| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 09/23/2007 : 23:46:54
I just happened across this, is it really a film?
IMBD has it as a games show.
Benj this sort of entry is watering down the whole ethos of the site IMHO.
Josh the cat |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Salopian |
Posted - 07/08/2008 : 09:46:38
N.B. There was already this thread. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 10/12/2007 : 21:40:30
This really isn't a film, which is why I never submitted it for this website when I was adding all the other Sleepaway Camp movies. It was a few scenes that were shot for a movie that was never actually made. They included the DVD in the boxed set as "outtakes", but it's just not accurate to call it a movie. It's not even half-finished. I just submitted a review in case it stays anyway, but in my opinion it really doesn't belong here. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/25/2007 : 21:13:42
If you think my post of yesterday contradicts my one of today, then yes, you have misunderstood me.
The ideal would be a system like the one I outlined.
The second best idea is the current system of using threads.
The third best idea would be to report films using arbitrary reviews. (Apart from the disadvantages I've already mentioned, what if the review in question gets deleted, either by the writer or having been previously reported because of itself? The film correction information would then be lost.) |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/25/2007 : 13:15:30
So are you now repudiating your post of yesterday:
Since there are many aspects of films that need reporting (titles, years, cast lists, duplication etc.), it would make much more sense to have a process tailored to correcting aspects of films.
Or have I misunderstood you?
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/25/2007 : 12:42:32
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
There's no question your solution is theoretically better, but the one I suggested requires minimal programming.
If Benj has the time to write a different report system for film faults/mistakes then that's great, but if he doesn't (or doesn't think the situation merits it) then my solution can be implimented in 5 minutes flat and is 100% functional and practical.
I think it would be better to continue the current system (of threads in this section) than to do that. The reason is that the confidentiality of review reporting (so as not to seem personal) does not need to apply to film reporting - reported corrections should therefore be viewable to all in case others have evidence as to why something does not need changing, or needs changing differently. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 17:37:48
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Well, it's up to Benj, not Josh, you or me. Benj had a previously stated policy, and this is a departure from that.
He's always made it clear that it's his prerogative to ignore his own rules when he sees fit. This website isn't a democracy. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 16:48:55
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
It could easily be done on the current report system. You would just call up one review for the film and make the report on that review.
Yes, of course, but that would be a bit of a ridiculously clumsy system. Since there are many aspects of films that need reporting (titles, years, cast lists, duplication etc.), it would make much more sense to have a process tailored to correcting aspects of films.
There's no question your solution is theoretically better, but the one I suggested requires minimal programming.
If Benj has the time to write a different report system for film faults/mistakes then that's great, but if he doesn't (or doesn't think the situation merits it) then my solution can be implimented in 5 minutes flat and is 100% functional and practical.
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 16:20:56
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Typically I'll go with IMDB's classification, but when it's blatantly wrong I'll ignore it. Not so much a policy change, more an additional sub-clause 
Kinda still is a change, though, as you have always said before that you follow whatever the I.M.D.B. says with no mention of any exception. It seems perfectly reasonable to follow this system, but you'll need to get rid of equivalent one-off television programmes too (such as noncentz's telethon). |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 16:18:08
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
It could easily be done on the current report system. You would just call up one review for the film and make the report on that review.
Yes, of course, but that would be a bit of a ridiculously clumsy system. Since there are many aspects of films that need reporting (titles, years, cast lists, duplication etc.), it would make much more sense to have a process tailored to correcting aspects of films. |
| duh |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 16:04:46
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Typically I'll go with IMDB's classification, but when it's blatantly wrong I'll ignore it. Not so much a policy change, more an additional sub-clause
"The code is more like 'guidelines.'" (Sorry, couldn't help it.)  |
| benj clews |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 10:32:04
Typically I'll go with IMDB's classification, but when it's blatantly wrong I'll ignore it. Not so much a policy change, more an additional sub-clause |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 10:21:14
Of course it's up to Benj.  I was expressing my opinion, which is one of the purposes of the fourum.
It could easily be done on the current report system. You would just call up one review for the film and make the report on that review. If Benj agreed it was not really a film then he would delete the film and all the other reviews.
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 09:58:07
Well, it's up to Benj, not Josh, you or me. Benj had a previously stated policy, and this is a departure from that.
There couldn't be such an option under the current Report system, as that pertains to reviews, not films. I've already suggested to Benj that reporting non-review corrections should ideally be more streamlined. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 09:48:39
I agree with Josh.
Anything which common sense tells us is not a film should not be here.
Maybe there should be an option "NOT A FILM" on REPORT?
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 09:28:01
It's still a film according to the I.M.D.B.'s categorisation. Benj, have you changed your policy of following that? (This would be useful to know if so.) |
