| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
 Posted - 02/03/2007 : 14:25:04
|
I am experiencing Reviewer's Remorse. I've realized that a particular review of mine could be much better than it currently is. I would really prefer if my review of World Trade Center, "Stone searches through rubble," were actually "Stone's in the rubble." Currently, it's a rather dry, albeit accurate, description of what the film is. But the new way, it's now a clever (or at least, clever to me) little joke on the director's name, while still being accurately about the film.
The choice I'm faced with is whether or not I should edit the existing review or submit a new one. It seems like they're too similar to exist side-by-side but too different to get away with calling it an edit and keeping the votes. Submitting as a new one while deleting the old one might seem like a solution, but I can't do it. I just don't believe in deleting reviews. I'll change mine and I've disowned some, but I'll never delete them.
Opinions? Let me know...even if your opinion is that it's actually better the way it is now. |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 14:35:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I am experiencing Reviewer's Remorse. I've realized that a particular review of mine could be much better than it currently is. I would really prefer if my review of World Trade Center, "Stone searches through rubble," were actually "Stone's in the rubble." Currently, it's a rather dry, albeit accurate, description of what the film is. But the new way, it's now a clever (or at least, clever to me) little joke on the director's name, while still being accurately about the film.
The choice I'm faced with is whether or not I should edit the existing review or submit a new one. It seems like they're too similar to exist side-by-side but too different to get away with calling it an edit and keeping the votes. Submitting as a new one while deleting the old one might seem like a solution, but I can't do it. I just don't believe in deleting reviews. I'll change mine and I've disowned some, but I'll never delete them.
Opinions? Let me know...even if your opinion is that it's actually better the way it is now.
Since there's no hurry ... why not submit the new review, wait and see if gets approved or declined as too similar. If it's approved, you're streets ahead! If not, then you've got a better basis on which to decide whether to delete your old review and lose the votes or not.
Make sense?!
|
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 14:43:36
|
Presumably this has been brought to your attention because I just voted for it.
The new review is not adding a pun; it's just making the same pun better. I am not sure the new review is quite as accurate, as Stone isn't particularly 'in' the rubble, but it's close enough for it to be a better review. "Stone's created rubble" or "Rubble from Stone" might be better, although you would have to want the pun to be highlighted in the latter case because of the capital S.
You definitely shouldn't submit a separate review. Boydegg's "Stone. Rubble" came after yours, so a new one would be the third Stone/rubble pun. I think an edit which in an uncontroversial way creates a better version of the same pun can keep any votes without anyone minding. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/03/2007 19:36:00 |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 19:26:17
|
I prefer the first one because it is more accurate. The director isn't actually in the rubble.
About the re-submitting, there are some problems. I had a review approved for X-Men (can't remember what it was.) It was OK but I thought I could do better and decided to edit it.
Unfortunately, my edited version was declined, which meant my original review that was already approved was lost. If you re-submit it, there is the automatic rejection function that recognizes it as something that has already been approved so I wasn't able to re-submit it. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 19:34:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
I prefer the first one because it is more accurate. The director isn't actually in the rubble.
About the re-submitting, there are some problems. I had a review approved for X-Men (can't remember what it was.) It was OK but I thought I could do better and decided to edit it.
Unfortunately, my edited version was declined, which meant my original review that was already approved was lost. If you re-submit it, there is the automatic rejection function that recognizes it as something that has already been approved so I wasn't able to re-submit it.
I am frequently editing my reviews with and without votes.
I put in the text the old review and if necessary I put "If new review not ok pls revert" so I don't lose out. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 02/04/2007 : 14:33:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
I prefer the first one because it is more accurate. The director isn't actually in the rubble.
About the re-submitting, there are some problems. I had a review approved for X-Men (can't remember what it was.) It was OK but I thought I could do better and decided to edit it.
Unfortunately, my edited version was declined, which meant my original review that was already approved was lost. If you re-submit it, there is the automatic rejection function that recognizes it as something that has already been approved so I wasn't able to re-submit it.
You should speak up when that happens. I don't believe benj ever intended for something like that to occur.
Anyway, the decision's already been made and the review's been edited. Thanks everyone for their input, especially salopian who finally prompted me to do it. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Reviewer's remorse: edit or new review?
