You've all made some really great suggestions on ways to improve our weekly contest! I have filtered out some of the suggestions that are just not possible at this time, and put all the others into polls for you to vote on. Your votes will decide what gets changed.
Improving the Weekly Review Rumble - Vote/Poll
Discussion Topics
1.
What should be nominated and voted on?
(24 posts)
2.
Can you be in the Rumble two weeks in a row?
(30 posts)
3.
How many people should you be allowed to nominate each week?
(13 posts)
4.
Should the eligibility period for reviews be changed?
(14 posts)
As it is now, every review is included separately. This gives reviewers more than one entry if more than one of their reviews is nominated.
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews nominated?
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews nominated?
02/04/2010
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Quote:
Make sure you vote now, the changes are gonna go into affect this week.
Originally posted by
Gary
As it is now, every review is included separately. This gives reviewers more than one entry if more than one of their reviews is nominated.
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews ... more
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews ... more
As it is now, every review is included separately. This gives reviewers more than one entry if more than one of their reviews is nominated.
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews nominated? less
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews nominated? less
02/08/2010
I'm a little worried people will start voting for reviewers based on how prolific they were, but I'm not sure that's actually worth worrying about.
02/09/2010
Quote:
I think I will still list all the reviews, so it will look the same, but then just tally all the votes together for the reviewer. Since it appears this is the popular choice.
Originally posted by
Red
I'm a little worried people will start voting for reviewers based on how prolific they were, but I'm not sure that's actually worth worrying about.
02/09/2010
Quote:
I hope that made sense
Originally posted by
Red
I'm a little worried people will start voting for reviewers based on how prolific they were, but I'm not sure that's actually worth worrying about.
02/09/2010
It did! I was worried about this, too, but I figured that you'd find a way around it. We don't want this turning into a popularity contest, hahah.
02/09/2010
Make sure you vote on these changes everyone! They will being going into affect this week.
02/10/2010
It should be a combination!
04/22/2011
Quote:
I like this option since this will give others a chance to win the rumble. Some people have awesome reviews and do not have as many out there yet due to their jobs, kids, etc. This would even up the odds and be more consistent as far as review quality and popularity.
Originally posted by
Gary
As it is now, every review is included separately. This gives reviewers more than one entry if more than one of their reviews is nominated.
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews ... more
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews ... more
As it is now, every review is included separately. This gives reviewers more than one entry if more than one of their reviews is nominated.
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews nominated? less
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews nominated? less
07/09/2011
I know this is an old thread, but I think that perhaps winners should be limited annually, on a rolling year system. Like, for example, if I win ten (six, eight, twelve; this number is a bit arbitrary, but it should be enough so that people can fairly win a few, without getting to the point of excessiveness) weekly review rumbles, then I would be ineligible until one year from the week I won the first rumble.
I just feel like we see so many repeat winners, people who consistently win--which means that they write AMAZING reviews. But, in that same respect, it almost makes it impossible for other newcomers who may have had REALLY GOOD REVIEWS to win, because you've got these powerhouses dominating the rumbles.
Personally, I don't like the rumbles as a concept, but this is just my suggestion on how to, perhaps, level the field a bit for newbies.
I just feel like we see so many repeat winners, people who consistently win--which means that they write AMAZING reviews. But, in that same respect, it almost makes it impossible for other newcomers who may have had REALLY GOOD REVIEWS to win, because you've got these powerhouses dominating the rumbles.
Personally, I don't like the rumbles as a concept, but this is just my suggestion on how to, perhaps, level the field a bit for newbies.
07/22/2011
Quote:
Combine multiple nominations, and vote on the reviewer
Originally posted by
Gary
As it is now, every review is included separately. This gives reviewers more than one entry if more than one of their reviews is nominated.
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews ... more
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews ... more
As it is now, every review is included separately. This gives reviewers more than one entry if more than one of their reviews is nominated.
