More space for replying reviews?

[adhelle]

Hi! When I'm replying low score reviews, 90% of the time I have trouble trying to fit an explanation on the replying space.
I believe 500 characters for a detailed reply is not enough, mainly when the reviewers point out several things in short notes.
I think we should have at least twice, preferably until 4 times the space it's given to the reviewers for a reply.
For every single thing noted by a reviewer, it usually does take more space for us to justify. For example:
Reviewer: Almost no GMs online.
Server Owner: I understand the inconvenience, but we are already trying to recruit staff.
So, by the time we have replied some stuff noted, there isn't more space to reply the rest.
For this reason, I think it's somewhat illogical we are given the same space.
I hope you can consider this!

[yC]

To be on a fair ground, I try to keep it where review and reply have the same char limit.

Otherwise the next suggestion would be a reviewer come here trying to get more char for their review because the owner can write much more to reply them ...  the result of having a different space limit could lead to a never ending comparison.

Since there is no plan to add more char limit on the review side, I have to keep the reply side the same.

[Tom~]

But a reply (usually made to defend your server) does require more space than the review itself, considering that you first have to address the claim and then refute it with proofs and/or a decent explanation.
It's not fair when a reviewer claims that your server is this, that, and that too, and you can't address all the points properly.

+1 to Adhelle's suggestion.

[Relics]

hmm ya I think tom has a point

refuting points means you have to refer to them, which takes up space.

[yC]

When you can reply a lot more than the reviewers  ...  think of when the reviewers reads the replies, they will want to reply back to counter some points but they can't do that because the system is different from a forum.  What they will do is they will delete their review, and write a new one to reply to the owner.   That creates a broken conversation that will end up getting deleted as well.

But that is a minor point, the fairness on the limit on both sides is the main point.

[Tom~]

Doesn't that already happen? Lol.

Allowing owners to properly defend their servers will allow possible new players to judge the server in a better way. They'll have more material to agree with the reviewer, or with the owner.

[Immortal]

I don't see the need for 4 times the space to reply but twice as much would be very helpful.  As has been pointed out it is difficult to give a decent response in the same space when you need to refer to the problem...

I am sure people already want to rebuff the responses but it is clearly not the place.  If they wish to carry on a debate or want the opportunity to post again they need to do it in the forums.

[jTynne]

I agree @ Tom~

2x the space would be helpful. Though, if it's *that* big of a deal, just open a thread here on RMS or link to a .html document supplying evidence against their claim. *shrug*

[yC]

In the long run, if this is implemented, someone is going to suggest to add more space for reviewer and bring up the argument that they should have the same amount of space owner has on their reply box.  Once the balance is broken the argument will never end.  

Rather than increasing space for reply on this suggestion, then increase space for review on another suggestion, then once again owner come back with the same suggestion because the previous suggestion was normalized by the other suggestion ... ... ... I am set to not change the limit at all.  Unless we want to get caught in this cycle with no end.

Yes owner need to address the claim, but it isn't too often that every category mentioned in the review need to be addressed.  Many 100% bad reviews are 10/100 and usually get deleted.  For a review of 500 chars that is reply-able maybe a few points were mentioned that was upsetting the reviewer while some good points were mentioned.  The owner has the full 500 chars to address the points that were upsetting the reviewer while leaving the good points unmentioned.  I am not going to say "there you go there is in fact more space than you could imagine".  I can already see increasing space on one side will only lead to problem later on, so we are not doing it.

[Yukino]

Then, maybe increase both by another 100-200 characters? I mean, that's not much, and it's hard to address almost all the statistics provided (for both reviewer and replier) in just 500 characters (if you want to sound somewhat decent at least). Seeing how these issues are arising, I would go for a small word boost for both if you want to keep the balance between the two.

[Relics]

Then, maybe increase both by another 100-200 characters? I mean, that's not much, and it's hard to address almost all the statistics provided (for both reviewer and replier) in just 500 characters (if you want to sound somewhat decent at least). Seeing how these issues are arising, I would go for a small word boost for both if you want to keep the balance between the two.

