30 Reviews in 30 Days

What do you think of this comp? Not sure I could have enough time to write 30 reviews in 30 days as I don't have that many saved and unpublished on my computer. Is anyone going to enter?

I think it will encourage spamming, so i don't like it.

Me too - it's all about quantity rather than quality. I think they set the bar too high. Most people will realise that one a day is going to be too much like hard work whilst people doing one or two a week might be fired up to have a go if the target was three.

Generally speaking the writers won't get significantly more reads for posting every day and the moment they drop one or two days they are out. It's more like a marathon or one of those silly competitions they do in the US where people have to touch a truck for 12 days without letting go in order to win it (or die of kidney failure).

It's about generating content for dooyoo, so it has to be a good thing....it's in their strategy not just members.

And it is about reasonable quality content, so the reviews need to be average Useful or Very Useful.

I must admit I would struggle to write a review a day, (but then I have never written in large volumes for very long) although perhaps not if I wasn't selective about what I write about in general. I am sure there will be a few applicants, and for those that do, a nice little prize.

I don't think that a review a day is that bad, especially when you consider what people were posting for the Helium comp a few months back. *shudder*

It's beyond me, mind you. I'm barely posting a review per month these days, but they're only considering reviews rated U and upwards, so just make sure that people are rating correctly otherwise over-rated rubbish will get included.

That's my biggest concern... I still think too many people reach for that VU rating automatically and that's going to have an effect on the reviews included.

I find 30 reviews in 30 days is too demanding, even if we were given a weeks notice - something like 15 in 30 would have been fitting maybe (for me).

I was planning on doing it, but it takes me forever to write anything and I am not sure if I will last the pace.

What do you think the numbers will be of those who manage it? 2?...

I reckon there will be about a dozen or more members at least who manage it, you can spot the same few each day so far. If they do then the odds of winning a prize are not bad however for me the loss of reads would offset the benefit of winning especially as I have most of the products on offer already. I tend to find a two day gap between reviews is optimal although at the moment I just about manage one a week.

The quality threshold will only exclude a small number as few reviews from established members get an overall SU rating given the tendency for people to always rate VU or U anyway.

I know I will not be going out of my way to read the extra output that it generates, just glad it is not my category that will attract any of the additional reviews.

I usually manage to get one review written per two weeks these days (though it would be possible for me to basically write a review a day, but I'm lazy). But I have so much other stuff to do than just writing reviews all day long, not to mention my composer worklist project is taking quite a lot of my writing time to begin with. This is certainly something completely out of my reach.

Can't we have a "30 reviews in 30 months" styled competition for all us procrastinators at the back?

Please...

berlioz wrote:

(though it would be possible for me to basically write a review a day, but I'm lazy).

Something we are all eternally grateful for.

Crikey! I only do about 3 a month. And that can be a strain at times.

The terrible thing is I have an excellent idea for it, which if I had a little more notice I might have had a go. Seeing as it started today I doubt I could do it. Shame...

atticusuk wrote:

Something we are all eternally grateful for.

Are you trying to suggest something?

If you manage 30 reviews in a month you have way too much time on your hands IMO.

I was going to try giving this a go...I do love a challenge but not sure if I'd be able to keep up to be honest as I am starting a new job next week after being unemployed for 3 months so not sure I will have the time...unless I just write loads and loads this week lol

Hey guys. Don't tell Elise you saw me here.

3 things:

1. This is sort of a test competition...we've got a new tool that records productivity of users and we figured this might be a cool way to test is out. If this turns out as planned, we might have a regular lottery with a smaller number added to our competition roster. So just know this is a prototype contest.

By the by, there are about 10 or so users who regularly post this much and another 20 who have done so once or twice in the past so and so months. If the number of people who make it is stupid-low, our next one will be with a lower number....of that I'm certain. Well, almost certain.

2. It's 30 reviews in 30 days....not necessarily one a day. Just, after 30 days has passed, you've got 30 of them. I totally confused people when I initially posted about it.

3. Quality matters. Even if this does encourage some people to crap out churn-tastic reviews, they won't win. There's a reason the whole quality screening step was mentioned...I'll only be throwing names into the hat of those that honestly wrote 30 good reviews. The lottery will be random but I'm definitely in there making sure those that do make it deserve it.

Trust me when I say that when I first heard this contest pitched my response was "I'm cool with it as long as you give me a big stick to beat the churners." A piece of wood forged with bludgeoning in mind was provided, and I gave it the thumbs up.
-Jared
"wielder of the Quality Truncheon"

Jared wrote:

1. This is sort of a test competition...we've got a new tool that records productivity of users and we figured this might be a cool way to test is out. Trust me when I say that when I first heard this contest pitched my response was "I'm cool with it as long as you give me a big stick to beat the churners." A piece of wood forged with bludgeoning in mind was provided, and I gave it the thumbs up.

-Jared

"wielder of the Quality Truncheon"

Lordy J, I think you must have an infatuation with tools and truncheons!

Vax wrote:

Jared wrote:

1. This is sort of a test competition...we've got a new tool that records productivity of users and we figured this might be a cool way to test is out. Trust me when I say that when I first heard this contest pitched my response was "I'm cool with it as long as you give me a big stick to beat the churners." A piece of wood forged with bludgeoning in mind was provided, and I gave it the thumbs up.

-Jared

"wielder of the Quality Truncheon"

Lordy J, I think you must have an infatuation with tools and truncheons!

That's quite a comment from a guy with a bear pleasuring itself with a vacuum cleaner as an avatar.

koshkha wrote:

Vax wrote:

Jared wrote:

1. This is sort of a test competition...we've got a new tool that records productivity of users and we figured this might be a cool way to test is out. Trust me when I say that when I first heard this contest pitched my response was "I'm cool with it as long as you give me a big stick to beat the churners." A piece of wood forged with bludgeoning in mind was provided, and I gave it the thumbs up.

-Jared

"wielder of the Quality Truncheon"

Lordy J, I think you must have an infatuation with tools and truncheons!

That's quite a comment from a guy with a bear pleasuring itself with a vacuum cleaner as an avatar.

Oh heck, you ARE on the ball today, koshka.

I don't think it was a ball - looks like something slightly higher.

Looks like a very happy bear though.

Not only that, but I believe that vacuum cleaner vibrates too.

Back on topic.....lol......this competition seems to have brought out some good entrants and reviews in my opinion. I have not noticed very much churn that seems to be related to this comp which was a worry for some people. Looks like it may be a sucess even if it is a little too long.

If i was here when it started i would have done it. I think the churners will churn anyway, seeming to think that they'll get paid more if they write a review every minute.
Whereas i doubt the decent members would drop their quality. I love the fact they must be "useful" or "very useful" too, which makes the chance of churners less likely. Though personally i would have went for an overall very useful to be stricter.

No I think useful reviews should qualify too, although saying that is it a lucky dip at the end for all who enteretd?

butters wrote:

If i was here when it started i would have done it. I think the churners will churn anyway, seeming to think that they'll get paid more if they write a review every minute.
Whereas i doubt the decent members would drop their quality. I love the fact they must be "useful" or "very useful" too, which makes the chance of churners less likely. Though personally i would have went for an overall very useful to be stricter.

Problem is with whatever criteria they apply it is the overall rating that decides it and if it was VU then there would be more incentive for everyone to rate the same high ratings in order to get reciprocal VU ratings rather than rating consistently based on actual quality.

I personally don't get revenge ratings etc. Many people who read my reviews read them constantly, and i don't get many new people reading them, not enough to affect the score if they revenge rate anyway