| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 01/26/2007 : 10:03:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Exactly, I was saying that if there was money involved, like a membership, then I would be thinking....Geez, what's going on here?, I pay a membership to be here and I have to wait this long for a review to be processed.
Seeing that there is no membership payment, I just sit and wait, happily.
I take your point, but we are all investing our time and energies here, which are just as important. We don't have the right to demand more free MERPs, but it would be reasonable, given our dedication to the site, to get them. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/26/2007 10:05:45 |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 10:05:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
The way I understand it, MERPs can process in order of submission, i.e., oldest first, or they can process by movie, i.e., see whatever pending reviews there are for a movie and process them.
But sometimes they do neither, instead processing the newer reviews for a film. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 10:31:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
The way I understand it, MERPs can process in order of submission, i.e., oldest first, or they can process by movie, i.e., see whatever pending reviews there are for a movie and process them.
But sometimes they do neither, instead processing the newer reviews for a film.
That suggests that the reviews that weren't immediately processed are still waiting for the second or third MERP decision (or a benj decision?). I've sometimes had two or more reviews pending for a movie, and then some are processed and some not. I've noticed that it's usually the obviously passable ones that were processed, the marginal ones sit for longer (waiting for the next MERP I assume). 
I think the system works, although we seem to be going through one of the slow periods now. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 10:51:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I've noticed that it's usually the obviously passable ones that were processed, the marginal ones sit for longer (waiting for the next MERP I assume).
No, the instance that makes me say this was my older review left pending while a newer essentially identical review was approved. They were similar enough that it is not conceivable that any individual would have different opinions on their validity. |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 12:37:14
|
Ian - You are a man of categorical observations, aren't you?
Personally, I enjoy the waiting period. I've only asked benj to look at one review of mine just in time for a yuletide FYCTH, but, other than that, I am happy to wait. I don't consider it an issue. It is what it is.
To quote one of the signature lines from The Sopranos: "What are you gonna do?"
|
Edited by - Ali on 01/26/2007 13:11:23 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 12:50:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
You are a man of categorical observations, aren't you?
It's just that the most important thing is fairness. I have not been able to imagine any reasonable explanation for the above example, and no one has suggested one either. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 13:49:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
About 'batches' - my batches of reviews - whether for the same film or a number of films at one sitting - do not get approved at the same time. My approvals do not come through in the order of submitting. I think I asked this question before, but do MERPs get one person's reviews to approve, or are they farmed out in some other way - by date of film, alphabetically etc. Does each MERP have a different system - that would be another reason for why a later review of the same film gets through first.
The way I understand it, MERPs can process in order of submission, i.e., oldest first, or they can process by movie, i.e., see whatever pending reviews there are for a movie and process them.quote:
This just does not tally with my experience. How come I wrote the same review for a film before another contributor, his was approved and mine is still pending 6 weeks later? If it was done by oldest first, mine would have been done first. If it was done by film mine would have been done at the same time.
Also, do the top reviewers on the site get preference? I wouldn't argue with that - they are so far ahead of the rest of us it's irrelevant, but I have noticed that the top ten to twenty reviewers get handfuls of films approved at one time.
Have you ever wondered why they're the Top Reviewers? That's because they've got nothing better to do with their time than write reviews, whether they're at home or supposedly at work.  They're total fwfr addicts, have been for years, write far more reviews than 'normal' people  , hence have more processed. 
Trite. Randall has had as many reviews approved today (26) as I have had approved in the past 2 weeks. My pending is currently 312. If this is pro-rata Randall has 4368 pending  . Your explanation cannot possibly explain this.
As you have said yourself, slow approvals discourage fast writing, so in effect the system seems to be encouraging some people a lot more than others.
(I am not suggesting Randall or anyone else has done anything to encourage any preferential treatment - I have no idea why this is so but do not impute any underhandedness to anyone.)
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 19:47:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
How come I wrote the same review for a film before another contributor, his was approved and mine is still pending 6 weeks later? If it was done by oldest first, mine would have been done first. If it was done by film mine would have been done at the same time.
Perhaps the MERP(s) who processed it found them marginal, the first was subject to two MERPs with different opinions (one approve, one decline) so it's still pending wating for the third decision. Then when the second review came up a week or so later it was subject to two approvals so it was approved. I'd be most surprised if MERPs would be able to remember a review they processed last week let alone what they did with it if it was marginal, let alone the fact it could have been processed by different MERPs.quote:
Trite. Randall has had as many reviews approved today (26) as I have had approved in the past 2 weeks. My pending is currently 312. If this is pro-rata Randall has 4368 pending . Your explanation cannot possibly explain this.
