The rules upheld in the review room are great; they ensure everyone critiques before submitting, which is not only fair but increases the likelihood of everyone getting constructive criticism! I've noticed many of the new members, whether looking to fill their critique quota or simply looking to help, reviving threads posted years and months ago. This could have something to do with wanting to see the reviews of others because they lack confidence, or it could simply be a mistake. Regardless of the motive, or lack thereof, it is just such a shame that writing posted so long ago (and in every case so far, abandoned by the author) gets commented upon when new pieces - with authors desperate for feedback!- get pushed down. I thought about how this could be fixed, as I don't imagine anyone would argue that reviewing abandoned work at the expense of new submissions is a good thing. After perhaps two weeks of inactivity, or so long after the creation of each thread, an auto-lock could be put in place. This would still allow others to read the pieces and perhaps learn from the critiques, give enough time for the writer to get what they need, but also ensure people don't waste their time critiquing something that won't be useful and instead review the things that are still in need of review. What do you think? - Andy
While I agree that the best of all worlds would have active new members critiquing members who are themselves still active, the greater issue we have at the moment is members who simply cannot be bothered to critique at all. What we see most is: Post 1) "Wow, I really liked the feel of this piece. Keep writing!" Post 2) "This was good but maybe a little bit more... I don't know, just more." Post 3) "All bow to the awesomeness of my magnum opus. Tribute and sacrificial offering queue shall form to the left." I would not wish to frighten off those members who may be timid at the idea of critiquing, but who at least have the will to try. I agree that reviewing an aged piece is a way to remove some of the how are they going to react to my review factor, but in truth I am happy to just have the new member actually give a decent and well thought review to a piece, aged or not.
You didn't contemplate the main reason: the review as an egoistic exercise for self-improvement, that picks the most interesting text regardless of its forum age. When I've reviewed old texts there was not a single one in the main page I wanted to review. Mostly because I had already reviewed all that I found interesting, but also because most had several reviews. I've not seen in this forum that desperation for feedback you mention. Reviewing anything but what you want to review is a bad thing. I also don't think there is need to fix anything. Absolutely not. I disagree in the strongest possible terms. I want the freedom to review each and every text from any author I like, even if they were posted years ago. I even have a signature specifically about recovering old texts the author feels were insufficiently reviewed. The usefulness of the review to the author is but one of the benefits of reviewing.
Actually, I do disagree. Strongly. The Review Room is a critiquing workshop. While critiquing new pieces of writing may be better from the point of view of the writer wishing feedback, that is not the primary goal of the Review Room. The goal is to learn to critique effectively. Developing the critiquing mindset will improve your writing far more than any comments you are likely to receive for your own writing. Fuirtermore, developing that mindset helps you make better use of the critique you receive. So critiquing ANY piece of writing, old or new, is a valuable exercise. Nor are new pieces of writing neglected as a result. So we actively encourage members to critique whatever piece of writing inspires them, old or new.
I agree with Cog, every review will help someone so why not have the older things talked about. Also, it's easy on newer reviewers; as they might have the fear of bad feelings with current members, so they can be happy reviewing a piece by someone no longer active.
Lemex made a valid point, which I agree with, so I retract my suggestion. Still, reviews upon newer pieces you know will get read are infinitely more useful than reviews upon pieces that the author will never read. I appreciate people have the right to review whatever they want, but when you review something the author won't read the goodwill doesn't circulate through the Review Room. If increased activity is what you all want for the boards, helping people who still want it does a lot more than bumping a dead thread. That's just my opinion; as I said, the comments opened my eyes but I still see it as a shame to newer threads. - Andy
when i'd see a years-old thread revived i used to let the poster know that they can tell if it's current by looking at the date under the last poster's name... then cog explained what he said above to me and, seeing the wisdom of same, i gave up the practice... i would suggest, however, that if the info about thread/post dates isn't mentioned [in bold or red] in the site rules and welcoming instructions, that be added, just to save the unknowing new members who did do it by mistake from waiting in vain for replies from the op...