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews nominated? less
Should we leave it how it is now, or should we limit each reviewer to one entry including all reviews nominated? less
01/01/2012
I'd say individual reviews. Because If you reviewing the whole persons body of work... well maybe their current reviews have improved from later ones. Individual gives them a chance to grow. Seems like it would end up being a popularity contest if it was voting on the reviewer... Or the person with the most reviews..
I think it should be individual reviews. And one person cannot be nominated for two reviews in one week- if this happens they can pick the best review out of the bunch, instead of letting them get two chances to win. Fair for everyone.
I think it should be individual reviews. And one person cannot be nominated for two reviews in one week- if this happens they can pick the best review out of the bunch, instead of letting them get two chances to win. Fair for everyone.
01/06/2012
Quote:
I think it should definitely be one or the other---limit the number of nominations for a single reviewer or put them all under one name if there's more than one for that person that week.
Originally posted by
Curiouscat
I'd say individual reviews. Because If you reviewing the whole persons body of work... well maybe their current reviews have improved from later ones. Individual gives them a chance to grow. Seems like it would end up being a popularity contest
...
more
I'd say individual reviews. Because If you reviewing the whole persons body of work... well maybe their current reviews have improved from later ones. Individual gives them a chance to grow. Seems like it would end up being a popularity contest if it was voting on the reviewer... Or the person with the most reviews..
I think it should be individual reviews. And one person cannot be nominated for two reviews in one week- if this happens they can pick the best review out of the bunch, instead of letting them get two chances to win. Fair for everyone. less
I think it should be individual reviews. And one person cannot be nominated for two reviews in one week- if this happens they can pick the best review out of the bunch, instead of letting them get two chances to win. Fair for everyone. less
I don't want to use the term unfair, because nothing in life is fair except a blonde-headed child, but it seems not right to have multiple nominations for the same person in the same week. Their votes get divided between multiple reviews.
The consensus of the community members who have participated in this poll, up to this point, is that multiple nominations should be allowed, but they should be grouped under the person's name.
Granted, this poll is a year old but I'd be willing to bet most of those people are still around today.
Maybe we can pimp this thread, get more votes and then give it a closing date and go from there?
01/06/2012
Just wanted to pop in on this with a quick note. Since we started doing the quarterly Rumbles and Finals, we decided to keep it based on individual reviews since it's the Review Rumble and not the Reviewer Rumble.
01/10/2012
Combine multiple
01/27/2012
I like the individual reviews.
06/11/2012
Individual reviews.
07/11/2012
this will be neat
07/12/2012
Quote:
Really good point!
Originally posted by
js250
I like this option since this will give others a chance to win the rumble. Some people have awesome reviews and do not have as many out there yet due to their jobs, kids, etc. This would even up the odds and be more consistent as far as review
...
more
I like this option since this will give others a chance to win the rumble. Some people have awesome reviews and do not have as many out there yet due to their jobs, kids, etc. This would even up the odds and be more consistent as far as review quality and popularity.
less
09/07/2012
more than one
10/12/2012
Combine multiple nominations, and vote on the reviewer.
10/12/2012
Combine multiple nominations, and vote on the reviewer.
10/29/2012
Quote:
I agree
Originally posted by
BrittaniMaree
Combine multiple nominations, and vote on the reviewer.
11/11/2012
Quote:
I disagree on this... That seems almost like punishing those who right stellar reviews.
Originally posted by
DeliciousSurprise
I know this is an old thread, but I think that perhaps winners should be limited annually, on a rolling year system. Like, for example, if I win ten (six, eight, twelve; this number is a bit arbitrary, but it should be enough so that people can
...
more
I know this is an old thread, but I think that perhaps winners should be limited annually, on a rolling year system. Like, for example, if I win ten (six, eight, twelve; this number is a bit arbitrary, but it should be enough so that people can fairly win a few, without getting to the point of excessiveness) weekly review rumbles, then I would be ineligible until one year from the week I won the first rumble.
I just feel like we see so many repeat winners, people who consistently win--which means that they write AMAZING reviews. But, in that same respect, it almost makes it impossible for other newcomers who may have had REALLY GOOD REVIEWS to win, because you've got these powerhouses dominating the rumbles.
