| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| boydegg |
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 01:56:12
"Bear's Jaw Hits Floor"
Can you identify the film?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Downtown |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 23:39:54
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I try to stay out of MERP bitch sessions because
1) We had some consistency problems even when it was only benj judging -- it must be very hard to stick to some pigeonholed rule as the number of reviews piles up;
2) There's more than one person at it now, which must make it even harder, but I'll trade the occasional slipup for not having to wait months and months for a decision;
3) Like everyone else, I've been the victim of what I considered a bad call more than once, yet the world's still here; and
4) The vast majority of my declined reviews deserved their fate.
Your first instinct (not getting involved) was best. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 18:17:29
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
I try not to get too involved with these types of discussions, but I have a problem with the defensive attitude any criticism of the MERPs automatically ganders. Sometimes, the decision to turn down a review is flat out bizarre. Complaining about it isn't tantamount to online mutiny.
It's a voluntary position - fine. But that's no reason to beatify the MERPs, you know. It's not like they're rescuing people from forest fires or anything.
Contrary to my abrasive style, I always favour centrism (apart from a few points to do with my personal politics inconsequential to the issue at hand), and a common ground is easy to find here. That the buck no longer stops at benj during a review's second (and final) go-round through the system means, maybe, that it shouldn't be its final go-round after all.
Agreed. I criticise the decisions much, much less than I would consider perfectly valid, simply because the MERPs are treated as so sacrosanct by so many people. I get many, many rejections that are either very subjective or are just totally incomprehensible, but I don't go listing specific cases here, even though I would very much like to.
The MERPs' job is voluntary and really not that hard, given that they are not forced to process any particular number of reviews. There can be no doubt that there are numerous people who would be happy to be added to their ranks, some of whom would likely be better at being consistent and thorough.
As I've said several times, second submissions should just go to Benj. While Randall is correct that he was also not that consistent, one fixed person is bound to be more consistent than a random two out of eleven.
And yes, none of this matters much compared to the world at large. That's why we're discussing it here and not in a current affairs forum. Within the parameters of this website, it's perfectly important. |
| Ali |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 12:41:22
Agreed on all points. Some of the my declined reviews make me retch on second viewing.
|
| randall |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 12:40:04
I try to stay out of MERP bitch sessions because
1) We had some consistency problems even when it was only benj judging -- it must be very hard to stick to some pigeonholed rule as the number of reviews piles up;
2) There's more than one person at it now, which must make it even harder, but I'll trade the occasional slipup for not having to wait months and months for a decision;
3) Like everyone else, I've been the victim of what I considered a bad call more than once, yet the world's still here; and
4) The vast majority of my declined reviews deserved their fate. |
| Ali |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 11:28:58
I try not to get too involved with these types of discussions, but I have a problem with the defensive attitude any criticism of the MERPs automatically ganders. Sometimes, the decision to turn down a review is flat out bizarre. Complaining about it isn't tantamount to online mutiny.
It's a voluntary position - fine. But that's no reason to beatify the MERPs, you know. It's not like they're rescuing people from forest fires or anything.
Contrary to my abrasive style, I always favour centrism (apart from a few points to do with my personal politics inconsequential to the issue at hand), and a common ground is easy to find here. That the buck no longer stops at benj during a review's second (and final) go-round through the system means, maybe, that it shouldn't be its final go-round after all.
Either way, I am not that bothered as I have been going through a bit of a rough patch - I hate most of my reviews since November last year.
|
| bife |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 10:39:53
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
Oh dear - there seems to be a lot of disgruntled FWFRers! It ain't easy being a MERP, I guess.
Makes me feel better to read that a lot of others have had similar or worse problems.
Yeah, I can't imagine why the MERPs wouldn't be more motivated, quicker and more thorough with this much support going around! |
| boydegg |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 00:45:38
Oh dear - there seems to be a lot of disgruntled FWFRers! It ain't easy being a MERP, I guess.
Makes me feel better to read that a lot of others have had similar or worse problems.
|
| silly |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 21:41:29
My favorite is "factually inaccurate" which sometimes make me think either they didn't see the same film or perhaps there's a bit of a language barrier.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 19:24:53
On what Downtown mentioned about duplicates of rejected reviews being accepted later, I'm also getting quite frustrated at reporting newer versions, and resubmitting the older ones with the explanation 'Should be approved in place of the newer "Blah blah blah"', only for those older submissions to be rejected for being 'Too similar to another review'! Do the MERPs actually read the explanations? It seems inconceivable that they do in some cases. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 16:30:29
I suppose ultimately whether a review is generic or not is a matter of opinion, but I have had some bizarre refusals due to supposed generic qualities. Actually I have just got one today.
As Bife says, just throw it back with an explanation and hope someone sees sense. 
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 15:54:52
Yep, that review's fine. There may be loads of films where bears fall down, but the jaw dropping in this case is far more particular.
MERPs not knowing the film means they should say "Don't understand", not "Too generic".
Downtown is right that some of them do not seem to have got Benj's message. I often get "Too generic" when no other film seems possible or where the one in question is by far the most apt.
There also seems to be a new rejection reason of "Title play only". Unfortunately, this seems to be used to mean "Title play and cannot be bothered to think about why it also actually describes the film properly, even though you have provided an explanation with the review". |
| aahaa, muahaha |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 17:06:11
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Except that benj changed the guidelines of what's considered "generic," although it became clear to me a long time ago that some of the people that are now running this website for him either didn't get the message or have chosen to ignore it and are applying their own standards of what they consider acceptable. That review should not have been declined as "generic," but they frequently decline stuff they simply don't like or don't fully get and are too lazy to look up. It's all very arbitrary and they're not really making any effort at uniformity, the fact that such a similar review to yours wasn't deemed "generic" is proof of that...but it could be even worse, wait until the day you discover that a review that you submitted and had rejected was then later submitted by someone else and accepted. It's not a lot of fun and it doesn't help when the reaction after you complain is "well, tough shit for you."
...which is why I am beginning to feel that one should prolly never delete a declined review from one's declined pile.  |
| Downtown |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 16:01:06
These are benj's own words:
Reviews that are clearly referencing a film or element of it (regardless of if they may fit a large number of other films) will now be more readily considered for acceptance. The hard rule that reviews of the type 'Boy, girl meet, marry' are declined will still stand however- there must be at least some effort to tie the review to the film beyond bog standard film elements. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 15:50:15
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
Are you sure, Yukkon?
According to the MERPs, it's 'too generic', meaning it could refer to multiple movies.
Except that benj changed the guidelines of what's considered "generic," although it became clear to me a long time ago that some of the people that are now running this website for him either didn't get the message or have chosen to ignore it and are applying their own standards of what they consider acceptable. That review should not have been declined as "generic," but they frequently decline stuff they simply don't like or don't fully get and are too lazy to look up. It's all very arbitrary and they're not really making any effort at uniformity, the fact that such a similar review to yours wasn't deemed "generic" is proof of that...but it could be even worse, wait until the day you discover that a review that you submitted and had rejected was then later submitted by someone else and accepted. It's not a lot of fun and it doesn't help when the reaction after you complain is "well, tough shit for you." |
| boydegg |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 11:07:27
Hi Bife
I did resubmit it - just before starting this thread.
Actually resubmitting it should have been enough. I only started the thread because I was still seething at having it rejected.
It seems even more ridiculous now that I know Ali had 'Jaw Dropping Bear Fight' accepted.
Oh well - I'll wait and see.
|
