| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tori 
"I don't get it...."
|
 Posted - 06/09/2006 : 01:40:46
|
| No problem, Mguyx. :)[6] |
 |
|
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 02:12:51
|
Finally a Smile that can do justice to my Dern Fonda reviews.   |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 02:20:12
|
 |
Edited by - thefoxboy on 06/09/2006 02:21:22 |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 02:44:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Yes you are.  |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 02:55:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
[quote]Originally posted by MguyX
[quote]But I do hate Randall because he caught me plagerizing. (Just kidding, folks: it's only a joke.)
Honey, anybody could have caught you on the Walter Kerr. [And I agree with you about "Fishtar" too!] But they're here, they're near, so forget about it!
From one Kaufman fan to another,
Peace.
Signed,
Randall
|
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 03:10:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Yes you are.
 |
|
|
|
Willy Weasel 
"Look left and right."
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 04:15:53
|
Oooh shakey head, thumby up, tomato head, hang on a minute; I started reading this thread last night and I'm sure it wasn't all smiley talk. It's starting to come back to me now, this has to be thread of the week and I've got a new hat (I think it's going to my head already). I see you've upgraded your headgear too Whippy, my parent's sprollie used to have one of them in fluorescent yellow
Okay so the story so far. As I remember it, the artist latterly known as Mr.Smiley started this thread on 'no brainer' descriptive reviews. In the short space it has aired we have had much controversial debate with everyone who is anyone pitching in their views - I like. Benj you said to MguyX that he should have his own newspaper column. I think you should have your own republic. I take my new berret off to you for running a site which you have allowed to evolve and grow so much over the years. I have only been here a matter of weeks but the response so far on this one new thread suggests that you are attempting to make it known which heading you wish the good ship FWFR to chart. We all interpret the site's requirements in our own way but you have the unenviable task of herding all us willful sheep in roughly the same direction without having to nip our hindquarters (apologies for more dog references, I live in the country innit?)
My interpretation is along similar lines to MguyX as we identified over on Channel Generic. Bife, thanks for the nod to my X verbs Y's noun. formula. There are variations on this without Y and with an adjective thrown in, but they all equate to dull (where d=dreary, u=uninspiring and ll=lacklustre). The key here is whether or not the four precious words are assigned with thought and arranged with accuracy. When change is sought it is always harder to alter that which has gone before than to shape what follows.
My first point (who's counting?) is that despite my joining at a time when my personal style coincided with the house style, reviews accepted or rejected do not always reflect this. Benj it is essential that your MERPS fully understand what constitutes a good review. It still seems to be the case that a straightforward comment gets more readily accepted than something which requires thought. I'm not saying that all reviews should be cryptic, but sometimes (like jokes) the slow burners are the best.
A variant of the purely descriptive review is the quote which is equally tedious. A film for which I wrote a few reviews was 'The Big Lebowski' I know it was submitted in 2002 but the top voted review out of 160 odd with 19 votes is Dude, Where's My Rug? What scares me is that anyone should vote for such a review which is neither a review in the true sense or personal comment in any sense. I then twist the official tagline for Jaws4 This time it's financial. and get it declined. This review actually comments on the 'cashing in' aspect of the third sequel (is there a proper name for such a thing?) and due to the phrase originating here (despite being parodied elsewhere) it can only refer to this film, hence all requirements are fulfilled. I'm not saying it's one of my best reviews, just that it should have been accepted. So where I in theory follow the current review requirements, if I'm desperate to get a review accepted I am still more likely to get a boring part sentence embraced by the panel - at least at time of going to press. In my view this should change, and the ability of other reviewers to appreciate meanings and context shouldn't be underestimated.
My other personal crusade is for this blanket requirement for a review to have to stand up in isolation from the film title. I like the 'guess the film title' speech bubbles but their inclusion should not eclipse the main event. There will always be enough obvious reviews to keep this feature going. If someone were to submit 'Fin.' for Jaws:The Revenge these days it would be considered generic and rejected. That is a classic review which these days would be lost to beaurocrisy. The advantage of having humans selecting reviews rather than a programmed algorithm is that creativity can triumph over technicality. Anyone who submits reviews to this site thinking that they are giving potential moviegoers a synopsis of the plot, are kidding themselves. That's like thinking that by eating your burger out of a recycled cardboard box you are saving the planet.[17] What these reviews do are what David Hockney used to do with composite photographs. He would take say 100 snaps of The Grand Canyon and then arrange them collage fashion to give an impression of the whole scene. It is the combination of many reviews which gives a wider impression of a film, as many subjective samples will create a 'wire frame' review.
