| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 04/19/2008 : 13:31:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by CankleFetish
I dunno who the new Merp is(and yes, I believe there's just one)
Not very likely, since two approvals are needed for every review.
I'm not so sure about this now. Does anyone else think that Benj may have changed the process to needing only one MERP's approval? It's just that it seems unlikely that two (or more) new MERPs would be concentrating their efforts on the most recent submissions (which is overwhelmingly the case at least for me now, and never has been before) unless Benj had told them to, which would be extremely bizarre.
Personally, I'd rather wait (even much) longer and have my reviews processed in as close to chronological order as possible. I don't really like having reviews approved for films when I have older reviews pending for the same films. (It is quite clear from the pattern that it is not that the older ones are still waiting because they are less unambiguously acceptable.) As I've said before, when Benj or the MERPs look at any review, shouldn't they consider all pending reviews for the same film at the same time? This is especially the case as it has frequently been the case that earlier reviews get rejected as 'Too similar...' even if one writes a message along the lines of 'This review is OLDER than "..."' and also reports the newer review. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 04/21/2008 19:12:28 |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/19/2008 : 14:52:36
|
I thought that some long time ago Benj said there was a quick-track process available for reviews to be accepted by one MERP where appropriate - I assume where a MERP cannot see any reason another MERP could possibly object.
Regardless, I'm of the opinion that there are better things to do in life than ponder the minutiae of the MERPing process. Benj will tell us what he wants us to know and that's fine by me. Most of us are simply delighted that the process is working much quicker than previously and waiting times for first-pass reviews are pretty acceptable.
I still have problems with second-pass reviews, and my oldest are over a year old, so it would be nice if some consideration were given to that issue. 
Meanwhile, my SYRIANA review has been approved on appeal, so, should you want the "privilege" of voting for it you may press HERE
|
|
|
|
Canklefish
"Let's Get OUTTA Here!"
|
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 06:23:58
|
I'm currently rockin' the 2(new) Merp strategy, as I've noticed a propensity for some denied reviews to come back, 'too generic' and others to read, 'click here'(which I still find disturbing on an 'I don't need my God to speak to me directly' theme).
Personally, and this has nothing to do with who the new Merp/Merps actually is/are... I'm pleased to see my reviews, especially the ones I wrote minutes before acceptance, being accepted/denied at an astounding rate. Finally, and most importantly, the weekend is no longer boring, as I was accustomed to waiting for Monday to see if I wrote some reviews that would pass muster. And, as for the order in which they are approved...
I don't care so much... I actually enjoy having a back-log, some reviews that sit idle for months at a time, waiting for approval or denial, as I personally ponder their worth.
I've, scratch that, My reviews have been treated so fairly to this date, that I can't imagine a more ideal scenario for closure. Accept or deny my reviews, I usually agree with the verdict, and then compensate accordingly.
I'm a big fan of whatever is giving me 10+ accepted/denied reviews/day, as I severely need to make my 'submissions' pile more Curt...
In short, I now believe a 'more than one' Merp scenario to be more accurate than my initial '1 Merp' theory, though the numbers and jury may still be 'out.' I'm flexible and dynamic in my beliefs, which is why I should probably run for public office, albeit a low-level position...
Go Red Wings, that'll never change! |
Edited by - Canklefish on 04/20/2008 06:49:19 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 11:08:58
|
re: reviews processed chronologically -- I tend to agree, and I've said before I wish there were a way to do this as a matter of course. Actually, for a while there - dunno, some 8-9 months ago I think - it was happening. At least for me.
But that's gotta be something to do with the way benj has programmed the back-stage area. Well, that's my guess anyway. And, at this point, with the backlog benj has recently indicated ... I say, the lad's got enough on his plate at the minute. [But I know what's on my wish list for future tweaks!!!]
Meanwhile, as many have remarked, approval/decline times have improved so much lately which everyone agrees is A Good Thing.
YAY BENJ! YAY FWFR!!!
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 11:49:10
|
| The only problem with these lightning-fast decisions is that I have no idea when I'm about to hit the weekly limit any more. But I will trade that tiny inconvenience to avoid the former experience [which some of you have never known] of waiting months for a decision. Whatever you did, benj, it seems to be working! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 19:11:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
In general, there is a big problem on this site with precedents not being followed. Reviews entirely equivalent to approved ones are rejected all the time. If the said precedent is deemed to have been a mistake, it should be promptly declined.
For example, since posting this I have had a review declined because it referred to a species that was not the one in the film but a closely related one. In my head I know of tens of reviews of this type (including for the well-known same film, with the same well-known species) and so would be surprised if there were not hundreds altogether. Now, I would be quite happy with the rejection if it were not for the plethora of such examples. Further, as I don't like this sort of thing (I obviously slipped in this case), I have repeatedly mentioned this inaccurate use of species (amongst other equivalent categories) as being a problem. Since Benj has not replied saying "Yes, those reviews are not acceptable - we must remove them" on any occasion, I'm not really clear as to how the MERPs can be of the view that they are against site policy. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 19:15:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I thought that some long time ago Benj said there was a quick-track process available for reviews to be accepted by one MERP where appropriate - I assume where a MERP cannot see any reason another MERP could possibly object.
