| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AC 
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
 Posted - 08/02/2010 : 00:50:05
|
Hello all -
Amongst the last few weeks of discussion regarding the removal of films from the database due to an over-zealous addition of films without editorial intervention, one major point has been neglected. At the time of writing, this wholesale addition of films to the database has resulted in more than eleven thousand unreviewed films - more than one quarter of the entire database are films without a single review. The statistic is far higher if we talk about films with only one or two reviews, but at least those aren't quite so barren as the unreviewed films.
benj has noted in the past that he welcomes all eligible films to the site, and I think it's great that we can support this perspective and strive to have all of the newest films in the rotation (even with the ridiculous IMDb Pro limitations which makes those films even more forlorn). However, I am becoming increasingly worried about the number of unreviewed films on the site: it's just not good for the place if we have literally tens of thousands of unreviewed films out there. Many obscure films are added either for accolades or for fun but are never reviewed - and before anyone says it, I acknowledge that I have added many films that currently languish unreviewed, which is partly my reason for this thread - and for many, unless an accolade is attached, they simply will never be reviewed. While FWFR isn't IMDb so has no reason to be comprehensive when it comes to the hundreds of Edison kinescope pictures with little information to base reviews on or interest from any reviewer to waste a quota slot on them, users persist in adding hundreds of new films each week, and while it appears that the editors are weeding many films out these days, clearly many valid films remain which will never be reviewed.
So, as the title says, I write with an appeal. Maybe an offer, I don't know. I am just appealing to all FWFR'ers out there to try to review a handful of unreviewed films each week, just to chip away at the huge number of unreviewed stuff out there. I am trying to cover as many as I can while still remaining on course with my accolade chases (the 'They Shoot Pictures' accolades are rich in unreviewed films so that will keep me busy for a few more weeks) but I am feeling dispirited with the sheer volume of the task ahead. Maybe I started this thread to see if anyone shares my opinion - according to the 'Accolade: Impossible' description, Salopian once agreed with me, although that accolade became obsolete as the thousands of new films poured in. I'd be willing to throw around votes, since that seems to interest people in here far more than it interests me, but I think this is important, and if you'd like, say, 20 new votes a week from me for helping me chip away, I'd be glad to read your reviews and vote.
Maybe this doesn't seem important, but considering that so much of the site is cluttered with valid films that no one will ever review, I feel like it's a good time to turn some attention to it.
If you want to aid in the good fight, go here:
http://www.fwfr.com/search.asp?do=ur&search=&Mode=Search&genreid=&aid=&StYear=&EnYear=&AccID=&Sort=1&dir=&Rows=20
or here, if your computer can handle it:
http://www.fwfr.com/search.asp?do=ur&search=&Mode=Search&genreid=&aid=&StYear=&EnYear=&AccID=&Sort=1&dir=&Rows=2000
Review a couple of films. Reduce the void. Thanks for listening. I think this is for the betterment of the site and would love it if a few of you would help me out with it. |
Edited by - AC on 08/02/2010 01:34:22 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 01:58:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by aussiecanuck
according to the 'Accolade: Impossible' description, Salopian once agreed with me, although that accolade became obsolete as the thousands of new films poured in.
I did indeed. I was very pleased to get the site down to no unreviewed films several times, and in total hundreds were reviewed as part of that process.
Since then I haven't helped eliminate unreviewed films in that I've added a large number, but these have almost all been major upcoming films, been for accolades, been definitely notable (e.g. most of the Warhol films) or have seemed genuinely good review fodder that I've come across randomly.
Josh's large number of films added also seem to be mainly for accolades, but without wanting to name names there is one member the nature of whose huge volume of additions I have never been able to fathom.
It should be noted of course that the amount of unreviewed films is not solely (and perhaps not mainly) due to people being able to add films directly: it's also down to the cap (as worthwhile as that may be). Most of my reviews have to go past the MERPs at least twice so I for one cannot use up any slots towards your goal, unfortunately. I'll try to create some more accolades, and this is something that others can of course do too. (It can be a bit dispiriting to do that on the basis of people chasing them, though, as the main accolade achiever has often criticised some of my accolades without ever showing any appreciation for any of the others or creating many himself.) |
 |
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 04:52:41
|
| Maybe we need a new weekly idea voting thread. We can call it "AussieCanuck had an idea" Each week 10 movies are Chosen to review. But since it takes awhile for a review to pass...It might not be a good idea. |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 14:42:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by aussiecanuck
Hello all -
So, as the title says, I write with an appeal. Maybe an offer, I don't know. I am just appealing to all FWFR'ers out there to try to review a handful of unreviewed films each week, just to chip away at the huge number of unreviewed stuff out there. Review a couple of films. Reduce the void. Thanks for listening. I think this is for the betterment of the site and would love it if a few of you would help me out with it.
I have started to chip away, mainly films that I have seen but remain unvotedunreviewed. |
Edited by - lemmycaution on 08/04/2010 16:45:21 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 17:34:54
|
| O.K., I've started this challenge and I've also restarted Accolade: Impossible. In its previous life, the accolade worked by having a film replaced as soon as it was reviewed. I'm wondering whether that would now make it (actually!) impossible to achieve. Should I change it so that I leave all the films until somebody attains it and then replace all of them at once? |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 08/02/2010 22:48:39 |
|
|
|
AC
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 17:52:37
|
Thanks for this action, Salopian, and thanks to Titanpa and lemmy for your support.
