| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 06/16/2006 : 23:15:26
|
I guess this was the start of that long thread about how isolating the site can be sometimes for newbies.
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 07/02/2006 07:13:13 |
|
|
Warzonkey 
"Seriously Lo-Res"
|
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 00:29:20
|
Good points well made BB.
I totally agree. I've only been FWFRing for about 6 weeks. At first, I got loads of rejections - and rightly so as I hadn't grasped the rules of the site. (I was submitting very generic stuff.) Then I felt I'd got the hang of it and most of mine were being passed.
But over the past couple of weeks or so I've had some very frustrating rejections with no explanations.
For example, for Adaptation I was going for the 'screenplay within a screenplay' idea. I tried "Screen(screenplay)play" which was rejected, and then "Kaufman's screen(screenplay)play", also axed. Admittedly it's not the best review in the world, but it certainly not generic and (to me at least) reflects the film. I've given up trying other adaptations (!) as it's clearly not getting through. I have several other recent examples that I simply can't fathom, rejected with no reason.
As we know, these why-has-this-been-rejected threads pop up a lot, and someone usually comes up with a possible explanantion. Sometimes it's obvious, but I tend to notice that the suggestions often point to minor technicalities, and as BaftaBabe expressed, therein lies the frustration when you read some of the reviews that ARE accepted.
Admittedly, it has worked the other way for me too. I have submitted recent reviews that I thought were amusing but that I suspected would not be accepted (because I could see tiny holes in their logic or accuracy). Several of these were passed (and have proved reasonably popular).
I would also like to bolster BaftaBabe's point about newbies. I am pretty much hooked on this site now, but there have been times when I nearly turned my back on it due to the lack of guidelines and clarification about acceptable reviews, and (apparent) inconsistency. That's when I turned to the Fourums and you lot were very helpful, although clearly it's not just newbies like myself that are flummoxed by some rejections.
So basically, I totally agree. I wouldn't expect the MERP's to write an essay for each review they reject, but a wider range of standard reasons would be great idea.
PS: I've not yet managed to re-submit a rejected review with an added explanation and then have it accepted in its original form. Does this ever happen?
|
 |
|
|
Josh the cat 
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 00:51:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warzonkey
PS: I've not yet managed to re-submit a rejected review with an added explanation and then have it accepted in its original form. Does this ever happen?
Yep, I have had a load (over the time I have been here) that I have put in an explanation then got the original review passed.
Keep the faith it does come and it does get easier 
Josh the cat |
|
|
|
Willy Weasel 
"Look left and right."
|
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 01:44:53
|
Hiya Baftables, I have about half a dozen recent rejections which I have refined and thought to have covered all bases with. I intend to post them for general consideration soon. This morning I decided what with some of my reviews being ripped off and others rejected that I wasn't enjoying it here any more. I was also getting bugged by the voting consortiums which in my eyes elevate some mediocre reviews to undeserved status.
Back to rejected reviews. Out of my last 24 rejections only 3 of them had reasons - generic. Many reviews escape the generic or factually inaccurate tags just because they are funny. Pitching reviews to get both accepted and voted on is gettting a little formulaic but that is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a group identity evolving which is an achievement in itself. I do like happy endings.
Warzonks, I think I have had a few reviews accepted unchanged just by adding explanations. It still doesn't guarantee acceptance though. I always include an explanation unless very obvious. I have noticed that new films take forever to leave my pending pile, even when I include the IMDB link. I have asked before whether some pendings do sit festering for eternity - they are certainly not processed in rotation. |
Edited by - Willy Weasel on 06/17/2006 01:50:57 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 02:15:57
|
You know, I frequently resumbit with an explanation because I can't expect the MERP to understand what I mean on a first read, especially if they haven't seen the film, or know the phrase/actor/character name etc I'm punning on. I know if it's a good enough review the explanation will get it passed, if it's not so hot I rethink it and try again from a new angle - and I'm glad to get that chance because sometimes my first thought isn't always my best and a stepping back from my reviews can be illuminating.
