| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
 Posted - 01/27/2007 : 16:03:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
If Lemmy were an animal, he would be a wise old owl. 
You're a hoot.
Nice to see badgers and owls in harmony.
|
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 18:57:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
I'm not sure I like what you're implying here. If you have a shred of evidence to back this up you're welcome to privately email me over it, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't publicly cast wild aspersions around here.
Alternatively, if you were trying to say that people have had reviews approved that you'd previously submitted but had declined then why imply this only happens with MERP reviews over your own? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 19:18:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
...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.
I'm not at all convinced the 'throw more MERPs at the problem' approach is the best solution. As previous experience has shown, the quicker fwfrs are passed, the quicker people send them in. Not to mention... the quicker people send fwfrs in, the lower the quality drops.
quote:
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.
I'm curious what site figures you're going off here. If you mean visitors per day (which is, for my money, the best indication of the popularity of the site) we've been pretty consistent for a few years now aside from the odd surge. Never massively popular, but certainly not shoddy numbers. Also, number of reviews submitted daily is slowly growing still. |
|
|
|
roger_thornhill 
"'scuse me while I disappear..."
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 19:49:39
|
Man, I have to agree that approval is really slow of late--much slower than I remember from when I last actively participated in fwfr. I have 19 pending reviews from 1/15 or earlier. And in the time since I started submitting again (1/13) I've only had one new review approved.
Is there a glut of new reviews/reviewers? |
Edited by - roger_thornhill on 01/27/2007 19:54:55 |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 20:08:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
Check out the last 500 reviews. See many gems? 'Nuff said.
Couldn't agree more Lemmy. I used to enjoy going into the newest reviews and picking out the more inspirational ones, but lately I've found them to be increasingly dull - by the time I get to the bottom of the first 100, all the reviews may as well read as 'Blah, blah, blah, blah.'
I now just skip to the last page and look at the reviewers who have only had one or two reviews added. At least they seem to put some effort into the whole process. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 10:27:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
I'm not sure I like what you're implying here. If you have a shred of evidence to back this up you're welcome to privately email me over it, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't publicly cast wild aspersions around here.
I did, at the time. I am only stating what happened. If it wasn't intentional, then it was a serious (within the parameters of the site) human error, so still bad.
quote:
Alternatively, if you were trying to say that people have had reviews approved that you'd previously submitted but had declined then why imply this only happens with MERP reviews over your own?
No, as I have made very clear, it had not been rejected. It was left pending when the newer, very similar, review was approved. I alerted you to this. Then mine was rejected.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 11:56:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'm not at all convinced the 'throw more MERPs at the problem' approach is the best solution. As previous experience has shown, the quicker fwfrs are passed, the quicker people send them in.
So there would be the same backlog again but at least more reviews would have been approved.
Re: quality, I find this so strange. I submit reviews when I think of them. I cannot imagine my number pending making any difference. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 18:09:41
|
I should say, by the way, that I have been very happy with the number of approvals for the last few weeks. I have already got five waiting for the next F.Y.C.T.H.  |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 00:31:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
I'm not sure I like what you're implying here. If you have a shred of evidence to back this up you're welcome to privately email me over it, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't publicly cast wild aspersions around here.
I did, at the time. I am only stating what happened. If it wasn't intentional, then it was a serious (within the parameters of the site) human error, so still bad.
But you're not just stating what happened, you also implied the MERPs declined your reviews and wrote their own versions later. What's more, you're saying this without a). knowing for certain who the MERPs are, or b). how the the approvals process works. You're certainly in no position to say this is what actually happened.
If it's human error, it's human error, and unless the error cannot be rectified it's in no way a serious situation even within the bounds of this site. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/31/2007 : 17:33:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
But you're not just stating what happened
I gave you full details in my e-mail, which you have stated here is how you would like to receive it.
quote:
you also implied the MERPs declined your reviews and wrote their own versions later.
No, I have very clearly not suggested that, since I have made clear that my review was still pending (i.e. not declined) when the later review was approved.
quote:
What's more, you're saying this without a). knowing for certain who the MERPs are, or b). how the the approvals process works.
