| Author |
 Topic  |
|
w22dheartlivie 
"Kitty Lover"
|
 Posted - 09/30/2007 : 02:36:07
|
Earlier today, I was just behind Alan Smithee, who had 1152 reviews, and feeling quite pleased with myself for preparing to pass him/it. Imagine my surprise when I logged in tonight and found that he had suddenly jumped to 38th 35th position, with 1501 1550 reviews and climbing.
Now I don't make a habit of complaining about Alan Smithee reviews, but it's bothersome to note that this fictious person can freely climb the review ladder and gain 350 400 reviews. I guess my question is, if someone really doesn't want their reviews, if they are so unimportant as to warrant discarding them, then why bother disowning them? Why not just delete them? I can understand the occasional disowning, but this wholesale approach is truly annoying. |
Edited by - w22dheartlivie on 09/30/2007 02:46:36 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 02:38:45
|
| Yep, there's no good reason for disowning reviews. |
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 03:07:04
|
I just gave Smithee 400 reviews. They were my 2003 ones (well, 80% of my 2003 ones) that had been annoying me since 2004. They are all of the "accolade-filler" variety, i.e., simple plot statements with no cleverness apart from some occasional alliteration, and since 2004 I have wanted nothing to do with them.
The principal reason for finally deciding to get rid of them became apparent a few weeks ago when I realised that I had NO zero-vote reviews. All my reviews had been voted on.  And many of the 2003 ones that in my view deserved precisely zero votes had as many as 10 votes (for no sensible reason that I could gather  ), and that's in spite of the fact that I haven't participated in any vote-swapping for at least a year. So I got rid of them to stop them receiving more votes, and to permanently dissociate myself from them and their style (or lack of it). BTW, I enter FYCTH with my new reviews, I haven't ever FYCTHed a 2003 review that I didn't think deserved votes, and the last one I FYCTHed would have been three years ago.
I Smitheed them rather than deleting them, as they are not my reviews. They belong to benj. Every one of those 400 reviews had been read, thought about, and approved by benj. He can now do what he wants with them. (The only reviews I ever delete are ones that in my opinion are wrong, otherwise 'bad', or for one reason would not pass through the system if submitted today). The ones I disowned are all valid four-word-film-reviews, which is what this site is all about. In fact one of them had 22 votes which suggests that some people clearly perceive it as having value. Smithee was set up precisely to stop people deleting valid reviews.
Smithee is obviously going to climb up the rankings, and the day will come when he's high enough that perhaps something will need to be done about his presence on the lists. I don't think anyone wants to see him become a bronze deity.  That's up to benj, anyway, as there could be a few ways of dealing with this. E.g., split Smithee into smaller parcels (e.g., Smithee 1, Smithee 2 etc), interfere with the ranks so he doesn't count and goes back to Movie Goer, or perhaps kneel him down and give his reviews a dose of lead poisoning etc. |
Edited by - Sean on 09/30/2007 03:28:45 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 03:16:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yep, there's no good reason for disowning reviews.
The only thing wrong with it is that some people don't like it. Other than that it's perfectly reasonable. |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 03:52:48
|
I don't have any problem with Smithee - bring on that bronzehood.
Salopian, whl - if you are worried about fairness, look at it this way. Although Alan Smithee is above you in the rankings without having written any reviews, sean is below you in the rankings (below whl anyway, soon to be below sal) despite having written a lot more reviews than you.
Edit: and you have to like this one, surely? |
Edited by - bife on 09/30/2007 04:04:30 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 04:03:00
|
| Yep, I've just gone from 39 to 61, a loss of 22 places. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 04:09:58
|
| I can understand the rationale, and appreciate the response. I am of the opinion (and was before this) that Smithee shouldn't be counted in the rankings. It doesn't reflect the work that we do to achieve our ranking. Thanks for your imput. |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 04:27:17
|
Not sure I agree though - all of Smithee's 1500 reviews were written by fwfrers, who put time and effort in coming up with the reviews (and in disowning them!).
I also think he is an interesting addition to our rankings - I browse his pages quite often, I am curious to see the types of reviews people disown and am sometimes surprised by what I find there. I have voted for 41 of his reviews (probably a proportion before they were Smitheed), and I am a pretty stingy voter.
Now I am not sure, personally, that I could bring myself to disown 400 reviews. Even my poor reviews are a part of me and my fwfr history. But each to his own - if Sean has it within himself to disown his early work, then good luck to him, and to Smithee. |
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 11:18:43
|
| I think he's interesting. He has several of mine. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 14:16:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So I got rid of them to stop them receiving more votes
That doesn't logically follow at all (although yes, they are now likely to gain fewer votes).
quote:
and to permanently dissociate myself from them and their style (or lack of it).
This is exactly what I don't think people have the ethical right to do. Why should a review stand on the site without the reviewer standing by it?
quote:
I Smitheed them rather than deleting them, as they are not my reviews.
That's just reneging responsibility for your contribution to the quality of the site.
quote:
Smithee is obviously going to climb up the rankings
This is not 'obvious' at all - he was falling in the rankings until yesterday.
quote:
the day will come when he's high enough that perhaps something will need to be done about his presence on the lists. I don't think anyone wants to see him become a bronze deity.
This shows extreme bias towards thinking that certain statuses are of importance while others are not. What difference does it make if he is a bronze deity?!! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 14:20:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yep, there's no good reason for disowning reviews.
The only thing wrong with it is that some people don't like it. Other than that it's perfectly reasonable.
Apart from the fact that it's reasonable for people to not like Smithee being above them, one should be trying to improve the quality of the site, not leave people wading through pointless reviews. This especially applies to films where the basic plot information is covered by other people's reviews. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 14:24:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
Although Alan Smithee is above you in the rankings without having written any reviews, sean is below you in the rankings (below whl anyway, soon to be below sal) despite having written a lot more reviews than you.
This is a strange thing to say. I don't care whether Sean is above or below me (especially in that ranking), but there's no reason to think that he will be below me soon - I don't submit more reviews on average than he does. I also, though, don't think he has written a lot more reviews than me - I have just done the right thing and deleted my poorest ones as I've gone along. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 14:26:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
I am of the opinion (and was before this) that Smithee shouldn't be counted in the rankings.
Yep, as I've said before, this is by far my main objection to him as well. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 14:27:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
Not sure I agree though - all of Smithee's 1500 reviews were written by fwfrers, who put time and effort in coming up with the reviews (and in disowning them!).
Yeah, so what? That doesn't make him a reviewer. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 19:50:20
|
Could we all please understand that "Smithee" is not a "him" or anything else. There really is no such person here. Yeah, I know you know, but some people seem to know and not know simultaneously.
Therefore "he" is not above anyone in the rankings. All there is is a conglomeration of dissociated reviews, and anyone who feels that this does not belong in the rankings can just ignore the entry, surely?
If Sean or anyone else does not want to delete his reviews but prefers to Smithee them, what's the big deal? It's not as if someone has just dug up your garden or poisoned your cat, is it? Nothing of any importance has actually happened.
|
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 20:19:03
|
I understand the other points of view, but Smithee amuses me. Cut "him" some slack.  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Erm, Alan Smithee proliferates??
