about it, I'd rather just go review something. ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101026 - 17:53 (UTC)
• Neutral Right in the middle. Undecided. Can't quite make up my mind. Can see both sides. Voting "present". What do you think? Maybe yes, maybe no. Flip a coin. Can't see the forest for the trees. Weighing my options. Glass half full. Fries with that? Aleister 18:57 26 10

Poll on voting to Form a committee to write an advisory memo on whether voting on whether or not to vote on allowing self-nominations on VFH would be fair to users who don't visit Uncyclopedia

• Against. the vote presents itself as a straight up or down vote, when we should have a discussion to seek consensus and new ideas. --Mn-z 21:10, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
• Meh. ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101026 - 23:10 (UTC)

Motion to censure Mnbvcxz for suggesting consensus-building on voting to form a committee to write an advisory memo on whether to vote on the issue of whether or not voting to allow self-nominations on VFH would be unfair to users who don't visit Uncyclopedia, because said consensus-building would take place in areas inaccessible to those users who don't visit Uncyclopedia

• So moved. pillow talk 21:16, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Poll & Discussion to Motion to Censor Hyperbole for a suggesting a Motion to censure Mnbvcxz for suggesting consensus-building on voting to form a committee to write an advisory memo on whether to vote on the issue of whether or not voting to allow self-nominations on VFH would be unfair to users who don't visit Uncyclopedia, because said consensus-building would take place in areas inaccessible to those users who don't visit Uncyclopedia, because said motion violates the convention of census building

• for per below. --Mn-z 00:33, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Motion to get Mnblewhatever his name is to shorten that big long thing so those of us with brain deficiencies can understand it

• Brains... ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101027 - 00:54 (UTC)
• Against. try typing my username, Mnbvcxz, slowly. --Mn-z 01:22, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

  Mnbghzglooob? ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101027 - 01:24 (UTC)

  Did you notice any patterns? --Mn-z 01:25, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

  Er... no? ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101027 - 01:34 (UTC)

  Type slowly, note the locations of the letters relative to each other... --Mn-z 01:34, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

  zbmnXcv? It's like a pile of scribbles... ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101027 - 01:50 (UTC)

  Type very slowly. Note where the letters are located on the keyboard. Try to notice a pattern. Repeat until you get it. --Mn-z 00:40, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

  Eh, I'd rather not. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101028 - 00:48 (UTC)

  Oh, I get it! It's the Fibonacci sequence!! pillow talk 01:02, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

  Then we're halfway to finding da Vinci's gold! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:45, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

  That's not his gold, silly. That's his cold. You're reading the manuscript funny. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101028 - 04:47 (UTC)

• Brains... I really feel like voting today. Don't expect me to vote on VFH though. That's far too much trouble: I would have to read the articles and... I feel exasperated already for cunt's fuck. -- Style  Guide 18:57, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Ban all users and feature all of Modus's articles and delete all voting-related pages which create the illusion of a fair democratic social structure as they take up way too much bandwidth, waaay too much

• For. I think this covers everything. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:29, 26 October 2010
• Against. The Fair and Awesome^® solution is to feature all users and delete all of Modus's articles and ban all voting-related pages. I stand behind whateveritwas that I just said. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:09, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
• For whatever Modus just said. ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101026 - 23:10 (UTC)

1. Comment. I think you have it all wrong, and this is not to my taste. This should be longer or shorter, or different in some other way. -- Style  Guide 18:55, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Princess Diana really did live her life like a candle in the wind

• For I miss you Princess of Hearts. mAttlobster. (hello) 21:40, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

The Right Honourable Gentleman is a Tiny-Willied Buffoon

That is all -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 07:21, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Wait.....What?

Batman. So where do I vote for the thing we were voting on? I'm leaning towards Nixon. -- ~ *You can be Robin* (talk) 11:07, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

The most important vote of them all

1. For. Because the cause is so important. -- Style  Guide 18:45, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
2. Comment. And if someone doesn't get into this bandwagon they have only themselves to blame. This is a non-democratic vote in that sense. -- Style  Guide 18:53, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
3. 90 abstains. Wait, this isn't... er... nevermind. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101028 - 19:54 (UTC)

I have just one thing to say

Who?  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  29 Oct 2010 ~ 05:21 (UTC)

What? Also, nice category. But we love pointless bickering, you know. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101029 - 13:35 (UTC)

No you don't

I mean it

Against. This is too long; feature it now before it gets pruned. -- Style  Guide 19:27, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

No! ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101029 - 21:02 (UTC)