| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 12:52:13
Benj
I've noticed that reviews have been going through the pipeline much quicker recently, for which I'm very grateful.
However, I've also been getting some very strange refusals. I've mentioned elsewhere the TITLE PLAY ONLY refusals which clearly are not title plays only, and I've just got today three TOO GENERIC refusals, none of which are and two of which don't look vaguely generic.
For example, for REACH FOR THE SKY I wrote "Nothing stumps Bader". Now how on earth can anyone reject this as too generic? How? This is THE film about Bader and - bit of a spoiler here I'm afraid - his leg situation features prominently.
For SYRIANA I wrote "Eventually everything Connex" - Connex is the name of the corporation. Now how can this be too generic? Are there zillions of films featuring Connex? And in them various apparently disparate strands come together in the ending? I don't think so.
So, what I'm asking is, how can anyone actually refuse these reviews on the grounds of TOO GENERIC? Is there someone new who misunderstands what the term means?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| bife |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 00:53:13
So Sal, here is the source of your inconsistency problem.
Whipper and I both believe his review is sound, and that yours should be rejected. We are openly stating this in a public fourum, not processing behind-the-scenes in a darkened and private MERP-world, and I hope you agree that whether or not we are right we do genuinely believe our positions based on the merits of the reviews and not because it is you vs Whipper.
You, on the other hand, disagree, think that both reviews are equivalent, and that Whipper's approval is evidence that yours should also be approved.
Were the three of us MERPs, we would process these reviews in different ways, no favouritism, just different viewpoints. Even after protracted discussion. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 00:25:40
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I intended it predominantly in this sense:
strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.
O.K., I did not know this meaning of the word before starting my post -- although I did acknowledge it once I found out. I was not prompted to think there was another meaning to the one I knew because of the inclusion of the indefinite article. While there are occasional uses in this sense, the only ones I can find are in cases where an animosity would fit. Animosity of course usually appears without an indefinite article, and with one it has a nuanced meaning of being more targeted, such as in a vendetta against a certain group of people. The distribution of animus on the Internet makes me guess that it follows the same pattern. Nothing I know of the film leads me to think that the rectum goes on anything other than a totally random rampage, so "Anus with animus" would make more sense if you did not intend to use the spirit meaning.
Wow! One minute he doesn't know a particular meaning of the word, the next he's lecturing me on its usage!
For your information I have heard the phrase "with an animus" on enough occasions in this sense, and googling gives hundreds of examples. So, how about you shut the fuck up giving lectures to people who know more about the subject than you do?
quote:
To merely say the rectum is alive is really not very interesting
It's not a requirement for a review to be interesting, so that's of no relevance. Besides, I cannot really imagine how one could find the concept of a rectum's animosity any more interesting than the concept of its just being alive.
No, it's not a requirement that a review be interesting, but it should be reason enough for you to stop whining about it's rejection already. Move on.
quote:
"soul" implies a religious dimension
Hhmmm, not really. The idea I'm sure developed within religions (although who knows whether it started there?), but unless you believe that a non-religious person could not validly claim to have a soul, nothing hinges on that. It can quite definitely be used to describe the animating force of conscious beings. And (as I added after you replied) any individual, especially one with consciousness, can be described a soul.
Of course "soul" implies religious or quasi-religious attitudes, which is, apparently, not in keeping with the film. Hence the rejection.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 23:49:56
quote:
Originally posted by bife
Does the film make any suggestion that the arsehole has a soul?
In the wider sense of a consciousness, yes, I think it does -- something motivating it to act as it does. It's certainly close enough to comfortably pass in one of these sort of films, where there is clearly a lot of leeway.
quote:
Does the film make a suggestion the the anus has a hostile attitude.
Well no, because it's not about an anus, as I've already mentioned. This kind of leeway is fine, but it's at least as much as my review needs (if any).
quote:
That isn't to say that there aren't inconsistencies, I can see that there are by looking only at my own approve/decline piles. But why are you so obsessed with the minutae of every approval/decline
I'm simply not. But better consistency is not going to be achieved by magic or divine intervention. Issues have to be raised, and the occasional example given. I have ever mentioned probably less than one per cent of my rejections, and only ever as examples of wider problems.
quote:
why do you feel so victimised?
