| Author |
 Topic  |
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
 Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:28:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
He does, if it's brought to his attention. |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:34:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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 much come within categories that are allowed in an abstract sense. Otherwise, they would be additional specified rejection reasons.
In my interpretation it means exactly that. There would be no sense in Benj saying that it was allowable if a MERP could disallow it for that reason. That would be a simple contradiction.
|
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 01/26/2007 22:36:12 |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:35:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
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.
Of course, as I said the principal issue would be the ease of processing by the MERPs who process them. Try submitting a few reviews for a movie (all at the same time), some of which are absolutely clearly passable and understandable, and some of which are convoluted, marginal and difficult to understand, and see which ones are approved first. The fact that some of your reviews have been approved/declined doesn't mean the others haven't already been looked at and have been subject to MERP decisions and are right now waiting for the final and decisive MERP decision.
This was all explained when the MERP system was created, but I'm guessing this was before you arrived on the site.quote:
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.
Perhaps, but this is very likely because his (or someone else's) reviews are all approvable due to style. Check out the middle pages of some of the highest ranked (by quantity) reviewers who are unashamed accolade chasers. Not every review is a cryptic alliterative pun palindrome. Many are simple, succinct four-word-film-reviews and absolutely clearly passable. So, I'd guess the first two MERPs going through those 30 reviews in chronological order (or by movie) may well be unanimous in their approval of said reviews, so they are approved in a batch as a result of all being instantly approvable and having been written in a batch. Conversely, if there were "hard to process" reviews in the middle of that batch, they may well be sitting waiting the final decisive decision. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:39:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
That "short period" could be weeks. There are 2-month-old reviews on the site as some have mentioned. One would have to be autistic to recall all previous reviews processed and the decision made.
I hope you're not suggesting sacking MERPs for having an average memory. We need more, not less!  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:52:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
He does, if it's brought to his attention.
Not really. As soon as my case happened and my older review was still pending, I gave him full details. Nothing happened till mine was rejected for being a dupe! I then resubmitted it about twenty times with a full explanation until he gave in and approved it. Whipper has been similarly banging on about his case for weeks and his review is still pending while the newer one still stands. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/26/2007 22:53:45 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:53:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
[brI hope you're not suggesting sacking MERPs for having an average memory. We need more, not less!
Well, its nice to see another subscriber to the "we need more MERPS" petition.
There is probably some validity in your view that people who write "straight-forward" reviews are going to get them passed quicker than people who write "clever" ones.
I hate having to admit that you might be right about something. 
 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 23:00:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
That "short period" could be weeks. There are 2-month-old reviews on the site as some have mentioned. One would have to be autistic to recall all previous reviews processed and the decision made.
I hope you're not suggesting sacking MERPs for having an average memory. We need more, not less!
Actually, I did not mean in general, just in Whipper's case where he has laid out the dates (a couple of weeks or something). I don't buy that most people cannot remember over that time, and if they cannot that is a fault of theirs and they should try harder. Anyway, this problem can easily be solved even without more MERPs: it should just be set up so that when they look at a certain film they see reviews they have already made a decision upon but which are still pending. There would never be a huge number of these. Those ones would be at the top and they would be reminded of them before looking at the newer ones below. (Also, as well as being deficient in memory, they have to be deficient in consistent opinions to make that kind of error.) Yes, we do need more MERPs, but these are readily available - most active users were not eligible when the group was originally determined. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/26/2007 23:01:18 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 00:15:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
He does, if it's brought to his attention.
Not really. As soon as my case happened and my older review was still pending, I gave him full details. Nothing happened till mine was rejected for being a dupe! I then resubmitted it about twenty times with a full explanation until he gave in and approved it. Whipper has been similarly banging on about his case for weeks and his review is still pending while the newer one still stands.
So this is simply a public whinge about benj's failure to immediately response to your requests? Nice!  Lucky for you he's not the kind of guy who'll say "OK, I'll put all your reviews at the back of the queue then". Show some respect for the guy who created, built, manages, and owns this site, and allows others to play free of charge to their heart's content.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 00:23:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So this is simply a public whinge about benj's failure to immediately response to your requests?
Remedying the occasional unfair decisions should be a priority over processing other pending reviews (but would also take very little time). However, if mine had stayed pending for a long time (like Whipper's) until Benj approved it, that would still be O.K. However, that is not what happened. He rejected it about twenty times before he approved it. So immediacy was not the problem at all. I thank Benj for all the good he does (and have also made clear that I am happy to pay for membership, so the fact it is free does not suddenly make me blind to unfairness), but I'm not going to just let the MERPs get their own newer duplicates approved and my originals rejected. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 01:38:29
|
I have to say that this "free of charge" argument comes up far too often. Firstly we all know its free of charge without having to be reminded. Secondly the fact that its free of charge does not mean that people should not make suggestions for its improvement e.g. more MERPs. Thirdly the fact that its free of charge does not mean people should simply accept what they think is an unfairness without mentioning it. Mentioning it fulfils several useful purposes - lets someone let off steam, informs Benj that something is considered unfair which he may not have been aware of and allows him to consider whether he thinks any changes are desirable to avoid it happening again.