BB - I feel your frustration. I think your initial submissions for PotO were pretty good. Did you resub with an explanation? I doubt they came back as "generic", just empty. In those instances I supply the extra info required unless I decide my idea wasn't so good. Really often I tweak slightly on resubmit unless the original was a corker. But I agree a few more reasons for rejection would be really handy. An "obscure meaning" tag perhaps, or "extra information required".
In reference to other frustrations voiced - there's not much point in worrying about what got through in the past. For all we know some of those went in in the early days of the website when all reviews, within reason, were probably more welcome. With hundreds of regular reviewers and tens of thousands of reviews quality is now an issue. Anyway if a review is rubbish, it won't get voted for, and your far more carefully considered gem will. That's the theory anyway. |
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb 
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 02:30:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
So if it ain't the actual word, could it be there's a discernible tendency to discourage actual reviewing in favour of safer plot description?
This is the part that concerns me most. I also find that the reviews I submit that actually contain criticism are very hard to massage into an acceptable state. I recently has one for The Big Sleep that took 5 tries to get right.
But I don't think there's a solution. I mean, any sort of filtering process one could put in place to ensure some amount of quality necessarily injects a certain amount of subjectivity into the equation. Kvetching in the fourums (while therapeutic ) won't change this basic fact. So the best we can do is just roll with it and keep on trying. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 03:20:38
|
| Personally, I have no problem with the majority of those reviews BB- think you must have gotten an editor on a bad day Resub them and I'll take it from there. |
|
|
|
Willy Weasel
"Look left and right."
|
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 12:00:48
|
quote:
Done and BIG thanks, Benj -- what a gent you are! Hey, we've all had bad days 
No more bad days Baftables, it's Summer. G&T or Pimms fruit cocktail? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 13:05:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Personally, I have no problem with the majority of those reviews BB- think you must have gotten an editor on a bad day Resub them and I'll take it from there.
Done and BIG thanks, Benj -- what a gent you are! Hey, we've all had bad days
Okay- some approved, others not because I felt you were just reworking the same idea |
|
|
|
Willy Weasel
"Look left and right."
|
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 21:11:54
|
Baby Weasel? Do those sprocket hole eyes not look vaguely familiar? I poured you a gin and Pimms cocktail, it was too hot to hang about. |
|
|
|
Willy Weasel
"Look left and right."
|
Posted - 06/18/2006 : 01:06:15
|
I'm glad you took it in good spirit - is that really you er.. a few years ago? Talking of spirit I don't think I have actually tried mixing Pimms with gin before so I must experiment and let you know when I recover. 
I've been on a bit of a roll with reviews the last two days, but I will still air some of my 'unacceptables' out of interest. |
|
|
|
LadyMeerkat
"Quirky perky goth artist."
|
Posted - 06/18/2006 : 09:57:34
|
I submitted a bunch of reviews for Pirates of the Carribean the other day and they all got rejected for no apparent reason. I'm hoping that by spelling out what I meant that at least a few of them get accepted. It looked like the MERP concerned was having a bad day or hadn't seen this gem of a film :P Sure, this sort of thing has ticked me off but I just get back on that horse and try again!
It is worth resubmitting a review - unchanged if you like - with an explanation as I have had several accepted after doing this. [nod] It is also worth reconsidering the wording as you might get it snappier/funnier looking at it again. Sometimes I've found altering the punctuation helps make my intent clearer. |
Edited by - LadyMeerkat on 06/18/2006 09:58:44 |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/18/2006 : 12:12:36
|
There used to be more decline reasons, but it did more harm than good.  The more specific the decline reason, the more likely it was that users would have something to argue about.  So benj cut the reasons back to the basic ones.
The punctuation is a reasonably simple one. Punctuate correctly and it shouldn't be a problem. Anyone who's unsure about how to punctuate (i.e., : ; , - ' about sums it up) could pretty quickly become familiar with all they need for fwfrs right here. But you're probably right about getting ideas from other users on how to squeeze in double meanings or cut words down using punctuation. There are a number of fwfrers who write stuff for a living and whose punctuation can be trusted. I'd suggest noncentz, Randall, Salopian, Corduroy Pillow among many others. But avoid those who have a habit of making spelling errors in their reviews, I won't name any. 
