| Author |
 Topic  |
|
bife 
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
 Posted - 09/01/2007 : 12:24:35
|
BB
I'll try to explain why I think it's a valid decline, but the others were acceptable. I think rockgolf and demonic have tried to say the same thing.
Jesus gets bloody cross - yes it is a pun, but it has a literally correct meaning, as you point out. He does get a very bloody cross. Hence approve, regardless of pun/humour content/double meaning
Mel cross-references Jesus, to me at least, has no literally correct meaning. Mel doesn't cross reference Jesus. Hence decline, regardless of pun/humour content/double meaning
I don't see approving the first and declining the second as inconsistent.
However, although I may disagree with you in this case, I do agree with you in principle - reviews are not consistently approved & declined. I don't know if that is something that can be fixed, or is inherent in a system that has different people interpretating loose rules. Look at this thread, most posters seem to agree that the review should have been declined, but it is far from a consensus, at least two think it was approvable.
Who would have approved:
Bafta
Beanmimo
Who would have declined:
rockgolf
bife
turrell
demonic
If you look at others of these type of threads, you see a similar picture - i.e. no consensus.
I do not know what would fix this - there is nothing more frustrating than getting a decline that you 'know' is wrong, except for getting it declined a second and final time - but it seems to be an inherent glitch in the system. |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 13:50:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
BB
I'll try to explain why I think it's a valid decline, but the others were acceptable. I think rockgolf and demonic have tried to say the same thing.
Jesus gets bloody cross - yes it is a pun, but it has a literally correct meaning, as you point out. He does get a very bloody cross. Hence approve, regardless of pun/humour content/double meaning
Mel cross-references Jesus, to me at least, has no literally correct meaning. Mel doesn't cross reference Jesus. Hence decline, regardless of pun/humour content/double meaning
I don't see approving the first and declining the second as inconsistent.
However, although I may disagree with you in this case, I do agree with you in principle - reviews are not consistently approved & declined. I don't know if that is something that can be fixed, or is inherent in a system that has different people interpretating loose rules. Look at this thread, most posters seem to agree that the review should have been declined, but it is far from a consensus, at least two think it was approvable.
Who would have approved:
Bafta
Beanmimo
Who would have declined:
rockgolf
bife
turrell
demonic
If you look at others of these type of threads, you see a similar picture - i.e. no consensus.
I do not know what would fix this - there is nothing more frustrating than getting a decline that you 'know' is wrong, except for getting it declined a second and final time - but it seems to be an inherent glitch in the system.
Thanks so much, bife. This is truly helpful and I am very grateful to you. Especially for addressing the nuances.
With reference  to my review - I wonder if the following might be a good resub:
Mel's Jesus's cross referenced.
Taking hints from your kind post, I shall do so and digits 'crossed.'
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 14:14:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
I do not know what would fix this - there is nothing more frustrating than getting a decline that you 'know' is wrong, except for getting it declined a second and final time - but it seems to be an inherent glitch in the system.
Wise words. I figure MERPs are human and I'm finding that sometimes it might be best to delete a review and try it slightly different with a new submission than to try to explain yourself.
(And as a PS, sorry Bafta, I might have declined it as well, and I'm not sure that the new version will get passed either, but here's hoping for you, kid!)
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 14:36:53
|
Baffy, yes, that's precisely the problem with a site such as this, which traffics in subjective judgments: inconsistency. There's no way to fix it; we simply have to deal with it.
Were I a MERP, I would probably have declined your submission as well, but I can 1% understand your defense of its original form. The fix you suggested makes the about-to-be-split hair much larger. |
|
|
|
ragingfluff 
"Currently lost in Canada"
|
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 16:06:52
|
As I read this I can feel a "Don't get me started" coming on. It seems not a month goes by without this sort of discussion. I agree with BB that there seems to be no consistency. I still have not deleted my rejected reviews on the off-chance that I decide to resubmit them and see what happens.
I've never understood why some reviews get rejected and others which are accepted seem similar. I have, for instance, had my review for the original Alfie rejected ("COCKney"). No explanation given.
