| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
CrAzYnoodle 
|
 Posted - 03/20/2007 : 19:58:49
|
does = count as a word?.... noticed loads that would then be 5 words long
|
|
|
TitanPa 
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 20:04:37
|
Signs don't count as words
=
!
@
$
%
Although I don't know about the ampersand (&)
|
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 20:06:30
|
| Nope- it's treated as numerical punctuation. Strictly speaking, it should only appear in reviews of a formulaic ilk, e.g. A + B = C + D, but it's kinda' drifted into regular reviews too. I think it sort of equates to a colon, e.g. 'Tom Cruise = smarmy get.' could roughly be read as 'Tom Cruise: smarmy get.' |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 20:08:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
Although I don't know about the ampersand (&)
Ampersand is treated as a word. You can usually get around this by using a comma however, e.g. 'Jack, Jill- up hill.' |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 11:28:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Cruise = smarmy get.' could roughly be read as 'Tom Cruise: smarmy get.'
This would be a lovely review except that I guess it's generic for all the films he is in (and for all the ones he isn't in for that matter) |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 11:29:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Cruise = smarmy get.' could roughly be read as 'Tom Cruise: smarmy get.'
This would be a lovely review except that I guess it's generic for all the films he is in (and for all the ones he isn't in for that matter)
And the person in general. Hey... that gives me an idea!
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 22:48:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Cruise = smarmy get.' could roughly be read as 'Tom Cruise: smarmy get.'
This would be a lovely review except that I guess it's generic for all the films he is in (and for all the ones he isn't in for that matter)
Very true- I just couldn't think of a quick, non-generic example  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 18:02:10
|
Benj, can I assume that > similarly does not count as a word? I had one approved with three of them (and four words), but now one with only one has been rejected as over four words. Both reviews use it/them to indicate progression (though the former in time and the latter in space).
I don't have a problem with it if it does count as a word (and thus the first approval was an error) - I'd just like to know. However, my review was for 300 should you or any MERPs wish to reprocess it.  |
|
|
|
RockGolf 
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 21:32:30
|
| I tried submitting "12/25 > 10/31" as a review for "The Nightmare Before Christmas", which can be read "Christmas is greater than Hallow'een", and is also mathematically accurate. But the review was rejected. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 00:23:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Benj, can I assume that > similarly does not count as a word? I had one approved with three of them (and four words), but now one with only one has been rejected as over four words. Both reviews use it/them to indicate progression (though the former in time and the latter in space).
I'm now thinking >, if it is allowed, should definitely count as a word. Previously, it was allowable in formula-style reviews, but it really can't be classed as the same type of thing as + or = are since they have established punctuation equivalents here (+ roughly equating to a comma and = roughly equating to a colon or hypen perhaps). What I'm trying to say is that, if push came to shove, you could convert, say, 'Kilmer + Batman = big mess' into a brief sentence using standard punctuation that no-one would argue is more than four words. The same could not be said if you were to use > to mean 'greater than' or even some kind of progression symbol (which I personally feel should be -> to avoid confusion with the long-established mathematical symbol >).
So, my feeling is now that > shouldn't have a place in an fwfr that isn't a clear numeric fwfr (and even then I'm a bit sceptical). Using it (or indeed -> ) feels like a cheat to sneak an extra word or two in. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 00:39:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Benj, can I assume that > similarly does not count as a word? I had one approved with three of them (and four words), but now one with only one has been rejected as over four words. Both reviews use it/them to indicate progression (though the former in time and the latter in space).
I'm now thinking >, if it is allowed, should definitely count as a word. Previously, it was allowable in formula-style reviews, but it really can't be classed as the same type of thing as + or = are since they have established punctuation equivalents here (+ roughly equating to a comma and = roughly equating to a colon or hypen perhaps). What I'm trying to say is that, if push came to shove, you could convert, say, 'Kilmer + Batman = big mess' into a brief sentence using standard punctuation that no-one would argue is more than four words. The same could not be said if you were to use > to mean 'greater than' or even some kind of progression symbol (which I personally feel should be -> to avoid confusion with the long-established mathematical symbol >).
So, my feeling is now that > shouldn't have a place in an fwfr that isn't a clear numeric fwfr (and even then I'm a bit sceptical). Using it (or indeed -> ) feels like a cheat to sneak an extra word or two in.
I can see all that, and it makes perfect sense, benj, but R o � k G o 7 f's example would then 'convert' to "a date - greater than - another date" which should still only count as four words. Shouldn't it? Unless the decline was for a different reason altogether 
I'm assuming, of course, that the date formula [approved throughout the site in reviews mentioning, for instance, 9/11] counts as one word. Or have I missed something?!
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 00:44:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I can see all that, and it makes perfect sense, benj, but R o � k G o 7 f's example would then 'convert' to "a date - greater than - another date" which should still only count as four words. Shouldn't it? Unless the decline was for a different reason altogether
I've no idea why that was declined I'm afraid- that wasn't one of mine Certainly, given my current feeling on this matter, this review should go in by virtue of being numeric-based.
quote:
I'm assuming, of course, that the date formula [approved throughout the site in reviews mentioning, for instance, 9/11] counts as one word. Or have I missed something?!
I couldn't say. If they're entirely numeric or date-based then... probably. Anything else (i.e. including words), I'd have to treat on a case-by-case basis. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 20:43:14
|
| This is fine, although the equals-can-be-replaced-by-punctuation point is not such a strong distinction. In both my rejected and approved ones, the > can be replaced by commas too, so I've resubmitted the rejected one like that. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 23:27:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
This is fine, although the equals-can-be-replaced-by-punctuation point is not such a strong distinction. In both my rejected and approved ones, the > can be replaced by commas too, so I've resubmitted the rejected one like that.
Fair enough if the equivalent review can be reproduced without using >. I've no problems with that. |
|
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 23:54:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 7 f
I tried submitting "12/25 > 10/31" as a review for "The Nightmare Before Christmas", which can be read "Christmas is greater than Hallow'een", and is also mathematically accurate. But the review was rejected.
Is it possible the American date system flummoxed a non-American MERP - or did you provide explanation? |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
=
