A suggestion for Founder: Hall of Fame Reviews?

Feb 3, 2020, 11:47 AM

Too much of a good thing is never enough

Some club reviews are hilarious, others are insightful, others are noteworthy for different reasons. But after a while, most of these past reviews recede into the dark recesses of long-forgotten TUSCL posts.

What do you think about having a Hall of Fame (HOF) for reviews? When a review is published, there would be an option to vote it into the HOF, one vote per TUSCL member of course. Not sure how many votes would be required to elevate a review to HOF status? 25? 50? 100? Should readers also have the opportunity to vote NO on HOF status?

comments (5)

Jump to latest

gSteph5 years ago

Interesting idea.

I have thought that having a handful of decent/great reviews, as well as some terrible ones - as samples - would be useful as demos.

Don't think it's likely to happen though, with reviews more or less working ok with the best of 7 votes, I'm guessing the extra work would keep Founder from going there.

Interesting idea, though.

ArtCollege5 years ago

Problem: we put any review by Rev Horni Bastard in there, and then nothing compares so we only have one Hall of Famer.

Electronman5 years ago

I would suspect that the "Rev" would have more than one of his reviews selected for the HOF, but he'd have some competition.

For clarification, the HOF would be for reviews, not for reviewers. And it would only apply to those reviews that had been published. I agree with gsteph that the current review process is OK for separating the junk from the acceptable reviews. However, there is a wide range of published reviews and some merit special recognition (HOF status).

I would envision browsing the HOF reviews for entertainment value. Some reviews were great reads, some were "rousing" reads and some were just great sources of chuckles and smiles.

GoVikings5 years ago

great idea

Cashman12345 years ago

It is a good idea. Sort of like the lists we had awhile ago. Maybe a few lists - of Best legit reviews, Most incoherent reviews, etc.