| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ali 
"Those aren't pillows."
|
 Posted - 02/16/2007 : 07:43:55
|
I have 196 pending as of today. I add, on average, 5 or so reviews per weekday.
|
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 09:36:01
|
I've got 162 pending. The oldest is from 11th June 2005. A lot of these are null reviews for films to add or are resubmissions for Benj.
I submit reviews when I think of them, with no regard to how long the list is. Since I almost never consciously attempt to come up with reviews for certain films, any other system would not really work. Submitting now or later makes no difference to the MERPs' workload. The only thing that makes a difference to that is how many reviews one submits in total.
I always add an explanation if I think there is any realistic doubt that anyone would get the review. |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 09:59:34
|
quote:
The oldest is from 11th June 2005.
How many times have you resubmitted this particular review? I discard all reviews that fail a second look.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 10:40:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
quote:
The oldest is from 11th June 2005.
How many times have you resubmitted this particular review? I discard all reviews that fail a second look.
So do I, as that is the rule. (I don't delete them, but I don't re-resubmit them unless the decision is unambiguously unfair.) The review in question is pending for the second time.
On this issue in general, though, it would help a lot if the rejected list specified the number of times rejected, like the pending list specifies the number of times submitted. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/16/2007 10:41:54 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 12:33:18
|
If a review I've submitted gets rejected and doesn't have an explination, then I'll just add the explination. If it already has an explination, I'll try to revise the review or make the explination better. But if it gets rejected after the second submission, I usually delete and try again with something a bit different. I see that my review for The Return finally got accepted, I think that was my fourth version of trying to pun on the famous paranormalist who shares the same last name as the star in this movie.
(No, they're not related.)
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 15:10:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
If a review I've submitted gets rejected and doesn't have an explination, then I'll just add the explination. If it already has an explination, I'll try to revise the review or make the explination better. But if it gets rejected after the second submission, I usually delete and try again with something a bit different. I see that my review for The Return finally got accepted, I think that was my fourth version of trying to pun on the famous paranormalist who shares the same last name as the star in this movie.
(No, they're not related.)
It would be surprising if they were related - their surnames are spelt differently. (Your review uses the Uri spelling.) I've voted, though.  |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 17:53:10
|
on the subject of explanations, i never add explanations when i first submit a review. i'll add one if the review is rejected. i used to put explanations on all but my most obvious submissions.
but i read a post on the subject by an older, wiser fwiffer -- animal mutha, i believe. the reviewer wrote that the explanation would not be posted with an approved review, so try to let the review stand on its own. if it needs much explanation, it probably too vague, cryptic or obscure. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 18:41:02
|
Personally I don't give explanations for first pass reviews either, as to me it seems horribly patronising.
|
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 19:02:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
on the subject of explanations, i never add explanations when i first submit a review. i'll add one if the review is rejected. i used to put explanations on all but my most obvious submissions.
but i read a post on the subject by an older, wiser fwiffer -- animal mutha, i believe. the reviewer wrote that the explanation would not be posted with an approved review, so try to let the review stand on its own. if it needs much explanation, it probably too vague, cryptic or obscure.
I feel the same way. I never explain on first pass. If I really like the review, and think the editors need a little nudge to appreciate my ineffable brilliance, I'll try again, adding some help. More often, though, it is they who make me reconsider.
It doesn't bother me in the slightest when folks explain in the FYCTH, but I don't read the explanations. I agree with mutha, or whoever it was: the reviews have to live on the site without explanation, so they oughta get some practice bright and early. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 21:56:02
|
When Benj added the MERPs, as I recall it he extended the explanation box's existence to the first submission. Before then, I think it only appeared when one resubmitted. I also seem to remember him advocating its use. I am therefore pretty sure that he endorses it.
Giving no explanation in many cases assumes that the MERPs who see it have watched the film and/or are familiar with some nationally specific culture. If they have not/are not, they then have to pass on the review or go to the hassle of doing some research. This does not seem reasonable.
I have no interest in absolutely every user getting my reviews, so therefore there is no point in having a pass test of absolutely any MERP doing so.
Explaining something on resubmission that one did not explain before only equates to wasting Benj's time - if the MERPs had been able to read that explanation with the review (if it means the review would pass), he wouldn't have to. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/16/2007 22:00:34 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 22:59:27
|
| Yup, what he said. |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 02:15:58
|
I have 133 in my pending pile. Most I've ever had was 250.
My oldest is from Nov. 11, 2006.
It seems like the approval process has slowed a lot over the past few months. *Sigh* But you can't complain too much because the site is run by volunteers. Thanks again to Benji and the Merps. |
|
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 03:11:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Yup, what he said.
I agree too. My accepted resubmissions always seem to be when the MERP has not seen the film or there is a fine plot detail that might not have been remembered. (I accept that convoluted and obscure plays on words are not valid if they need too much explanation though ).
Examples of second pass acceptances: 'Freebird' as part of my review for Elizabethtown was initally rejected for being two words (when of course it is the Lynard Skynard song in this case written as one word). Or 'Buscemi off his rock(er)' rejected for Armageddon, but accepted on resubmission when 'off his rocker' was explained as a colloquial term for 'mad'. 'Mozart murdered by madman?' for Amadeus accepted after I indicated that this is actually what is hinted at in the film (madman being Salieri) (sorry if that's a spoiler). After these I started using the explanation box more.
While a lot of people might not get 'off his rocker' many other people will. I don't find it patronising to help a MERP when they may be from another country that doesn't use the same colloquial phrases. I didn't know the phrase 'jump the shark' used to talk about TV series that keep going past their sell-by date. I therefore couldn't find the humour in a couple of Jaws reviews. Once explained I laughed and voted. 
(c.f. Does British/US Culture Confound MERPs? thread - before it became a fascinating discussion about sports culture!)
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 09:28:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
If a review I've submitted gets rejected and doesn't have an explination, then I'll just add the explination. If it already has an explination, I'll try to revise the review or make the explination better. But if it gets rejected after the second submission, I usually delete and try again with something a bit different. I see that my review for The Return finally got accepted, I think that was my fourth version of trying to pun on the famous paranormalist who shares the same last name as the star in this movie.
(No, they're not related.)
It would be surprising if they were related - their surnames are spelt differently. (Your review uses the Uri spelling.) I've voted, though.
Actually, it wouldn't be surprizing if they were related despite the different spelling. We Jews wander so much, it is no surprize that relatives have differently spelled names depending on where they ended up. Hell, my father's family has two different last names - Shuster and Stone. His father changed it from Schuster to Shuster (and my father thought of putting the 'c' back in, at one time) after several years living in Chicago. Another branch of the family went from Estonia to the UK and were given the name Stone by immigration officers there (we think it came from a misunderstanding mixed with country of origin). I've even heard of people named something difficult to pronounce (and even harder to spell) who were given the last name Cohen just because the immigration officer couldn't be bothered to figure it out.
Thanks for the vote, though!
|
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 00:58:03
|
| Zero. I haven't written any reviews for months and months and months. I'm waiting for the muse to strike again. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
How many pending reviews do you have?
