| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 10:21:29
They seem to be everywhere now, but I have been meaning to post this thread for a while anyway.
Benj has alluded to this as a potential feature before, but indicated that it would be a huge amount of work. However, I think it should still be considered if at all possible. This is to have a possible tag on reviews that they are spoilers and for people to be able to view a page with spoilers hidden. I think that one should also be able to set one's preferences to either hiding or showing spoilers by default, and then click on the other option when visiting any film. I think that this would not now be as much work as before, as it could be set up in the same way as viewing only unvoted reviews, and people could use the report feature to highlight spoilers to Benj. The process of identifying the spoilers would be the bulk of the work, and even this would not be that bad - relatively speaking, not many films contain twists or outcomes that a viewer ought not know in advance. Benj would obviously have to decide a level for this.
Even so, I realise that this would still be a significant project, but hope that Benj may be able to take it on at some point. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 22:13:46
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I don't believe in any mystical right to votes. However, I do believe I have a right to have my reviews seen if they've been accepted by the editors. Frankly, I'm quite opposed to the "Voted only/Unvoted only" option, too, a feature I hadn't even really noticed until the other day. A review is either acceptable for publication or it isn't, which means it's either something to be seen or it isn't...there shouldn't be any grey area where we can decide as individuals what we do and don't want to see.
O.K., fair enough - your position is certainly consistent. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 14:29:20
I don't believe in any mystical right to votes. However, I do believe I have a right to have my reviews seen if they've been accepted by the editors. Frankly, I'm quite opposed to the "Voted only/Unvoted only" option, too, a feature I hadn't even really noticed until the other day. A review is either acceptable for publication or it isn't, which means it's either something to be seen or it isn't...there shouldn't be any grey area where we can decide as individuals what we do and don't want to see. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 12:12:19
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I agree with DT and GHC on this matter. It is a review site after all and as a matter of course I expect there to be spoilers on a large number of pages. In general I don't read reviews of films I have yet to see in the cinema. If it's an old film I take my chances; I'm more than likely not going to remember it if it does spoil the film, or chances are I already know it's got spoiler moments or a twist somewhere in it anyway.
I just don't think blocking out spoiler reviews would be approved by many contributers. We obviously want our reviews seen and voted on and the option would mean most visitors would keep it applied all the time "just in case".
The point is that this would not involve a large number of pages (relatively speaking), or a large proportion of reviews on those pages. You seem to take Downtown's view that we have got some kind of mystical right to get visitors' votes. My point of view is that I am glad for people to read my reviews and it is a privilege if they care to vote for any. Accordingly, they can choose to not read any that they wish, on any basis that they wish. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 12:01:06
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I must say that I agree 100% with Downtown on this issue. In some sense, all reviews are spoilers. Certainly websites such as RogerEbert.com give more spoilers than us. Often times the advertising campaign of movies give as much or more away than we do in our reviews. Consider the ad campaign for The Truman Show. Did anyone walk into that movie without knowing it was a tv show? The revelation is supposed to be a big surprise and doesn't come to the audience until more than half way through the film. How about the trailer for Cast Away which shows what happens when Tom Hanks gets off the island when we were not supposed to walk in knowing that he survived the ordeal.
A case can be made that for certain movies on FWFR, Benj aught to have a spoiler warning at the top of the page, but I'd be very disturbed if there was a "spoiler censorship toggle" that someone could activate for it especially because the twists in movies like The Sixth Sense, The Crying Game, The Prestige, etc. are so much a part of those films. I recommend that fwfr'ers do what I've been doing since my first week on FWFR: do not read reviews for movies you intend on seeing. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of each fourumite to give a "Spoiler Warning" before discussing a spoiler in the fourum.
I take your point, but there is a distinct difference between giving away aspects of the plot and spoilers of the Sixth Sense type. The Truman Show one is something one discovers as soon as the film starts, so that does not really count at all. The Cast Away one is technically a spoiler, but it is so obvious that such a film would not just be about his living alone until he dies that it is at a very low level. (The Sixth Sense 'twist' also happens to be obvious, but that's a different matter.) Yes, a level would have to be decided on, as I mentioned, and there would be cases to weigh up, but that's only the same as weighing up any other decision here.
