| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 12:17:21
First of all - thanks to whoever pushed my highest review over the 50 vote mark 
But it got me thinking. That review's been up for just 2 months short of my two years as a fwfrer. Fair enough.
MguyX's brilliantly witty and succint Kramer vs Kramer review is the highest single vote-getter at 238. I noticed he's been a fwfrer since 2002, so how long did it take to get that many votes [all well deserved, imho]?
The 2nd highest scorer - pudking's classic Icy Dead People - was penned in 2003.
I guess what I'm wondering is, were there more voting fwfrers back then, to accumulate so many votes for a review? Was there a different way of attracting votes, besides pimping them in the 4UM? Or has it taken years for those highest scoring reviews to get to the top?
Wotcha reckon, gang
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 19:29:08
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
First of all - thanks to whoever pushed my highest review over the 50 vote mark
Duly added here.
That was kind ... thanks, Sal!
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 18:29:49
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
First of all - thanks to whoever pushed my highest review over the 50 vote mark
Duly added here. |
| chazbo |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 03:35:02
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
quote:
Originally posted by duh
My highest vote getter, accepted back in 2004, has a mere 31 votes. I'll grant you that most of my reviews are dross, but I have a few that I am proud of. Perhaps my favorites are too subtle.
... 32 votes now. I've never looked at your first page before Duh so I splashed some votes around.
I hadn't looked at your top reviews before either. I found many that I certainly wouldn't label "dross"!
|
| TitanPa |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 01:56:18
The seasons change as so does the Regular fwiffer counts. THe are more in the Winter than there are in the Summer. I just had my computer crash and used my Tax return to get a new computer and now I have DSL. So now I am faster. I am trying to ease back into things again. Seeing I was away for a Month or more. SO dont think that its because there are less regular fwiffers. We always return at some point. Other like Nonsense may stay away longer...but I hope he will be back. |
| Yukon |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 23:57:14
quote:
Originally posted by duh
My highest vote getter, accepted back in 2004, has a mere 31 votes. I'll grant you that most of my reviews are dross, but I have a few that I am proud of. Perhaps my favorites are too subtle.
... 32 votes now. I've never looked at your first page before Duh so I splashed some votes around. |
| duh |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 22:55:45
My highest vote getter, accepted back in 2004, has a mere 31 votes. I'll grant you that most of my reviews are dross, but I have a few that I am proud of. Perhaps my favorites are too subtle. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 19:56:09
Randall is right - by far the main reason for the much higher number of votes in the top 100 reviews is that they are self-perpetuating. Most people who submit even a few reviews will look through (probably all of) that page. I'm sure that MguyX will not be offended when I say that I am actually not so keen on "I bet Kramer wins." I have voted for it, but only because I briefly thought I should view all reviews as if they had no votes yet. I soon returned to my gut-feeling position whereby I won't vote for reviews when I think others should be top. I'm happy for that review to have that many votes, but I'd like others to have more.
thefoxboy is right that the approval time now is not worse than it has been for much of the past few years, so that has not a lot to do with it.
There are perhaps a few fewer people in the F.Y.C.T.H., but I'm not sure the numbers are so massively different to those at many former times. There are two main reasons for fewer votes in those rounds at the moment than at some times. (i) People vary hugely in terms of what proportion of reviews they vote on, so a few changes to the regulars can make a big difference. I remember that when I started doing the Treasure Hunt again, I could not believe how many votes I was getting for quite poor reviews. It was just that there was a new set of people compared to when I had previously been doing it. (This also interlinks to the following reason...) (ii) Reviews are just on average worse now. This isn't mainly people's deficiency, although a small number of great reviewers are no longer submitting. It's just that most of the best ideas have been taken, so people have to use worse or less original ideas. In the latter case, they may still get votes from new F.W.F.R.ers, but over time those people come to know the back catalogue of reviews and recognise when duplicate ideas crop up. |
| aahaa, muahaha |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 15:19:02
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
aahaa, muahaha,
I voted on some of your top reviews, too. Every little bit helps.