I did not know about that. Thanks for the info.
quote:
Most of us are simply delighted that the process is working much quicker than previously and waiting times for first-pass reviews are pretty acceptable.
And I'm happy for those people. But speed just isn't important to me, especially when there is the occasional massive complication from lack of chronology. (There was that case when I had to submit the same older review about twenty times.) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 19:18:22
|
| I forgot to add another key reason I would prefer chronological order. I frequently improve my reviews while they are pending, often mulling them over on the way home from the Internet cafe. Some of them miss the editing boat now. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 02:10:12
|
| And another reason is that I sometimes submit the good version of a review first and a blander, safer back-up version afterwards. Some of the latter have now been approved and I am worried that the former will get rejected as 'too similar'. |
|
|
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 05:53:40
|
The chronological rule sounds good on cyber - but I have noticed that the reviews that get quick decisions tend to be popular / accessible reviews and those that take longer tend to be more obscure - so you may have some older reviews that are more obscure but you can't expect the MERPs to watch every obscure movie norder to judge your effort (can you?).
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 10:59:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
The chronological rule sounds good on cyber - but I have noticed that the reviews that get quick decisions tend to be popular / accessible reviews and those that take longer tend to be more obscure - so you may have some older reviews that are more obscure but you can't expect the MERPs to watch every obscure movie norder to judge your effort (can you?).
No, it's nothing like that. Literally my very latest reviews were being processed, even though older pending reviews for the same films were in numerous cases just as clear-cut. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/04/2008 : 03:44:15
|
I cannot find where I posted about two issues that still need answering - (i) whether a review should be too 'generic' if it refers to a topic for which one film is overwhelmingly the one, however many others there could in theory be, and (ii) whether a review can be generic if it features a not-very-common name that is also in the title of the film.
I was looking for the post to note that in response to my resubmission comment that there don't seem to be any other major characters with that name, the reviews were just rejected blankly. It is rather frustrating. If the first rejection reason given is disproven, I really think a review should get a proper reason if it is still rejected. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 00:39:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
The chronological rule sounds good on cyber - but I have noticed that the reviews that get quick decisions tend to be popular / accessible reviews and those that take longer tend to be more obscure - so you may have some older reviews that are more obscure but you can't expect the MERPs to watch every obscure movie norder to judge your effort (can you?).
No, it's nothing like that. Literally my very latest reviews were being processed, even though older pending reviews for the same films were in numerous cases just as clear-cut.
I should note that this seems to have improved now. I would still prefer full chronological processing, but most of my older clear-cut cases seem to have been seen now. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 00:41:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
In general, there is a big problem on this site with precedents not being followed. Reviews entirely equivalent to approved ones are rejected all the time. If the said precedent is deemed to have been a mistake, it should be promptly declined.
For example, since posting this I have had a review declined because it referred to a species that was not the one in the film but a closely related one. In my head I know of tens of reviews of this type (including for the well-known same film, with the same well-known species) and so would be surprised if there were not hundreds altogether. Now, I would be quite happy with the rejection if it were not for the plethora of such examples. Further, as I don't like this sort of thing (I obviously slipped in this case), I have repeatedly mentioned this inaccurate use of species (amongst other equivalent categories) as being a problem. Since Benj has not replied saying "Yes, those reviews are not acceptable - we must remove them" on any occasion, I'm not really clear as to how the MERPs can be of the view that they are against site policy.
This review has been rejected again as 'Inaccurate', but without an individual message this time. The only thing that is inaccurate about it is the species, which as I've said appears in several other reviews for the same film.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 18:22:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
"Arseholes are souls?" - I defy anyone to be overwhelmed by choices as to which film about an apparently living rectum this could be. In contrast, the newer and highly equivalent "Anus with an animus" has been approved (and voted on by me).
This has been rejected again. O.K., let's try to assess the distinction between my rejected review (A) and the cited approved one (B).
B is a statement about this particular instance of the bodypart, whereas A 'asks' in surprise whether this instance's characteristic applies to general instances of the bodypart. That is a difference of tone, but the semantic content is not different and rhetorical questions of that type are perfectly common here. Not a significant difference.
B uses to have while A uses to be. A is thus marginally less standard in this way, but soul is widely used to refer to individuals (even those not generally considered to have souls - "That kitten is a sweet little soul"). Not a significant difference.
An animus is an animating spirit. Whatever soul means, it's something along those lines. However, animus has a related but distinct meaning of animosity. This gives napper's review a nice double meaning that I was not previously aware of, but double meanings are not a requirement of reviews. Soul is also closer to conscience, but not to the extent that evildoers are supposed not to have souls. A slight difference in B's favour.
A rectum is not the same as an anus. A slight difference in A's favour.
I have detailed all this to highlight the issue of precedents being neither followed nor retrospectively rejected.
|
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 05/06/2008 22:59:13 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Benj - Is there a new MERP out there or something?
