Forum:Need a quick PEE?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Need a quick PEE?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4099 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Well... Us chaps over at the Pee Review Committee have been throwing around an idea for bringing in a short pee review option here... If you are interested in Pee Review, you might want to take a look at that discussion. If you want to comment about it, please do so in this forum page rather than the Peeing talk page so that we can keep all the banter in one place. Same goes for my PEEING chums... Let's piss on this one here now...

Basically, we think that sometimes people just want a quick Looksee and some scores to give them an indication of possible performance on VFH. Sometimes an article can sit on Pee Review for up to a couple of weeks before getting attention, but with a short option they would get it done much faster.

If we bring in a facility to offer short reviews this would hopefully remove the need to slacken the rules regarding self noms on VFH which has been suggested recently.

Obviously we are not suggesting that we stop doing our normal long in-depth reviews. This would just be an additional option available if people wanted it. We think we know how this could be done, but are obviously open to comments from those who are not regular reviewers... Would people find this option useful or is MrN just talking piss again as usual? MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 19:29, Jul 23

Take the Piss out of MrN below...

Just for clarification... by "We think we know how this could be done", MrN means "I know how it could be done in about five minutes", no "think" about it. ~~Heeren ["Meh"] [tecħ] [kurk] [23/07 20:30]

Just for clarification... HV means that he knows how to do it... ;-) It would take me more than 5 minutes, I would need to change my pants first... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 20:38, Jul 23
Kinda quiet in here eh HV? Anyone care??? MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 01:12, Jul 25

Well it appears not, which is kinda dissapointing but For the sake of argument I'll reiterate here what I said on the talk page (so people don't have go out of their way to find my opinion).

Cquote1.png I'm sorry MrN, I can't remember if I said or not, but I'm bassically against this idea. I think that A) It will over complicate things. But more Importantly B) I think that it's always better to get someone else's full opinion on an article and feedback suggestions like we do now; if we don't it'll mean we end up wasting alot of time telling people that they flat out suck. I mean I very rarely see anything that can go straight to VFH, most infact are on the cusp of VFD and I think we should always give a long winded opinion for the sake of those that are going to listen and that are trying to improve. We keep talking about quality at PEE review and I just don't think this will help. Sowee. Cquote2.png

and then

Cquote1.png I still don't like this. How short is short, is one thing that is unclear. I mean do we simply score it and make a flipant remark like "good" "do better" or "QVFD this now" or do we go into some minor detail like what some people do on VFH, things like "needs more jokes in section X" or "Not my kinda thing", which in my opinion is often worse than useless as advice because it's so vague and rests on little more than the reviewers whim. U.U. said that this short review would be the sort of thing people would use to get their article eligable for self noming at VFH but there's talk of changings those rules anyway. if those rules are changed (and I suspect they will be) we'll end up simply saying that "this should be deleated" which that isn't particularly encouraging and will probably push people away. Even if a low scoring in-depth review does this anyway, anyone that may want to work on the article already has some place to start improvements from. Well anyway, that's my opinion. again. Cquote2.png

SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag.jpg RotM 01:27 25 July 2008

Thanks for that Orian, Copying your text to here without the rest of the debate from our talk page might confuse people a bit, but I think the rest of PEEING were kinda disagreeing with ya. Mostly along the lines that "it would be an option which people could use if they wanted" but I'm hoping to get some opinions from non peeing members now... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 01:36, Jul 25
Well it wasn't tottaly out of context... and yeah I was just trying to prompt some discussion as I'm interested in what the proles think too. SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag.jpg RotM 02:02 25 July 2008
Yeah, I think this is a good idea. In fact, if you want an example of a short pee to show everyone, go ahead and do my current submission. - UnIdiot | GUN.png | Talk | Contribs - 03:04, Jul 25
Sure... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 03:32, Jul 25
Yeah this is the sort of thing I thought you meant. To me this looks like a bad pee review done by someone just getting to grips with it (like some of my earlier ones) rather than simply a short one, sure there is some advice there but there could be more. So why not give it? You score it as “approaching acceptable” which means it probably needs quite a bit more work for VFH (not actually read the article but that’s not really the issue). If this “short pee” is going to go forward there needs to be a tighter emphasis on scoring but even then just getting a score from one person is still not helpful as it’s just one person’s bare opinion without any why or how to improve. Some one seeking a short pee would probably need three or four scores to average out and get a more accurate idea of how good their article is. Which defeats the time saving issue that this is trying to solve. At least if there is reason given with the score they have something to work with. I’m sorry to be so negative (it really isn’t personal(though I’m still not having sex with you)) and will someone else please comment? SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag.jpg RotM 05:38 25 July 2008
: {{{{{#sub:HCPIM|0|1}}comment}}}
: {{{{{#sub:HCPIM|1|1}}comment}}}
: {{{{{#sub:HCPIM|2|1}}comment}}}
: {{{{{#sub:HCPIM|3|1}}comment}}}
: {{{{{#sub:HCPIM|4|1}}comment}}}
Final Score: 28 My bologne has a first name. I think the spelling "bologne" is fucking pretentious.
Reviewer: Inebriated 06:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I see exactly what you're saying but I don't think Sunburn is sexually transmitter (or even particularly contageous). SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag.jpg RotM 06:47 25 July 2008
You have clearly mistaken rugburn for sunburn. But I will not make fun of you, as confusing a rug with the sun is a very common mistake. Instead, I have an interesting proposition. What do you say we go back to my palce and try out my new sun? I mean, rug. Fuck. Inebriated 07:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Already there. was just getting that Dildo you were talking about remember? SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag.jpg RotM 07:03 25 July 2008