My review for Grindhouse ("A Double Kill Bill") seemed apt to both the concept, structure and content of the film as well as a clever reference to Tarantino's previous film. Rejected: no reason given.
....I'm not complaining, per se, and it's not that the other reviews for these films were less clever than mine, and although there were a lot of reviews for these films that covered similar territory to mine, I could find none that was "similar" according to the MERPS definition...
|
Edited by - ragingfluff on 09/01/2007 16:14:00 |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 22:48:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
BB
Mel cross-references Jesus, to me at least, has no literally correct meaning. Mel doesn't cross reference Jesus. Hence decline, regardless of pun/humour content/double meaning
I'll add my name to someone who would have accepted. I think that Gibson does cross-reference Jesus - from different biblical and historical sources. I didn't read this as just referencing the cross. |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 00:02:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
As I read this I can feel a "Don't get me started" coming on. It seems not a month goes by without this sort of discussion.
And personally I don't think the repeated pleas for understanding and opinion of declines by a small number of experienced reviewers is healthy.
I am all for assisting a newer member of the community but public polling of MERPs actions are not helpful.
I am not a MERP and with these continual 'discussions' I would not like to be one.
If you disagree with a decline then resub with an explanation, if you need the reassurance/guidance of others then find a few that you trust and do it via pm, that is what others do.
Josh the cat |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 00:16:17
|
At risk of being chopped off at the knees, could I suggest that when these discussions are done in a nice way they could in fact help the MERPs?
If there are inconsistencies being (I repeat, nicely) highlighted then it might become a point of discussion for them. I assume (maybe wrongly) they do not sit in the same room discussing reviews as they assess them. It is probably not possible to know if there are some small inconsistencies in the approval/rejection process. It may also help to see other people's responses to either confirm or discard their own response to the review?
I therefore do not see any harm in open discussion. I feel that BB has put her point across in a balanced way, and has accepted the feedback. These discussions are informative for new fwiffers. How long does it take to become an 'experienced' fwiffer anyway? I get a lot from these discussions, and I feel that when it gets out of hand and a bit personal, or negative towards the MERPs, people self-moderate within the thread. I have deleted posts in the past based on comments that I've 'crossed the line' either within the thread or by PM. |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 00:27:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
If there are inconsistencies being (I repeat, nicely) highlighted then it might become a point of discussion for them. I assume (maybe wrongly) they do not sit in the same room discussing reviews as they assess them. It is probably not possible to know if there are some small inconsistencies in the approval/rejection process. It may also help to see other people's responses to either confirm or discard their own response to the review?
The problem is that nobody seems to accept that inconsistency just 'is'.
Look at this thread so far:
Would approve the review:
Bafta
Beanmimo
Shiv
Would decline it:
rockgolf
bife
turrell
demonic
CL
It's a 3 to 5 vote in favour of decline. Now, imagine the eight of us who have expressed an opinion are MERPS. Does the review get approved or declined? Well, depends on whether rockgolf and turrell get to it before Shiv and beanmimo.
No amount of discussing this review will help with consistency on the next review, because it isn't the rule that is in debate, it is the accuracy of the review. Some reviews just ARE borderline, and will be accepted/declined inconsistently.
The problem is obviously worse since MERPs have been on board, but even in the days when benj was handling all reviews, you could tell the mood he was in by which reviews he let through.
I share the frustration of inconsistency - I just think we should be more understanding of the inherent flaws of the system. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 00:46:00
|
I accept what bife, and others, are saying about the fact that inconsistency can't be eradicated completely.
I just feel that if people want to use Fourum to get feedback on reviews they should be allowed to - accepting that negativity towards the MERPs or to individual fwiffers or their reviews is unacceptable.
The truth is that without these discussions popping up every so often since I joined the site last September I would not have known
1. Benj and the MERPs do this out of love
2. How to make my reviews non-generic
3. Why some of my reviews were validly rejected
4. How to improve the borderline reviews
5. What the history of the site is, and why some reviews on the site might not be accepted now (thus no point in comparing my fwfrs to them)
I was also guilty of posting in a negative way about delays in approvals and queries about my reviews in an unfair way. Without having done this on the Fourum and getting feedback I would probably not still be here |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 00:46:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
At risk of being chopped off at the knees, could I suggest that when these discussions are done in a nice way they could in fact help the MERPs?