But yes, a basic version of this would be to have a spoiler warning at the top of, or before, certain film pages. However, this would not help when viewing people's pages, unless they had a similar warning, which I doubt you mean they would. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 11:56:12
Well, I only thought that the option was possible. I wouldn't have turned off being able to see the spoiler reviews myself, anyway, so no harm done (for me) if it doesn't come to fruition.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 11:38:40
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I don't want you to have that option. If someone doesn't want to see my reviews, their option is to not visit the Four Word Film Review. I don't see why they should have the "option" of making my - or anyone else's - reviews invisible. I wrote it and submitted it to the website because I wanted you to see it and because I want people to vote on it if it's good. I didn't submit it just to take up space on benj's server. If it's deemed FWFR-worthy, I want it seen.
This is all good intentions, but it seems like a feature that would exist for no reason except to protect people from themselves. But you shouldn't be visiting pages of films you haven't seen if you don't want to see spoilers. It's NOT the same as imdb, which exists (partly) for the purpose of finding out whether a film you haven't seen yet is something you might be interested in.
All film sites, including this one, exist partly for that purpose. Even at the low level that that is the case here, that is a bigger function of the site than you getting votes! Votes are hardly a central aspect of the site, or at least they shouldn't be. Similarly, you seem to think that you can say how a user should use this site. My point of view is that the user is the one who should have the choice about how they use the site, not you or anyone else. A reviewer should be able to review how they like (within the rules, although to be honest people shouldn't write spoiler reviews at all) and a reader should be able to similarly pick and choose.
Readers can already limit the reviews they see to 'Voted only', by which you get no new votes at all! Therefore, please could you tell me how your point makes any sense? Or are you saying that Benj is in the wrong for allowing people to view films in that way?!
Please also explain how it would be protecting people from themselves. If I visit your page, it would not be my fault that I see a spoiler there. (Let's not pretend that we cannot take in a mere four words as soon as we glance at a film title + review. It is not realistic to go through mixed films and skip the ones one hasn't seen.) |
| demonic |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 04:55:19
I agree with DT and GHC on this matter. It is a review site after all and as a matter of course I expect there to be spoilers on a large number of pages. In general I don't read reviews of films I have yet to see in the cinema. If it's an old film I take my chances; I'm more than likely not going to remember it if it does spoil the film, or chances are I already know it's got spoiler moments or a twist somewhere in it anyway.
I just don't think blocking out spoiler reviews would be approved by many contributers. We obviously want our reviews seen and voted on and the option would mean most visitors would keep it applied all the time "just in case".
Anyway, how far do you go - someone who has never seen a Star Wars film might be pretty annoyed to read that Darth Vader is a daddy, but censoring anything to do with that twist would be ridiculous. You would probably also draw ridicule for obscuring in "The Sixth Sense" one of the most famous and overdiscussed endings in modern cinema, something even people who don't go to the cinema now have heard about. But if somehow you don't know either or those examples or plenty of others, why are you reading reviews in four words about them? The pleasure surely comes from knowing and recognising the wit or irony or succintness of the review, not from gleaning unknown plot details.
I agree that it is our responsibility to sensibly warn others in our FYC about potential film wreckers, particularly if they are new films, but on the site in general I think it's got to be up to our own discretion. |
| GHcool |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 04:32:43
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I think that it isn't clear to DT that this would be an option we could toggle on or off as we see fit for ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that, since the spoiler reviews would remain on the site and we can decide for ourselves if we want to see the spoilers or not.
It's clear. And I think there's EVERYTHING wrong with that.
