| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 12:29:01
Hi all
I've just started one of JTC's lovely accolades about Angels and Demons. I submitted a the following for the remake of Angels in the Outfield.
Angels assist Knox nine.
Instantly, the review was declined as being similar to another review. So I checked. It wasn't even remotely similar to any other review. Then I checked the original 1950s version, but found nothing similar there either. So I figured maybe I'd mis-typed something, and submitted it again. Same thing - instant decline.
Any explanations very welcome!
Cheers
BaffledBafta  
|
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 20:04:44
quote:
Originally posted by 7Babe
quote:
Originally posted by Wh7ppersnapper
Sal's explanation is a good one, except it might also check pending lists too - that would be logical. So someone else has that review either pending or still in their declines.
quote:
Originally posted by Wh7ppersnapper
You might also like to check that its not sitting in your own pending or declined list and you've forgotten that you wrote it. 
Very funny, I may be older than you but not quite senile.
No, not quite. And you're not an anachronism either, although anomalies are beginning to appear. 
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:49:58
quote:
Originally posted by Wh7ppersnapper
Sal's explanation is a good one, except it might also check pending lists too - that would be logical.
Benj hasn't said so (whereas he has said it about declined reviews), but I think you may be right. I've also had an odd thing (though not for a long while, as I have changed how I present them) when submitting null reviews to add films for accolades - it has not registered 'reviews' identical to others I have submitted. I cannot remember, but this may have been when the different films have also had identical names. One certainly cannot submit identical reviews for the same film, so it makes sense that it would check everyone's pending and not just one's own. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:47:17
quote:
Originally posted by Wh7ppersnapper
Sal's explanation is a good one, except it might also check pending lists too - that would be logical. So someone else has that review either pending or still in their declines.
quote:
Originally posted by Wh7ppersnapper
You might also like to check that its not sitting in your own pending or declined list and you've forgotten that you wrote it.
Very funny, I may be older than you but not quite senile. Yet! - yes, I checked my pending -- just in case I forgot I was senile  or sleeping  or dead . But I DID leave it in my decline pile while I re-subbed, because Benj once posted that it was a good idea to do that in case there was a dispute about who submitted a review first. I remember because I lost out to CL on a new film to be added. Bitter? I'm not bitter, I tell you!
Hey, it's prob'ly not that important and I've already submitted two other reviews. But I DO like my original. So there.
MUCH more important is something I've noted before on these boards -- if the rules aren't clear, this kind of confusion is bound to keep recurring. We know how busy Benj is -- and we ALL respect that the future Mrs Benj isn't going to want us demanding even MORE of his time to update the FAQs -- so wot about if one of you seasoned FWFR vets [salt, pepper, a bit of thyme] has a re-write on his behalf, and if he approves ... well Robert's the father's brother. Isn't this a sharing, caring solution?  Thanking you already.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:45:01
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
But well, that hardly seems fair, since how would we ever know in advance and avoid spending precious time concocting our review?
Um, would you rather wait and have it rejected later for the same reason?! 
quote:
Besides, if that IS the case, we'd never get the right to appeal
If you could appeal, it wouldn't be for yourself anyway - it would be for the person who had it first. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:35:38
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It may be identical to a review in someone's rejected list - it automatically checks those too.
Gulp!  Thanks, Sal. But well, that hardly seems fair, since how would we ever know in advance and avoid spending precious time concocting our review? Besides, if that IS the case, we'd never get the right to appeal ... as in this case where the decline might refer to 'too generic' - but certainly no more so than many other reviews on the page. Besides: 'Angels' are specific to the film; Knox narrows it down even further since he is the team's manager; 'assist' not only means help, it's actually a baseball play; and 'nine' is a common US synonym for a baseball team -- e.g. The Detroit nine. Frequently used in crosswords.
So -- more BaffledBafta than ever?
Anyone else have any ideas?
Big TIA!
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:34:29
If the review had existed for the 1950s version that wouldn't have caused an automatic rejection of your review for a later version (although the MERPs or BENJ might).
Sal's explanation is a good one, except it might also check pending lists too - that would be logical. So someone else has that review either pending or still in their declines.
You might also like to check that its not sitting in your own pending or declined list and you've forgotten that you wrote it.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:10:47
It may be identical to a review in someone's rejected list - it automatically checks those too. |
|
|
