| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tori 
"I don't get it...."
|
 Posted - 05/03/2007 : 19:29:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
We'll disagree on this. If I were a MERP, I would decline it.
That said, did you ever get explanations for declines? I've only been on this site for a few months and I've practically never gotten a reason. Did this use to be common practice or what?
I guess it's a little reassuring to know that I'm not being singled out for the silent treatment. But ultimately, the problem still remains: they're either declining reviews for reasons OTHER than the rules set up by the guy that hired them, or they're not using the tools he created for them to inform us of which rules they're citing when making declines. Either way, is it really too much to ask that my concerns at least be ACKNOWLEDGED by someone, if not actually addressed? This is the fourth time I've brought this up over several months.
I get declines with no reason all the time. It hasn't concerned me. That is when I resub with an explanation or a bribe.  I trust the MERPs and I trust Benj (who is getting MARRIED so give him some slack, kay?) :) and I don't think he would let the MERPs ruin his baby. |
 |
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 00:02:22
|
Just for the record, since the beginning of this year I am getting reviews rejected without an explanation too. I'd say half the time I just let it slide because I can find fault in the reviews for myself. The other half I resubmit.
Sometimes the resub gets approved immediately. But, many of my resubmissions have been sitting there for months, which I understand to mean that more than one MERP will get to assess it because of whatever issue the first MERP found wrong with it. I think this is fair (if this is in fact what is happening) and understand this will take longer.
But I agree that it's hard to fix what's wrong if you don't know what's wrong. If I had an explanation I would be able to let go of my unnatural attachment to these reviews and find a way of reworking them
I will agree to disagree with MBI too - I think your original review was good. I hope your revamped review gets approved - and gets lots of votes
On the 'don't understand' topic - when I find reviews for films that I don't understand, I look on IMDB first to see if there's a clue in the summary of the film. If I still don't get it, I ask. In regard to this review, I would have guessed that 'wu'd' was significant, and asked.
In support of the MERPS, I can imagine the big backlog means processing reviews as quickly as possible. It would be good to get an answer as to why so many are being rejected without explanation, though.
|
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 01:00:42
|
| Married? I had no idea. He should have announced that, too! That certainly makes this far less important. Anyway, I've already tweaked it and resubed. |
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 01:18:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Married? I had no idea. He should have announced that, too! That certainly makes this far less important. Anyway, I've already tweaked it and resubed.
What else is it that you think should have been announced? |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 01:42:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
"Bad" is NOT supposed to be a decline reason. If editors are now acting as critics, benj never bothered to announce that. And since I've repeatedly expressed concerns that that is precisely what's happening, I find it exceedingly troublesome that nobody has ever bothered to tell me that I'm wrong.
One decline reason that benj has mentioned in the past that is not covered in the reasons we can be given, is the "few will ever understand this without the explanation" reason. I.e., benj has said in the past that readers of the review are supposed to have some kind of chance at understanding a review when it stands alone; reviews are supposed to work independent of any explanation that you've given the MERPs. So, the MERPs can't decline it as "Don't Understand" as they now understand it having read your explanation, but they perhaps don't agree that others will be able to understand it when it's on the site. Hence it gets declined with no reason. I for one have never heard of the Wutang Clan so would never have understood it.
In the pre-MERP days I recall benj had many different decline reasons, (I think there was about 10), but they caused so much aggravation among some users that he cut them back to 3-4 reasons. Some users simply didn't agree with the reason given and the decline reason gave them something to argue about, hence the "decline without reason" option being kept open.
If for example a "not enough people will understand this" decline reason was created, I can see people re-submitting with indignant explanations such as "of course it's understandable, anyone in Australia would get this one!" etc etc. So benj is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't on this one, I suspect. |
Edited by - Sean on 05/04/2007 02:12:44 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 04:50:24
|
Another reason for decline that doesn't have a 'specified' reason would be something like "2005 Best Picture winner". It's not a dupe, not generic, not inaccurate and yet it's no good. Benj doesn't want this kind of thing on the site if I remember rightly (as it's not related to the movie, it relates to something that happened as a result of the movie being made), so it would be declined without reason. I suppose something like "Irrelevant" or "Nothing to do with the actual movie" would sum up this decline reason.
I'd guess there could be any number of decline reasons created that don't currently exist; I can only remember seeing five:- Inaccurate, Generic, More than 4, Don't Understand, Dupe, although there used to be more than this. Some others not specified could be:-
Unintelligible to the masses.
Irrelevant.