Personally, I don't like the rumbles as a concept, but this is just my suggestion on how to, perhaps, level the field a bit for newbies. less
I just feel like we see so many repeat winners, people who consistently win--which means that they write AMAZING reviews. But, in that same respect, it almost makes it impossible for other newcomers who may have had REALLY GOOD REVIEWS to win, because you've got these powerhouses dominating the rumbles.
Personally, I don't like the rumbles as a concept, but this is just my suggestion on how to, perhaps, level the field a bit for newbies. less
03/15/2013
Total posts: 24
Unique posters: 20
Should we limit how often you can be in the Rumble? As it is now, you could be in every week if you receive a nomination. Would you like to change this so that you cannot be in the Rumble two weeks in a row?
02/04/2010
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
I don't see any issues with people being nominated each week. I think if you win the Rumble you should be excluded for the next week or two of nominations though.
02/04/2010
Yeah, I voted cannot be in but I'm thinking if you win, not just if you were nominated.
02/04/2010
yeah, if you won the previous week, you're out the next week
02/04/2010
Quote:
Seconded
Originally posted by
El-Jaro
yeah, if you won the previous week, you're out the next week
02/04/2010
Quote:
Thirded (is that a word?)
Originally posted by
El-Jaro
yeah, if you won the previous week, you're out the next week
02/04/2010
I fourth(ded)? that!
02/04/2010
Fifthed. 'cause some people write good reviews every week and get nominated but just don't win. I'd just want to see a winning participant take a week off or so.
02/04/2010
I agree, only winners should be excluded. I think one week is fine.
02/04/2010
I eighth the winner skips a week suggestion
02/04/2010
I eighth the winner skips a week suggestion
02/04/2010
Quote:
Ditto, only winners should be excluded for the following week
Originally posted by
El-Jaro
yeah, if you won the previous week, you're out the next week
02/04/2010
Quote:
I agree with this suggestion.
Originally posted by
Carrie Ann
Yeah, I voted cannot be in but I'm thinking if you win, not just if you were nominated.
02/04/2010
Agreed - only winners should have to skip a week.
02/04/2010
agree - winner skips one week
02/04/2010
Excellent suggestion, I agree too.
Do I really have to say to what I agree?
Do I really have to say to what I agree?
02/06/2010
I also agree on the winner skipping a week.
02/08/2010
Agree on the winner skipping a week also.
02/09/2010
I also agree that you should only be excluded for the next rumble, if you won the previous one. Great ideas people!
02/10/2010
I say if you win you need to sit the next one out.
02/11/2010
Quote:
I agree.
Originally posted by
LicentiouslyYours
I agree, only winners should be excluded. I think one week is fine.
04/13/2011
Quote:
This (which has already been seconded, thirded, fourthed, etc.!).
Originally posted by
sarahbear
I don't see any issues with people being nominated each week. I think if you win the Rumble you should be excluded for the next week or two of nominations though.
07/09/2011
Quote:
I agree with sarah
Originally posted by
Gary
Should we limit how often you can be in the Rumble? As it is now, you could be in every week if you receive a nomination. Would you like to change this so that you cannot be in the Rumble two weeks in a row?
07/25/2011
I agree that in a "perfect" world (and EF is close, very close) a reviewer should be able to be nominated each week, provided that the current week's review is truly exceptional, which is a very subjective and potentialy inflamatory criteria. Having said that, I have noticed some "cliques" or "fan clubs", as it is, and I think that greatly influences how people may or may not vote. It is a difficult thing to "police" so that it is fair to all. We just need to rely on people's good ethics. I have observed that EF as a company, and many, many of the members have the highest ethical standards, but, there are those few...
11/11/2011
Actually I agree the winner should sit out, but I think all nominated people should sit out a week. There are some of us that have NEVER been nominated for the rumble and would love a chance to be. I think it would open it up to more people.
11/11/2011
The people who haven't deserve a chance too!
