| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| boydegg |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 02:33:10
Woah! I've just had 50 reviews declined in one fell swoop.
It looks like all Playboy films have been removed from FWFR ... which means the Playboy accolade I spent a month or more trying to get last year is also gone.
That SUCKS.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 07/26/2010 : 01:33:11
Oops! Salopian was right: there is another thread about non-films!    |
| TitanPa |
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 23:22:24
I for one never reviewed a playboy film. Which I am glad for. But I did do some for Baby Einstein. I wont rant about it. I guess it is understand able. It seems I was making a fuss a while ago about a review, but now stepping back.....I see I was wrong. Forgive me. I dont want to be that person. |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 21:41:47
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
MguyX ...
Boydegg
Thanks: you're A O.K. in my book.   |
| Koli |
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 18:40:15
Don't quit, Boydegg. We need you.
I imagine lots of us have lost at least a few in the recent purge. No one ever called me salacious and lived to tell the tale, and yet I too lost some Playboy reviews.
Worse things happen at sea, as the CEO of BP will confirm as he begins the search for alternative employment. |
| boydegg |
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 16:32:00
MguyX
You're absolutely right.
To be honest, I didn't originally know that any old Tom, Dick or Harry could add films to the list.
But how are we to know if a film is to be later deleted or not? Does that mean I have to stick to major Hollywood pictures to be safe? I love doing fwfrs for films with obscure and unusual names.
Anyway - the past is the past. Keep looking forward (thanks, Walt Disney) and thanks very much to Benj for this fun fun (usually fun) site.
Boydegg
|
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 05:06:02
How can I disagree with you when I look at your avatar! |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 01:00:25
My advice: be sure that your reviews are for legit films.
Don't take it out on the site, though; I completely sympathize with the large loss in one fell swoop -- yes, that is undeniably annoying and irritating. benj and the MERPs are trying, though, and it would be great if the rest of us can give them our help (don't add non films) and our support (Yay benj! Yay MERPs!)  |
| boydegg |
Posted - 07/24/2010 : 16:26:30
Wow - what a kettle of worms.
All I know is - losing 50+ reviews in one swoop like that has really disheartened me. I feel like quitting FWFR ... after all, I made it into the top 50, which was my goal for ages.
Now I feel like I don't want to bother any more ... I keep wondering how many more reviews I'll have lost before this process is done.
*sigh*
|
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 10:04:47
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
People being able to add films to the site directly bears no relation to what types of film have been added.
Wha? I can go to IMDb, copy the url for a sitcom and add it. Like this. Accordingly, the ability to add correlates directly with the incidence of non-films being added. When benj was the only "adder," this was not an issue. So you are wrong.
quote:
Before they could do so, Benj explicitly and repeatedly stated that this site followed the I.M.D.B. in what was classified as a film.
But that fiat didn't stop people from adding non-films, because kids in a candy store will try everything. like this*quote:
There was never an occasion where someone asked for a film to be added and he declined.
Really? Perhaps during your tenure as benj's personal secretary you were privy to each of his decisions, though I wonder whether you were present at all times. The key word in your tell-all revelation is "film": no, benj likely seldom declined to add a "film," as he was able to confirm that it was a "film" in the first place. However, "never" is strong as black tea. Perhaps you might use some lemon or milk in that brew.quote:
People adding films and Benj's change of opinion are totally separate matters.
Wrong on both counts: people adding and being able to add anything is the core matter; and who, other than you, said benj changed his mind? Deletion of an improperly added item does not necessarily constitute a change of mind; it very well may constitute an overdue policing issue, as with Playboy.quote:
People often like to confuse the situation by talking about such-and-such not being a movie.
Argumentative error: you set up a straw man. But rock on with that.quote:
Despite one of the alternative domains, this is the Four Word Film Review, and film is a broader term than movie (shorts and I would say documentaries are not movies, for example).
And "jet" is different than "black," right? Much like the "loo" is differemt than the "restroom." Yellowtail is not Ono, which is not bluefin, which is not bigeye, but they are all tuna, which is not pompano, or trout, or salmon, though they are all sushi (if served the right way). Six.quote:
Therefore, some people are getting all high and mighty about certain entries not being within a parameter that has never been implied on any level.