Having left my axe with my fannel shirts in my mountain hut then no chopping will happen from me.
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
If there are inconsistencies being (I repeat, nicely) highlighted then it might become a point of discussion for them. I assume (maybe wrongly) they do not sit in the same room discussing reviews as they assess them. It is probably not possible to know if there are some small inconsistencies in the approval/rejection process. It may also help to see other people's responses to either confirm or discard their own response to the review?
As I understand it being a MERP is a solitary job with little or no formal contact with one another. There was a rumour a while back that there is a MERP section to the fourum that only the MERPs have access to but that was never confirmed or denied by Benj as I understand it.
Inconsistencies happen in all aspects of life, FWFR is oner of them and there is an appeals process in place it has been improved but if people are not happy then discuss that with Benj and help the guy out by making useful suggestions on how to improve the site, I know that he is always willing to listen, acting on suggestions is another thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
I therefore do not see any harm in open discussion. I feel that BB has put her point across in a balanced way, and has accepted the feedback. These discussions are informative for new fwiffers. How long does it take to become an 'experienced' fwiffer anyway? I get a lot from these discussions, and I feel that when it gets out of hand and a bit personal, or negative towards the MERPs, people self-moderate within the thread. I have deleted posts in the past based on comments that I've 'crossed the line' either within the thread or by PM.
I have no doubt that some of the discussions are useful and some good comes out of them, but, the discussions are repetative and happen far to often.
I am of the opinion that it is probably better not to question to much the decisions of those that enable to site to run. It is only by the selfless actions of the few (MERPs) that the majority can have their fun.
I am not ranting I am merely giving my opinion which is what these sort of threads are about. If I have annoyed or upset that was not my intention I merely ask that we think about what we post and the effects of what we post before we post it.
Josh the cat |
Edited by - Josh the cat on 09/02/2007 00:47:18 |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 01:01:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Josh_the_cat
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
At risk of being chopped off at the knees, could I suggest that when these discussions are done in a nice way they could in fact help the MERPs?
Having left my axe with my fannel shirts in my mountain hut then no chopping will happen from me.
|
|
|
|
The General 
"Forty? What? Me? How?."
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 01:13:42
|
BB, every once in a while I have a review declined, even after multiple resubmits, that I think should be accepted. It's the inconsistency that Bife cites and just the nature of the site.
I curse the reviewers at those times, but then I recall that they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and just doing the best they can.
Personally I like your review.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 02:44:22
|
Editorial inconsistency is a fact of life here. I don't believe there's anything that can be done about it. Even after two pages of discussion there is no consensus on that review. 
Years of these kinds of threads haven't improved editorial consistency IMO. Although they certainly are useful for newbies for pointing out where they went wrong.
MERPs obviously need to make subjective line-calls on a regular basis on a site where users specialise in breaking rules. I don't believe consistency is possible.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 07:56:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Josh_the_cat
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
As I read this I can feel a "Don't get me started" coming on. It seems not a month goes by without this sort of discussion.
And personally I don't think the repeated pleas for understanding and opinion of declines by a small number of experienced reviewers is healthy.
I am all for assisting a newer member of the community but public polling of MERPs actions are not helpful.
I am not a MERP and with these continual 'discussions' I would not like to be one.
If you disagree with a decline then resub with an explanation, if you need the reassurance/guidance of others then find a few that you trust and do it via pm, that is what others do.
Josh the cat
Well, yes and no. I don't think that even some of the "experienced" reviewers here always understand what they did wrong when they get a review rejected. And as Shiv says, these discussions do help newer reviewers - I can also attest that they helped me when I first started as well.
It is, however, very important HOW the person opens up the discussion.
Bafta was baffled, and got some good feedback on why people thought the review was declined, as well as some ideas on how to improve the review. I see nothing wrong with this. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Help please