No, I do not know, but I am virtually certain, from the other piece of evidence that I e-mailed you about. If the people mentioned in that are not MERPs, then please feel free to keep making this point. The specifics of the approval process (beyond what must be the case) are highly unlikely to affect the matter at hand, or else there would constantly be duplicates all over the shop. If for some reason the process is at fault, then it is at fault.
quote:
You're certainly in no position to say this is what actually happened.
I have only stated the facts, that they were unfair, and that they should have been remedied when highlighted.
quote:
If it's human error, it's human error, and unless the error cannot be rectified it's in no way a serious situation even within the bounds of this site.
The human error certainly can be rectified. Any specific mistake can be corrected, the process can be improved and the MERPs can be aware that such errors have occured and thus to try to avoid them. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 00:02:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
But you're not just stating what happened
I gave you full details in my e-mail, which you have stated here is how you would like to receive it.
Then I fail to see why you continue to bang on about it here in the fourum whilst I'm still trying to look into it.
quote:
quote:
you also implied the MERPs declined your reviews and wrote their own versions later.
No, I have very clearly not suggested that, since I have made clear that my review was still pending (i.e. not declined) when the later review was approved.
"but I'm not going to just let the MERPs get their own newer duplicates approved and my originals rejected."
Substitute the word rejected for declined and this is exactly what you're saying. You may not have been at all specific about whether your reviews are declined before or after the MERPs are ganging up on you and taking your reviews, but that's not really the point.
quote:
quote:
What's more, you're saying this without a). knowing for certain who the MERPs are, or b). how the the approvals process works.
No, I do not know, but I am virtually certain, from the other piece of evidence that I e-mailed you about. If the people mentioned in that are not MERPs, then please feel free to keep making this point. The specifics of the approval process (beyond what must be the case) are highly unlikely to affect the matter at hand, or else there would constantly be duplicates all over the shop. If for some reason the process is at fault, then it is at fault.
I'm not going to say who is or isn't a MERP, but I will say your email made some ill-founded assumptions. This makes your attempt to sully the MERPs publicly (especially so after already alerting me to the matter privately) like this all the more distasteful.
Honestly, it's comments like this that make me wonder why I bother to keep this site running or why the MERPs process any reviews.
quote:
quote:
You're certainly in no position to say this is what actually happened.
I have only stated the facts, that they were unfair, and that they should have been remedied when highlighted.
You are not stating facts because you're not in a position to do so.
Do you, with absolute certainty, know who the MERPs are?
No.
Do you have access to all the data logging behind the scenes of the site?
No.
You're looking at a black box and assuming what's happening in the middle based on what goes in and what comes out.
quote:
quote:
If it's human error, it's human error, and unless the error cannot be rectified it's in no way a serious situation even within the bounds of this site.
The human error certainly can be rectified. Any specific mistake can be corrected, the process can be improved and the MERPs can be aware that such errors have occured and thus to try to avoid them.
The point I was trying to make was that nothing on this site is a "serious" error since it can always be rectified. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 16:02:32
|
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. 
Wow, I just caught up with this bandying about of my name.
I write 10-15 reviews per day, no more, no less, unless I'm away from my computer. [Any more and they begin to come out poorly.] I have never written anywhere near 30 reviews in a single day, let alone a single session. Without going into details, my pending list is somewhere in your league, Whippy.
Many times I have gone several days without any adjudication, then I've had a blizzard judged. I can't explain it. MERP approvals come in waves, and I'm positive they don't go for my oldest first.
Why would any MERP give me special treatment? What good would it do? What would be the bloody point? I have chosen to believe Whippy wasn't seriously suggesting that I have cheated somehow. |
Edited by - randall on 02/02/2007 16:12:40 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 16:58:00
|
I'm happy to repeat that I am not suggesting Randall - or anyone else - has done anything underhand or anything which they consider to be unfair to anyone else.
Randall has never done anything which has led me to doubt he has the highest integrity.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 17:35:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I'm happy to repeat that I am not suggesting Randall - or anyone else - has done anything underhand or anything which they consider to be unfair to anyone else.
Randall has never done anything which has led me to doubt he has the highest integrity.
I appreciate that statement, as well as the PM you sent expressing the same view. Thank you for both. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 15:42:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Then I fail to see why you continue to bang on about it here in the fourum whilst I'm still trying to look into it.
