[ QUOTE ]
So far 4 people have voted option three, but I haven't seen too much in the way of concerns. Let's hear them!
[/ QUOTE ]
I love the idea. My only concern is that the site would quickly become inactive unless there was some way of encouraging users to review without taking away from the quality of the reviews. I'm afraid that the site would eventually become flooded with hand histories without many active reviewers. The reason it doesn't happen here on 2p2 is because it is actively discouraged -- In an unsupervised setting, I can't think of a reasonable way to discourage "over posting" without
forcing users to review.
I'd love to see a site that resembles the semi-monthly session reviews here. This type of setting encourages participation and gives an immediate sense of community (something that web sites thrive on). For example (and right off the top of my head), the site would host a session review, however frequently, and limit participation to so many users (maybe 10 or 20). Registered users would signup for these sessions and upload their hand history. The site would then randomly assign a hand history to each of the participants, who would review each hand and submit these comments back to the user before some deadline. The site could even break down the histories into individual hands and randomly assign 50 hands to each participant. This way users and their hand histories are "connected" instead of just "hosted".
The great thing about having a web site host these "round table" session reviews is that they would be automatically and quickly organized, and infinitely extensible in how they are organized.
Sorry to ramble on with ideas. I'd be interested in helping you develop the site if needed. My email address is
adhall@gmail.com -- I'll be checking the thread too.
EDIT: clarity