| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Catuli |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 01:36:09
If the subject line space were longer, or my ability to compose a succinct sentence better, I would have posed this topic as "Why are some reviews much more quickly responded to than others?" I have had several reviews in storage for a long time. Conversely, a few Sundays ago, I saw a good procedural called the "Cutter," wrote up a review, and had it accepted the next day. Is it as simple as a MERP being familiar with a film, but having to research other ones? This is in no way meant to be a complaint. I can imagine the flood of films that rush in frequently has the MERPs swimming for their lives.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 20:32:43
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I personally have little doubt that your comments are going to upset Benj and I don't want to see that happen. I'm sorry you are upset too, and you know that I more than most people here am prepared to go out on a limb to make the points I believe in, even at the risk of upsetting people, including sometimes Benj.
O.K., fair enough, but I'm glad you recognise that the same applies to me. When one's unambiguously valid review is rejected twenty times, depite the resubmissions being (I promise) neutrally, politely and patiently worded*, then why shouldn't one take it personally? There was no identifiable reason for it. It is one thing to complain about lack of action (as you were doing in your case): it is another to mind when someone's time is being used up against one in an unfair way. Note also how long I bit my tongue for - I just waited and waited and waited until the review got through. I only mentioned here as plain evidence, and only pursued it because I found the comeback unreasonable. I wouldn't have just kept repeating myself otherwise.
*I have just checked and the wording was "My review was before X's (and was still pending when X's was approved)." Very plain and brief - no ranting and raving. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 21:18:34
Here's some news for you Sal - people don't really make sense. They live and breath and are rational and irrational all at the same time.
I personally have little doubt that your comments are going to upset Benj and I don't want to see that happen. I'm sorry you are upset too, and you know that I more than most people here am prepared to go out on a limb to make the points I believe in, even at the risk of upsetting people, including sometimes Benj.
The problem here, for me, is that this is not just one post but an ongoing thread where you are expressing your frustration in a way which is bordering on impoliteness. Other people reading the thread might think my judgment mild.
Please take my advice that you have made your points now and leave it at that. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 19:58:23
When my review was approved, the near duplicate was similarly not deleted.
I'm not suggesting that in this thread I have piled on the gratitude to Benj, but I have made this clear at other times. Similarly, while I have had many reviews rejected where equivalent ones have been approved, it has been a very, very long time since I have mentioned a single one. (I mean in terms of asking why something would be rejected that seems good enough, not in terms of the objective cases that I have mentioned here.) I also do a lot more in terms of noticing years and cast lists that need updating than most users, probably more than any - this is all important for the site.
Put it this way - it is a plain fact that I am rather upset by some unfair instances of the output of the system. Leaving aside issues of what's reasonable in a participative enterprise, it is fine if Benj does not care that I am upset. But it would not make any sense for him to care about my stating this while at the same time the unfair cases languish. If it's O.K. for the latter to happen, he shouldn't care less how I feel about it and what I say should not affect him at all. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 18:54:07
Whipper Update: My review was accepted a couple of days ago although, oddly, Yukon's dupe was not deleted.
I have reported it as a dupe and expect it will be deleted soon.
Sal, I think you need to take a step back as your gratitude to Benj is insufficiently prominent within the overall tone of your points. Benj is not a machine and you are in grave danger of hurting his feelings, which is absolutely not called for.
In passing, though, I have to say that it is disappointing that MERPs can see whose reviews they are editing because that info should be irrelevant to their job, as far as I understand it.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 15:42:35
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Then I fail to see why you continue to bang on about it here in the fourum whilst I'm still trying to look into it.
Um, because (i) by your wording and what happened to my review you seemed to have no recollection of my e-mail and (ii) it was relevant to the discussion at hand (which I did not initiate).
quote:
"but I'm not going to just let the MERPs get their own newer duplicates approved and my originals rejected."
Substitute the word rejected for declined and this is exactly what you're saying. You may not have been at all specific about whether your reviews are declined before or after the MERPs are ganging up on you and taking your reviews, but that's not really the point.
