| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 02/10/2007 : 18:11:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Actually both reviews should be rejected as factually inaccurate. 
There's no snails featured in either film. 
You're really asking for such a mollusking 
|
 |
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 18:30:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
I tried searching the archives for the appropriate thread but was timed out.
Long story short...
There was a conspiracy theory about how all his reviews had at least 2 reviews. People bandied about ideas of self-voting etc and as Paul had never ventured into the fourum there was great chagrin and a fair amount of back pedalling when the subject of the debate made an appearance. His final word was the piece de resistance.
He changed his four word self-description to "Unfairly treated by Fourum" or words to that effect.
Long story short...
I found the Paul Bennison thread
Really interested to read over this topic, as only in the last couple of weeks I was looking at the reviews of one of my recent neighbours on the top 100 ranking and came across something similarly suspicious. I'm not inclined to start another PB style witch-hunt, but for anyone who might care to investigate the similarities are striking. |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 20:03:03
|
Here is why I don't think people should delete an identical review for a different movie.
(And I'm not saying this becuase I'm the guy with Brat out of Hell for The Omen, which I didn't know was used for other films.)
As someone who has been on this site for a year, I've come to realize that every single pun has already been used in one way or another so I think 90% of all reviews currently submitted could be declined as being too similiar. The first time I submitted a hare/hair pun or air/error pun I thought it was original now I know they are everywhere.
If I was just starting out on this website and I kept getting my reviews declined all the time because they were similiar to reviews on other movies I hadn't previously seen, i would be confused and wouldn't be on this site for long.
I know there is a problem that somebody could easily look at 1976 Omen reviews and easily tweak them them for 2007 Omen reviews.
It's something I never do.
But honestly seeing the same review I wrote for another film doesn't bother me that much. It's happened many times and I just give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt and assume they haven't seen my original (or maybe his/her's was the original).
Having more funny reviews on this site -- even if they a similiar to others -- isn't a bad thing. Humourous reviews are why I love this site.
|
|
|
|
roger_thornhill 
"'scuse me while I disappear..."
|
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 22:22:50
|
quote:
I'm not inclined to start another PB style witch-hunt, but for anyone who might care to investigate the similarities are striking.
Who is PB? |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 22:30:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
quote:
I'm not inclined to start another PB style witch-hunt, but for anyone who might care to investigate the similarities are striking.
Who is PB?
Paul Bennison. Look a few posts back to where somebody suggests an old thread. Then follow. |
|
|
|
Rovark
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 22:54:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
Here is why I don't think people should delete an identical review for a different movie.
(And I'm not saying this becuase I'm the guy with Brat out of Hell for The Omen, which I didn't know was used for other films.)
As someone who has been on this site for a year, I've come to realize that every single pun has already been used in one way or another so I think 90% of all reviews currently submitted could be declined as being too similiar. The first time I submitted a hare/hair pun or air/error pun I thought it was original now I know they are everywhere.
If I was just starting out on this website and I kept getting my reviews declined all the time because they were similiar to reviews on other movies I hadn't previously seen, i would be confused and wouldn't be on this site for long.
I know there is a problem that somebody could easily look at 1976 Omen reviews and easily tweak them them for 2007 Omen reviews.
It's something I never do.
But honestly seeing the same review I wrote for another film doesn't bother me that much. It's happened many times and I just give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt and assume they haven't seen my original (or maybe his/her's was the original).
Having more funny reviews on this site -- even if they a similiar to others -- isn't a bad thing. Humourous reviews are why I love this site.
I used the original "Brat Out Of Hell" pun for Psychomania. The same pun was later used for Little Nicky, completely co-incidentally, and it was pointed out in a thread at the time and the author duly offered to remove his one. As far as I was concerned, there was absolutely no need. My only concern really is if the same pun can be used for so many movies, it may be considered Generic. For me it has a particular relevance to Psychomania as the Henson charactor is a teenage 'Hells Angel' biker who returns from hell so the link to Meatloaf's song is even more pertinent.
And I'm not bitter that the later ones have attracted more votes than mine.  
 |
|
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 23:09:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
I tried searching the archives for the appropriate thread but was timed out.
Long story short...
There was a conspiracy theory about how all his reviews had at least 2 reviews. People bandied about ideas of self-voting etc and as Paul had never ventured into the fourum there was great chagrin and a fair amount of back pedalling when the subject of the debate made an appearance. His final word was the piece de resistance.
He changed his four word self-description to "Unfairly treated by Fourum" or words to that effect.
Long story short...
I found the Paul Bennison thread
This thread is worth reading - a bit of a morality tale. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 23:52:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
Here is why I don't think people should delete an identical review for a different movie.
(And I'm not saying this becuase I'm the guy with Brat out of Hell for The Omen, which I didn't know was used for other films.)
As someone who has been on this site for a year, I've come to realize that every single pun has already been used in one way or another so I think 90% of all reviews currently submitted could be declined as being too similiar. The first time I submitted a hare/hair pun or air/error pun I thought it was original now I know they are everywhere.
