For bewares and background checks (publishers, agents, etc), is there any chance this could be widened to writing sites too?
I've been on a thousand and one, some brilliant, some good, some bad and some down right useless as far as advice goes. I've seen people get published on good adviced and I've witnessed others break pens and run off in tears just because some advicee stubbed their on the coffee table getting to the computer desk. I know there seems to be some sort of secret code that no site belittles another, but purely from a writer's pov, knowing which site offers the best possible advice for writers would save a hell of a lot of wasted time and energy.
Not that I'd like to see any thread reduced to a 'bitching' thread, or an adveritising section for other writing sites to try pinch members, just an honest section that would allow members themselves to review good and bad sites. Even just a voting thread where you just can rate the sites on questions set by a mod (a comparethewirterssites.com, thing). Just anything to moderate the verbal crap I keep seeing going on in some of these things...
AW is probably the biggest site I've been on and it seems a perfect base for comparing other markets purely because of the amount of people you have pass (and stay) through here. You could argue that nobody wants to leave when they arrive here but honesty shows that writers move and shift around to dip toes in every available pond. Giving authors the pros and cons of these other sites may help members steer clear of potentially lethal footings.
Writer's sites are a first-stop for many an aspiring and weathered writer, As AW prides itself on objectivity, is there any chance that professionalism could regulate a beware and background check on these writer's sites in recognition of them being a first (and potentially dangerous) step for those writers?