It's late but I wanted to mention Whippy's idea about removing zero voted reviews. You know I'm a fan Whips but I don't think this particular approach is right. I do agree that some site weeding is in order but that needs to be done by all of us on a case by case basis rather than by set rules. I would say that less controversial targets for culling would be reviews by those who have not contributed for say the last 3 years. I find myself reporting generics, duplicates etc. as I see them but I know many reviewers will leave this job to others. I don't want to be seen as a spoiler when we should all be maintaining the current standard. I think this site is for word addicts rather than megalomaniacs (only Benj himself has the rare dual diagnosis   ) so where views may be expressed openly here (thanks Benj) there is no reason for anyone to take differing views as personal digs. Despite this site's webmaster being Mac unfriendly the whole concept and execution is superb. It would not have got this far without co-operation [6]and a desire  for it to succeed as a showcase for our talents.
|
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 05:59:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Willy Weasel
Oooh shakey head, thumby up, tomato head, hang on a minute; I started reading this thread last night and I'm sure it wasn't all smiley talk. It's starting to come back to me now, this has to be thread of the week and I've got a new hat (I think it's going to my head already). I see you've upgraded your headgear too Whippy, my parent's sprollie used to have one of them in fluorescent yellow
Okay so the story so far. As I remember it, the artist latterly known as Mr.Smiley started this thread on 'no brainer' descriptive reviews. In the short space it has aired we have had much controversial debate with everyone who is anyone pitching in their views - I like. Benj you said to MguyX that he should have his own newspaper column. I think you should have your own republic. I take my new berret off to you for running a site which you have allowed to evolve and grow so much over the years. I have only been here a matter of weeks but the response so far on this one new thread suggests that you are attempting to make it known which heading you wish the good ship FWFR to chart. We all interpret the site's requirements in our own way but you have the unenviable task of herding all us willful sheep in roughly the same direction without having to nip our hindquarters (apologies for more dog references, I live in the country innit?)
My interpretation is along similar lines to MguyX as we identified over on Channel Generic. Bife, thanks for the nod to my X verbs Y's noun. formula. There are variations on this without Y and with an adjective thrown in, but they all equate to dull (where d=dreary, u=uninspiring and ll=lacklustre). The key here is whether or not the four precious words are assigned with thought and arranged with accuracy. When change is sought it is always harder to alter that which has gone before than to shape what follows.
My first point (who's counting?) is that despite my joining at a time when my personal style coincided with the house style, reviews accepted or rejected do not always reflect this. Benj it is essential that your MERPS fully understand what constitutes a good review. It still seems to be the case that a straightforward comment gets more readily accepted than something which requires thought. I'm not saying that all reviews should be cryptic, but sometimes (like jokes) the slow burners are the best.
A variant of the purely descriptive review is the quote which is equally tedious. A film for which I wrote a few reviews was 'The Big Lebowski' I know it was submitted in 2002 but the top voted review out of 160 odd with 19 votes is Dude, Where's My Rug? What scares me is that anyone should vote for such a review which is neither a review in the true sense or personal comment in any sense. I then twist the official tagline for Jaws4 This time it's financial. and get it declined. This review actually comments on the 'cashing in' aspect of the third sequel (is there a proper name for such a thing?) and due to the phrase originating here (despite being parodied elsewhere) it can only refer to this film, hence all requirements are fulfilled. I'm not saying it's one of my best reviews, just that it should have been accepted. So where I in theory follow the current review requirements, if I'm desperate to get a review accepted I am still more likely to get a boring part sentence embraced by the panel - at least at time of going to press. In my view this should change, and the ability of other reviewers to appreciate meanings and context shouldn't be underestimated.
My other personal crusade is for this blanket requirement for a review to have to stand up in isolation from the film title. I like the 'guess the film title' speech bubbles but their inclusion should not eclipse the main event. There will always be enough obvious reviews to keep this feature going. If someone were to submit 'Fin.' for Jaws:The Revenge these days it would be considered generic and rejected. That is a classic review which these days would be lost to beaurocrisy. The advantage of having humans selecting reviews rather than a programmed algorithm is that creativity can triumph over technicality. Anyone who submits reviews to this site thinking that they are giving potential moviegoers a synopsis of the plot, are kidding themselves. That's like thinking that by eating your burger out of a recycled cardboard box you are saving the planet.[17] What these reviews do are what David Hockney used to do with composite photographs. He would take say 100 snaps of The Grand Canyon and then arrange them collage fashion to give an impression of the whole scene. It is the combination of many reviews which gives a wider impression of a film, as many subjective samples will create a 'wire frame' review.