01/27/2012
Quote:
I voted that 'CAN' , The way I see it, if someone writes a great review and wins a rumble, and then writes another one the next week, why shouldn't that one be recognised as well? We are voting on great reviews/reviewers, ANY great review should have a chance to win no matter what.
Originally posted by
Gary
Should we limit how often you can be in the Rumble? As it is now, you could be in every week if you receive a nomination. Would you like to change this so that you cannot be in the Rumble two weeks in a row?
09/23/2012
If you were in last weeks Rumble, you CANNOT be in this weeks Rumble.
10/29/2012
Eh.. I'll vote with the minority here. If someone writes stellar reviews and wins Rumble... It almost seems like a punishment to say "You can't be in the Rumble next week", and then... that person has a week to polish a review that they had ready anyway.
Analogy here: You don't tell the team that wins the Super Bowl that they won't be allowed to participate next year.
just my thoughts.
Analogy here: You don't tell the team that wins the Super Bowl that they won't be allowed to participate next year.
just my thoughts.
02/21/2013
Quote:
Agreed. I only think you should be excluded for the next couple weeks if you win.
Originally posted by
sarahbear
I don't see any issues with people being nominated each week. I think if you win the Rumble you should be excluded for the next week or two of nominations though.
03/15/2013
Quote:
I see MrWilly's point but.. I don't think a week or 2 is unfair. 2 weeks is not a year.
Originally posted by
MrWill
Eh.. I'll vote with the minority here. If someone writes stellar reviews and wins Rumble... It almost seems like a punishment to say "You can't be in the Rumble next week", and then... that person has a week to polish a review that
...
more
Eh.. I'll vote with the minority here. If someone writes stellar reviews and wins Rumble... It almost seems like a punishment to say "You can't be in the Rumble next week", and then... that person has a week to polish a review that they had ready anyway.
Analogy here: You don't tell the team that wins the Super Bowl that they won't be allowed to participate next year.
just my thoughts. less
Analogy here: You don't tell the team that wins the Super Bowl that they won't be allowed to participate next year.
just my thoughts. less
03/15/2013
Total posts: 31
Unique posters: 29
As it is now, you can only nominate 5 people. Would you like to be able to nominate more people? Do you think there should be fewer nominations? How many?
02/04/2010
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
I like how no one chose four.
02/09/2010
I don't know which number is going to end up being the "key" number to get the rumble balanced out, but it's probably less than 5. To be completely honest, in weeks where I'm extremely busy, and don't have a lot of time, I often find that there's just too many nominated reviews for me to sit there and read through all of them in one sitting, to cast a fair vote. Many times in those situations, I end up not voting at all. I think that if we could limit nominations so that everyone will TRULY only nominate the reviews they found BEST, instead of 5 reviews they thought were "pretty good", it might help to make the voting process easier.
Just my $.02
Just my $.02
02/10/2010
I am all for five, especially if we are voting on the reviewer rather than the review itself. It says something if you nominate two reviews by the same person.
02/11/2010
Quote:
I like things how they are
Originally posted by
Gary
As it is now, you can only nominate 5 people. Would you like to be able to nominate more people? Do you think there should be fewer nominations? How many?
07/25/2011
3
01/27/2012
Quote:
Maybe you should have.
Originally posted by
Red
I like how no one chose four.
04/13/2012
I would go with just one.
04/13/2012
Five
09/18/2012
Nominate 03 reviews per week.
10/29/2012
Just 1 review a week.
01/24/2013
This touches on something else I've seen. If we are voting on something as the "best" for a period of time... Why are voters allowed to vote for more than one entry?
I'm sure I sound like an ass, but think about it.. Did you go vote for Obama and Romney? No. You voted for the one you thought was best, not the one you thought was best, the one that was your friend, the one that has a nice smile, and so on.
I think it muddies competitions/contests up when voters are allowed to vote for several entries/contestants/wh at have you.
I think each member should be able to nominate a single review each week. If each member only nominated the best review they saw in a week, instead of nominated the 5 best... I think the noms would be better quality.
