| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 02/25/2007 : 22:44:05
|
Okay, let's get the hardest sell announcement out the way first...
There is presently a near record backlog on fwfr. The MERPs, gawd bless 'em, are working hard to keep up, but it's simply not enough and, for reasons I'm unwilling to go into, new MERP candidates are not being considered at this time.
The upshot of all this is, we need to cut down the number of submissions in order to get on top of the backlog. After much tossing and turning over the issue, and as much as I hate to have to do this, from midnight tonight I'm employing a cap on the number of fwfrs that may be submitted each week.
I've looked at the average number of reviews submitted and whilst quite a few happily submit less than 20, there are some submitting a great deal more than this. Whilst this is an extreme and not typical example, one reviewer submitted in excess of 600 reviews last week.
And so, for the time being, the cap is being set to no more than 20 reviews per week. I hope this will give the MERPs the breathing room they need to reduce the waiting time on reviews and even the exposure odds for less prolific reviewers, whilst not crippling the creative flow too much.
The cap will take effect from midnight tonight and will last as long as the MERPs require to bring the backlog down to the kind of wait that doesn't cause complaints about wait times and lengthy pending lists in the fourum. All currently pending reviews will remain in the queue to be reviewed by the MERPs and will not be subject to the cap unless resubmitted for whatever reason. The 20 review allowance will last Monday 00:00 to Sunday 23:59, resetting when the GMT clock clicks over to Monday 00:00 again. Slots not used in the previous week do not carry over to the following week- this is not a mobile phone network. Once the 20 review limit is hit, reviews will automatically decline with a reason of 'Limit exceeded'.
The only exception will be new films. Since these do not add to the MERPs' burden (only mine) and these tend to be far less quickly submitted, I'm choosing to keep working the full workload for these. Please note however, if I find established reviewers exploiting this by submitting reviews against films already in the database, I will consider closing this loophole.
I'm truly sorry it has come to this. I've always wanted this to be a corner of the Interweb unaffected by flashing pop-up adverts, subscription fees, or limits to creative freedom. I now feel I have failed on the latter.
It is my and every MERP's hope this cap can be removed (or at the very least reduced) at the soonest time possible but for now it's a necessary evil.
Bring on the abuse...  |
|
|
Cheese_Ed 
"The Provolone Ranger"
|
Posted - 02/25/2007 : 23:05:49
|
WHAT THE...
  
SON OF A .....!! !!
 [2] 
Actually, I don't think I've submitted 20 in the last 4 months, so no problems here.
I support your need to do what you gotta do, BC!
(as long as it includes a new gallery and maybe a smilie or two) |
Edited by - Cheese_Ed on 02/25/2007 23:08:17 |
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/25/2007 : 23:42:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
...one reviewer submitted in excess of 600 reviews last week....
Holy F#$%!!!  No wonder there's a backlog! I can't see how the site could ever benefit from this kind of behaviour.
I totally support a submissions cap. Anything that gets the wait time down to something reasonable has to be a good thing. And anything that prevents newbies from submitting huge piles of chaff so they can shoot up the quantity rankings as fast as possible has to be a good thing, fwfr isn't an arcade game.
So, benj, I'm sorry that you've been forced to do something that you're philosophicaly opposed to, but I for one hope that the submissions cap remains in place indefinitely. Allowing unlimited participation by unlimited numbers of participants isn't likely to be compatible with the need for a quality filter (you and the MERPs).
IMO the average quality of reviews posted has taken a serious hit in the last year or so. Hopefully a submissions cap will increase quality in addition to reducing wait time. 
Disclaimer:- A cap won't affect me at all, I submit 1-2 per week. |
|
|
|
bife 
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 02/25/2007 : 23:55:02
|
Easy for me (and sean and cheese ed) to say, since we are all well below 20 reviews per week these days, but I am pleased with this. Anything that speeds up the reviewing process is a good thing right now.
Easy to say, though. I know I would have been pretty miffed if the rule had been in place a year or two back when I was submitting at well above that limit.
I hope it is only a temporary measure, but fear it may not be. |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 00:23:54
|
| Brilliant news. I look forward to seeing the upsurge in quality. |
Edited by - BiggerBoat on 02/26/2007 00:25:00 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 00:32:00
|
| Excellent - no problems from this reviewer, and well done Benj for taking an essential stand. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 00:53:47
|
Technical problem Benj: I have already got a refusal for "more than 20 reviews submitted". I have only submitted 2 reviews previously since midnight so this is obviously wrong.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 01:28:14
|
Firstly, I'm pleased and grateful that you have thought of ways to tackle the growing backlog situation. Although this is a by-product of the site's success it is also its greatest problem and it really has to be addressed.