It's late but I wanted to mention Whippy's idea about removing zero voted reviews. You know I'm a fan Whips but I don't think this particular approach is right. I do agree that some site weeding is in order but that needs to be done by all of us on a case by case basis rather than by set rules. I would say that less controversial targets for culling would be reviews by those who have not contributed for say the last 3 years. I find myself reporting generics, duplicates etc. as I see them but I know many reviewers will leave this job to others. I don't want to be seen as a spoiler when we should all be maintaining the current standard. I think this site is for word addicts rather than megalomaniacs (only Benj himself has the rare dual diagnosis ) so where views may be expressed openly here (thanks Benj) there is no reason for anyone to take differing views as personal digs. Despite this site's webmaster being Mac unfriendly the whole concept and execution is superb. It would not have got this far without co-operation [6]and a desire for it to succeed as a showcase for our talents.
A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fired at first sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts ;
While from the bounded level of our mind
Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind,
But, more advanced, behold with strange surprise
New distant scenes of endless science rise !
So pleased at first the towering Alps we try,
Mount o�er the vales, and seem to tread the sky ;
The eternal snows appear already past,
And the first clouds and mountains seem the last ;
But those attained, we tremble to survey
The growing labours of the lengthened way ;
The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes,
Hill peep o�er hills, and Alps on Alps arise !
And remember, the Lord Alps those who Alps themselves. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 09:02:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
And remember, the Lord Alps those who Alps themselves.
I knew it! You're not Eddie Constantine  ... You're Julius Marx in a Godard suit!!
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 10:44:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Willy Weasel
My first point (who's counting?) is that despite my joining at a time when my personal style coincided with the house style, reviews accepted or rejected do not always reflect this. Benj it is essential that your MERPS fully understand what constitutes a good review. It still seems to be the case that a straightforward comment gets more readily accepted than something which requires thought. I'm not saying that all reviews should be cryptic, but sometimes (like jokes) the slow burners are the best.
I agree that a SWYS comment is more likely to get passed than a clever one, but I presently see this as a flaw in the criteria for acceptance of this site. I can either plug it by creating a new rule to work against it, or I can ask that people try to consider the longevity of the site when submitting a new comment.
The issue of defining what constitutes a good review has long been a problem. I feel I've at long last made good headway on defining generic, but it seems what makes a dull review is just as difficult, if not more so, to define. Until this can be settled once and for all, and to avoid me having another "fuck it all" moment (and I've had a lot of urges of late) it really can be only up to individual reviewers to decide what is or isn't dull.
I'm starting to wonder if the answer, instead of clearing out the less highly-scored reviews, might be to make them less obvious. Perhaps have some kind of criteria (say, the top X voted reviews, plus the latest Y reviews (so these have a good chance of being seen)) for determining which reviews show against a film initially and then having a More... button to view the rest. It'd at least give a slightly more carefully chosen appearance to the review pages. Just an idea I'm throwing out there anyway...
P.S. As for your "This time it's financial" review, I'm sorry to say I'd decline it as generic flat out. Sure you could debate it's almost the same wording as the tagline to the film, but then again, it's also almost the same wording as the tagline to a little film brought out the year before: Aliens. This was the first tagline (and consequently, film) I thought of when I read that. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 11:50:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
The issue of defining what constitutes a good review has long been a problem. I feel I've at long last made good headway on defining generic, but it seems what makes a dull review is just as difficult, if not more so, to define. Until this can be settled once and for all, and to avoid me having another "fuck it all" moment (and I've had a lot of urges of late) it really can be only up to individual reviewers to decide what is or isn't dull.
I think you're right here - otherwise both you and your MERPs will be so bogged down in the rules they won't have time to approve and decline anything. A boring review is, and should be, the ones that the readers find boring, and therefore they don't get votes. Not being exciting doesn't mean it isn't appropriate for the site. Then, if we find we've got a review that isn't getting votes, we - as the authors - should take the hint and remove them ourselves from the site.
quote:
I'm starting to wonder if the answer, instead of clearing out the less highly-scored reviews, might be to make them less obvious. Perhaps have some kind of criteria (say, the top X voted reviews, plus the latest Y reviews (so these have a good chance of being seen)) for determining which reviews show against a film initially and then having a More... button to view the rest. It'd at least give a slightly more carefully chosen appearance to the review pages. Just an idea I'm throwing out there anyway...