Trivial?
Shite. 
Perhaps some others could add some decline reasons in no more than four words as food for thought? |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 07:09:42
|
Sean - thanks for setting out the explanation about no explanations above It's really important 'newer' fwiffers keep getting this 'historical' information. I know it is frustrating sometimes for older fwiffers to keep going over old ground, so it's nice when someone gives the time to 'talk' us through it!
Anyway, in regard to your 'challenge' above
quote:
Perhaps some others could add some decline reasons in no more than four words as food for thought?
Here is a list of my reviews that got rejected with no explanation. Some of them have now been accepted. Without looking at my page, can you say why they got rejected, and identify which are now approved
The other factor, of course, is the explanation that the MERPs ended up getting (some of which must have prompted the approvals, but in some cases the same explanation was given both times, but the review was approved on the second pass! Different MERP I assume.)
I'll provide explanations on request.
I won't be offended if Sean's 'trivial' and 'shite' explanations are how you would explain the rejection
Kairo - UnPulsating Japanese techno-horror
What Would Jesus Drive - Secondhand Popemobile
Tenebre - Franciosa gets killer review
Chaplin - Dances with Rolls
Armageddon - Buscemi off his rock(er)
Superman Returns - Reeves lookalike resurrects franchise
Amadeus - Mozart murdered by madman?
The following were declined with 'don't understand'
Ikiru - Watanabe: underdog dies, wins
Grosse Point Blank - Television caught in crossfire!
This one with 'over four words'
Elizabethtown - Fiery rendition of Freebird
Both these were accepted with my explanations - and of course the MERPs explanations helped me know what to explain!! Two of them have now been approved, one is still in my pending list waiting for someone to give it some love (although based on responses here I might give up on it)
|
Edited by - Shiv on 05/04/2007 07:24:55 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 08:54:23
|
| I don't mind not getting decline reasons sometimes, but I would much prefer it if it went back to the previous system of Benj being the only person who looks at re-submissions. This would enable more consistency than is currently the case. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 09:39:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Perhaps some others could add some decline reasons in no more than four words as food for thought?
This was meant to be a suggestion that others try to put the fwfr rules into a list of concise decline reasons. quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Kairo - UnPulsating Japanese techno-horror
Looks fine.quote:
What Would Jesus Drive - Secondhand Popemobile
This looks wrong. I doubt the nuns would think that Jesus would approve of a gas-guzzler like that. Change it to "Secondhand Popemobile? No way!" and it might be accurate. Of course it doesn't help that most who've reviewed this don't know what it's about.quote:
Tenebre - Franciosa gets killer review
Chaplin - Dances with Rolls
Ain't seen these.quote:
Armageddon - Buscemi off his rock(er)
Could be OK. He was his normal weirdo self and was on a rock for a while that he left at some stage. I think?quote:
Superman Returns - Reeves lookalike resurrects franchise
If whoever is Superman looks like Reeves then I'd guess it's OK?quote:
Amadeus - Mozart murdered by madman?
Hmmm, I can't remember this being suggested in the movie, was it?quote:
The following were declined with 'don't understand'
Ikiru - Watanabe: underdog dies, wins
Looks fine.quote:
Grosse Point Blank - Television caught in crossfire!
No idea.quote:
This one with 'over four words'
Elizabethtown - Fiery rendition of Freebird
Dunno this flick, but if you mean Lynyrd Skynyrd's song then it's "Free Bird" so the review is 5 words. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 10:01:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Chaplin - Dances with Rolls
Hiya ... just a footnote to Sean's comprehensive message:
Actually, Chaplin does the bread-dancing routine first in The Gold Rush - so there's room for confusion.
|
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 10:46:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Perhaps some others could add some decline reasons in no more than four words as food for thought?
This was meant to be a suggestion that others try to put the fwfr rules into a list of concise decline reasons.
Yes - and I was offering up my reviews for people to play with and test run decline reasons on without prejudice But thanks for your responses to my reviews! You have helped me work out why some of them are being declined.
Secondhand Popemobile - I was under the impression it was electric, so I got that wrong. (The secondhand bit was because he would be taking it off the Pope since the Pope was standing in for him anyway). You are right that other reviews name gas guzzlers too - do you think that makes them inaccurate reviews? I love Lamborghini of God, for example. I believed that my review looked like a lot of other people's - an answer to the question in the title. Looks like I should let this one go.... (I did post about this a little while ago, but then decided it wasn't worth bothering people with)
Mozart murdered by madman? - Isn't the hidden implication of the film that Salieri poisoned Mozart through jealousy? In the film, Abraham certainly plays Salieri as increasingly 'mad' towards the end. This was accepted after I gave the explanation (and pointed out that other reviews referenced this).
