I’ll say it, but only because my standards were low to begin with.
It is often said that irony is hard to detect in writing. I hope that was such a case
And god knows there is enough of that @TheJames101.
lovely romances happening everywhere...
This is an amazing chance for people with low self esteem to prop themselves up and clap themselves on the back for a job well done. What service are we recognizing them for? I saw an SP and wrote about it. Where's my prize? Is it based on who is the most prolific? Who writes the funniest review? Are entertaining reviews awarded more points than informative reviews? Shill reviews? Is there a minimum number of reviews need in order to qualify? What if the reviewer reviews people who are both MERB supporters and not supporters? Do the reviews of the non-supported members count or is the overall general impression of the reviewer, even if he has written 19 reviews about a non-MERB supporter and 1 review about a MERB client? In any award process there should be some kind of standard as to what makes a candidate for the award. What is it here? Who gets to vote? Do SPs get to vote for people who wrote them positive reviews? What is the membership requirement that allows someone to vote for a candidate? etc etc etc. There's just a never ending list of conflicts and a complete lack of transparency as to what it even means.
As I mentioned before, members who don’t write reviews can sometimes feel left out or on the sidelines. However, those who do write reviews aren’t seeking validation or applause from anyone on this forum. They take the time to write reviews solely to help other members make informed decisions, have the best possible experience, and ensure their hard earned money is well spent when booking a service provider.
Maybe for the number of orgasms they give to prostitutes lol
Please. That's like asking me to believe in the tooth fairy, and if you think people feel left out or on the sidelines because of reviews then you're delusional. You are straight up asking for people to recognize your worth and the worth of your reviews, as you always do. I am personally fine with reviewers getting a scratch behind the ear and a "good doggy", which they usually do in the review threads for good, thoughtful reviews from their fellow mongers. That's the appropriate place for it, IMHO. The acknowledgement then is timely and apropos to the review subject, doesn't require campaigning, and is a sincere reflection of the contribution rather than a manufactured reward or based on some kind of bias. I notice you zoned in on the one thing you care about and ignored everything else in the thread about quantifying and qualifying rules for what would be a valid set of guidelines needed to screen reviewers and give an "award" too. Hmmmmm...
This isn’t about me, it’s about the people who take the time to write reviews. Coming here to mock them with your sarcastic biased rules is deeply disrespectful. When I said on the sidelines that those who dont contribute reviews would oppose this thread, that’s exactly what happened. And there you have it proof to support my point.
ehrm... what? What biased rules? I didn't propose any rules. I asked what the rules should be. How can there be a bias when there aren't any rules? What proof? proof of what? What are your proposed rules? Who are the qualified reviewers? Who are the no review people opposing, not the thread, but the award process? Lastly, what point were you making that's been proven? What's the point? Where's the proof? You've said nothing other than reviewers deserve a reward and people who don't write reviews are insanely jealous and left out enough to the point where they want to sabotage people who are deserving like yourself (I may be dramatically paraphrasing slightly. Poetic license). Who are these people? Are you using me as an example and making a sample of one your proof? You can't be. I write reviews and a statistical sample of one isn't considered proof by anyone, even if I was one of those poor, sad sideline people who resent your review writing prowess and feel left out. You should flesh this out a bit more and create some kind of sound basis for what you consider a reasonable approach to recognizing what a qualifying reviewer looks like and what makes them deserving, then come back to me and explain to me why I (and others like me) don't measure up. Then we can bat it around a little. I'm going to make one thing perfectly clear for you and the peanut gallery though. I don't mock reviewers for reviewing. I wish there were more of them and I respect the process and the effort. What I don't respect is the begging for personal recognition. That's not what it's about. People do reviews to help others and to in turn be helped by others. A person who writes a single review can be immensely more helpful to me than a prolific reviewer who says the same thing all the time in the style of the greatest Victorian romances about people I have no interest in. So who should I give the award to? Anyway, that's subjective, but the rules and the qualifications shouldn't be. So, what are they?
Geez. Way to narrow it down a little. That's like half the reviewers. How do you pick between them all? Are we voting for the best AI reviewer now? Shouldn't that be a separate category? I'm so confused.