Um, because (i) by your wording and what happened to my review you seemed to have no recollection of my e-mail and (ii) it was relevant to the discussion at hand (which I did not initiate).
quote:
"but I'm not going to just let the MERPs get their own newer duplicates approved and my originals rejected."
Substitute the word rejected for declined and this is exactly what you're saying. You may not have been at all specific about whether your reviews are declined before or after the MERPs are ganging up on you and taking your reviews, but that's not really the point.
I was completely specific (not in that sentence but that was not needed since I had already been so). I made no suggestion that the MERPs had processed reviews unfairly through malice or cheating. I worded it firmly simply because an unambiguously unfair situation arose, perhaps through extreme carelessness/inconsistent processing. This is not really significantly preferable to the error being made intentionally. True, I did not really think that the system could be responsible for the whole problem, i.e. there were no MERP error, but for this to be the case the system would have to be extraordinarily illogical. I still think this cannot be the case because, as I have said, relatively few errors of this type occur. If through some bizarre set of factors it is only the system at fault, then it ought to be amended.
quote:
I'm not going to say who is or isn't a MERP, but I will say your email made some ill-founded assumptions.
If this is the case, then the goings on must have some even more extraordinary causes. I also take this deflection to be an indication (though of course not proof) that I was right in my central judgment about who the MERPs are.
quote:
This makes your attempt to sully the MERPs publicly (especially so after already alerting me to the matter privately) like this all the more distasteful.
This does not really make sense. Since the MERPs' identities are, you are keen to state, unknown to us, how can they be sullied? Further, I have not named anyone or even the reviews in question. With regard to e-mailing you about it, since instead of my review being rightly approved you rejected it about twenty times, I cannot be blamed for not interpreting the situation as being dealt with reasonably.
quote:
Honestly, it's comments like this that make me wonder why I bother to keep this site running or why the MERPs process any reviews.
I certainly am grateful to you for running the site and I have said so repeatedly. However, just because someone provides a certain service to others voluntarily, whatever it is, does not mean that the participants do not have the right to fairness. Yes, you put the most into the site and what you do is very specialised. However, without it being our thing, the rest of us put a lot of time and effort into it too. Re: the MERP processing, I don't feel the need to be particularly grateful for what I would be more than happy to do without receiving gratitude.
quote:
You are not stating facts because you're not in a position to do so.
I have focused on stating outcomes, which certainly are the facts. What I have said in addition to that have only been basic things that logically follow unless the system functions in a completely counterintuitive way. Yes, that is possible, but it still seems highly unlikely.
quote:
Do you, with absolute certainty, know who the MERPs are? No.
No, but I'm still relatively confident in these cases. Further, the substantive issue is still the same even if the MERPs processing in an unfair manner (through the system's fault or theirs) are not the people who end up with the huge benefits.
quote:
Do you have access to all the data logging behind the scenes of the site? No. You're looking at a black box and assuming what's happening in the middle based on what goes in and what comes out.
True, but it's not a system from Mars or something. If its complexities are so odd that the output is unreliable, then why would they be there, when a simple system would work fine?
quote:
The point I was trying to make was that nothing on this site is a "serious" error since it can always be rectified.
O.K., but when these things crop up, they seem to be rectified only at great effort, if at all. As far as I know, Whipper's review is still pending, and the example that I have given here is only the worse case that has happened to me. When I have pointed out an approval matching an earlier rejection of mine, the situation hasn't been remedied. When I have pointed out a duplicate of a review of mine, it hasn't been removed. (i.e. These are still the situations as of now.)
With regard to the MERPs, I made these three suggestions when the decision to have them was made:
(i) They should all process a sample hundred reviews, and you should select the ones who agree with you the most. (There are counter-arguments to this, but it was based on your judgment of acceptability being definitive and not everyone's opinion being equally valid.)
(ii) They should not know who each other are.
(iii) They should not see users' names with reviews they process.
(i) was not really mentioned, so I got the strong impression it did not happen. This also fits with the fact that they are not particularly consistent. You rejected (ii) and (iii). I maintain that all of these would have been a good idea. I don't often get the impression that they know who each other are, but since disallowing this was explicitly rejected at the time, I can only assume that it is the case. Most of all, I found it rather extraordinary that they would be able to see our names. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/03/2007 15:53:09 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Quick and slow responses to reviews.