Absolutely YES!

If there were ever a time that I was more in favor of something than I am now about this idea, I don't remember it. First of all, quick pee review would be less like the drunk guy response up top (which was never acceptable, not ever) and more like, say, Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:You're On Fire. It's not so much giving no opinion, but rather making a quick observation. Where "true" Pee Reviews go into detail on each section or each paragraph and give each a score and average the score and suggest what to add and what to remove and blah blah blah, a quick pee simply will tell you what works, what doesn't, and then you can do with that what you will. This is the way my favorite reviews are written, with more freedom on the writer's part to make it the writer's article as opposed to being tailored to the humor of the particular reviewer who chose it.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 01:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have changed my mind. I don't want to do this now. I'm joking. OK! Put that stick down Lj! ... /me ducks ... This will/could also have some other benefits... At PEEING we have really tried to raise the bar in-terms of what an "acceptable" Pee Review is. If a reviewer gives a series of particularly short reviews they will generally be contacted by a member of PEEING, and asked to consider spending a bit more time on the process. Usually we suggest that they read UN:PRG, at which point many don't bother and we often don't see them at Pee Review again. Now, those people will be very welcome to do quick pees. There is not a limit on the number of times you can re-submit for Pee Review (quick or otherwise, it tells you how to re-submit in UN:PRG, but with quick pees you will get your response a lot faster. Now all I have to do is agree to sleep with Orion... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 01:17, Jul 28
Orion and not me? Seems odd. SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag.jpg RotM 01:21 28 July 2008
No, why would I sleep with you? MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 01:35, Jul 28
Profit. SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag.jpg RotM 01:36 28 July 2008
I was thinking ???, actually. Profit works too.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 01:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ow... My self-esteem. SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag.jpg RotM 02:01 28 July 2008

I may have indicated elsewhere that I'm right alongside this idea. I'll mention it here too. Some people just want a few lines to see if other people "get" their article, or to show them they're moving in the right direction. And there are other reasons too that I can't be bothered to list. Bottom line, if folk want a quick review, they should be able to get one, and if they want in in-depth PEEING special, they should be able to get one. A clear way of specifying which they want would be a real bonus, in my eyes. --UU - natter UU Manhole.gif 15:22, Jul 28

I don't see how this could be a bad idea. I'm all for it. I would just make the long review the default if someone forgets to mark anything (If that's how we are doing it) The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 16:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So, it seems most people like this...

Shall we give it a test then? ~~Heeren ["Meh"] [tecħ] [kurk] [28/07 16:29]

Let it simmer for a few days I reckon HV. Maybe someone will come up with a good reason against it, or some suggestions for how it could be done better. Like you said at the top, this will not be hard to implement... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 18:51, Jul 28
I sometimes pee (when I can be bothered) - my view for what it's worth is that the guidelines should be re-written to be more clear and concise. I don't like the idea of quick Pees - they encourage VFH chasing as opposed to writing a quality "Article" rather than my "ego stroking latest entry" for VFH. I suggest that all our reviews remain in depth to encourage writers to spend time and effort with their articles and write better ones. This is just my thought, and I don't want to seem like I'm butting in {too much}:)--Sycamore (Talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Jeese if we go ahead with this thing...and UU goes ahead with (as he's said over at PEEING) marking all short reviews as in-depth...then I could be knocking off hundreds of in-depth reviews every day. - [21:06 28 July] Sir FSt Don Yettie
I wouldn't mark all short reviews as in-depth. Just the helpful ones. It still requires a modicum of effort and thought to give a helpful short review. --UU - natter UU Manhole.gif 08:40, Jul 29
On a side note, ego stroking and latest entry were two films in which I starred, back in the 1980's when I lived in California and had a moustache. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 14:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, none of those Bicep inplants, all Modus all the time was the Tagline I believe--Sycamore (Talk) 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If you could give here a quick pee here:Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Microsoft (resubmit) --LOLsupreme 13:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)