Change back to must have 10 posts to have site reviewed?

[Rosey]

I know this has been discussed before and that it is hard to "enforce", but this section is is really getting junked up by people who have never been here and will never return, asking for reviews. I think they should ask for reviews from sites where they are active members, myself.

I used to check this section regularly, but it is getting too hard to tell legitimate review requests from mere advertising techniques.

I know when I see the review request as being the member's very first post, a red flag goes up, but thought I would start this poll and see what other members think.

[TexasLady]

I agree, Rosey, Nuff Said!

[carpmad]

i think it would be a good idea too atleast then youl know there more than likely to stick around

[Jamie Walker]

I agree to a point.  You want people to prove they are invested in your answer but on the other hand, you don't really want a lot of spam posts just to get that 10-post limit.  Maybe 5 posts or something.  That makes the member work a little for it but not to the point where they are spamming all of the boards just to get that status.  10 posts can be a daunting tasks for a newbie.  Just a thought.

[SensoVision]

I agree with Jamie about 5 post limit, actually this was one ofthe reasons we were placing this contest. Unfortunately we didn't finished it yet.
It would be pretty hard to enforce people not to wait with creating review thread before they accumulate 10 posts, we have already did it in the past and actually we got only requests from people who was posting useless threads just to get higher postcount from what I remember.
5 would be ideal IMHO.

[Andy]

I think 10 posts is a bit steep. 5 is not so many but gives us a feel for what kind of member they are. If they just post 5 quick 2 word posts then people can be suspicious. Also, if the site looks professional, has lots of good content pages, has good page rank and has been online for years. It is a red flag since they are not newbies.

[Rosey]

I think it should be at least 10. 5 is too easy and might not discourage the spammers enough to make a difference.I doubt most of the people entering their sites for the link advertising are going to take the effort to post 10 posts.
It takes 15 posts to become a jr member. If it was set at 15, it would do more for emliminating spam and do  more for the actual review of  "members" sites, plus be more structured.

You become a jr member at 15 post so makes sense that you would not ask for a member site review till you became a member. Simple..

[CoastPC]

What ever happened to review 3 other sites before they get a review? Was that to hard to police?
   What is the goal of Site reviews? Do we offer them to everyone? or just members? Some may want a site review, (because we say we will) but not want to join or participate. Do we want to entertain this?
   Maybe we should raise the post limit for a review, if our goal is to keep people posting. 
This is a webmaster forum, we help webmasters, however if people want a review, then never post again, that's not helping us at all. ( only getting hits to there sites).
Maybe they should become a junior member before being granted a review? That way we can be sure they will at least add something to the community.

Chris

[Rosey]

I think that is very well put Chris.

It's not that reviewing someone's site is such a big awesome task, although some members do give a very thorough, thoughtful review(and I am not talking about myself:)-I usually keep it pretty short, like I like it , or I hate it! Those members and all members that review the sites are doing so sincerely and taking the time to view a complete stranger's work and give feedback.

This is actually a small pecentage of the benefits of being a member here. One other benefits is the search engine coverage, which is why I suppose so many sites come in here and plaster their name around and disappear.

These people are takers. They are taking from the members of this forum and the forum itself and offering in return their url and nothing else.

That takes away from the value of the "review" in general, and takes avantage of members and the forum itself.

[TexasLady]

I've thought about this a bit since I made my original post.    I've changed my thinking to 1) being a member of this forum and 2) have a minimum of 5 valid posts.   

As some of you have said, this gives you an idea of who they are and what they are seeking.    This thing of guests just signing in and requesting a site review is taking advantage of you nice people, to my way of thinking.   

[Rosey]

 Ha! Just checked the poll results and since there no no post requirements now, and somebody checked "lower amount of posts" I guess that means forum should start paying people to ask for reviews.

[Rosey]

Ha! Just checked the poll results and since there no no post requirements now, and somebody checked "lower amount of posts" I guess that means forum should start paying people to ask for reviews. 

LOL! The vote increases! Denis get your wallet out! We(you) have to start paying these fly-by-niters!

[SensoVision]

Ha! Just checked the poll results and since there no no post requirements now, and somebody checked "lower amount of posts" I guess that means forum should start paying people to ask for reviews.

I think that you've just use tricky questions to make me pay for this reviews

LOL! The vote increases! Denis get your wallet out! We(you) have to start paying these fly-by-niters!

I can give them my wallet, as it still doesn't store any cash at this moment

What ever happened to review 3 other sites before they get a review? Was that to hard to police?

yes, it was a bit time consuming as someone had to check previous reviews and see how well they was. From other side person who looking for review may not have talent or wish to review sites not because he or she is bad and selfish but simply because they don't like it, and would gladly post in other part of the forums.
Right now I still wish to try 5 post limit at least for beginning to see how it work, as almost everyone agree that there should be some limit for asking for review. And if it doesn't work we may try 10 post review or other policy, maybe something like Chris suggested about 3 site review.

I've thought about this a bit since I made my original post.    I've changed my thinking to 1) being a member of this forum and 2) have a minimum of 5 valid posts.   

Have you change a vote as well? As right now 10 post count is leading although most of people who replied prefer 5 post limit...