| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| calmer |
Posted - 12/24/2008 : 16:38:36
Happy Holidays, fwfr Family!
Although I've been a hardcore fwfr junkie for nearly 4 years, I've been content to appreciate the wit and insight of other reviewers while submitting reviews myself in relative anonymity (I occasionally drop Whippersnapper or lemmycaution a line). However, I decided this week that in order to remain excited about fwfr, I'll have to seek the support of the fwfr community during 2009 by becoming more active in the fourum.
Let me elaborate regarding my fwfr angst, which has become virtually existential. In early June 2008, I had roughly 2,000 reviews in "Pending" status that Benj converted to "Declined" in order to free up some bandwidth. Currently, I'm at 2,520 "Declined" reviews and 115 "Pending" reviews. At the current rate of 20 allowed submissions per week--and far fewer review approvals--I estimate that the backlog won't be cleared until at least 2012... 
What are some alternative fwfr avenues for gaining positive reinforcement while entrapped in the horse latitudes? Your feedback is greatly appreciated... 
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| demonic |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 23:14:02
I guess, but all my reviews have a date on them, so that doesn't really follow as a reason. Do your reviews all add up?
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
p.s. give up on the FYC naming issue -no one else is bothered and it really is a stupid thing to keep on about. It won't change anyone's mind.
No chance. The point is that I never objected to anyone using the abbreviation or any stupid spelling. I just wanted to stick to the original title and the non-stupid spelling myself, which was totally harmless to everyone. However, napper had to whip up a mob against me doing that, for no good reason, and have them instigate the moronic new rule. Therefore, everyone who favoured that new rule can damn well stick to it. It does not say anything about it being 'Sean's Four Your Consideration' game, so seeing as Josh likes to childishly use the stupid spelling all the time just to make a lame and inaccurate point, he can use either the full or abbreviated title, or describe it -- there are so many options. Sean's 'For Yo(u)r Consideration' game would be fine to mention it as, but not how Josh put it.
Do you mean Sean's 'Fo(u)r your consideration'? What you wrote doesn't make sense. Regarding the new rule - that's your perspective on it but Whippersnapper didn't somehow brainwash everybody - clearly there was a consensus regarding the way you were conducting the game that wasn't harmless and all that complaining about it now will do is get another possibly stricter rule applied. The only childishness going on is you stamping your feet in annoyance twice a week - it's beneath you frankly, not to mention an obvious reason for your dissenters to keep it up as long as possible to get that same reaction. Just let it go. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 16:24:40
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I've been looking at the reviews by year stats (not added them before) - and the combined the totals for my four years on the site (2006-2009) don't even add up to my total reviews approved.
It's only by one, so it is extremely improbably that the same thing accounts for calmer's and C.F.'s thousands of extre reviews. If I'm to hazzard a guess, it would be that it cannot cope with leap days for some reason, although it gives a 0 for you rather than an error message (I was hoping for a 1). Seeing as your real total is one higher than the sum of the years, it seems unlikely that it's due to one you disowned, which the other way round might have been plausible. I guess a possibility is that you submitted it when the clock was down or being changed and it somehow made the review dateless... |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 16:10:02
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
There's no way there's code that gives preferential treatment.
It hasn't got anything to do with preferential treatment. If I had to make a guess, it would be that when things have gone wrong with the site the cap has been suspended or similar.
quote:
It has to be a miscalculation in the stat somewhere
Well, there isn't any evidence for that and it is one of the basic stats that Benj introduced years ago, so that seems highly unlikely to me. (It could have been that I had made an error in the more specific stat, but it's pretty clear from the combined evidence that that is not the case.)
quote:
something we've missed to do with second or third passes perhaps.
Maybe, but I have thought about that and it would really need to be edits of successful reviews, as it still needs to be approvals, and nobody edits that many reviews. However, the absolute review totals using the same stat are always correct as far as I can see. Also, edits of reviews take up quota slots, so no number of edits should take it above twenty per week.
quote:
Here's a half finished thought - if the stat is for reviews approved by submission date not approval date - what happens if that review is a year old when it's approved? Does the stat add it to the previous year?
Yes, definitely.
quote:
I've been looking at the reviews by year stats (not added them before) - and the combined the totals for my four years on the site (2006-2009) don't even add up to my total reviews approved. I was wondering if this might all have something to do with the fact we've had reviews approved but have ended up deleting or disowning them. Might that affect the stats?
Yes, that sounds possible (just about), but it shouldn't be able to take anyone above twenty per week all the same.
quote:
p.s. give up on the FYC naming issue -no one else is bothered and it really is a stupid thing to keep on about. It won't change anyone's mind.