I was completely specific (not in that sentence but that was not needed since I had already been so). I made no suggestion that the MERPs had processed reviews unfairly through malice or cheating. I worded it firmly simply because an unambiguously unfair situation arose, perhaps through extreme carelessness/inconsistent processing. This is not really significantly preferable to the error being made intentionally. True, I did not really think that the system could be responsible for the whole problem, i.e. there were no MERP error, but for this to be the case the system would have to be extraordinarily illogical. I still think this cannot be the case because, as I have said, relatively few errors of this type occur. If through some bizarre set of factors it is only the system at fault, then it ought to be amended.
quote:
I'm not going to say who is or isn't a MERP, but I will say your email made some ill-founded assumptions.
If this is the case, then the goings on must have some even more extraordinary causes. I also take this deflection to be an indication (though of course not proof) that I was right in my central judgment about who the MERPs are.
quote:
This makes your attempt to sully the MERPs publicly (especially so after already alerting me to the matter privately) like this all the more distasteful.
This does not really make sense. Since the MERPs' identities are, you are keen to state, unknown to us, how can they be sullied? Further, I have not named anyone or even the reviews in question. With regard to e-mailing you about it, since instead of my review being rightly approved you rejected it about twenty times, I cannot be blamed for not interpreting the situation as being dealt with reasonably.
quote:
Honestly, it's comments like this that make me wonder why I bother to keep this site running or why the MERPs process any reviews.
I certainly am grateful to you for running the site and I have said so repeatedly. However, just because someone provides a certain service to others voluntarily, whatever it is, does not mean that the participants do not have the right to fairness. Yes, you put the most into the site and what you do is very specialised. However, without it being our thing, the rest of us put a lot of time and effort into it too. Re: the MERP processing, I don't feel the need to be particularly grateful for what I would be more than happy to do without receiving gratitude.
quote:
You are not stating facts because you're not in a position to do so.
I have focused on stating outcomes, which certainly are the facts. What I have said in addition to that have only been basic things that logically follow unless the system functions in a completely counterintuitive way. Yes, that is possible, but it still seems highly unlikely.
quote:
Do you, with absolute certainty, know who the MERPs are? No.
No, but I'm still relatively confident in these cases. Further, the substantive issue is still the same even if the MERPs processing in an unfair manner (through the system's fault or theirs) are not the people who end up with the huge benefits.
quote:
Do you have access to all the data logging behind the scenes of the site? No. You're looking at a black box and assuming what's happening in the middle based on what goes in and what comes out.
True, but it's not a system from Mars or something. If its complexities are so odd that the output is unreliable, then why would they be there, when a simple system would work fine?
quote:
The point I was trying to make was that nothing on this site is a "serious" error since it can always be rectified.
O.K., but when these things crop up, they seem to be rectified only at great effort, if at all. As far as I know, Whipper's review is still pending, and the example that I have given here is only the worse case that has happened to me. When I have pointed out an approval matching an earlier rejection of mine, the situation hasn't been remedied. When I have pointed out a duplicate of a review of mine, it hasn't been removed. (i.e. These are still the situations as of now.)
With regard to the MERPs, I made these three suggestions when the decision to have them was made:
(i) They should all process a sample hundred reviews, and you should select the ones who agree with you the most. (There are counter-arguments to this, but it was based on your judgment of acceptability being definitive and not everyone's opinion being equally valid.)
(ii) They should not know who each other are.
(iii) They should not see users' names with reviews they process.
(i) was not really mentioned, so I got the strong impression it did not happen. This also fits with the fact that they are not particularly consistent. You rejected (ii) and (iii). I maintain that all of these would have been a good idea. I don't often get the impression that they know who each other are, but since disallowing this was explicitly rejected at the time, I can only assume that it is the case. Most of all, I found it rather extraordinary that they would be able to see our names. |
| randall |
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 17:35:42
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I'm happy to repeat that I am not suggesting Randall - or anyone else - has done anything underhand or anything which they consider to be unfair to anyone else.
Randall has never done anything which has led me to doubt he has the highest integrity.
