| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 06/06/2006 : 10:39:53
|
Just a small concern of mine...
I've gotten a little dismayed of late at the no-brainer reviews some regulars have been coming up and continue to come up with. Sure anyone can get "Hanks has long hair." passed (NOTE: I haven't checked if anyone's written this, but if you have, shame on you), but it's not exactly going to add anything to the site or earn any votes.
If anyone is thinking of their pending list right now and it's filled with exact descriptions of scenes with nothing resembling an original thought, I think you need to start asking yourself why you're here. It's clearly neither for the joy of seeing others appreciate your reviews or the simple enjoyment of writing something that challenges your intellect.
Yes- I realise this is in some ways in stark contrast to the basic idea of the site, but I also think fwfr has to adapt if it's going to avoid falling into a quagmire of dull say-what-you-see reviews. I want the site to stay entertaining and I'm sure everyone else here feels the same. |
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:04:24
|
Well, I've just gone through my pending pile and deleted a few. Still, I'm having a hard time trying to make the reviews for new movies I want added to be less simplistic. It just seems to me that the first review of a newly added movie is going to have to be a touch mundane.
Still, there have been times when I have thought of something I consider to be particularly clever, and the MERPs have downed it. I guess there's got to be a golden middle road that I haven't quite gotten the hang of.
|
 |
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:14:28
|
I think we've all been guilty of this kind of reviewing in our time, but I'm most concerned about those of us still reviewing this way (and doing so with a vengeance).
It's okay that fwfr'ers may have the odd review of this type (perhaps to finish off an accolade or something), but to continue churning these out against a large number of films (or even multiple times for one film  ) is just shameless. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:58:46
|
Just a thought - perhaps when a MERP okays a particulary clever review, they could quickly zap that review with a vote to get it started. That might encourage people to try harder, since I've noticed with a few of my reviews - ones I've never put up on FYC - that if they have one vote, often the next one(s) follow(s) quicker.
Or maybe... you could have an "editor's choice" page, where you cuold put a bunch (say 20 or so) new reviews that you find are the type of reviews you want to see more of on the site.
Just a thought... or two...
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 12:01:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
 "Hanks has long hair" with creativity?
Well, it got my vote - because it works three ways that I can see:
1) Tom's hair
2) The bristles that come out of Wilson to look like hair
3) The way he gets all moody and depressed when he almost gives up hope
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 12:03:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Just a thought - perhaps when a MERP okays a particulary clever review, they could quickly zap that review with a vote to get it started. That might encourage people to try harder, since I've noticed with a few of my reviews - ones I've never put up on FYC - that if they have one vote, often the next one(s) follow(s) quicker.
Or maybe... you could have an "editor's choice" page, where you cuold put a bunch (say 20 or so) new reviews that you find are the type of reviews you want to see more of on the site.
Just a thought... or two...
Or maybe we could try accepting reviews like "harm-on-a-car" instead of rejecting them?
Nah, that would be silly... 
|
|
|
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 13:11:56
|
I've probably been guilty of this on occasion, though generally when I've been keen to complete an accolade. (There are a couple for which I need one more, and it irks me every time I see them - including the oddly named 'Julia Stiles is NOT a racist' - at the top of my list.)
I like ChocolateLady's idea of an editor's choice page to highlight reviews that might otherwise slip through unnoticed. After all, not everyone has the time or inclination to enter the twice-weekly For Your Consideration Treasure Hunt - or the shamelessness required to beg for votes at every opportunity.
This is a positive way of highlighting the best. It could be accompanied by a stricter approach on the part of MERPs (I have a feeling I shall be hoist by own petard here) in declining lamebrain reviews. Such a combination should raise the average standard and channel votes to where they are most deserved. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 13:23:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Or maybe we could try accepting reviews like "harm-on-a-car" instead of rejecting them?
Wait - isn't that the movie about Taylor Hicks and his adventures with his new Ford Mustang?quote:
Nah, that would be silly...
Hey, if I can't get my review "una-Merin-can activities" accepted for Born in LA, then you can't get your "harm-on-a-car" review accepted. Fair is fair, you know.
(In fact, I can't seem to get any of the reviews for that movie accepted where I morph the word American into something that has the name Marin in it.)
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 06/06/2006 13:26:20 |
|
|
|
Paddy C 
"Does not compute! Lame!"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 13:54:38
|
Pretty sure I've been guilty of this, and I guess the main reason is, as suggested, to complete an accolade.
Thing is, up to approval stage, as reviewers we're in charge of our own quality control.. It's only once the review is approved that we get an idea of how good it is by how many votes it does or doesn't get!