Fiery rendition of Freebird quote:
Dunno this flick, but if you mean Lynyrd Skynyrd's song then it's "Free Bird" so the review is 5 words.
Yes, it was rejected the first time for that reason - but I was able to provide evidence that it is also written Freebird, so someone let it through the second time. If you think this is unfair (because the original albums have it as Free Bird), please speak up and I will remodel it into 4 words and resubmit
Television caught in crossfire! In the shootout at the end of the film between Ackroyd and Cusack the television gets caught up in the action. This is my memory of the film. Anyone know if I am remembering this wrong? This is still in my pending, so you have probably put your finger on the problem. Too obscure. Perhaps this kind of review should have a What The Hell! rejection explanation
|
Edited by - Shiv on 05/04/2007 10:47:52 |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 10:59:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Chaplin - Dances with Rolls
Hiya ... just a footnote to Sean's comprehensive message:
Actually, Chaplin does the bread-dancing routine first in The Gold Rush - so there's room for confusion.
Thanks, oh knowledgeable one I will transfer this (after checking to make sure someone hasn't used this already) - I never thought about the confusion between the films with Chaplin doing this, and this biopic. I just assumed it was actually a 'don't understand' rejection, and resubmitted with an explanation.
I'm beginning to formulate that the 'no explanation' rejection is Not Quite There, Rethink or Doesn't really match film . (i.e. less absolute than Inaccurate , which is perhaps what you more experienced fwiffers are trying to explain to us )
EDIT: HURRAY FOR ROVARK He got there with Dances With Rolls for Goldrush 4 years ago. Thanks BaftaBabe, if you hadn't made your comment I would never have known this. I shall delete this pending review forthwith...(and go voting on Rovark's pages in celebration).
|
Edited by - Shiv on 05/04/2007 11:14:27 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 12:11:06
|
This is a great example of how useful it would be if the system warned us when we were submitting a review for one film which had already been submitted for another film.
I'm hoping that Benj will manage to get this feature up and running before the end of his honeymoon, and might even be done earlier if he can sneak off for a couple of hours during the wedding reception.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 12:57:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Secondhand Popemobile - I was under the impression it was electric, so I got that wrong. (The secondhand bit was because he would be taking it off the Pope since the Pope was standing in for him anyway). You are right that other reviews name gas guzzlers too - do you think that makes them inaccurate reviews? I love Lamborghini of God, for example. I believed that my review looked like a lot of other people's - an answer to the question in the title. Looks like I should let this one go....(I did post about this a little while ago, but then decided it wasn't worth bothering people with)
This is a case of a "gag" movie; i.e., a movie with no info at IMDb, so users make their own interpretation as to what the movie might be about solely from the title, and 'review' accordingly. It really comes down to whether benj wants the reviews on the site or not. Some of them can be funny. But if the title of that documentary was changed to something like "Christians For Responsible Consumption Of Oil Reserves Through Fuel-Efficient Vehicles" then many of those reviews would become totally meaningless. Hence it doesn't make sense to worry about 'lateral' 'reviews' that are declined.quote:
Mozart murdered by madman? - Isn't the hidden implication of the film that Salieri poisoned Mozart through jealousy? In the film, Abraham certainly plays Salieri as increasingly 'mad' towards the end. This was accepted after I gave the explanation (and pointed out that other reviews referenced this).
Wiki suggests that some suspect he was poisoned, so I guess you're right and the review was correctly passed second time. quote:
Fiery rendition of Freebird quote:
Dunno this flick, but if you mean Lynyrd Skynyrd's song then it's "Free Bird" so the review is 5 words.
Yes, it was rejected the first time for that reason - but I was able to provide evidence that it is also written Freebird, so someone let it through the second time. If you think this is unfair (because the original albums have it as Free Bird), please speak up and I will remodel it into 4 words and resubmit.
My CD has it as "Free Bird" but Skynyrd's website shows it as "Freebird" so that's the end of that. Correctly passed second time again.
This tends to sugggest the system works. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 13:07:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Married? I had no idea. He should have announced that, too! That certainly makes this far less important. Anyway, I've already tweaked it and resubed.
What else is it that you think should have been announced?
Evidently, I need to announce when I'm making a joke.  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
What's wrong with this review?