I don't. As you yourself wrote earlier, one only knows of one's own rejections. What other examples could I give?! I want fairness for anyone who wants it, not just for myself.
quote:
We all get... bad approvals, occassionally
Not that occasionally. I sometimes submit unreasonable reviews as a joke that I can just tell will be approved.
quote:
Do you really expect someone to go trawling through all historic reviews to make sure everything is 100% lined up with your own approval/decline profile?
Of course not. But the MERPs' knowledge of other reviews on the site/decisions indicated by Benj in the Fourum does seem to be poorer than I would consider ideal. (For example, it has been very well known for a long time that there are numerous reviews where closely - or not so closely - related species have been used. It is therefore not comprehensible how a MERP can reject a review on that basis.) I frequently cite other reviews exactly so that the MERPs do not need to know of them themselves. So this case, for example, relies wholly on them comparing the two reviews and feeling that my review is certainly not valid in comparison to napper's.
quote:
Damn, I'd be happy just to see my pending pile go away, I don't want anyone distracted from approving my reviews by following up in detail every review that every fwfrer believes is inconsistent with a previous review.
And I don't want my reviews misprocessed just so that you can have fewer pending reviews. I'd be perfectly happy for us to receive the same amount of MERP time, but for fewer of my reviews to be looked at. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 23:25:32
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I intended it predominantly in this sense:
strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.
O.K., I did not know this meaning of the word before starting my post -- although I did acknowledge it once I found out. I was not prompted to think there was another meaning to the one I knew because of the inclusion of the indefinite article. While there are occasional uses in this sense, the only ones I can find are in cases where an animosity would fit. Animosity of course usually appears without an indefinite article, and with one it has a nuanced meaning of being more targeted, such as in a vendetta against a certain group of people. The distribution of animus on the Internet makes me guess that it follows the same pattern. Nothing I know of the film leads me to think that the rectum goes on anything other than a totally random rampage, so "Anus with animus" would make more sense if you did not intend to use the spirit meaning.
quote:
To merely say the rectum is alive is really not very interesting
It's not a requirement for a review to be interesting, so that's of no relevance. Besides, I cannot really imagine how one could find the concept of a rectum's animosity any more interesting than the concept of its just being alive.
quote:
"soul" implies a religious dimension
Hhmmm, not really. The idea I'm sure developed within religions (although who knows whether it started there?), but unless you believe that a non-religious person could not validly claim to have a soul, nothing hinges on that. It can quite definitely be used to describe the animating force of conscious beings. And (as I added after you replied) any individual, especially one with consciousness, can be described as a soul. |
| bife |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 19:13:35
Looks like whipper got there first  |
| bife |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 19:12:51
You really can't see the difference?
Soul:
�noun 1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
Animus:
�noun 1. strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity
Does the film make any suggestion that the arsehole has a soul? Maybe it does, I haven't seen it, but it is a B-grade comedy/horror, I do not think the question is raised.
Does the film make a suggestion the the anus has a hostile attitude. I'd say that was pretty well the foundation for the film.
I could be wrong, this is not a science no matter how you try to make it one, but it seems to me that the MERPs could justifiably seperate these two reviews.
That isn't to say that there aren't inconsistencies, I can see that there are by looking only at my own approve/decline piles. But why are you so obsessed with the minutae of every approval/decline, and why do you feel so victimised? We all get bad declines (and bad approvals, occassionally ).
Do you really expect someone to go trawling through all historic reviews to make sure everything is 100% lined up with your own approval/decline profile? Damn, I'd be happy just to see my pending pile go away, I don't want anyone distracted from approving my reviews by following up in detail every review that every fwfrer believes is inconsistent with a previous review. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 19:07:22
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
[quote]Originally posted by Salopian
An animus is an animating spirit. Whatever soul means, it's something along those lines. However, animus has a related but distinct meaning of animosity. This gives napper's review a nice double meaning that I was not previously aware of, but double meanings are not a requirement of reviews. Soul is also closer to conscience, but not to the extent that evildoers are supposed not to have souls. A slight difference in B's favour.
A rectum is not the same as an anus. A slight difference in A's favour.
I have detailed all this to highlight the issue of precedents being neither followed nor retrospectively rejected.
I intended it predominantly in this sense:
strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.
It may even be possible that some fwfrs have this kind of animus towards each other - who knows?
I guess, and hope, it was in this sense that it was accepted. To merely say the rectum is alive is really not very interesting and "soul" implies a religious dimension which, as far as I am aware, is not relevant to the film.
