| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| clay |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 09:27:37
I note with dismay that the top reviewer has over 11,000 approved reviews. If I post over 20 reviews in a week everything over the 20th is rejected out of hand as overage. That means I can post a MAXIMUM of 1040 reviews in a 52-week year, of which, optimistically, 60% will be accepted.
I'm in the 330's right now. If my projections are correct I cannot hope to get where Randall is till the year 2027. My dad died of heart disease when he was 5 years younger than I am now. Granted that Movie Deification is a great incentive to get fit and stay alive, but I ask you: is this fair? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| [matt] |
Posted - 06/18/2009 : 13:33:55
Hey clay, another fun goal is getting the top review for films. There's a stat you can add which shows you the percentage of films you've reviewed for which you have the top review. This is one of the things I aim for most actually. I've managed to work up to almost 42% - it's the third stat down here.
You can also see where you rank in terms of this stat here. (And this is the thread where I found that.) 
|
| randall |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 19:31:20
quote:
Originally posted by CankleFetish
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote.
I saw that too and was heartsick. Not because you got votes you didn't deserve [if somebody had done that to me, I would ruefully admit to just that], but because it ruined a perfectly fine game where we were encouraged to judge 0-voters [see my previous post]. Whoever did that was shameful and awful, and poor Cankie had to throw up his hands and kill the game.
Yes, the game had to be taken out back and shot... Too bad, 'cuz the thread had been progressing nicely up to that point, and I too was nauseous when I saw all the votes coming in for what seemed like no apparent reason(for my zeroes anyway). 'til then there had been a nice quid pro quo aspect to the participation. The thread will be started up again in due time, but it may be awhile.
Old-timers will recall that I ran the very same game, 0-Vote Mania!, for a while before you came along. Why did I give it up? Because somebody else was willing to go to the trouble! |
| randall |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 19:28:00
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote.
I saw that too and was heartsick. Not because you got votes you didn't deserve [if somebody had done that to me, I would ruefully admit to just that], but because it ruined a perfectly fine game where we were encouraged to judge 0-voters [see my previous post].
I shared your heartsickness, Grasshopper. This was a random kamikaze move that did nothing to recognize deserving 0 vote reviews. Unfortunately the miscreant chose not to bomb my reviews!!!!
Though I am generally in awe of your skills, Sensei, I just can't approve of what was done here. |
| clay |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 18:31:12
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
I have a good idea. Everyone who has more reviews than Clay should delete their lowest vote getters and least favorites until they have reached the same number that he has. 
Works for me!!! |
| duh |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 16:57:35
I have a good idea. Everyone who has more reviews than Clay should delete their lowest vote getters and least favorites until they have reached the same number that he has. |
| Canklefish |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 04:44:39
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote.
I saw that too and was heartsick. Not because you got votes you didn't deserve [if somebody had done that to me, I would ruefully admit to just that], but because it ruined a perfectly fine game where we were encouraged to judge 0-voters [see my previous post]. Whoever did that was shameful and awful, and poor Cankie had to throw up his hands and kill the game.
Yes, the game had to be taken out back and shot... Too bad, 'cuz the thread had been progressing nicely up to that point, and I too was nauseous when I saw all the votes coming in for what seemed like no apparent reason(for my zeroes anyway). 'til then there had been a nice quid pro quo aspect to the participation. The thread will be started up again in due time, but it may be awhile.
|
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 03:42:32
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote.
I saw that too and was heartsick. Not because you got votes you didn't deserve [if somebody had done that to me, I would ruefully admit to just that], but because it ruined a perfectly fine game where we were encouraged to judge 0-voters [see my previous post].
I shared your heartsickness, Grasshopper. This was a random kamikaze move that did nothing to recognize deserving 0 vote reviews. Unfortunately the miscreant chose not to bomb my reviews!!!! |
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 03:37:33
quote:
Originally posted by randall
I have never voted, and will never vote, for a review I didn't think deserved it; I don't mercy-vote. I'll go farther: I'll bet I've very, very infrequently, maybe even never, received a mercy vote. However, I find there are lots of vote-worthy reviews on the site whenever something makes me dive into 0-votes. Lots of 'em I've never even seen.
