Originally posted by
I think you should have to have a certain rank before you can vote people in. I notice that many newly voted in members are the ones voting on the people that are up for review. Now I will say I did get voted in, I didn't get a mentor but I took
I think you should have to have a certain rank before you can vote people in. I notice that many newly voted in members are the ones voting on the people that are up for review. Now I will say I did get voted in, I didn't get a mentor but I took suggestions to heart and I quickly improved. SO, voting in is fine for some people but I really think you should have to have a certain rank and/or have been an ACTIVE member for some good amount of time here.
I just suggested this because of the recently plagiarized reviews and seeing a review that was less than useful, clicking on it to see they have 5 or more reviews that are the same quality, no tries of improvement and no mentor. I've seen this more than once.
ALSO from my thread:
*A minimum of 4 reviews before applying for the upgrade.
*Blocked from applying if being mentored.
*Voters are either Mentors OR have a rating of 6.0. (or something to that effect)
*If denied the upgrade, the applicant must take classes from a mentor.
----ALSO, Increase the votes for upgrade to 10. That way if there are differing opinions or just lazy voters, the upgrade will still be effective for weeding out the people who need more help.
I really feel that there should be stricter prerequisites for people getting voted into advance reviewing. It seems that people get voted in rather quickly with the bare minimum number of reviews, extremely poor quality reviews, and with never having had a mentor. It kind of upsets me when I have personally worked very hard and took this very seriously. So I agree with the suggestions you've highlighted here, especially about blocking upgrade while being mentored.
Also, I like the idea of the feedback system that Kindred suggested. js250's idea of "mentor of the month" could be motivating, and a special forum for mentors only where everyone can bounce ideas off of each other, and have sticky threads for FAQs to help out new mentors.
Since I'm not a mentor, I don't have an opinion from that perspective on what should change, but I'd like to see the review program a little more stricter overall so that more people take it seriously. I understand that we do want reviews from everyday customers who may not just be in it to become professional reviewers, only to share their opinions with others, but it's the advance review system that I'm mostly referring to. It just feels like people take advantage of the perks and get away with so little.