| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/15/2011 : 23:10:12
I thought I would put these together. It's interesting to see the changes over time, and in particular to confirm my feeling as to what were the glory days of F.W.F.R. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/26/2011 : 10:39:44
quote:
Originally posted by Josh the cat
They are not meant for updaing and that is the reason I included the date.
Surely the sensible thing to do would be to update them every so often and change the date. (It would never be a problem for accolade chasers since they surely will have reviewed many more than the top ten of the most reviewed and most accoladed films.) |
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 02/26/2011 : 07:41:38
quote:
Originally posted by Chris C
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Chris C
Whole site highest number of reviews for a film 599 - Which film?
Hhmmm, well either it is a coding error or it is not in this list.
It is in the list - it's "Titanic". And sorry, but the list needs updating. "The Matrix" has overtaken "Star Wars Episode 2" (355 vs 321 reviews)
Chris,
The list was correct at the date listed in the description and was given by benj in open fourum after somebody asked the question there is also the same for most accoladed I believe, and that again was correct at the given date. They are not meant for updaing and that is the reason I included the date.
Hope that clears up the issue
Josh the cat |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/11/2011 : 16:00:12
I don't use Twitter, although I do have an account, butI'd definitely be happy to put reviews forward. However, it should be possible to automate or semi-automate a general list: it could just be the reviews with the most votes for big, current films (which could be taken from the top-ten lists or individually inputted according to what is getting the most press).
What would be better though is if as many tweets as possible could be targeted in response to celebrites and their comments and tag them in them. Any retweet by someone with a lot of followers would be a big boon. |
| bife |
Posted - 02/11/2011 : 15:53:41
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I like it! What does anyone else think? Would many of you want to make use of something like this?
I'm not a great twitter fan but i like it and i am sure it would attract users to the site |
| benj clews |
Posted - 02/11/2011 : 14:55:13
quote:
Originally posted by Cracovian
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
I don't really use twitter much at all. But this might be a good way to kick up some vote(r)s, by fwifferers tweeting single reviews with hashtags for the actors, directors, film title etc.
Good idea. When people mention a film on Facebook, I usually try to link to a review, but Twitter is much more suitable. Is there an F.W.F.R. account? If so, is there a way of organising a collective effort to put reviews forward for it? If relevant reviews could be posted in response to actors'/directors'/other celebrities' 'tweets' ( the most twee term imaginable, almost literally) then with a bit of luck they might retweet them or whatever. (I'm not totally clear on how it all works.)
Apologies- I only just stumbled into this thread...
This is an interesting idea- a community-driven Twitter feed. I could add some functionality here so you can send reviews to the queue and then the fwfr Twitter account works its way through the queue posting them to Twitter at regular intervals. If it runs out of queued reviews, it can resort back to the Guess the Film feed as at present.
I like it! What does anyone else think? Would many of you want to make use of something like this? |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/11/2011 : 12:20:21
quote:
Originally posted by Cracovian
And the thing I personally find most annoying is that the default sort order on film pages is by reviewer rank (especially given what ranking that still means). So all newcomers mainly see and vote on reviews by those people who have written more, however boring. Only more regular visitors (i.e. a minority) will bother to change their preferences. The default order should be either most votes downwards or oldest reviews onwards.
Further to this, I've added a couple more stats to the list. The 'top' (= least selective) ten reviewers have virtually a quarter of all reviews. These are the reviews that get all the attention from the vast majority of users (i.e. all the casual ones). The default order should never have been by reviewer rank, and it needs to change. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 16:13:49
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The quest to reduce the number of unreviewed films has also for some reason encouraged some people not to try to write good reviews. I am immediately below Alan Smithee in total reviews, so I always notice when 'his' figure jumps up. I often look to see what the new reviews are: frequently there is a bunch of reviews for connected films (titles starting with the same letter of the alphabet, containing the same word &c.) which have only been approved that day. In other words, they have been disowned as soon as they have been approved (or before): the reviewer has obviously planned not to keep them from the start and so didn't bother to try with them.
'He' has now achieved this accolade in exactly that manner. Leaving aside the issue that boringly reviewed films are not intrinsically preferable to unreviewed ones, one of the films had by coincidence already been reviewed so someone submitting a review for that with the intention of disowning it cannot be fantasised as being helpful for the site in any way. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/20/2011 : 22:39:19
quote:
Originally posted by rockfsh
Salopian, would it be possible to figure out the number of active fwfers?
For instance, the number of reviewers who have had x number of approved reviews in the last y period of time.
That doesn't seem to be possible, unfortunately. However, I have added stats for reviewers with at least 1/10/100 review(s). |
| rockfsh |
Posted - 01/20/2011 : 15:08:02
Salopian, would it be possible to figure out the number of active fwfers?
For instance, the number of reviewers who have had x number of approved reviews in the last y period of time. Great job BTW. |
| [matt] |
Posted - 01/19/2011 : 22:31:31
Here's the fwfr Twitter.
benj has set it to automatically tweet random reviews in this format.
Hash tagging the actors' names is a good idea.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/19/2011 : 21:36:22
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
I don't really use twitter much at all. But this might be a good way to kick up some vote(r)s, by fwifferers tweeting single reviews with hashtags for the actors, directors, film title etc.
Good idea. When people mention a film on Facebook, I usually try to link to a review, but Twitter is much more suitable. Is there an F.W.F.R. account? If so, is there a way of organising a collective effort to put reviews forward for it? If relevant reviews could be posted in response to actors'/directors'/other celebrities' 'tweets' ( the most twee term imaginable, almost literally) then with a bit of luck they might retweet them or whatever. (I'm not totally clear on how it all works.) |
| Sludge |
Posted - 01/19/2011 : 20:43:18
I don't really use twitter much at all. But this might be a good way to kick up some vote(r)s, by fwifferers tweeting single reviews with hashtags for the actors, directors, film title etc. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/19/2011 : 18:58:50
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I have not been helping matters as for the last half-year I have been trying to complete all my Cine File accolades
Done.  |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/19/2011 : 02:33:31
quote:
Originally posted by [matt]
there are usually a couple of stand-out reviews in the FYC each week.
Hhmmm, I just don't think there are, unfortunately. As well as highlighting when I have voted 5/5 (and never for 4/5 or below) I have a very consistent special level of review in my mind that I individually commend when I see it in the F.Y.C.T.H. Even before this thread developed, I remember thinking that I had not done that often, if at all, for a long time. Sometimes I think that the ones you or others highlight are fairly good, but quite a lot of other times I would not dream of voting for them. And I am not a picky voter: before the votes-cast stat was removed I was one of the most prolific.
I don't agree that we can only address the situation by our own standards. For one thing, we can point out that writing thirty boring reviews and disowning them before they are approved is not helpful to the site. Something that is possible within our own standards, though not in reviewing terms, is not voting for any old lazy pun that only has a vague connection to the film and has been used on the site ten times before. |
| [matt] |
Posted - 01/19/2011 : 02:06:50
Thanks for the kind words, guys! 
I actually agree with each of you to some extent. I think there are still a lot of great reviews being approved � there's always going to be a mixed bag but there are usually a couple of stand-out reviews in the FYC each week.
However, it is inevitable that as more reviews are written, it gets increasingly difficult to come up with really good, original ones. And that's simply because so many good ideas have already been used.
The only way to keep the overall standard from slipping (as Salopian suggests it is) is for everyone to try to maintain their individual standards, even if that is more of a challenge nowadays.
|
