Thread:HopelessNightOwl/@comment-8198649-20140505231708/@comment-32602006-20140506000832

1. I will admit that sometimes if I am reading a shitpasta and I find it to be terrible within the first two thirds or three quarters I will skim over the last third or quarter, but not the full pasta. As for taking about a minute to judge their quality, part of that may have to do with the fact that a lot of bad pastas aren't actually that long. And the main reason I've been marking so many for deletion so rapidly is because like I said I've been targeting three specific categories that I don't think anyone would deny have been harboring a large portion of the bad ones, not just because I find bad pastas wherever I look.

2. My reasons for not giving too specific a reason for marking a pasta for deletion vary. Sometimes it's because the pasta has been in "Needs work" for a month or more and the author should have had more than enough time to ask for advice for improvement. Other times it's because other users have stated what is wrong with the pasta better than I probably could so I don't feel much else needs to be said. Sometimes I don't bother because I honestly hope that the author won't attempt to improve it because I don't see how it can be redeemed. We're not just talking pastas that are in some need of improvement here, we're talking pastas that are so bad that they look like borderline trollpastas, which have taken up a large percentage of the three categories I mentioned. Then there's the fact that at least a majority of the pastas I marked for deletion had been sitting there for like four months, in many cases a year or more, by authors who only made like 12 edits and then disappeared, so I honestly wasn't expecting many of them to notice or care that their pastas were marked for deletion so why bother explaining it to them in debth? Plus there's the fact that marking all these pastas for deletion is a tedious process and I don't really feel like writing an essay for each one.

3. If anything I think our spam filter combined with the fact that finals season is upon us is what is causing us not to have much traffic from new users lately. And again, many of the pastas I marked for deletion had been sitting there with no edits or comments or further edits from the authors.

4.  I get what you're saying but again that was sort of my intention. When new users come onto this site and half the pastas they read are shitpastas, can you even blame them for emulating the examples set for them? I was hoping by doing a sanitation effort the bar would be raised incrementally just a little bit to set a culture of good pasta making.

But, I'll try to slow down. Maybe we should consider the changes in the process I suggested on Babylon's post, or maybe make a rule saying that bad pastas that have slipped under the radar for a certain length of time get put in "Needs work" instead of "48 Hours" no matter how bad they are unless they are blatant trollpastas. But again, I'm a little concerned about cluttering up the "Needs work" category again.

Also, forgive me, but frankly I can't help but be a little annoyed that most of the other admins except me and Babylon have seemingly all but given up on the idea of quality control on this wiki but manage to find issue with how we are going about it. I'm also annoyed at all these users who upload mediocre pastas, do not bother to ask for help when their pastas are added to "Needs work" or "48 Hours", but suddenly care enough to say something once their pastas are deleted. Killroy Freeman even admitted that his pasta should be deleted again after it was restored at his request, and PocketTroll claims he was joking on his post. Ever since Nights and Auron left it seems like people have become more apathetic about pasta quality.