On principle I think there should be a cap, and clearly the example of 600 in a week is vastly excessive. However, I would hope that, in due course, the cap will be far more generous, perhaps 100 per week, once that backlog becomes reasonable. Crack away you MERPs!
I want to suggest an idea which would stop some users being quite so frustrated at the 20 pw limit and also up the quality of the site reviews.
How about if the number of a user's own reviews he/she deletes is added to the 20? This would allow the submission of a few extra reviews but encourage users to delete their poorest reviews off the site, which would certainly be a good thing overall.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 01:54:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Technical problem Benj: I have already got a refusal for "more than 20 reviews submitted". I have only submitted 2 reviews previously since midnight so this is obviously wrong.
Oopsie... should be fixed now |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 03:07:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
However, I would hope that, in due course, the cap will be far more generous, perhaps 100 per week, once that backlog becomes reasonable.
You mean 5200/year? I'm not sure that anyone has ever gone at that speed, let alone written quality reviews at anywhere near that speed. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 07:09:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'm truly sorry it has come to this. I've always wanted this to be a corner of the Interweb unaffected by flashing pop-up adverts, subscription fees, or limits to creative freedom. I now feel I have failed on the latter.
I don't think you've failed at all, actually. You aren't really limiting creative freedom, you're just trying to get on top of the success of this site. This cap will certainly make people think twice before they submit just any old review for a movie in hopes of getting something accepted. That person with 600 reviews submitted just can't be submitting real quality reviews, and I'd be willing to bet that the decline rate will be quite high (which means that lots of those reviews were just a waste of time on the part of the reviewer, making them also a waste of time for the MERPs who have to decline those substandard reviews).
|
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 09:29:42
|
Benj,
I know this is something you have never wanted to do, so I feel sad that you have had to alter the way the site works to limit the excesses of the few.
I am guilty in the past(well in the past) of entering massive amounts of reviews in long sessions and have previously helped cause the backlog, again for this I apologise.
It must be serious for you to take this action and I know that you will have thought long and hard over the issue, well done for having the courage to stand up and front the issue head on.
If the cap stays then it is a shame for newer reviewers who are gonna want to get into the top 100 but perhaps steps could be taken in the future to relax the conditions to encourage upcoming talent. In reducing the backlog the processing will rise and therefore this will encourage everyone anyway.
Well done for making the stand!!
Josh the cat |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 09:46:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
However, I would hope that, in due course, the cap will be far more generous, perhaps 100 per week, once that backlog becomes reasonable.
You mean 5200/year? I'm not sure that anyone has ever gone at that speed, let alone written quality reviews at anywhere near that speed.
Eh, no Sean. That's about as intelligent as saying that having a 70mph speed limit on the motorway is ridiculously high because no-one needs to travel over 600,000 miles in a year. 
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 10:17:04
|
Don't worry about this one, Benj. It is not limiting creative freedom in the sense that that is normally (and rightly) intended. People don't have the right to have tens of articles in the same edition of a newspaper, for example.
I am very glad that new films will not count. I submit many null reviews to add films for accolades (although I am mostly up to date on these now) and that would have stopped that.
My biggest objection would be the week-by-week timescale. I really do think that the cap should operate monthly instead. It would amount to the same in total, but would allow for natural variations in inspiration. The current idea favours people who are very regular in their submissions, and there is no reason to think that that is intrinsically better.
If one deletes a pending review, does one regain the credit in one's allowance?
If one edits a pending review in a different week to submitting it, does it contribute towards the new week's allowance or only the old one?
If one (in a later week) resubmits a review that has been declined for being over the allowance, please could it count as its first submission?
Another problem that I can imagine is one thinking of a review but not being able to submit it yet and then someone else thinking of it later but submitting it first. In fact, what if the first person submits it anyway, it gets automatically rejected and then the duplicate review is automatically rejected too? If the first person doesn't think to resubmit it, then it will never see the light of day.
All in all, though, this cap seems fine to me. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/26/2007 10:50:40 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 11:10:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
The only exception will be new films. Since these do not add to the MERPs' burden (only mine) and these tend to be far less quickly submitted, I'm choosing to keep working the full workload for these.
What about resubmissions (since they do not add to the MERPs' workload either, unless the system has changed)? If they do count, do they count a second time if they are resubmitted in the same week that they were submitted? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 13:31:48
|
| Benj, could you please post about this in the F.A.Q.s? That may be the only place that new reviewers look. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Announcement #1: Submission cap
