| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
 Posted - 08/01/2007 : 07:17:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by chazbo
Just wondering: What's the reason for keeping a declined review in case another reviewer has a similar one accepted later?
I don't get that either. We all think we're being clever when we submit but sometimes great minds think alike and I accept the fact that if mine is declined because it is too similar to another review, it is usually because theirs was first.
|
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 08:56:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by chazbo
What's the reason for keeping a declined review in case another reviewer has a similar one accepted later?
Um, so that it can be approved instead/as well, of course. For example, when napper recently had "Bambi? No!!" approved, I resubmitted my very old "Bambi? No!" and it was promptly accepted. I have no idea whether his is still there too. If I submitted a review, it's because I wanted it to be accepted. If I wanted it to be accepted then, I want it to be accepted now just the same. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 09:00:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
We all think we're being clever when we submit but sometimes great minds think alike and I accept the fact that if mine is declined because it is too similar to another review, it is usually because theirs was first.
I'm a bit confused by your point here. If a review is declined for being too similar to another, the other was definitely* first. What we're talking about here is a review being declined for a different/no reason and then a similar review being approved for someone else. Why shouldn't the first person get theirs instead? The key point here is the one I have just given above - I only submit reviews that I actually want; a rejection doesn't magically make me not want the review any more.
* O.K., almost definitely. Sometimes the MERPs do make errors over this. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 08/01/2007 09:01:16 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 10:56:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The key point here is the one I have just given above - I only submit reviews that I actually want; a rejection doesn't magically make me not want the review any more.
Well, I don't get overly attached to many of my reviews. Of course, I was very attached to my All That Jazz review and until the MERPs accepted what they did, I went through several versions. Same thing with one of my Cold Mountain reviews, which I really wanted to be "Goodbye? Ruby Thews, stay!" (punning on the song "Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday") but they downright refused no matter how I explained it or how many times I resubmitted it, and would only accept "Kidman's Ruby Thews stays" - which I think is inferior to my original review.
But there were only about a handful of other reviews that I wanted to hold onto after they were rejected. Instead of leaving them in my rejected pile, I noted the film and review (and any explination I had), and deleted the rejection while I mulled over them until I thought I was either right or could fix it. But that's more a matter of style than a matter of different approaches.
As for the "Bambi? No!" and "Bambi? No!!" reviews - I'm afraid I don't see the point to having two reviews whose only difference is the number of exclamation points.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 11:07:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
But there were only about a handful of other reviews that I wanted to hold onto after they were rejected.
This is the big difference. The MERPs' opinions of my reviews makes absolutely no difference to my opinion of them. In most cases, I'm not massively attached to them - but I'm just as attached as when I submitted them.
quote:
As for the "Bambi? No!" and "Bambi? No!!" reviews - I'm afraid I don't see the point to having two reviews whose only difference is the number of exclamation points.
I'm not saying that they should both be on the site (just that I don't know whether they are) - but if only one should be there, it should be the older one. |
|
|
|
chazbo 
"Outta This Fuckin' Place"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 19:15:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by chazbo
What's the reason for keeping a declined review in case another reviewer has a similar one accepted later?
Um, so that it can be approved instead/as well, of course. For example, when napper recently had "Bambi? No!!" approved, I resubmitted my very old "Bambi? No!" and it was promptly accepted. I have no idea whether his is still there too. If I submitted a review, it's because I wanted it to be accepted. If I wanted it to be accepted then, I want it to be accepted now just the same.
I didn't know that was possible. It seems to me that if the MERPs accepted an initially rejected review because another similar one had been subsequently approved, they would have to decline the latter one. It doesn't make any sense to have duplicate reviews throughout the site because rejected reviews are allowed once another reviewer has had the same, or close to the same, review approved.
|
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 19:23:02
|
| Say 2 years ago I submit a review and it gets declined. I keep it in my declined pile. 2 years later someone else gets that same review passed, that I had wrotye 2 years earlier. I have proof that I wrote it first! Its in the case that Benj bends the rules a bit like he did awhile ago. I just like to show that mine was actually first and I wont huff and puff about it. Eventually the mistake will be corrected! |
|
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 23:11:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
But there were only about a handful of other reviews that I wanted to hold onto after they were rejected.
This is the big difference. The MERPs' opinions of my reviews makes absolutely no difference to my opinion of them. In most cases, I'm not massively attached to them - but I'm just as attached as when I submitted them.
quote:
As for the "Bambi? No!" and "Bambi? No!!" reviews - I'm afraid I don't see the point to having two reviews whose only difference is the number of exclamation points.
I'm not saying that they should both be on the site (just that I don't know whether they are) - but if only one should be there, it should be the older one.
Yes, both reviews are on the site for Bambi meets Godzilla |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 23:20:02
|
I don't keep rejected reviews. I resubmit with and explanation, and if that gets rejected, I might just try rewriting and resubmit. Not always, though.
When I am really fond of a review I'll post a thread about it. I still like my 'Secondhand Popemobile' for 'What would Jesus drive?' but the feedback I got suggested that it wasn't as good as I thought!
About the pale blue/white thing - I've often wanted to comment on the features of this site. The site well thought out, and I keep finding more things, like only recently I realised that you can order reviews from 'top to bottom' and vice versa (i.e. chronological, review votes etc). The IMDB link was pointed out to me a while ago - and that helps with my voting, as I'm not one for voting on a review unless I can find out something about the film. Even just little things like being able to preview your reply before posting it and so on. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 09:15:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by chazbo
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by chazbo
What's the reason for keeping a declined review in case another reviewer has a similar one accepted later?
Um, so that it can be approved instead/as well, of course. For example, when napper recently had "Bambi? No!!" approved, I resubmitted my very old "Bambi? No!" and it was promptly accepted. I have no idea whether his is still there too. If I submitted a review, it's because I wanted it to be accepted. If I wanted it to be accepted then, I want it to be accepted now just the same.
I didn't know that was possible. It seems to me that if the MERPs accepted an initially rejected review because another similar one had been subsequently approved, they would have to decline the latter one. It doesn't make any sense to have duplicate reviews throughout the site because rejected reviews are allowed once another reviewer has had the same, or close to the same, review approved.
I said instead/as well, not just as well. It depends how similar they are: they can be different enough to both stay on the site but related such that if either is valid, the other is too. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 09:28:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Yes, both reviews are on the site for Bambi meets Godzilla
This will be because MERPs approved my resubmitted review but only Benj can reject napper's. |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 21:44:13
|
I heard of Cat nappin... but MERP nappin? |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 14:18:27
|
If I've reviewed the film already then I probably let it go if not I try to rework it.
Josh the cat |
Edited by - Josh the cat on 08/06/2007 21:59:14 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 15:51:06
|
| Fair enough. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 18:34:37
|
Again, I'm wondering if that isn't the case (or you don't expect it to be the case) why would you keep a rejected review in your pile, so to speak?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Deleting your Rejects