No chance. The point is that I never objected to anyone using the abbreviation or any stupid spelling. I just wanted to stick to the original title and the non-stupid spelling myself, which was totally harmless to everyone. However, napper had to whip up a mob against me doing that, for no good reason, and have them instigate the moronic new rule. Therefore, everyone who favoured that new rule can damn well stick to it. It does not say anything about it being 'Sean's Four Your Consideration' game, so seeing as Josh likes to childishly use the stupid spelling all the time just to make a lame and inaccurate point, he can use either the full or abbreviated title, or describe it -- there are so many options. Sean's 'For Yo(u)r Consideration' game would be fine to mention it as, but not how Josh put it. |
| demonic |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 15:03:37
It's going to take greater minds than mine to work this one out. I've no idea what's happened with the cap - all I know is we all get reviews bumped to the decline pile if we sub more than 20 a week regardless - Calmer has said as much as well. There's no way there's code that gives preferential treatment. It has to be a miscalculation in the stat somewhere or something we've missed to do with second or third passes perhaps. Here's a half finished thought - if the stat is for reviews approved by submission date not approval date - what happens if that review is a year old when it's approved? Does the stat add it to the previous year?
I've been looking at the reviews by year stats (not added them before) - and the combined the totals for my four years on the site (2006-2009) don't even add up to my total reviews approved. I was wondering if this might all have something to do with the fact we've had reviews approved but have ended up deleting or disowning them. Might that affect the stats?
p.s. give up on the FYC naming issue -no one else is bothered and it really is a stupid thing to keep on about. It won't change anyone's mind. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 13:36:18
quote:
Originally posted by Josh the cat
'Sean's Four Your Consideration' game
There's no such game, even if we disregard the stupid and inaccurate spelling. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 13:34:11
Similarly, the stat tells me that I have had no reviews on or after 15th June 2009, but you can see that I had two approved that day.
Sorry to be saying the same thing in so many different ways, but I just want to show that I really think I haven't made a mistake here (and conversely to make it more likely to spotted if it turns out that I have). |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 13:26:04
There's a bit more detail here. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 13:22:31
The stat informs us that you have had 731 successful reviews since the cap. However, your last 731 approved reviews don't go back that far (to 26th February 2007). The number given by the stat therefore cannot be by approval date and can only be by submission date (as there are no other relevant dates). |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 13:17:15
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I'm not sure I follow this - is your stat for reviews submitted per week or reviews approved per week? If it's the former how can you tell how many reviews a Fwiffer has submitted?
It's reviews submitted per week that have so far been successful, i.e. the dates in the number-of-reviews stat are submission dates, not approval dates. I previously assumed that it was approval dates (and even that would have made calmer and C.F.'s post-cap totals very high), but when I was therefore investigating I saw that that could not be the case. (Check out your own '2009 Reviews' stat and then look at your reviews approved this year. They won't be the same.) |
| demonic |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 13:07:19
I'm not sure I follow this - is your stat for reviews submitted per week or reviews approved per week? If it's the former how can you tell how many reviews a Fwiffer has submitted?
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 10:43:29
quote:
Originally posted by calmer
^ Thanks, those are enlightening stats, Salopian! I'll keep my grumbling to myself, then...
As far as the "Declined" submissions go, I've been resubmitting those on a weekly basis, up to 20 at a time.
Josh is right that second submissions are processed much more slowly, but like you I resubmit, because otherwise someone else could have thought of the same idea in the middle. For that reason, it's definitely best to retain all rejected reviews.
It sounds like you did not have a bulk of extra ones approved, but other than me no one seems at all surprised that two people have submitted over twenty successful reviews per week since the cap came in. It's very odd. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 10:25:51
quote:
Originally posted by calmer
*** THIS IS MERELY A THERAPEUTIC VENTING EXERCISE ***
Declined Reviews: 3,865
Is there a stat for declined reviews? or do you just keep them all in the appropriate box? |
| calmer |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 10:14:01
^ Thanks, those are enlightening stats, Salopian! I'll keep my grumbling to myself, then... 
As far as the "Declined" submissions go, I've been resubmitting those on a weekly basis, up to 20 at a time. |
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 10:10:52
quote:
Originally posted by calmer
Declined Reviews: 3,865
That is a massive rise in declines you must write hundreds of reviews a month, personally I don't see a time when there will not be a submission limit, I don't believe it will stay at 20/week it will rise, but to what I don't know.
quote:
Originally posted by calmer
2009 Approved Reviews: 105
Question, are you submitting reviews from you declined list every week, if you are they are considered 2nd pass reviews and these, in my experience, are always treated slower than 1st pass reviews. You could try submitting 20 1st pass reviews every week that may improve this years numbers.
You are a very clever reviewer and joining the games, as previously described, may keep you entertained.
Personally I like 'Sean's Four Your Consideration' game.
Cheers
Josh the cat
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 08:23:08
In all honesty, you're not doing too badly compared to the rest of us.
However, perhaps your statement 'In early June 2008, I had roughly 2,000 reviews in "Pending" status that Benj converted to "Declined" in order to free up some bandwidth' sheds some light on the anomaly. At the time, I thought you were just wording rejections humorously, but did you later have a bulk amount approved from your declined list or something? |
|
|