I don't want you to have that option. If someone doesn't want to see my reviews, their option is to not visit the Four Word Film Review. I don't see why they should have the "option" of making my - or anyone else's - reviews invisible. I wrote it and submitted it to the website because I wanted you to see it and because I want people to vote on it if it's good. I didn't submit it just to take up space on benj's server. If it's deemed FWFR-worthy, I want it seen.
This is all good intentions, but it seems like a feature that would exist for no reason except to protect people from themselves. But you shouldn't be visiting pages of films you haven't seen if you don't want to see spoilers. It's NOT the same as imdb, which exists (partly) for the purpose of finding out whether a film you haven't seen yet is something you might be interested in.
I must say that I agree 100% with Downtown on this issue. In some sense, all reviews are spoilers. Certainly websites such as RogerEbert.com give more spoilers than us. Often times the advertising campaign of movies give as much or more away than we do in our reviews. Consider the ad campaign for The Truman Show. Did anyone walk into that movie without knowing it was a tv show? The revelation is supposed to be a big surprise and doesn't come to the audience until more than half way through the film. How about the trailer for Cast Away which shows what happens when Tom Hanks gets off the island when we were not supposed to walk in knowing that he survived the ordeal.
A case can be made that for certain movies on FWFR, Benj aught to have a spoiler warning at the top of the page, but I'd be very disturbed if there was a "spoiler censorship toggle" that someone could activate for it especially because the twists in movies like The Sixth Sense, The Crying Game, The Prestige, etc. are so much a part of those films. I recommend that fwfr'ers do what I've been doing since my first week on FWFR: do not read reviews for movies you intend on seeing. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of each fourumite to give a "Spoiler Warning" before discussing a spoiler in the fourum. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 20:42:37
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I think that it isn't clear to DT that this would be an option we could toggle on or off as we see fit for ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that, since the spoiler reviews would remain on the site and we can decide for ourselves if we want to see the spoilers or not.
It's clear. And I think there's EVERYTHING wrong with that.
I don't want you to have that option. If someone doesn't want to see my reviews, their option is to not visit the Four Word Film Review. I don't see why they should have the "option" of making my - or anyone else's - reviews invisible. I wrote it and submitted it to the website because I wanted you to see it and because I want people to vote on it if it's good. I didn't submit it just to take up space on benj's server. If it's deemed FWFR-worthy, I want it seen.
This is all good intentions, but it seems like a feature that would exist for no reason except to protect people from themselves. But you shouldn't be visiting pages of films you haven't seen if you don't want to see spoilers. It's NOT the same as imdb, which exists (partly) for the purpose of finding out whether a film you haven't seen yet is something you might be interested in. |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 20:08:58
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I think that it isn't clear to DT that this would be an option we could toggle on or off as we see fit for ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that, since the spoiler reviews would remain on the site and we can decide for ourselves if we want to see the spoilers or not.
I think it is clear to DT, on a website that you write reviews in hope that users will see and perhaps like and vote on it, why would you want it to be invisible? |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 16:36:53
No, I don't think it is actually so much work, since the bulk of it would be spread across the users. Also, there are not really so many spoilers, relatively speaking. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 16:32:28
It sounds like a huge amount of work Sal.
Even though I do see where you are coming from it may not be feasable.
Why not just put a "Warning: Spoilers on every page, enter at own risk"
Vey soon after you look at a few pages of this site you understand that there are potential spoilers everywhere, i think it is just one of the very few drawbacks that FWFR has to offer. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 16:22:19
I think that it isn't clear to DT that this would be an option we could toggle on or off as we see fit for ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that, since the spoiler reviews would remain on the site and we can decide for ourselves if we want to see the spoilers or not.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 14:52:30
Certainly I can, especially as your sweeping statement said "a cinema-themed website". If you did not mean that, and actually meant that people cannot come specifically here without having to see spoilers, then (i) say so and (ii) say why this should be the case (i.e. why it should not be changed).
As for not seeing all reviews, it would be exactly equivalent to clicking on e.g. 'Voted only' at present, except that there would be a much better reason for it. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 14:46:11
You can't really think the two websites are similar enough to compare that way. |
|
|
