| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The General |
Posted - 05/02/2008 : 17:51:23
I read the earlier post on this, and like Salopian, Whipper, and probably others, I'm confused by this newish category of rejections. I've had two puzzling title play rejections:
For "Tarka the Otter," "Why, I Otter" was rejected as title play. Not a great review, but since it's a movie about an Otter, isn't this review more than just title play?
But my most puzzling one is an ongoing rejection of "Show me the Munny" as a review for "Unforgiven." This explanation was offered for the latest "Title Play" rejection: "Beside the film featuring Munny, I don't see the relevance of him being 'shown' besides for the sake of a pun on the name."
My sense is that title play rejection is meant to apply to reviews that pun on a title AND have little or no connection to the content of the film. If a review is connected to a film's content, it should be accepted.
Am I misreading this? Any thoughts?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 16:11:03
quote:
Originally posted by bife
Wouldn't that be affected by how many declined reviews the same reviewer has in the same category? If they are getting 100% approved where you usually get a decline, then it looks like favouritism. If they are getting 5% approved where you usually get a decline, then it doesn't look so much like favouritism.
That is of course true in principle, but common sense (and the cap) suggests that if someone is getting numerous approvals of a certain type then it is very unlikely that they are also getting many times that number of rejections.
Any inconsistency needs ironing out. If one gets a rejection for reason X and then responds by saying "Well, review Y (frequently the top one) contravenes X" (N.B. I am not talking about old reviews that wouldn't passs muster today), then there are only two valid outcomes. Either the review is approved or the cited review is removed. I appreciate that the MERPs probably cannot do the latter, but there should be a system in place so that Benj does it. |
| bife |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 15:55:42
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by bife
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Ali can see a review rejected for himself that he is more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to a review approved for someone else.
All that shows is inconsistency, not the blatant favouritism that Ali is suggesting.
Um, not from a few unpatterned instances, no, which is why I then said "If approved reviews in this category often seem to be for certain people, then Ali can reasonably infer what he has".
Wouldn't that be affected by how many declined reviews the same reviewer has in the same category? If they are getting 100% approved where you usually get a decline, then it looks like favouritism. If they are getting 5% approved where you usually get a decline, then it doesn't look so much like favouritism.
But you can't see what declines other reviewers are getting, can you? |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 15:45:52
quote:
Originally posted by bife
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Ali can see a review rejected for himself that he is more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to a review approved for someone else.
All that shows is inconsistency, not the blatant favouritism that Ali is suggesting.
Um, not from a few unpatterned instances, no, which is why I then said "If approved reviews in this category often seem to be for certain people, then Ali can reasonably infer what he has".
As I said when MERPs were brought in, it is humanly very difficult for committee members/judges in any scenario to avoid favouring each other in their decisions. The fact that it may not be conscious does not mean it doesn't exist. |
| Ali |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 15:04:48
quote:
Originally posted by bife
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
As I have said before, I have observed that some reviewers get an easier pass for their reviews than others.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Ali can see a review rejected for himself that he is more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to a review approved for someone else.
All that shows is inconsistency, not the blatant favouritism that Ali is suggesting.
I can see reviews rejected for myself that I am more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to other reviews approved for myself.
Should I complain that my reviews are being favoured over my reviews, that I am getting an 'easier pass' than myself? 
There is inconsistency and it is a right pain in the bum. But inconsistency and favouritism are not the same things.
I analyse subjects everyday considerably more complicated than the issue at hand. I know what I'm talking about.
quote:
Could it be that the MERPs have a distinct bias against paranoids?
No. I think they have a distinct, very human, bias against people who call them on their shortcomings. Rightly or wrongly. Needless to say, I'd opt for the former. But that's just my being biased.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 14:46:25
Could it be that the MERPs have a distinct bias against paranoids? 
|
| bife |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 14:36:23
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
As I have said before, I have observed that some reviewers get an easier pass for their reviews than others.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Ali can see a review rejected for himself that he is more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to a review approved for someone else.
All that shows is inconsistency, not the blatant favouritism that Ali is suggesting.
I can see reviews rejected for myself that I am more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to other reviews approved for myself.
Should I complain that my reviews are being favoured over my reviews, that I am getting an 'easier pass' than myself?
