| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/09/2008 : 18:30:21
Over the past couple of days I've had a bundle of reviews refused for being "too generic".
They're not, at least not for the most part. Some of them require some knowledge to understand why they are not generic, so I'll let them pass, whilst only saying the MERPs should consider that experienced fwfrs probably wouldn't write very generic sounding reviews unless there was a point eg my "Julia escapes by whisker" would not have been written if she just escaped by a whisker, but also required her to do so by wearing a false moustache.
But what's going on here? For "Stand Up: Muslim-American Comics Come Of Age" does anyone actually think "Muslim-American comedians undergo bar-mitzvah" is a "too generic" review? Well, amazingly, a MERP does. Apparently, out there somewhere, is a whole bunch of films to which this review would clearly apply.
Come on now MERP, this is just plain ridiculous.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/23/2008 : 07:35:26
Benj, programming issue aside, there are still way too many Too generics (or equivalent Click for details rejections). I am still getting rejections on the basis of single other films to which reviews could apply (and when my reviews fit the other films better anyway).
Please could you remind the MERPs of your changes to the 'generic' parameters?
Also, on a specific issue that I have raised before, it has always seemed to be the case that a review that can apply to several biopics of the same person is O.K. Please could you confirm that this is the case?
Thanks. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 05/26/2008 : 15:23:22
Pretty sure I found the problem here now. Have also applied the fix retrospectively to all presently unresubmitted declines. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/26/2008 : 15:18:18
And another: "Eye transplantee's husband's transplant" for Awake. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/20/2008 : 11:30:07
Here's another one: "nEvolet facts spoil story" for 10,000 B.C. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/18/2008 : 23:58:08
Benj, here's one: "'Tache an' Tashan" for Tashan. Now, this is not a good review, but it cannot possibly be considered 'generic' by any sane person, so I assume it is an example of this glitch. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/14/2008 : 01:15:01
On the other side of things, could I please thank the MERP who in a personalised version of a 'Too generic' listed some alternative films? It wasn't even in response to my asking what ones there could be. Good work. I've still resubmitted as I think my film is the best fit and there are not that many other films, but it's still a good-quality rejection. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 12:03:58
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
So, can you see previous refusal reasons or just the latest one? If its just the latest one this would explain the apparent anomaly.
By going into the database, I can see a full decline history for the review. None of these are Generic declines so I think there's a problem here- just not one that happens all the time (unfortunately for me).
Yeah, yeah, typical! Site operator puts blame on programmer! 
 
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 12:02:10
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I think there's a problem here- just not one that happens all the time (unfortunately for me).
I get so many invalid Too generics (in that no other film comes to mind) that I wouldn't know where to start -- I assume that most of these are just bad decisions. The issue was raised in much more detail a few weeks ago, so you could see if there are examples to check in that thread. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 11:56:52
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
another decline with a bespoke reason, rather annoyingly refusing the review because "Muslim-American", which is part of the film title and hyphenated, is not apparently in the dictionary. Therefore I have reresubmitted saying that as "Muslim-American" is in the title its logical to accept it in the review.If it gets refused again I'll resubmit with "Muslim-American" in inverted commas!
Yep, that is ridiculous. Even if it weren't in the title, it would be valid. Although it's different to most of those horrible X-American terms (most of which wouldn't be in the dictionary either), in that it's referring to a religion rather than a region of origin, the context of the film is about the interaction between being a Muslim and being an American i.e. it's not just a list of adjectives: [[Muslim American] comedians], rather than [Muslim [American comedians]]. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 11:04:23
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
So, can you see previous refusal reasons or just the latest one? If its just the latest one this would explain the apparent anomaly.
By going into the database, I can see a full decline history for the review. None of these are Generic declines so I think there's a problem here- just not one that happens all the time (unfortunately for me). |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 10:29:38
Well, it has since has another two decline reasons - an "over four words " which has lead to a change and resubmission, and another decline with a bespoke reason, rather annoyingly refusing the review because "Muslim-American", which is part of the film title and hyphenated, is not apparently in the dictionary. Therefore I have reresubmitted saying that as "Muslim-American" is in the title its logical to accept it in the review.If it gets refused again I'll resubmit with "Muslim-American" in inverted commas!
So, can you see previous refusal reasons or just the latest one? If its just the latest one this would explain the apparent anomaly.
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 08:42:45
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
But what's going on here? For "Stand Up: Muslim-American Comics Come Of Age" does anyone actually think "Muslim-American comedians undergo bar-mitzvah" is a "too generic" review? Well, amazingly, a MERP does. Apparently, out there somewhere, is a whole bunch of films to which this review would clearly apply.
I had a look at this review and the decline reason was not Generic so it looks like there could be a problem here. Can you let me know asap if you encounter anything else like this that appears overwhelmingly wrong as Generic such as this. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 02:55:41
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
"Muslim-American comedians undergo bar-mitzvah" is a "too generic" review?
Bar Mitzvah is two words, though, so the review was just rejected for the wrong reason. Perhaps the MERP had a slip of the finger when scrolling down. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/10/2008 : 04:42:17
Yep, this issue is undeniable, although it has not been so bad for me lately as a few weeks ago when it was discussed in another thread. I just resubmit with "What other film could this refer to?" and the review is usually passed. The remainder are rejected blankly, which is just as firm evidence that the original decision basis was wrong. |
| Larry |
Posted - 05/09/2008 : 20:49:52
Interestingly enough, my Spoilers review (which is in my "for your consideration" this time) was originally rejected about a month ago as being too generic. Rather than fight it, I took it out and tried to think of a way to re-word it. The more I thought about it, the more frustrated I became. The review included the title, a featured actor and plot points. How could I possibly make it any more specific? So, I resubmitted it with an explanation, and it was accepted. That's nice, but the point is... I really shouldn't have to be explaining a review that is SO obviously not generic.
As a MERP test, I've been including one or two very generic reviews in each batch I submit. This would give them something to reject and they would leave the good, non-generic ones alone. That was my thinking. I bet you've already figured out the ending to this -- that's right, they accepted the generic ones and rejected many of the the non-generic ones.
Go figure!! |
