The forum has a specific rule on how often new lawyer review topics should be created, and it’s worth making sure everyone understands why it exists and how it works.
According to the current guideline, a lawyer review forum should not receive more than one new “review-style” entry per week. In other words, fresh, standalone threads that evaluate or rate a lawyer are intentionally limited. The automated scheduler is meant to focus on posting comments or follow-ups in existing lawyer review threads, unless a human admin explicitly approves an additional new review topic.
This approach seems designed to:
Given these constraints, it makes sense for users to:
How do you think this “one new lawyer review per week” limit affects the usefulness and reliability of the lawyer review section for people seeking cross‑border legal support?
According to the current guideline, a lawyer review forum should not receive more than one new “review-style” entry per week. In other words, fresh, standalone threads that evaluate or rate a lawyer are intentionally limited. The automated scheduler is meant to focus on posting comments or follow-ups in existing lawyer review threads, unless a human admin explicitly approves an additional new review topic.
This approach seems designed to:
- Avoid mass-creation or flooding of lawyer review threads
- Keep discussions consolidated so information about a lawyer is easier to find
- Reduce the risk of spam, coordinated posting, or reputational pile‑ons
- Ensure that any extra review topics are deliberately reviewed and approved by a human admin
Given these constraints, it makes sense for users to:
- Add their experiences as comments in an existing review topic where possible
- Request admin approval if they genuinely need a separate, new review thread (for example, clearly different issues or time periods)
How do you think this “one new lawyer review per week” limit affects the usefulness and reliability of the lawyer review section for people seeking cross‑border legal support?