There is inconsistency and it is a right pain in the bum. But inconsistency and favouritism are not the same things.
|
| Ali |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 12:58:00
Yep - what Salopian said.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 22:49:12
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'm sorry, but you're commenting on a black box process. You see some of what goes in and some of what comes out, but you have no idea what goes on inside. All you can do is speculate on the rather limited information you have available to you, which I would class as ill-informed.
Not really. Ali can see a review rejected for himself that he is more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to a review approved for someone else. This is especially the case as the detailed rejection explanation may well often directly contradict said approved reviews (whether for the same film or others). If approved reviews in this category often seem to be for certain people, then Ali can reasonably infer what he has (and similarly that it is not just down to one MERP's opinion on one occasion). Submissions being anonymous would of course almost entirely remove this problem. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 21:11:22
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
As I have said before, I have observed that some reviewers get an easier pass for their reviews than others. Also, rejecting reviews on the grounds of their being "Title Play Only" has been producing equally unfair results.
Further, many, MANY times, merps reject reviews, some of them rather fine, without providing any reason whatsoever. None.
My outburst was based on these three observations, and, thus, not at all ill-informed.
I'm sorry, but you're commenting on a black box process. You see some of what goes in and some of what comes out, but you have no idea what goes on inside. All you can do is speculate on the rather limited information you have available to you, which I would class as ill-informed.
quote:
If we are asked, time and again, to take it easy with merps and give them the benefit of the doubt because they are only human, and because theirs is a volunteer position, I also think it's equally fair to point out that some of them are prone to making rather questionable decisions.
I agree completely, as long as it's respectful of the fact these guys are volunteers. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 19:11:33
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
As I have said before, I have observed that some reviewers get an easier pass for their reviews than others.
I have to agree with this. Or certainly reviews are rejected even when the MERPs are reminded of totally equivalent approved reviews. |
| Ali |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 08:07:23
As I have said before, I have observed that some reviewers get an easier pass for their reviews than others. Also, rejecting reviews on the grounds of their being "Title Play Only" has been producing equally unfair results.
Further, many, MANY times, merps reject reviews, some of them rather fine, without providing any reason whatsoever. None.
My outburst was based on these three observations, and, thus, not at all ill-informed. If we are asked, time and again, to take it easy with merps and give them the benefit of the doubt because they are only human, and because theirs is a volunteer position, I also think it's equally fair to point out that some of them are prone to making rather questionable decisions.
|
| The General |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 03:17:12
Accepting or rejecting reviews is not an exact science, and everyone does the best they can. (Except for the MERPs who reject my reviews, who clearly lurk Gollum-like in dark basements and feed on my pain.) 
My concern with the "Title Play" category is that it should be limited to a very specific circumstance--where a review is a play only on the title and has no tie to the movie's content. (Look at many of the reviews of "Roof Sex" for examples that could have been rejected for Title Play only.)
My contention is neither of my reviews should have been rejected for title play only, because both are linked to the film's content.
My broader concern is that the "Title Play" reason is being applied too broadly and is creating some frustration among FWFR'ers. Perhaps some inter-MERP discussion (that sounds kind of dirty) is in order.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 02:42:13
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Herky
In Unforgiven, the reason they (tell themselves they) go on the killing is for the money, so the phrase "show me the money" could be interpreted as referring to the characters' motivation. With the money/Munny pun, it's tied to a specific film.
I grant this interpretation of the review, however my feeling is that this is too much of a stretch of the film's plot just to force a joke.
I dunno: this seems totally equivalent to "To Helen back". |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 02:40:20
Everyone should remember that The Prof was quite validly objecting to the 'Title play only' rejections, not saying that the reviews could not be rejected.
In the case of "Why, I Otter", apart from the inexplicable capitalisation of Otter, the review is arguably O.K. for the film. This is because it shows motivations for aspects of Tarka's behaviour. It also shows things which the otter could be angry about, or which one could be angry about on its behalf. It's a bit of a stretch structurally, but not more than numerous reviews here. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 02:01:49
quote:
Originally posted by Herky
In Unforgiven, the reason they (tell themselves they) go on the killing is for the money, so the phrase "show me the money" could be interpreted as referring to the characters' motivation. With the money/Munny pun, it's tied to a specific film.
I grant this interpretation of the review, however my feeling is that this is too much of a stretch of the film's plot just to force a joke. |
|
|