I appreciate that statement, as well as the PM you sent expressing the same view. Thank you for both. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 16:58:00
I'm happy to repeat that I am not suggesting Randall - or anyone else - has done anything underhand or anything which they consider to be unfair to anyone else.
Randall has never done anything which has led me to doubt he has the highest integrity.
|
| randall |
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 16:02:32
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
How come I wrote the same review for a film before another contributor, his was approved and mine is still pending 6 weeks later? If it was done by oldest first, mine would have been done first. If it was done by film mine would have been done at the same time.
Perhaps the MERP(s) who processed it found them marginal, the first was subject to two MERPs with different opinions (one approve, one decline) so it's still pending wating for the third decision. Then when the second review came up a week or so later it was subject to two approvals so it was approved. I'd be most surprised if MERPs would be able to remember a review they processed last week let alone what they did with it if it was marginal, let alone the fact it could have been processed by different MERPs.quote:
Trite. Randall has had as many reviews approved today (26) as I have had approved in the past 2 weeks. My pending is currently 312. If this is pro-rata Randall has 4368 pending  . Your explanation cannot possibly explain this.
Of course it can. If Randall sat down at his computer a month ago and wrote 30 reviews in one sitting, while you were outside weeding the garden then came inside to write one review, then obviously Randall would have 30 processed while you had one processed. This has nothing to do with size of pending pile. 
Wow, I just caught up with this bandying about of my name.
I write 10-15 reviews per day, no more, no less, unless I'm away from my computer. [Any more and they begin to come out poorly.] I have never written anywhere near 30 reviews in a single day, let alone a single session. Without going into details, my pending list is somewhere in your league, Whippy.
Many times I have gone several days without any adjudication, then I've had a blizzard judged. I can't explain it. MERP approvals come in waves, and I'm positive they don't go for my oldest first.
Why would any MERP give me special treatment? What good would it do? What would be the bloody point? I have chosen to believe Whippy wasn't seriously suggesting that I have cheated somehow. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 00:02:47
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
But you're not just stating what happened
I gave you full details in my e-mail, which you have stated here is how you would like to receive it.
Then I fail to see why you continue to bang on about it here in the fourum whilst I'm still trying to look into it.
quote:
quote:
you also implied the MERPs declined your reviews and wrote their own versions later.
No, I have very clearly not suggested that, since I have made clear that my review was still pending (i.e. not declined) when the later review was approved.
"but I'm not going to just let the MERPs get their own newer duplicates approved and my originals rejected."
Substitute the word rejected for declined and this is exactly what you're saying. You may not have been at all specific about whether your reviews are declined before or after the MERPs are ganging up on you and taking your reviews, but that's not really the point.
quote:
quote:
What's more, you're saying this without a). knowing for certain who the MERPs are, or b). how the the approvals process works.
No, I do not know, but I am virtually certain, from the other piece of evidence that I e-mailed you about. If the people mentioned in that are not MERPs, then please feel free to keep making this point. The specifics of the approval process (beyond what must be the case) are highly unlikely to affect the matter at hand, or else there would constantly be duplicates all over the shop. If for some reason the process is at fault, then it is at fault.
I'm not going to say who is or isn't a MERP, but I will say your email made some ill-founded assumptions. This makes your attempt to sully the MERPs publicly (especially so after already alerting me to the matter privately) like this all the more distasteful.
Honestly, it's comments like this that make me wonder why I bother to keep this site running or why the MERPs process any reviews.
quote:
quote:
You're certainly in no position to say this is what actually happened.
I have only stated the facts, that they were unfair, and that they should have been remedied when highlighted.
You are not stating facts because you're not in a position to do so.
Do you, with absolute certainty, know who the MERPs are?
No.
Do you have access to all the data logging behind the scenes of the site?
No.
You're looking at a black box and assuming what's happening in the middle based on what goes in and what comes out.
quote:
quote:
If it's human error, it's human error, and unless the error cannot be rectified it's in no way a serious situation even within the bounds of this site.