I do like this idea, especially if those latest reviews are more than "just in" and are some kind of recommendation from you or the MERPs.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 12:07:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
I'm starting to wonder if the answer, instead of clearing out the less highly-scored reviews, might be to make them less obvious. Perhaps have some kind of criteria (say, the top X voted reviews, plus the latest Y reviews (so these have a good chance of being seen)) for determining which reviews show against a film initially and then having a More... button to view the rest. It'd at least give a slightly more carefully chosen appearance to the review pages. Just an idea I'm throwing out there anyway...
I do like this idea, especially if those latest reviews are more than "just in" and are some kind of recommendation from you or the MERPs.
I don't think most would be in agreement with you on this. I think it's fine for myself and the MERPs to praise reviews somewhere (kinda' like Manager's Pick of the Week or Chef's Special), say on the homepage, but beyond that I think the quality filter should be determined by regular folks to try and keep this as fair as possible. |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 12:15:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'm starting to wonder if the answer, instead of clearing out the less highly-scored reviews, might be to make them less obvious. Perhaps have some kind of criteria (say, the top X voted reviews, plus the latest Y reviews (so these have a good chance of being seen)) for determining which reviews show against a film initially and then having a More... button to view the rest. It'd at least give a slightly more carefully chosen appearance to the review pages. Just an idea I'm throwing out there anyway...
That seems like a fairer option to me, people on the whole will ignore the more option but if they are interested they will visit. In this new era of nobody caring if they get votes or not  it will not matter that some reviews are never read   .
The idea has some merit, what will you do with a film that has less than 10 reviews 20 reviews 50 and so on where would the boundaries be? Now that is a tough decision you will have to make but not deleting is the better option. What will happen is that the voteless or low voters on a large film will be left massively behind and the vote gap growing, as few will ever see them, this may lead to more people culling reviews, not I though.
Will it be when a users clicks on another users reviews page(s) then that they will see all the reviews that a single FWFRer has written including the hidden and soon to be never spoken of reviews?
Josh the cat |
Edited by - Josh the cat on 06/09/2006 12:17:16 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 12:38:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
I'm starting to wonder if the answer, instead of clearing out the less highly-scored reviews, might be to make them less obvious. Perhaps have some kind of criteria (say, the top X voted reviews, plus the latest Y reviews (so these have a good chance of being seen)) for determining which reviews show against a film initially and then having a More... button to view the rest. It'd at least give a slightly more carefully chosen appearance to the review pages. Just an idea I'm throwing out there anyway...
I do like this idea, especially if those latest reviews are more than "just in" and are some kind of recommendation from you or the MERPs.
I don't think most would be in agreement with you on this. I think it's fine for myself and the MERPs to praise reviews somewhere (kinda' like Manager's Pick of the Week or Chef's Special), say on the homepage, but beyond that I think the quality filter should be determined by regular folks to try and keep this as fair as possible.
I like the chef's special idea. But I wish you would address the point I tried to make a while ago, namely about the whole concept of voting. First of all I can't think I'm the only newbie who took a while to realise that voting was part of the site's zeitgeist ... at first [and possibly because I'm not a priori competitive] I honestly believed that merely getting the FWFRs published was the aim and cause for celebration. [it wasn't until I started getting active on the fourum that the other stuff - votes, accolades, games, etc fell into place -- and there are still sections I haven't yet explored, mostly because of time].
That, of course, means that there are a lot of reviews which simply pass people by [as already noted by others]. What I'd like to suggest is some sort of inyerface pointer on the homepage to what's expected. Try to imagine you're coming to the site for the 1st time and honestly tell me the message it gives; I contend it urges you to come up with four-word-film-reviews. End of.
Please take this seriously, since I'm convinced it's a major tributory to your river of reconstruction. And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't get disheartened. You've created something truly vital here, and [porn sites aside] one of the most engaging online communities around.
Big thanks from da liddle BBabe.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 13:22:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
What I'd like to suggest is some sort of inyerface pointer on the homepage to what's expected. Try to imagine you're coming to the site for the 1st time and honestly tell me the message it gives; I contend it urges you to come up with four-word-film-reviews. End of.
Please take this seriously, since I'm convinced it's a major tributory to your river of reconstruction. And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't get disheartened. You've created something truly vital here, and [porn sites aside] one of the most engaging online communities around.
I absolutely agree the homepage needs a lot of work- it's an absolute shocker layout-wise, but I've never really sat down to rework it.
I'd be interested to hear what anyone (especially so from those newbies amongst us) 'gets' from the homepage, what it lead them to expect and what they feel should be said more clearly (or, indeed, should be said that isn't). |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Quality reviewing
