| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Yukon 
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
 Posted - 02/26/2007 : 15:39:58
|
Fine by me. I'll slow my pace and give my brain a rest for a week or two.
Hope it makes your life a little easier. And the good news is everyone will see their pending piles dwindle. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 15:59:03
|
| A suggestion that I have for another exception is films with no reviews. I feel that these are bad for the site, as they come across as really odd to casual visitors. If people could write reviews for them on top of their allowance, it would encourage them to do so and they would soon be eliminated (and therefore this would not substantially affect the number of submissions to be processed). |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 19:12:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
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. 
Wha????? No, Sean's math is correct. I can't imagine someone doing 600 reviews at a stretch and having them all be good enough to be submitted. I am shocked at that number. A long time ago benj said that he would be on the look-out for people who were gaming the system. To me, trying to submit 600 reviews at once, is just that -- gaming. Trying to climb in the standings and not really concentrating on the quality of your reviews.
I embrace the limit. And will work within it.
EM :) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 19:21:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
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.
Wha????? No, Sean's math is correct. I can't imagine someone doing 600 reviews at a stretch and having them all be good enough to be submitted. I am shocked at that number. A long time ago benj said that he would be on the look-out for people who were gaming the system. To me, trying to submit 600 reviews at once, is just that -- gaming. Trying to climb in the standings and not really concentrating on the quality of your reviews.
No, Whippersnapper was making some sense for once. He meant that just because someone might submit 100 reviews one week doesn't mean that they would do that every week.
However, my monthly-allowance suggestion would be a better way of enabling occasional surges like this. |
|
|
|
Rovark
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 19:29:46
|
Seems like a good idea.
It will encourage the likes of, well me, to concentrate perhaps on improving quality over quantity, but won't put off any newbies to the site from at least starting out.
( Is there a "Thumbs up Smiley" somewhere I could use? ) |
|
|
|
RockGolf 
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 19:44:51
|
| Limit 20 per week? Heck, you could set it to 20 per month and I'd be fine. Quality over quantity! |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 19:57:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
No, Whippersnapper was making some sense for once. He meant that just because someone might submit 100 reviews one week doesn't mean that they would do that every week.
However, my monthly-allowance suggestion would be a better way of enabling occasional surges like this.
Salopian is agreeing with me.
I find that quite disturbing. Maybe I am wrong... 
But, thank God, I'm not agreeing with him. A monthly allowance could get used up in a few days. Who wants to wait maybe 3 weeks before they can write another review? People might forget about the site altogether.
Overall, lets remember there is a big difference between writing 600 a week and writing 20 a week. 600 is clearly ridiculous, but 20 is pretty restrictive and, as Benj says, adopted as a temporary measure. It isn't supposed to be applauded as an end in itself. Let's avoid the self-flagellation.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 20:03:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
A monthly allowance could get used up in a few days. Who wants to wait maybe 3 weeks before they can write another review?
Oh dear, back to not making sense. Um, no one would have to wait. They would either choose to measure out their allowance or, if they used it up, they could choose to delete some of their pending submissions from earlier in the month and free up some allowance. (Benj has not yet confirmed that the latter is how it will be, but I am pretty sure that it will.) If you are saying that you think people are too incompetent to manage their own rations, well, that's up to you. We are not five-year-olds compelled to spend our pocket money on the day they get it. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 20:05:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 7 f
Limit 20 per week? Heck, you could set it to 20 per month and I'd be fine. Quality over quantity!
No doubt you would, but I wouldn't.
I find this quality v quantity mantra rather overdone. It does not follow that writing more reduces the quality of the output. The relationship is far more complex than that, as we all really know.
The important thing, in my opinion, is that people do not write their reviews merely to increase their standing in "total number of reviews" or just to get another accolade, but in the belief that other users might find them worth reading. If a review meets that test then its fine, regardless of how many other reviews the writer has written that day, and if it doesn't then it should be binned, even if its the only review they have written that month.
End of.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 20:08:17
|
But all people need to do is be patient. The same reviews can still be submitted later. They don't even need to keep a note of them if their allowance is used up. They can submit them, have them automatically rejected, and then resubmit them later.
Also, RockGolf has well over two thousand fewer reviews than you but only a few hundred fewer votes. Is the quality of all that extra quantity really worth it? |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/26/2007 20:10:41 |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 20:33:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
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.
Wha????? No, Sean's math is correct. I can't imagine someone doing 600 reviews at a stretch and having them all be good enough to be submitted. I am shocked at that number. A long time ago benj said that he would be on the look-out for people who were gaming the system. To me, trying to submit 600 reviews at once, is just that -- gaming. Trying to climb in the standings and not really concentrating on the quality of your reviews.
No, Whippersnapper was making some sense for once. He meant that just because someone might submit 100 reviews one week doesn't mean that they would do that every week.
However, my monthly-allowance suggestion would be a better way of enabling occasional surges like this.
But, Sean was talking at the extremes. And his logic works as well. Saying, even if you did meet your limit that still gave you 5200 reviews a year, which is a WHOLE LOT, to use the technical term.
EM :) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 20:38:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
But, Sean was talking at the extremes. And his logic works as well. Saying, even if you did meet your limit that still gave you 5200 reviews a year, which is a WHOLE LOT, to use the technical term.
Yes, true. Whippersnapper was trying to present 100 reviews a week as an occasional thing, but since he opposes a monthly limit of almost 100, he is acknowledging that people might want to submit that many a week more than once a month, which is already way too many in my book. This is why, while there is a cap at all, I don't think it should be 100 per week. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/26/2007 20:39:03 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 20:47:24
|
Hey youse guys ... wtf!
Benj has SAID what he's doing.
Accept it.
Gracefully.
A bit of grace would go a looooooooong waaaaaaaaaay around these here parts!
Benj is neither stupid nor uncaring nor unfair. He's thought a great deal about these changes, as he does about everything. Let's give this thing a chance ... HIS way.
If, after a couple of months you're all really unhappy ... that's the time to re-evaluate.
Now go upstairs and brush your teeth and don't forget you have a math test tomorrow. Oops, wrong children ... 
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 20:52:02
|
| I've only made a couple of extremely minor suggestions, which I am still sure would be good ideas. Most of the other things I've written are just responses to Whippersnapper's strange ideas, and are not against Benj's system. I am content with it even without the improvements. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/26/2007 21:01:03 |
|
|
|
Paddy C
"Does not compute! Lame!"
|
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 21:56:48
|
Brian: Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: Fack off!
Brian: What?
Reg: Judean People's Front! We're The People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front, God!
... can we agree that this is an argument not worth having?  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Announcement #1: Submission cap
