| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/05/2008 : 01:53:16
I have just had two reviews rejected for which there are newer duplicates approved (that I had already reported). One comment said that since there was an approved review, the rejected one was a duplicate. Benj, what should I do about this please? |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 16:13:31
Benj, in light of what demonic has said elsewhere, please let me know if you would rather I just spelt out each review in question here. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/06/2009 : 02:36:55
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I have just had two reviews rejected for which there are newer duplicates approved (that I had already reported). One comment said that since there was an approved review, the rejected one was a duplicate. Benj, what should I do about this please?
Here is one of those two. I'm posting it here if that is all right because it will make it easier to find again -- I had to really hunt through for it, as evidenced by the fact that I still cannot find the other one.
It was rather depressing going down the ranks of my rejections, as there are so many from months and months ago waiting to be resubmitted. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/06/2009 : 02:26:55
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
An even worse case has now cropped up. I had a review pending for a long time, and in the end I gave in and also submitted it for another film, which was promptly approved. (I mentioned this in the Fourum at the time.) I added a comment to the still-pending older review that I would delete the newer one once this one was approved. It has been rejected with the details "If you wish to use this review for this film, delete the one for X and resubmit this one."
I'm not prepared to do that. Firstly, the MERPs do not like being consistent and thus may well reject it again even if I do. Secondly, I'd rather have them both approved and then weigh up whether I really want to delete the newer one or whether in fact it may be better. Thirdly, there's no rule about not having the same review for different films. While I don't agree with keeping such duplicates (as was clear from my comment), I also object to the MERPs rejecting a review on a basis that has not been decided as being valid.
Benj, (i) is this now a valid rejection reason and (ii) if it is, how can I get the older review approved without the risk of ending up with neither? I am going to resubmit with "PLEASE LEAVE THIS FOR BENJ."
I did that but they processed it anyway. (I know in theory it could have been Benj but it really doesn't sound like him.) Here is what they said (neutralised to hide the identity of the other film, but not eliminating anything significant): "No. The reference is cute for film B, starring two iconically beautiful people. Here, it's just a rehash." I assume that the "No" was in response to what I had previously said, as this time I literally just said "PLEASE LEAVE FOR BENJ."
There are two troubling issues here. The first is that "rehash" can only mean that they think I submitted this review after the successful one, when I had clearly pointed out several times that this one came first. I've got to say that this issue arises again and again. (Remember that older review of mine that I had to submit about twenty times before it wasn't rejected as a duplicate? That's a whole week's worth of quota! And after all that the other person's newer review is still there even though I reported it immediately.) I must emphasise that I am not expecting the MERPs to work out which review is older -- I am talking about cases where I have stated this information clearly in the comment.
I don't know whether the second one is better or worse. At least it doesn't involve them ignoring the facts. However, is it really all right that the MERPs think they are in charge of beauty now? Are we not allowed to express opinions in reviews any more, but must stick to the most common preference? I find the people in my first choice of film better looking than the "iconic" ones. Does that count for nothing in my own reviews? Sure, I might have considered keeping the newer one instead because of the common view, but surely I shouldn't be forced to.
Benj, am I right in thinking that you (and perhaps the MERPs) can access this link but that other people cannot? Is there please any chance that it can be sorted out? I don't really want to have to submit it twenty or more times. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 16:09:05
MERPs, please stop rejecting these non-duplicate reviews. Please leave them for Benj to get to.
An even worse case has now cropped up. I had a review pending for a long time, and in the end I gave in and also submitted it for another film, which was promptly approved. (I mentioned this in the Fourum at the time.) I added a comment to the still-pending older review that I would delete the newer one once this one was approved. It has been rejected with the details "If you wish to use this review for this film, delete the one for X and resubmit this one."
I'm not prepared to do that. Firstly, the MERPs do not like being consistent and thus may well reject it again even if I do. Secondly, I'd rather have them both approved and then weigh up whether I really want to delete the newer one or whether in fact it may be better. Thirdly, there's no rule about not having the same review for different films. While I don't agree with keeping such duplicates (as was clear from my comment), I also object to the MERPs rejecting a review on a basis that has not been decided as being valid.
Benj, (i) is this now a valid rejection reason and (ii) if it is, how can I get the older review approved without the risk of ending up with neither? I am going to resubmit with "PLEASE LEAVE THIS FOR BENJ." |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 01:10:13
Thanks. I'll do that when I can fish them out (although, given that I've already reported them, shouldn't that do?). I always just check the I.D. numbers in order to tell which review is older.
Here is a different (bizarre) instance that can come under the same thread title. I had "Ledger domain" rejected for Heath Ledger Profile as being too similar to another review. However, the rejection was not automatic (i.e. someone else did not have an identical review pending or rejected) and the only two reviews for the 'film' bore no relation to mine. Thus the only thing I can think of is my own accolade name -- surely that should not be a barrier? This may be academic as you may want to delete that entry as not being a film anyway, but I just wanted to highlight it as an issue. (I just want to use that pun somewhere, since I want to delete that accolade as it's a virtual duplicate of ChocolateLady's.) |
| benj clews |
Posted - 10/05/2008 : 16:39:01
Just email me with the details and I'll take a look. The MERPs have no quick and easy method of checking when one review was submitted over another so they'll typically be checking against those already approved for the film. |
|
|