Of course it can. If Randall sat down at his computer a month ago and wrote 30 reviews in one sitting, while you were outside weeding the garden then came inside to write one review, then obviously Randall would have 30 processed while you had one processed. This has nothing to do with size of pending pile.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 21:02:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Perhaps the MERP(s) who processed it found them marginal, the first was subject to two MERPs with different opinions (one approve, one decline) so it's still pending wating for the third decision. Then when the second review came up a week or so later it was subject to two approvals so it was approved.
That only works if one of the people who approved the second one rejected the first one. If it is different people who approve the second one, then they would have to approve the first one on the same occasion. Given the short period between the first submission and the second approval (i.e. the maximum space between these contradictory decisions), it is beyond credulity to think that someone could have forgotten the first review. If their memory and consistency of processing are that poor, they should not be a MERP. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/26/2007 21:26:05 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 21:17:30
|
| The other point is that when this sort of thing occasionally happens, it ought to get corrected. Benj should reject the earlier review and approve the later one. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 21:19:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
How come I wrote the same review for a film before another contributor, his was approved and mine is still pending 6 weeks later? If it was done by oldest first, mine would have been done first. If it was done by film mine would have been done at the same time.
Perhaps the MERP(s) who processed it found them marginal, the first was subject to two MERPs with different opinions (one approve, one decline) so it's still pending wating for the third decision. Then when the second review came up a week or so later it was subject to two approvals so it was approved. I'd be most surprised if MERPs would be able to remember a review they processed last week let alone what they did with it if it was marginal, let alone the fact it could have been processed by different MERPs.quote:
Trite. Randall has had as many reviews approved today (26) as I have had approved in the past 2 weeks. My pending is currently 312. If this is pro-rata Randall has 4368 pending . Your explanation cannot possibly explain this.
Of course it can. If Randall sat down at his computer a month ago and wrote 30 reviews in one sitting, while you were outside weeding the garden then came inside to write one review, then obviously Randall would have 30 processed while you had one processed. This has nothing to do with size of pending pile.
This idea that reviews are dealt with in batches has very little to do with my experience, which is usually on an individual basis. Sometimes all the reviews I have pending for a particular film are dealt with together, often not. The approval bears no apparent relationship to when I wrote the review.
If Randall or anyone else has, say, 30 reviews they wrote at one sitting approved together then this would reinforce my view that different people's reviews are being handled differently.
As to your explanation of the first example, there is nothing marginal about "A bout. A boy" for The Kid. It's a shoo-in.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 21:28:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
As to your explanation of the first example, there is nothing marginal about "A bout. A boy" for The Kid. It's a shoo-in.
No, a MERP of any calibre would know noncentz's older review for another film. While they do not have to reject on that basis, they might wll do so under the miscellaneous and mysterious no-reason-given category that Benj allows. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 21:40:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
As to your explanation of the first example, there is nothing marginal about "A bout. A boy" for The Kid. It's a shoo-in.
No, a MERP of any calibre would know noncentz's older review for another film. While they do not have to reject on that basis, they might wll do so under the miscellaneous and mysterious no-reason-given category that Benj allows.
Benj has specifically stated that there is no prohibition against the same review being used for different films. Its absolutely allowed.
|
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 21:47:15
|
A point being lost here is the films themselves being submittd - obviously if you submit obvious puns from the movie title name or a recent box office blockbuster, you are more apt to get a quick approval, because the merit of the review is far more obvious than a more obscure review.
I don't often chase accolades (usually just when I have 1 or 2 left in the accolade), but when I have for lesser known films, those almost always sit for a longer time- I imagine because it takes a great deal more effort to research the plot and cast, directors etc. that make the review work versus doing a cheap joke about Titanic (i.e Eau the Humanity) which most Merps can get instantaneously. |
Edited by - turrell on 01/26/2007 21:48:20 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:23:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
As to your explanation of the first example, there is nothing marginal about "A bout. A boy" for The Kid. It's a shoo-in.
No, a MERP of any calibre would know noncentz's older review for another film. While they do not have to reject on that basis, they might wll do so under the miscellaneous and mysterious no-reason-given category that Benj allows.
Benj has specifically stated that there is no prohibition against the same review being used for different films. Its absolutely allowed.
Yes, but that does not equate to it being disallowed for the MERPs to reject it. All of the unspecified rejections must come within categories that are allowed in an abstract sense. Otherwise, they would be additional specified rejection reasons. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/26/2007 22:50:10 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Quick and slow responses to reviews.