I'm sure I sound like an ass, but think about it.. Did you go vote for Obama and Romney? No. You voted for the one you thought was best, not the one you thought was best, the one that was your friend, the one that has a nice smile, and so on.
I think it muddies competitions/contests up when voters are allowed to vote for several entries/contestants/wh at have you.
I think each member should be able to nominate a single review each week. If each member only nominated the best review they saw in a week, instead of nominated the 5 best... I think the noms would be better quality.
02/21/2013
Quote:
I can agree with that. I think 3 is a good number.
Originally posted by
J's Alley
I am all for five, especially if we are voting on the reviewer rather than the review itself. It says something if you nominate two reviews by the same person.
03/15/2013
Total posts: 13
Unique posters: 12
This poll is to determine the window of eligibility from which reviews can be nominated each week.
- To be eligible review must have been submitted between ?/?/? & ?/?/?.
- Nominations must be submitted by 11:59PM on Thursday each week.
- The Weekly Review Rumble will be posted Friday evening each week.
- To be eligible review must have been submitted between ?/?/? & ?/?/?.
- Nominations must be submitted by 11:59PM on Thursday each week.
- The Weekly Review Rumble will be posted Friday evening each week.
02/04/2010
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
I think in order not to miss reviews that come in right before the deadline, the cutoff for eligible reviews should be 24 hours before the nominations must be made.
02/04/2010
Quote:
Good point. It would really suck if a review came in a few hours before the deadline, but it couldn't be nominated for either week because of the timing.
Originally posted by
Sammi
I think in order not to miss reviews that come in right before the deadline, the cutoff for eligible reviews should be 24 hours before the nominations must be made.
02/09/2010
I just wanted to say that I think this Comparative Discussion was super useful and I hope to see more people using them in this fashion. Very cool!
02/09/2010
I just wanted to say that I think this Comparative Discussion was super useful and I hope to see more people using them in this fashion. Very cool!
02/09/2010
I agree with Sammi. Possibly eligibility period ends on Thursday but we can still nominate until the end of the day Friday.
02/09/2010
Quote:
Aww, I should I have read this BEFORE I voted. I vote for this one instead. Take my no change back please.
Originally posted by
removedacnt
I agree with Sammi. Possibly eligibility period ends on Thursday but we can still nominate until the end of the day Friday.
02/11/2010
Quote:
no change
Originally posted by
Gary
This poll is to determine the window of eligibility from which reviews can be nominated each week.
- To be eligible review must have been submitted between ?/?/? & ?/?/?.
- Nominations must be submitted by 11:59PM on Thursday each ... more
- To be eligible review must have been submitted between ?/?/? & ?/?/?.
- Nominations must be submitted by 11:59PM on Thursday each ... more
This poll is to determine the window of eligibility from which reviews can be nominated each week.
- To be eligible review must have been submitted between ?/?/? & ?/?/?.
- Nominations must be submitted by 11:59PM on Thursday each week.
- The Weekly Review Rumble will be posted Friday evening each week. less
- To be eligible review must have been submitted between ?/?/? & ?/?/?.
- Nominations must be submitted by 11:59PM on Thursday each week.
- The Weekly Review Rumble will be posted Friday evening each week. less
07/25/2011
Keep the same!
01/27/2012
Quote:
I agree with this. It doesn't leave much time for people to have read reviews close to the deadline and nominate them.
Originally posted by
Sammi
I think in order not to miss reviews that come in right before the deadline, the cutoff for eligible reviews should be 24 hours before the nominations must be made.
01/27/2012
The process more or less works well the way it is now
09/13/2012
The actual days I don't think will make a difference, it still gives people the same amount of time to write and submit reviews.
09/19/2012
no do not change it
10/29/2012
Don't change it
11/11/2012
Quote:
Seconded. Thirded. Whatever.
Originally posted by
removedacnt
I agree with Sammi. Possibly eligibility period ends on Thursday but we can still nominate until the end of the day Friday.
03/15/2013
Total posts: 15
Unique posters: 14