The human error certainly can be rectified. Any specific mistake can be corrected, the process can be improved and the MERPs can be aware that such errors have occured and thus to try to avoid them.
The point I was trying to make was that nothing on this site is a "serious" error since it can always be rectified. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/31/2007 : 17:33:38
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
But you're not just stating what happened
I gave you full details in my e-mail, which you have stated here is how you would like to receive it.
quote:
you also implied the MERPs declined your reviews and wrote their own versions later.
No, I have very clearly not suggested that, since I have made clear that my review was still pending (i.e. not declined) when the later review was approved.
quote:
What's more, you're saying this without a). knowing for certain who the MERPs are, or b). how the the approvals process works.
No, I do not know, but I am virtually certain, from the other piece of evidence that I e-mailed you about. If the people mentioned in that are not MERPs, then please feel free to keep making this point. The specifics of the approval process (beyond what must be the case) are highly unlikely to affect the matter at hand, or else there would constantly be duplicates all over the shop. If for some reason the process is at fault, then it is at fault.
quote:
You're certainly in no position to say this is what actually happened.
I have only stated the facts, that they were unfair, and that they should have been remedied when highlighted.
quote:
If it's human error, it's human error, and unless the error cannot be rectified it's in no way a serious situation even within the bounds of this site.
The human error certainly can be rectified. Any specific mistake can be corrected, the process can be improved and the MERPs can be aware that such errors have occured and thus to try to avoid them. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 00:31:50
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I thank Benj for all the good he does (and have also made clear that I am happy to pay for membership, so the fact it is free does not suddenly make me blind to unfairness), but I'm not going to just let the MERPs get their own newer duplicates approved and my originals rejected.
I'm not sure I like what you're implying here. If you have a shred of evidence to back this up you're welcome to privately email me over it, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't publicly cast wild aspersions around here.
I did, at the time. I am only stating what happened. If it wasn't intentional, then it was a serious (within the parameters of the site) human error, so still bad.
But you're not just stating what happened, you also implied the MERPs declined your reviews and wrote their own versions later. What's more, you're saying this without a). knowing for certain who the MERPs are, or b). how the the approvals process works. You're certainly in no position to say this is what actually happened.
If it's human error, it's human error, and unless the error cannot be rectified it's in no way a serious situation even within the bounds of this site. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 18:09:41
I should say, by the way, that I have been very happy with the number of approvals for the last few weeks. I have already got five waiting for the next F.Y.C.T.H.  |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 11:56:44
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'm not at all convinced the 'throw more MERPs at the problem' approach is the best solution. As previous experience has shown, the quicker fwfrs are passed, the quicker people send them in.
So there would be the same backlog again but at least more reviews would have been approved.
Re: quality, I find this so strange. I submit reviews when I think of them. I cannot imagine my number pending making any difference. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 10:27:50
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I thank Benj for all the good he does (and have also made clear that I am happy to pay for membership, so the fact it is free does not suddenly make me blind to unfairness), but I'm not going to just let the MERPs get their own newer duplicates approved and my originals rejected.
I'm not sure I like what you're implying here. If you have a shred of evidence to back this up you're welcome to privately email me over it, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't publicly cast wild aspersions around here.
I did, at the time. I am only stating what happened. If it wasn't intentional, then it was a serious (within the parameters of the site) human error, so still bad.
quote:
Alternatively, if you were trying to say that people have had reviews approved that you'd previously submitted but had declined then why imply this only happens with MERP reviews over your own?
No, as I have made very clear, it had not been rejected. It was left pending when the newer, very similar, review was approved. I alerted you to this. Then mine was rejected.
|
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 20:08:29
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
Check out the last 500 reviews. See many gems? 'Nuff said.
Couldn't agree more Lemmy. I used to enjoy going into the newest reviews and picking out the more inspirational ones, but lately I've found them to be increasingly dull - by the time I get to the bottom of the first 100, all the reviews may as well read as 'Blah, blah, blah, blah.'
I now just skip to the last page and look at the reviewers who have only had one or two reviews added. At least they seem to put some effort into the whole process. |
|
|