Right ... ish, and wrong: right in that the site has never implied that a non-film gets play here; and wrong in that nobody's getting all high and mighty, except the high and mighty. And who are the high and mighthy? By my account, that would be the gods of FWFR, namely, benj and the MERPs, who ARE the decisionmakers. Digressing a bit -- so you would accuse God of arrogance for imposing His rules if they seemed inconsistent to You? Please stand at least 20 feet away from me at all times. Feel free to stand on the pedistal, too. quote:
Now, that's not to say that some of the removed entries are also not films, but some of them certainly are.
Name the ones that are, Rudy, so we can have a go at it.quote:
The Report feature was not created because people were 'huffy' or because they demanded it. It is simply a more efficient way (for Benj, especially) of doing what was already happening via specialised threads, one of the main ones of which you started. It therefore did not create work: it saved it.
The nazi button creates work because it creates a log: it's just a more efficient way of streamlining the same work that would be created by relegating complaints to the fourum. (Did someone say "nazi button"??? where is he?!?! Lemme at em!!!) It's an efficient convenience, but it's still its own job.
Sal, being a "deity" on FWFR is only a figure of speech.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I've replied to this in the proper place.
As have I.
* benj and the MERPs will eventually catch this, but it is a link to "Three's Company" -- a sitcom -- that I added just to demonstarate my point. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 05:58:50
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Given the amount of time you seem to devote to all things Salopian I'd be very surprised if you didn't know the appropriate votes for your top page.
Is this supposed to be "... to all things Salopian, I'd..." or "... to all things, Salopian, I'd..."? If the latter (i.e. it's addressed to me) then I've already indicated that I do not, so it's quite strange that you "would be" surprised. I could memorise them of course, but such things aren't important. (I'm interested in the range of statistics here, but that's not the same as wanting to memorise them. If they never changed, then of course I couldn't help but remember them over time, but they do.) |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 03:29:02
Taking half a step back in this conversation I believe I would definitely know if I'd lost a 30+ review from my set as I consider 30 the mark of a top flight review and am mightily proud of any of my little fellows who manage to leap to those heady heights. Given the amount of time you seem to devote to all things Salopian I'd be very surprised if you didn't know the appropriate votes for your top page. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 03:19:04
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Then people started getting huffy about how long it took to get films added. So benj gave the users the opportunity to add the films themselves by copying the film's url from IMDb. This resulted in people adding non-films to the site.
Because people got all huffy about certain reviews that they felt were violating some rule or other, benj created the "Report" button (sometimes referred to as the "nazi button," but not in public because that really P's some people O and gets them on a tirade about unfair misnomers, but I digress). This resulted in (we are told) a separate backlog of films/reviews that need to be reexamined.
With all of that extra work being tacked on -- by the users, mind you -- it was inevitable that some if not many films/reviews would escape correction/deletion/re-education for a while before being addressed. Also, since benjy doesn't work as just the editor of the FWFR, we are fortunate that he devotes the considerable amount of time he has devoted to the site, which we all use for free to obtain hours and hours of enjoyment.
I've replied to this in the proper place. |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 02:35:28
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
I could memorise how many votes each of my reviews had if I wanted to though.
Who couldn't? That's only a few hundred numbers, in your case.
I know! I only get a few votes each week, so I'd just have to review my pages every day to see which ones had changed... et voil�! |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 02:30:56
quote:
Originally posted by Airbolt
It appears that the time to apply strict criteria was at this stage rather than after the fact.
More to the point, it would be better to have ever applied strict criteria. There have never been any given, and there also cannot be any in private (at least ones which are followed) since the films removed don't form logical sets relative to the ones retained. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 02:28:05
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I think the more appropos question (if it needed to be asked anyway) was whether he memorized how many votes that review had, which answer was quite apparently "yes."
No, quite the reverse, as he had answered quite clearly well before your post. |
|
|