So please, unless money is really an issue, can we amend the "free of charge" argument at least to "its run as a hobby" which puts the emphasis on what should and should not reasonably expected of the hobbyist administration rather making it into a money thing, which is exactly what Benj does not want the site to be.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 02:40:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I have to say that this "free of charge" argument comes up far too often. Firstly we all know its free of charge without having to be reminded. ...... Mentioning it fulfils several useful purposes - lets someone let off steam, informs Benj that something is considered unfair which he may not have been aware of and allows him to consider whether he thinks any changes are desirable to avoid it happening again.
I have to say that this "the wait-time is too long" argument comes up far too often. Firstly we all know there's a wait-time without having to be reminded.quote:
..."its run as a hobby" which puts the emphasis on what should and should not reasonably expected of the hobbyist administration...
Absolutely nothing whatsoever should be expected of the "hobbyist administration". Benj should do whatever he likes with the site, when he likes, including shutting it down if he feels like it. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 03:41:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I have to say that this "free of charge" argument comes up far too often. Firstly we all know its free of charge without having to be reminded. ...... Mentioning it fulfils several useful purposes - lets someone let off steam, informs Benj that something is considered unfair which he may not have been aware of and allows him to consider whether he thinks any changes are desirable to avoid it happening again.
I have to say that this "the wait-time is too long" argument comes up far too often. Firstly we all know there's a wait-time without having to be reminded.
Yes, we all know there is a waiting time. The question is whether anything can be done to improve it, and if so what. We also all know this is a free site, but there is no point in mentioning it, so there is no real equivalence between the two statements. One is purposeful, the other isn't.
quote:
..."its run as a hobby" which puts the emphasis on what should and should not reasonably expected of the hobbyist administration...
Absolutely nothing whatsoever should be expected of the "hobbyist administration". Benj should do whatever he likes with the site, when he likes, including shutting it down if he feels like it.
I don't think this site could exist without Benj having expectations about what he was trying to deliver. I think he wants to run a good site rather than a bad one, an efficient site rather than an inefficient one, a non-commercial site rather than a commercial one. Its hard to achieve perfection in this, and my only real point in this thread is that more MERPs would reduce waiting time, which is, for many people, a negative, particularly to newbies who grow frustrated and some of whom will leave never to return. If you look at the site figures you will see that they are down pretty drastically, and although I wouldn't panic over it, I would see it as a site issue. Presumably you, like me, would like to see more site activity and more active fwfrs. Now you can tell them as much as you like that they have no right to any level of "service" here, but they will simply vote with their feet if they get that impression. The idea that because money does not change hands there is no kind of expectation is not the way things actually work. Naturally people will often expect too much and that has to be deal with by putting the situation in context for them, but ultimately if they are entitled to nothing then there will be no site loyalty.
Having said that, Benj has never given me the impression he agrees with you that users have no right to any expectations of delivery from the site or that he thinks a successful site could be built on that model. In particular the impression I have is that the last thing he wants is for money to be an issue here one way or the other.
Naturally he can correct me if I've misunderstood his position.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 04:51:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Presumably you, like me, would like to see more site activity and more active fwfrs.
Actually I wouldn't. I've noticed a significant drop in the average quality of reviews approved over the last year or so. (My very subjective opinion). So I don't agree that more is better. I'd rather see people write less reviews and think harder about them. Not that my opinion is relevant, as there's only one person's opinion that matters. Fortunately.  |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 05:32:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Presumably you, like me, would like to see more site activity and more active fwfrs.
Actually I wouldn't. I've noticed a significant drop in the average quality of reviews approved over the last year or so. (My very subjective opinion). So I don't agree that more is better. I'd rather see people write less reviews and think harder about them. Not that my opinion is relevant, as there's only one person's opinion that matters. Fortunately.
Well, if an old 5Ker can interject, I would like to say that more is better when the more is better. When I started on the site I put out a lot of reviews. In retrospect, those early, multitudinous reviews were my best. I have never improved on my first 500 or so. That's because I was reviewing the films of my life (thank you FT) Votes for the first person who catches the reference. I knew them and I loved them. Consequently, the reviews were good. My output has declined over the last 18 months or so. I can hear my wife chuckling in the background. I'm not referring to that, dear.
My point is submit good reviews. Whether you are reviewing to increase your numbers, to complete accolades, to pay homage to a director or player, or for any other reason just put quality first! If your output is many, great! If you put out only three or four a month, so be it.
By their quality we shall know them.
The site can handle all types of reviews, but the last thing it needs is boring reviews. Whatever your reason for adding a review, keep in mind that many people will be reading your review. Don't you want them to remember it?
Back in mid-December, many of us agreed to cut back on our reviews, in order to eliminate some of the backlog. I didn't submit a review for two weeks. It actually felt good. To those who did the same, I salute you. To those who kept on truckin', I hope it made a difference for you. It sure as hell didn't help the backlog. By my calculations, the reviews that are being processed now are from that time period. Check out the last 500 reviews. See many gems? 'Nuff said. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 12:04:18
|
If Lemmy were an animal, he would be a wise old owl.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Quick and slow responses to reviews.