As for pimping reviews, the reason I refer to lemmy as "Sensei" is because (1) he was the first person to call attention to my reviews, so he's sorta my fwiffer mentor; and (2) long ago we made a game of it, and his ability to call non sequitur phrases back to his reviews is so impressive that I went to Tibet to study his vote fu skills. It's only a harmless game, and most everybody knows we're playing it.
Grasshopper, your lucidity, as always, passeth understanding. Perhaps a key to your insights may be found here. |
| randall |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 03:32:22
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote.
I saw that too and was heartsick. Not because you got votes you didn't deserve [if somebody had done that to me, I would ruefully admit to just that], but because it ruined a perfectly fine game where we were encouraged to judge 0-voters [see my previous post]. Whoever did that was shameful and awful, and poor Cankie had to throw up his hands and kill the game. |
| randall |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 03:24:45
I have never voted, and will never vote, for a review I didn't think deserved it; I don't mercy-vote. I'll go farther: I'll bet I've very, very infrequently, maybe even never, received a mercy vote. However, I find there are lots of vote-worthy reviews on the site whenever something makes me dive into 0-votes. Lots of 'em I've never even seen.
As for pimping reviews, the reason I refer to lemmy as "Sensei" is because (1) he was the first person to call attention to my reviews, so he's sorta my fwiffer mentor; and (2) long ago we made a game of it, and his ability to call non sequitur phrases back to his reviews is so impressive that I went to Tibet to study his vote fu skills. It's only a harmless game, and most everybody knows we're playing it. |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 01:52:37
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote.
I agree that some are better than (or not as bad as) others, but those that promise a certain number of votes just for replying at a certain hour, for instance, (to me) goes against the whole point of the vote system. I guess we're entitled to our own ideologies though. |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 01:16:37
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
Most folks here would agree that Bigger Boat is one of the best reviewers on the site and he only has 268 reviews.
Thanks Yukon, very kind of you to say so, but to a large degree I think I'm successful because I'm a populist - most of my reviews do well because they're simple, amusing and deal with obvious or universal themes. And because I don't care about the total number of reviews I have, I disown any I think are not up to scratch. My basic goal is to keep an average of 22, although I've not managed that in a couple of months now.
That's the glory of this site - you can do whatever you want. I don't do accolades, avatar competitions, icon chasing, alliterations, haikus, vote swapping/pimping* or many other things that are available but I don't need to. I've found my groove.
*I'm not sure why I don't do these - I think it's because I don't want to feel beholden to other reviewers. If you like my reviews, vote for them, but I don't want votes for the sake of it because I can't, in good conscience, return the favour and vote for reviews that don't appeal to me.
Totally agree about "That's the glory of this site - you can do whatever you want" 
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote. |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 01:05:43
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
Most folks here would agree that Bigger Boat is one of the best reviewers on the site and he only has 268 reviews.
Thanks Yukon, very kind of you to say so, but to a large degree I think I'm successful because I'm a populist - most of my reviews do well because they're simple, amusing and deal with obvious or universal themes. And because I don't care about the total number of reviews I have, I disown any I think are not up to scratch. My basic goal is to keep an average of 22, although I've not managed that in a couple of months now.
That's the glory of this site - you can do whatever you want. I don't do accolades, avatar competitions, icon chasing, alliterations, haikus, vote swapping/pimping* or many other things that are available but I don't need to. I've found my groove.
*I'm not sure why I don't do these - I think it's because I don't want to feel beholden to other reviewers. If you like my reviews, vote for them, but I don't want votes for the sake of it because I can't, in good conscience, return the favour and vote for reviews that don't appeal to me.
|
| clay |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 00:20:50
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Clay,
my philosophy about the unreachablility of certain fwiffers is to focus on the short term milestones and enjoy making up the four word gems as they come to mind!!
That's great advice, which I will do my best to take. Thanks. |
| Sean |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 23:26:19
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Position will require you to be unstinting in following a set of rules.
Or, rather, "Position will require you to be inconsistent, partisan, forgetful, disproportionate and unable to grasp basic concepts."
Perks include: regular abuse from those with no real idea of the enormity of the task who misguidedly believe they can do a better job.
Benj, can I be a MERP? Then I can decline all reviews submitted by a certain user.  |
|
|