After discussing this with yC on msn..

This becomes an endless loop really.., it'll just be more more more. Keep it brief on the review pages, and if it really has address more points you can discuss it on the forum.

[Yukino]

I guess so. It's just that reviews on the website seem more... noticeable and such. It's also why it's difficult sometimes to determine if the reviews are "legit" or not since the person would not have been able to describe all the marks they provide for their reviews due to the confinement of characters (not even words). Or, is it possible to change the counting to words instead of characters? That may solve the problem if the staff thinks that having beyond 500 characters is too much (probably because of the number itself).

^ Already past 500 characters. 531 characters to be exact. Only 93 words above though. Maybe reviews and reviewers can have up to 100-150 words? Although, there should be a max limit for a word's characters (in case someone combines words like this: Idontliketheserverbecauseitiscorruptedhaha). It's possible to set a limit though.

But anyways, if the staff does not want to persist with this idea, that's fine. It's just that I am one of the following people who also agree that more space is needed, especially when it comes to answering posts (since for most cases, owners want to type in a professional way. Some players don't mind typing short forms or whatever (hate chatspeak, etc), but most of the time, owners feel the need to type in more details, or else a bad impression of the owner himself/herself is given).

[Warock]

I think Review need to be short ans sweet reply can afford to get more space:) as it would be explanation given to one negative review so it should have more space

[adhelle]

In the long run, if this is implemented, someone is going to suggest to add more space for reviewer and bring up the argument that they should have the same amount of space owner has on their reply box.  Once the balance is broken the argument will never end.  

Rather than increasing space for reply on this suggestion, then increase space for review on another suggestion, then once again owner come back with the same suggestion because the previous suggestion was normalized by the other suggestion ... ... ... I am set to not change the limit at all.  Unless we want to get caught in this cycle with no end.

Yes owner need to address the claim, but it isn't too often that every category mentioned in the review need to be addressed.  Many 100% bad reviews are 10/100 and usually get deleted.  For a review of 500 chars that is reply-able maybe a few points were mentioned that was upsetting the reviewer while some good points were mentioned.  The owner has the full 500 chars to address the points that were upsetting the reviewer while leaving the good points unmentioned.  I am not going to say "there you go there is in fact more space than you could imagine".  I can already see increasing space on one side will only lead to problem later on, so we are not doing it.

1 - I don't think the reviewers will claim more space. They already have more than enough, and sometimes you even see them writing senseless stuff just to reach the 200 minimum. Plus, if they ask more space you can always just deny and justify with the points we mentioned above.

2 - About all points needing to be addressed? How can you tell that? What if someone posts a review with many points? This occurs often on my server list. Most of the bad reviews include a lot of stuff. Plus, about majority being 10/100 getting deleted... I don't see that so often anymore. And even though... A example: Lumina had technical issues last week and a couple crashes. People immediately brought 3 reviews scored around 30-40. For me, this is a LOT, given the fact Lumina rarely has bad reviews and given the fact we rarely have downtimes. I think they are unfair and I didn't even have space simply to address everything properly, imagine arguing. Just these 3 reviews were enough to drop my server score from 88 to 84 in the 1 month range and I can't even say anything. Plus, how many simply fake reviews were made on Lumina on past by haters that were never deleted because, as a third person you cannot analyze that, and I didn't have space enough to post proof.

3 - And yea, Yukino even post another point. Language. I hate having to say "u" "wut" "der" just to save 1 or 2 characters on a review reply. It looks horrible and I totally agree with her.

[Relics]

10/100 reviews are deleted if they are unfair, and most of them are.

"You don't see" that means they haven't been removed yet, or it's still there because the review is well-detailed (which is a harsh condition to meet for a 10/100 review)

If you find a review unfair, then throw a PM at either me or yC, and we'll look into it. If there's a review you would want to answer more elaborately, discuss it on the forum.