UKP is rife with it
Very few reviews over long periods & some dont even bother doing that
IMO should be a review within 6 months of joining [i have previously indicated 12 months, make it shorter]
Then one a year minimum
For punters where a change in circumstances & and a regular reviewer prior to that then latitude to be shown
Plus new members generally being twats should be subject to arbitrary ejection at any point if no reviews
I think that's a reasonable suggestion WP, although we'd have to take the last two years out of the equation somehow.
A definite yes to a review being posted within 6-12 months.
Even for someone like myself who doesn't venture out too often, and then re-visits the same SP once I've found a good one (which prevents repeat reviews for a while), I've managed 11 reviews in just over 6 years, and added plenty of hopefully useful advice, or flagged fake accounts. I rarely ask for information as I research it myself first, instead of taking without giving.
Compare that to Mr Vance's ONE review in the same period and numerous asks from others.
Pretty embarrassing, as I've posted over 10x as many reviews in the same period, and I'd be the first to NOT class myself as a prolific reviewer, compared to some.
But hey, we're dealing with a whole group of internet users who won't admit they're wrong, want to get paid celebrity money themselves for doing sweet FA, but expect everything else to come to them for free - advice, books, films, music - you know, all that stuff that grows on trees. Bought with the fruits of the magic money tree. The "why should I have to pay for it" brigade.
"Bunch of freeloading entitled twats" is the collective phrase that immediately jumps to mind to describe them.