So... and this may be a terrible/unworkable idea, would it be possible to include an 'editor's rating' for each review processed? A simple one to three scale would probably do, with a 1-rating for a no-brainer, a 2-rating for a standard or 'good' review, and a 3 being something special.
Each reviewer could then have an average.. or an indicator of how their contribution reflects what you're looking for on the site. So an average rating of, let's say, less than 1.5 would mean 'must do better'. Kind of like an fwfr report card! 
What do you think?
(... just to add, obviously rating the already approved reviews isn't going to happen, but this could start from a point in time.) |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 14:00:06
|
| I've certainly done the B-flat game myself, chasing down accolades [my favorite fwfr pastime], but I'm far from alone. I'm going to make a special effort to watch it with the no-brainers, starting now. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 14:01:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy C
Pretty sure I've been guilty of this, and I guess the main reason is, as suggested, to complete an accolade.
Thing is, up to approval stage, as reviewers we're in charge of our own quality control.. It's only once the review is approved that we get an idea of how good it is by how many votes it does or doesn't get!
So... and this may be a terrible/unworkable idea, would it be possible to include an 'editor's rating' for each review processed? A simple one to three scale would probably do, with a 1-rating for a no-brainer, a 2-rating for a standard or 'good' review, and a 3 being something special.
Each reviewer could then have an average.. or an indicator of how their contribution reflects what you're looking for on the site. So an average rating of, let's say, less than 1.5 would mean 'must do better'. Kind of like an fwfr report card!
What do you think?
(... just to add, obviously rating the already approved reviews isn't going to happen, but this could start from a point in time.)
Absolutely not .
It would break Sean's little heart.
( )
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 14:18:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Just a small concern of mine...
I've gotten a little dismayed of late at the no-brainer reviews some regulars have been coming up and continue to come up with. Sure anyone can get "Hanks has long hair." passed (NOTE: I haven't checked if anyone's written this, but if you have, shame on you), but it's not exactly going to add anything to the site or earn any votes.
If anyone is thinking of their pending list right now and it's filled with exact descriptions of scenes with nothing resembling an original thought, I think you need to start asking yourself why you're here. It's clearly neither for the joy of seeing others appreciate your reviews or the simple enjoyment of writing something that challenges your intellect.
Yes- I realise this is in some ways in stark contrast to the basic idea of the site, but I also think fwfr has to adapt if it's going to avoid falling into a quagmire of dull say-what-you-see reviews. I want the site to stay entertaining and I'm sure everyone else here feels the same.
These are excellent points, benj. Actually I feel far too much of a novice on the site to comment effectively, but if I might suggest a small addenda to the FAQ page dealing with reviews to give even more of a hint about what's good and bad practice. Also, because I know it applied to me when I first alit here: newbies don't always realise when they hit the homepage that a visit to the Fourum might be a good idea, and how helpful it might be -- not to mention how fun!
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 14:39:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy C
Pretty sure I've been guilty of this, and I guess the main reason is, as suggested, to complete an accolade.
Which isn't the biggest sin.
quote:
Thing is, up to approval stage, as reviewers we're in charge of our own quality control.. It's only once the review is approved that we get an idea of how good it is by how many votes it does or doesn't get!
Hm... well... I think we often know the difference when we're submitting a no-brainer and when we're submitting something we think (or hope) is clever or original. And even so, sometimes what we think will be considered genius ends up being unappreciated, and what we thought was lame, is considered genius.
The idea, I believe, is to strive to submit more clever and/or original reviews and try to shy away from the no-brainers.
(But nobody's perfect - especially when you're just one movie away from that really cool accolade!)
|
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 15:06:32
|
It's been pointed out before that I write simple reviews. I'm not proud of it but I know that I'm not a very clever person and I think I've come to grips with it. So I understand simple reviews...what I can't stand is when someone writes seventeen reviews for a movie outlining different scenes...I am also disappointed when reviewers who DO have the talent and the wit reduce themselves to writing sub-par reviews when we all know they can do so much better with little effort.
As for having the MERPS rate reviews as they approve them, I think the MERPS have enough going on that to add another task for them to complete in the MERPing process would benefit nobody. The MERPS already have the option of voting for a review as they approve it and I think that is sufficient. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 15:14:40
|
Yeah, I agree that the MERPs already have a lot on their plate and we want to keep it as simple as possible for them. However, since MERPs can vote as they approve, there's a couple of possibilities I can think of...
1. Controversially... give MERP votes more weight (e.g. a MERP vote is worth, say, 2 votes)
2. Flag any review that gets a MERP vote and have the MERP recommendations chart or whatever generated from that |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Quality reviewing