I think the attraction of the old "A:I" was that you would replace the films as soon as they were reviewed, but back in the old no-quota days (and quick MERPing days) that meant you could easily write thirty reviews in an hour and hope that the MERPs got there before you noticed! Nowadays, it's all a bit slower and quotas mean that few reviewers would want to spend a whole week's reviews on one accolade. So, my instinct is to say leave it as it was (replace films as soon as they're reviewed) but I think to maintain reviewer interest, perhaps your alternate suggestion makes more sense. I'd very happily review four or five films a week in that accolade if I knew that there was a chance of achieving it briefly in a few weeks - if the films disappeared as soon as i reviewed them I might be less enthusiastic. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 18:22:12
|
Yes, I agree. The old system was purer and more exciting, but I can't see many people wanting to pursue it that way now, especially as I have more computer access. I'll go with the revised rules.
I forgot to mention that I chose films not already in accolades where possible (this will never be possible with X any more) and I tried to pick ones that from their titles seemed interesting. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 18:24:21
|
| A midway option is to replace the set of films once they have all been reviewed but not necessarily by the same person. |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 20:19:22
|
I presume we can skip any TV movies as they will eventually be deleted?
Sorry AC, I'm game, I'll devote the rest of my quota this week to the cause.
24 unreviewed films dispatched to the reviewed pile, thank you MERPS. |
Edited by - Beanmimo on 08/07/2010 16:35:15 |
|
|
|
AC
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 20:22:45
|
| Good man! Much appreciated. |
|
|
|
ci�nas 
"hands down"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 21:03:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
I presume we can skip any TV movies as they will eventually be deleted?
Eh? TV movies are being deleted??? Have I missed something? Can someone reassure me about this, or alarm me further?
I only lost one review in the recent cull: a film of a concert by Roxy Music (all hail) that I was at. And fair enough, I thought. I didn�t review any porn films because it was too much like shooting fish in a barrel � bit of a Freudian image there � & I rarely voted for such reviews for the same reason. But losing TV movies would really cost me. 5 minutes ago I put one forward in FYC, in fact.
TV or not TV, that is the question.
|
|
|
|
Beanmimo
"August review site"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 21:46:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by lamhasuas
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
I presume we can skip any TV movies as they will eventually be deleted?
Eh? TV movies are being deleted??? Have I missed something? Can someone reassure me about this, or alarm me further?
I only lost one review in the recent cull: a film of a concert by Roxy Music (all hail) that I was at. And fair enough, I thought. I didn�t review any porn films because it was too much like shooting fish in a barrel � bit of a Freudian image there � & I rarely voted for such reviews for the same reason. But losing TV movies would really cost me. 5 minutes ago I put one forward in FYC, in fact.
TV or not TV, that is the question.
Mine was in the form of a question as well...
Anyone? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 21:59:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
I presume we can skip any TV movies as they will eventually be deleted?
There's never been any suggestion that television movies (i.e. non-serial dramas &c.) are under threat: it's other television films that are inexplicably being removed, i.e. documentaries, as well as things which are objectively not films at all such as clips shows and countdowns.
Anyway, please can we not get into a discussion in yet another thread about what is being removed? It's easier to keep track of what's what if it's all done here. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 23:03:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
A midway option is to replace the set of films once they have all been reviewed but not necessarily by the same person.
I've decided to plump for this one and see how it goes. After all, it can't creep up on anyone unawares: it will be quite transparent from the list if someone else has reviewed one of the films. I've amended the above link to Unreviewed by me only to make it especially easy (i.e. any films with speech bubbles in that list have obviously been reviewed by other people and not you).
A request to Benj and the MERPs is that all pending reviews for a particular film be processed at the same time. This is always the ideal, and I think they often do it anyway, but in this case it's especially important. |
|
|
|
ci�nas
"hands down"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 23:34:20
|
Originally posted by Beanmimo
quote:
Mine was in the form of a question as well...
Ah, well, not quite the same question, Bean, was it? But anyway, never mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
I presume we can skip any TV movies as they will eventually be deleted?
There's never been any suggestion that television movies (i.e. non-serial dramas &c.) are under threat: it's other television films that are inexplicably being removed, i.e. documentaries, as well as things which are objectively not films at all such as clips shows and countdowns.
Anyway, please can we not get into a discussion in yet another thread about what is being removed? It's easier to keep track of what's what if it's all done here.
Thank you. That was what I'd been assuming.
Yeah, all right, I don't want to hijack the thread.
I�m all in favour of getting rid of unreviewed movies one way or another. I've added 156 movies & 46 haven�t been reviewed. All the movies I�ve added I�ve watched (or at least started to watch before giving up) &/or I�ve included as part of an accolade. I�ve intended to review all the watched movies but I�ve either forgotten after a while or failed to come up with anything worthwhile.
Now, I would be prepared to try to submit reviews for the 46 but I can�t guarantee that I�d be able to think of (IMO) decent ones, & if I can�t think of decent ones I don�t see any point in submitting anything. There�s no shortage of indifferent reviews on the site already. And, even if I reviewed all 46, that doesn�t address the issue mentioned above by Salopian of people adding slews of obscure movies that are unlikely ever to attract a review outside the sort of concerted effort that aussiecanuck is suggesting here. Rock; hard place.
Presumably this has been mooted before but it seems to me preferable to have some sort of automated deletion system in place, so that if a movie hasn�t been reviewed after (say) 3 months hanging around the place it gets dumped. It can always be re-added if someone wants to review it.
|
|
|
|
Beanmimo
"August review site"
|
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 23:52:14
|
| Thanks Sal, now back to those Unreviewed films... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Unreviewed Films: An Appeal
