| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 12/18/2006 : 00:59:56
|
Hey folks. A few years ago (I'd guess 2 years?) this movie here was a fun one for wordplay from the resident wordsmiths at the time, as you can see from these two reviews:-
Execution Of Mary Stuart, The (1895)
As you can see a single letter difference makes for a completely different review, they both have two meanings each (or more if I've missed something) and are excellent, and typical of the kind of stuff our wordsmiths were creating back in those days. They both had 37 votes (I think) and were next to each other at the top of the page (and rightfully so).
Until some bright spark thought they were identical and clicked on the neo-Nazi swastika-bearing goose-stepping fascist bully-boot-boy report button  and had Koli's review declined.  It was subsequently reinstated with 2 years worth of votes stripped. In my view this is totally unfair on Koli who has lost top-votes status because of someone else's careless mistake. And needless to say, getting everyone to re-vote won't work as at least half of those who've voted on it are long gone. E.g., I bet Mr Stupid, Slippy Tin, Al Swearengen etc have all voted on it and won't be re-voting.
So, you know what you have to do. Anyone who had voted on it, please give Koli a nice Christmas present and re-vote.  And even if it isn't the sort of review you'd normally vote for, please vote on it anyway to try and make up for some of the voters who aren't here to re-vote.
And finally, a plea. Before using the Report button, please please please please please make sure you know what you're doing before deciding to execute someone else's review.  We can't expect benj to pick up on every mistake made by erroneous use of the report button. |
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 01:15:16
|
Had already voted on it, again.  |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 01:34:24
|
I'll head off and vote for it now...
|
|
|
|
silly 
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 01:36:33
|
I flipped a coin, and luckily, it came up heads!
|
|
|
|
bife 
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 02:41:03
|
There was much fourum debate when koli's review first cam out about whether this was a dupe, and I am generally a 'dupe-facist'. I hate the creeping tendancy (perhaps not so much 'creeping' any more) of 'taking inspiration' from other people's reviews.
I was adamant then, and am adamant now (as is benj and most of the site, apparently), that this was not a dupe, and was complementary to my review. The two reviews sitting together on the page played well off each other.
At least koli can have the satisfaction of owning a minor peice of fwfr-history. The only review bife has voted for twice |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 03:53:42
|
| Off with my vote... |
|
|
|
redPen
"Because I said so!"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 04:23:42
|
sorry the review got guillotined, but I have issued a vote Band-Aid.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 06:33:02
|
| Poor Mary, but she didn't get guillotined, she got axed, just like that sad review. So I've voted on it as well! |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 09:30:56
|
joining the queue... |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 09:48:38
|
vote by vote we make a village uhm, a happy FWFRer
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 11:38:11
|
| Voted for it AGAIN. |
|
|
|
Rovark
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 18:34:32
|
Noted
and
Voted |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 18:51:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Until some bright spark thought they were identical and clicked on the neo-Nazi swastika-bearing goose-stepping fascist bully-boot-boy report button and had Koli's review declined. It was subsequently reinstated with 2 years worth of votes stripped. In my view this is totally unfair on Koli who has lost top-votes status because of someone else's careless mistake.
I'm just curious who's careless mistake you think it was. Whomever tagged it as a duplicate wasn't the one who eventually declined it. Seems the fixing should be the responsibility of the individual that declined it and stripped the votes. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 22:39:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Until some bright spark thought they were identical and clicked on the neo-Nazi swastika-bearing goose-stepping fascist bully-boot-boy report button and had Koli's review declined. It was subsequently reinstated with 2 years worth of votes stripped. In my view this is totally unfair on Koli who has lost top-votes status because of someone else's careless mistake.
I'm just curious who's careless mistake you think it was. Whomever tagged it as a duplicate wasn't the one who eventually declined it. Seems the fixing should be the responsibility of the individual that declined it and stripped the votes.
I'm not on a witchhunt, and don't care who reported it. But, whoever reported that review as a dupe did in fact get it wrong as it's clear on a second glance that it's meaning is totally different from the other and that it is not a dupe. And yep, benj didn't pick up on the reporter's mistake as he said here.
IMO I have a good eye for spelling/punctuation errors, but I bet if I was going through 100 reported reviews before breakfast while at the same time adding new movies to the site, processing pending reviews, updating the site, earning a living and otherwise living a life that I wouldn't pick up every error made by others. What makes it even harder is that fwfrs, by their nature commonly have artificial words (i.e., words with a single letter changed) to change their meaning, ie, deliberate spelling 'errors'.
Site users clearly are here in their spare time, and if they have the time and inclination to report someone else's review, then IMO they should also take the time to think very carefully about what they're doing before asking benj to kill someone else's review. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 22:52:07
|
| 'Tis done, m'lady. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 09:50:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I'm not on a witchhunt, and don't care who reported it. But, whoever reported that review as a dupe did in fact get it wrong as it's clear on a second glance that it's meaning is totally different from the other and that it is not a dupe.
I wouldn't have reported this, but I think it was a valid position for someone to want to do so. They are not totally different, as far as I can tell. Aren't they both just puns on the same phrase, head of state, but one puns on just the word head and the other puns on head of (presenting it as head off)? Am I missing something? It's fine for them to both be there, but I can understand how someone may feel that they are too close. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
A Christmas Travesty