The "=" and "+" issues have been discussed before (althought I can't recall where so I'm not sure where the threads might be, sorry). Personally I can't see why anyone would want to use mathematical operators in a review, this is writing after all, not maths, so IMHO punctuation is better. I see the use of "+", "=" etc as a lazy way of writing, and I seldom vote for such reviews (obviously there are some movies where they can be used in a clever way). Punctuation can easily replace mathematical operators, and have it looking much better.
I don't believe a fwfr needs to be comprehensible to someone who knows nothing about the film, why should it be? But, it should be comprehensible to many/most who have seen it. And, when someone sees the review in the 'bubble', they should be able to have a reasonable crack at identifying the movie if they've seen it.
BTW, I agree 100% about scoring. I score every movie I see, and hope that I've scored all movies on the site that I've seen, although there are likely to be some that I've forgotten about. I use the fwfr score and IMDb score as a good indicator of my likelihood of enjoying a movie. |
Edited by - Sean on 06/19/2006 01:20:45 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/18/2006 : 13:26:48
|
| You can get reviews approved on the second try by adding a bit of explanation; a few of my most popular reviews hopped on that way. I don't like to explain on the first try because if the review has to stand on its own as it lives on the site, then it should stand on its own. But that's just me. I don't mind if an FYCTHer explains an obscure one; it doesn't affect my decision to vote at all. |
|
|
|
LadyMeerkat
"Quirky perky goth artist."
|
Posted - 06/18/2006 : 13:52:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
There is an additional issue which is the whole question of whether or not a FWFR has to be comprehensible to anyone reading it whether or not they're familiar with the film. Personally I try not to write FWFRs of films I haven't seen, but very occasionally the title alone is inspirational. I ALWAYS research the films I haven't seen, though, and would never just guess about them. I assume any MERP would do the same when assessing the FWFR; indeed I trust them to.
And one more related item: I really love the facility Benj has programmed for us to score the films. I score every film I've seen, and if I haven't scored it I haven't seen it - though, as noted above, I've sometimes been tempted to review it. I must admit I'm a bit disappointed that many FWFR-ers don't bother to score the films at all. Maybe I'm wrong but it leads me to believe they're more intested in their review than in the film.
My joy with this site is that Benj has given us a site that encompasses BOTH a love of cinema and an opportunity to be witty - or at least concise.
I do agree with your sentiments.
I think it helps as a reviewer to understand why one's review was not acceptable.
I do as you do and score films I've seen. I've scored more films than I've reviewed. I don't understand why more people don't rate the film. I do it when I haven't gotten around to fwfring it and am checking out what others have said.
I also appreciate what Benj has created here. I have fun when I've got a funny/clever one and other people think so as well. I enjoy taking on an angle that other haven't. I also like when someone been both funny and clever. If I could give more than one vote in such a case I would :) |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/18/2006 : 14:55:09
|
Firstly, punctuation shouldn't be a reason for declining- that's something myself and the MERPs should be fixing (if possible)- we are supposed to be editors after all
'Too Obscure' might be a good decline reason to add, although I do worry people will then start going "How obscure is too obscure?". To someone reasonably familiar with a film, they should get the reference, but beyond that I couldn't say.
I view mathematical symbols as punctuation. In much the same way you can use a comma in the place of 'and' (e.g. Jack, Jill: up hill), plus would also be acceptable (Jack + Jill: up hill). The same applies with / in the place of 'or' (e.g. Matter of life/ death), but I don't think the mathematical equivalent applies on this one. I view the equals symbol as closest to a colon, e.g. Pacino: The New Godfather or Pacino = The New Godfather. In general, I loath seeing mathematical notation in fwfrs- I think it looks pretty horrible, but some people seem to like it so more power to them
I always score every film I watch. If nothing else, this site makes for a good way of tallying how many films I've seen in my life (1548 so far, folks!) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Guessing again
