*Magnify*
SPONSORED LINKS
BY ONLINE AUTHORS
Printed from https://writing.com/main/my_feedback/action/view/id/4711966
Review #4711966
Viewing a review of:
WdC 2023 Birthday Review Raffle - CLOSED  [13+]
Grand prize of 1 million GPs! Tickets purchased by posting reviews instead of GPs!
by Schnujo's in Alabama
In affiliation with WdC SuperPower Reviewers Group  
Rated: 13+ | (5.0)
Access:  Public | Hide Review (?)
I really enjoy this event "WdC 2023 Birthday Review Raffle - CLOSED" , Schnujo's in Alabama ! it offers me the opportunity to show people how I can encourage and create a path for other writers to follow to hopefully get more out of their writing.

Thanks for the opportunity to link in your forum. Kudos to all who support that make this a great event. It’s evident that it takes a lot of work, from an actuarial standpoint. My comments hereafter are just borne out of a response I had to my approach to reviewing (at this particular website) and beliefs and tenets that have cultivated over nearly a half century *Shock*writing, about 20 critiquing, and a little philosophy, with some psychiatry thrown in.

My plain suggestion and vague thesis: retool your format just a bit. Or, don’t. You may know what drives the WDC locomotive better than this reviewer. And, I don’t say this for my benefit, but for better encouragement of reviewers out there honing skills to comprehend what they review while building associations that could increase communication and activity amongst patrons. Perhaps, just a bit, help retool the mindset of what good feedback could be: our impressions and not with red pens, though spelling and notable grammar errors do benefit. But, that’s not truly reviewing. That’s editing.

I know there are a lot of reviewers out there who could inadvertently negate another writer’s work unnecessarily, causing ruffled feathers to discouragement. Theres a mine field of dead accounts to wade through. Even the live ones can seem like dead accounts, seldom visited.

Again, your event is a positive experience. However, readers can spot things for improvement just by giving impressions of what their scribes relate to them. Some are worthy to suggest notable errors (there are very few and I would not consider myself one), but can use wisdom to just point out things without telling them what to fix. To notice this subtlety might be too much task for the crew screening reviews.

I suggest redefine the definition of what is help. But, you conceived of this contest, and it’s your baby. But, if I were more direct in a review, the types of things I would suggest back in the day made some irate, factoring in my blunt, Aspbergery neurodivergence. I’ve ruffled so many feathers in the past because of my impulsiveness. Got myself a year long ban from something this past year. Sadly, I think it’s talked about in circles I’m not a part of, because I could feel a pall, shift in the force. *Laugh* It didn’t bother me. I’m now a fully-fledged (whatever that means), card-carrying neurodivergent with ADHD prone to say what’s on his mind. And muleheaded in a lot of ways that do me no favors.

We each have different principles. I feel no two can be fully alike, and I know my utterances caused one remarkable retort, ‘if you don’t like it, you can leave,’ when I thought my remarks were helpful. So, it took me a long time to earn yellow. I’m glad that dialogue with curious members ended. But, it said a lot. The ban reinforced old philosophies of mine about changing of the guard did little to host a new mentality. So I walk on the sidewalks and through alleys and do my best to be present, helpful but stay clear of anything that could cause me to act before fully processing something 21 times through.

Back to it: Reviews that dictate leave little room for discourse. I’m guessing writers don’t get to know each other from back and forth replies. It’s possible it’s a systemic thing. I’ve seen all sorts of evidence that suggests we funnel members here or there (or away) to benefit the community in general. As a purveyor of an activity or two, I’ve found it a delicate operation to put myself in a position to judge others, lacking a top hat and carnival atmosphere. Idealistically for this site, I’m the wrong type. As a writer and reviewer, I’m leaps and bounds ahead because I don’t follow the crowd.

And I don’t have shiny dollars to chase, though I hunted those gps back in the day, having fun. I sobered up.

But your activities give writers an outlet to share. Don’t change what you’re doing because of my ideals, but what you think is best for WDC overall. Lord knows, I can’t fully wrap my head around some of the things, but I have no bias against the overall community and how it has served these many years. But, trying to get people to give away their life’s work in trade for a legacy account was an eye opener. A lot of writers didn’t get noticed until after death. Though, probably not the case any more.

Anyhoo, I’m long-winded and off subject again. You do you; I’ll do me. Just figured I’d pay my respects with these two cents,

Brian
Super Power Reviewer
Join the fun! We inspire reviewers through kindness and learning! Winner of eight Quills!

Sorry for blunt forwardness and being ‘as public as a frog.’ Real as I can be without seeming impolite to the others. You, you’re great!
I don’t like to low rate either. Numbers are just numbers, but can hurt some writers more than reviewers know. Speaking for the whole and from 17 years of review responses.

Sorry if typos. Blind, late, work in the a.m.
Bluntly honest his whole life because Mama said to always tell the truth.
sadly, i don't know what truth is these days...*RollEyes*
   *NoteR* You have not yet responded to this review. Ignore
Printed from https://writing.com/main/my_feedback/action/view/id/4711966