If I was just starting out on this website and I kept getting my reviews declined all the time because they were similiar to reviews on other movies I hadn't previously seen, i would be confused and wouldn't be on this site for long.
Having more funny reviews on this site -- even if they a similiar to others -- isn't a bad thing. Humourous reviews are why I love this site.
To add my two cents' worth (or is that two dollars' worth with inflation) about the same reviews for different films - I agree with the comment above that originality is hard to come by. Is the suggestion that people put in a search on the whole site for the exact review they want to submit? I usually only look through the pages of the film I'm reviewing (or a series of films in a franchise, which for me wouldn't include all Elvis movies).
Brat Out of Hell is appropriate for all the films above, and if someone comes up with that simply by thinking about the film they are submitting it for, without checking to see if other films have it, then I think that is 'original' in the context of the movie they are fw reviewing. So, I agree with Catuli in the original posting. 
I can see that the criteria for getting reviews on this site are getting harder - which is fine as the reviews need to be quality controlled. But as someone new I agree it gets frustrating when you can't seem to get reviews on that are structured like ones already on the site. You also can't be too linguistically clever in searchng for originality, because if you have to explain it too much for the MERPs it probably isn't valid for the site.  (The only time I have been genuninely annoyed by a rejection is when a review was said to be 'not factual' despite many other reviews for the film refering to the same thing.  )
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/11/2007 : 01:09:31
|
If "Brat Out Of Hell" can apply to at least 5 different films, why isn't it generic?
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
With a baseball bat
Oh yeah, oh, yeah, oho...
Now that's what I call lyrics.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/11/2007 : 07:16:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
If "Brat Out Of Hell" can apply to at least 5 different films, why isn't it generic?
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
With a baseball bat
Oh yeah, oh, yeah, oho...
Now that's what I call lyrics.
You do know that this season American Idol is having a songwriting contest as well, don't you? Keep going and get it up to 3 minutes worth of lyrics and melody and you could be a WINNER!!!!
|
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 02/11/2007 : 10:21:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
If "Brat Out Of Hell" can apply to at least 5 different films, why isn't it generic?
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
With a baseball bat
Oh yeah, oh, yeah, oho...
Now that's what I call lyrics.
Good point |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 02/11/2007 : 11:06:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
This thread is worth reading - a bit of a morality tale.
His initial response on Page 3 of the thread is classic. It deserves people who read the thread to go to Paul's pages for a voting frenzy.
His self-description shows he's got a good sense of humour too.
Not all of his reviews have 2 votes these days. |
|
|
|
roger_thornhill
"'scuse me while I disappear..."
|
Posted - 02/11/2007 : 14:29:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
This thread is worth reading - a bit of a morality tale.
His initial response on Page 3 of the thread is classic. It deserves people who read the thread to go to Paul's pages for a voting frenzy.
His self-description shows he's got a good sense of humour too.
Not all of his reviews have 2 votes these days.
Having read over the thread, I am amazed at two things:
(1) The fact that Paul was accused, tried, convicted without a shred of evidence against him.
(2) After Paul spoke up, he was immediately pardoned and restitution made (in the form of sympathy votes) without a shred of evidence having been produced in his favor.
In other words, the whole incident suggests that popularity in the Fourum is gained as easily as it is lost. Beware, Paul!  |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 02/11/2007 : 16:28:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
Having read over the thread, I am amazed at two things:
(1) The fact that Paul was accused, tried, convicted without a shred of evidence against him.
(2) After Paul spoke up, he was immediately pardoned and restitution made (in the form of sympathy votes) without a shred of evidence having been produced in his favor.
In other words, the whole incident suggests that popularity in the Fourum is gained as easily as it is lost. Beware, Paul!
What's even more amazing to me is that he was partly convicted for his lack of participation in his execution. The fourum can be a large and unwieldy thing until one has spent some time navigating it. I still get lost at times. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/11/2007 : 18:50:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
This thread is worth reading - a bit of a morality tale.
His initial response on Page 3 of the thread is classic. It deserves people who read the thread to go to Paul's pages for a voting frenzy.
His self-description shows he's got a good sense of humour too.
Not all of his reviews have 2 votes these days.
Having read over the thread, I am amazed at two things:
(1) The fact that Paul was accused, tried, convicted without a shred of evidence against him.
(2) After Paul spoke up, he was immediately pardoned and restitution made (in the form of sympathy votes) without a shred of evidence having been produced in his favor.
In other words, the whole incident suggests that popularity in the Fourum is gained as easily as it is lost. Beware, Paul!
Yep, I didn't pipe up because
(1) I was new, and
(2) I didn't see the point where PB was actually exonerated. I came to feel that his vast collection of 2-vote reviews was and is highly suspicious, but that's all it is.
I have suspected multiple accounts, or at least user collusion, on more than one occasion. But how are you gonna prove it? Therefore, sleeping dogs like this should just be let to lie, and if anybody actually takes fwfr seriously enough to cheat on it, they have my genuine sympathy and best wishes for an improving life. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Cross Pollination Similarity Decline Rule