If all my review meant was something like "rectum with a spirit" then I really wouldn't have complained about a refusal.
|
| Downtown |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 18:51:08
Forget it, Sal...they just didn't like the review itself but nobody will ever admit that to you. You'll only get more frustrated expecting real consistency and fairness. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 18:22:22
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
"Arseholes are souls?" - I defy anyone to be overwhelmed by choices as to which film about an apparently living rectum this could be. In contrast, the newer and highly equivalent "Anus with an animus" has been approved (and voted on by me).
This has been rejected again. O.K., let's try to assess the distinction between my rejected review (A) and the cited approved one (B).
B is a statement about this particular instance of the bodypart, whereas A 'asks' in surprise whether this instance's characteristic applies to general instances of the bodypart. That is a difference of tone, but the semantic content is not different and rhetorical questions of that type are perfectly common here. Not a significant difference.
B uses to have while A uses to be. A is thus marginally less standard in this way, but soul is widely used to refer to individuals (even those not generally considered to have souls - "That kitten is a sweet little soul"). Not a significant difference.
An animus is an animating spirit. Whatever soul means, it's something along those lines. However, animus has a related but distinct meaning of animosity. This gives napper's review a nice double meaning that I was not previously aware of, but double meanings are not a requirement of reviews. Soul is also closer to conscience, but not to the extent that evildoers are supposed not to have souls. A slight difference in B's favour.
A rectum is not the same as an anus. A slight difference in A's favour.
I have detailed all this to highlight the issue of precedents being neither followed nor retrospectively rejected.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 00:41:41
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
In general, there is a big problem on this site with precedents not being followed. Reviews entirely equivalent to approved ones are rejected all the time. If the said precedent is deemed to have been a mistake, it should be promptly declined.
For example, since posting this I have had a review declined because it referred to a species that was not the one in the film but a closely related one. In my head I know of tens of reviews of this type (including for the well-known same film, with the same well-known species) and so would be surprised if there were not hundreds altogether. Now, I would be quite happy with the rejection if it were not for the plethora of such examples. Further, as I don't like this sort of thing (I obviously slipped in this case), I have repeatedly mentioned this inaccurate use of species (amongst other equivalent categories) as being a problem. Since Benj has not replied saying "Yes, those reviews are not acceptable - we must remove them" on any occasion, I'm not really clear as to how the MERPs can be of the view that they are against site policy.
This review has been rejected again as 'Inaccurate', but without an individual message this time. The only thing that is inaccurate about it is the species, which as I've said appears in several other reviews for the same film.  |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 00:39:38
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
The chronological rule sounds good on cyber - but I have noticed that the reviews that get quick decisions tend to be popular / accessible reviews and those that take longer tend to be more obscure - so you may have some older reviews that are more obscure but you can't expect the MERPs to watch every obscure movie norder to judge your effort (can you?).
No, it's nothing like that. Literally my very latest reviews were being processed, even though older pending reviews for the same films were in numerous cases just as clear-cut.
I should note that this seems to have improved now. I would still prefer full chronological processing, but most of my older clear-cut cases seem to have been seen now. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/04/2008 : 03:44:15
I cannot find where I posted about two issues that still need answering - (i) whether a review should be too 'generic' if it refers to a topic for which one film is overwhelmingly the one, however many others there could in theory be, and (ii) whether a review can be generic if it features a not-very-common name that is also in the title of the film.
I was looking for the post to note that in response to my resubmission comment that there don't seem to be any other major characters with that name, the reviews were just rejected blankly. It is rather frustrating. If the first rejection reason given is disproven, I really think a review should get a proper reason if it is still rejected. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 10:59:44
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
The chronological rule sounds good on cyber - but I have noticed that the reviews that get quick decisions tend to be popular / accessible reviews and those that take longer tend to be more obscure - so you may have some older reviews that are more obscure but you can't expect the MERPs to watch every obscure movie norder to judge your effort (can you?).
No, it's nothing like that. Literally my very latest reviews were being processed, even though older pending reviews for the same films were in numerous cases just as clear-cut. |
| turrell |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 05:53:40
The chronological rule sounds good on cyber - but I have noticed that the reviews that get quick decisions tend to be popular / accessible reviews and those that take longer tend to be more obscure - so you may have some older reviews that are more obscure but you can't expect the MERPs to watch every obscure movie norder to judge your effort (can you?).
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 02:10:12
And another reason is that I sometimes submit the good version of a review first and a blander, safer back-up version afterwards. Some of the latter have now been approved and I am worried that the former will get rejected as 'too similar'. |
|
|