But, you also have been on fwfr less time than I have been, so your totals aren't so bad, when you consider that.
EM :)
Thanks a ton EM, you are really considerate - tried repaying you in kind. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 13:56:42
Well, I don't know who did it, but someone just made sure that my top review stays in the top 500 list by giving it its 45 vote. Thanks, whoever you are and also a thanks to whoever voted on a bunch of my top reviews! |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 13:44:50
aahaa, muahaha,
I voted on some of your top reviews, too. Every little bit helps.
But, you also have been on fwfr less time than I have been, so your totals aren't so bad, when you consider that.
EM :) |
| aahaa, muahaha |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 05:37:48
quote:
Originally posted by chazbo
quote:
Originally posted by aahaa, muahaha
Ppl, please, I am developing a complex here. My top review does not even have 30 votes. 
Well, I couldn't help you with that top review, but I found a few others that I hadn't got before.
And thanks for the votes, too, EM. My top review now has 42 and counting...
Thanks a ton, Chazbo.
returned the favor to the best of my ability.... |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 21:30:29
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
At some point, I seem to recall reading on the fourum somewhere that back in the "olden" days, a person could vote on a given review as many times as desired, or something to that effect. If that is a correct memory, then if someone realllyyyy liked a review, the moon was the limit?
As Monty as said, there has never been more than one vote per review from one user and you could only get one anonymous vote per review.
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
I also remember a FYC used to stretch over five to six pages, not two or three. There's simply fewer Fwiffer regulars. (My hunch is that it has to do with the slower approval process. A newbie might wait a day or a week to see if a review gets approved but likely gives up on the site after a month. Approval rates have gotten much better in the past few weeks so hopefully things will change.)
Yes, there are less users in FYCTH theses days.
When I first started in early 2004, the waiting time for a review was around 4 months, so I don't know about the slower approval process theory. |
| chazbo |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 17:53:11
quote:
Originally posted by aahaa, muahaha
Ppl, please, I am developing a complex here. My top review does not even have 30 votes.
Well, I couldn't help you with that top review, but I found a few others that I hadn't got before.
And thanks for the votes, too, EM. My top review now has 42 and counting...
|
| aahaa, muahaha |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 17:01:59
quote:
Originally posted by chazbo
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
By the way -- I have been reviewing since 2002 and my highest voted review has just 60 votes.
So, either I'm not a good reviewer or I'm just not as popular as some of the the other fwfr-ers who have more votes on their reviews.
Just 60! My top review doesn't come close. It has recently inched its way to the 40-vote plateau, but it seems content with a new vote every several months or so.
Surprisingly, Montgomery, it seems I had never really visited your top reviews page before. So I've contributed a few more votes to the cause. I've already voted on most on everyone else's top pages.
As for why there are fewer votes, I agree with what's been written: more reviews to look at, fewer FYCTH participants and votes. I'm thankful now if a new review on FYCTH gets 5 votes.
Ppl, please, I am developing a complex here. My top review does not even have 30 votes. |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 15:46:20
quote:
Originally posted by chazbo
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
By the way -- I have been reviewing since 2002 and my highest voted review has just 60 votes.
So, either I'm not a good reviewer or I'm just not as popular as some of the the other fwfr-ers who have more votes on their reviews.
Just 60! My top review doesn't come close. It has recently inched its way to the 40-vote plateau, but it seems content with a new vote every several months or so.
Surprisingly, Montgomery, it seems I had never really visited your top reviews page before. So I've contributed a few more votes to the cause. I've already voted on most on everyone else's top pages.
As for why there are fewer votes, I agree with what's been written: more reviews to look at, fewer FYCTH participants and votes. I'm thankful now if a new review on FYCTH gets 5 votes.
You have been on fwfr for almost a year less time. Perhaps you will inch up to 60 votes for that review this year.
I will look at your top votes page, too.
Thanks for the votes.
EM :) |
|
|
