| Author |
 Topic  |
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
 Posted - 04/15/2008 : 00:06:25
|
Nice new feature to FWFR. 
Well, you may only see it if you have a decline.
I did. 
|
Edited by - thefoxboy on 04/15/2008 00:07:51 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 00:56:05
|
Awesome. 
It's a bit frustrating, though. Mine was a second submission for an inaccurate 'Factually inaccurate'. I explained that my review was certainly true for the outset of the film. The return 'explanation' said that it was not true by a specific point in the middle of the film, but did not allude to the middle of the film being more important. The fact in question is something of moderate importance, so to me it's significant enough even though it does not last. Stalemate. At any rate, the rejection should have addressed my explanation, i.e. it should have said '[The status in question] is not the case for most of the film' (if the MERP felt that that was a problem, which presumably they must have).
Still, it's a good addition to the process. 
Benj, can you please confirm that the MERPs are also limited to 100 characters in this? Anything else would of course not be fair. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 04/15/2008 00:56:50 |
 |
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 02:03:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Awesome.
It's a bit frustrating, though. Mine was a second submission for an inaccurate 'Factually inaccurate'. I explained that my review was certainly true for the outset of the film. The return 'explanation' said that it was not true by a specific point in the middle of the film, but did not allude to the middle of the film being more important. The fact in question is something of moderate importance, so to me it's significant enough even though it does not last. Stalemate. At any rate, the rejection should have addressed my explanation, i.e. it should have said '[The status in question] is not the case for most of the film' (if the MERP felt that that was a problem, which presumably they must have).
Still, it's a good addition to the process.
Benj, can you please confirm that the MERPs are also limited to 100 characters in this? Anything else would of course not be fair.
Why would they be limited? I hope they aren't, I want all the explanation I can get! |
Edited by - Tori on 04/15/2008 02:06:31 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 02:08:41
|
I got one too, and it asked me to explain something, and it said "please"!
All these years and I never guessed the MERPs had good manners, just like me!
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 02:23:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
Why would they be limited? I hope they aren't, I want all the explanation I can get!
Because we are limited to 100 characters in our explanations. It would be unreasonable if we were restricted to making an abbreviated case and they weren't. Our arguments would frequently seem deficient compared to what they got used to being able to say themselves, and they would get out of the habit of reading them carefully. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 07:04:39
|
Pretty cool, yes. "Could you please resubmit and explain how this applies to this movie". That really helps.
(I couldn't, so I deleted the submission.)
|
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 17:24:29
|
| I love it! Thanks benj! |
|
|
|
silly 
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 19:07:46
|
I like it, but being asked a lengthy question and then getting 100 characters to respond is a challenge  But I just had one passed after a click for details decline, so I'm okay with it 
(using Twitter is helping with my brevity, though) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 20:47:06
|
The aformentioned review is continuing to frustrate me. I gave my point about the status existing at the start of the film, only to get a response mentioning a different scene this time, nearer to but not at the start of the film, and only applying to one of the characters. (The term in question also has a double meaning which none of the responses cancel out even if they are considered valid.) 
The wordiness of the explanations compared to what we are allowed does seem to cause them to come across as a bit smug too.
Also, are we all agreed that now details of any kind can be given, there is no excuse for totally blank rejections? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 21:05:29
|
| By the way, I should note that I am testing out the new process with this review, which I consider valid but am not particularly attached to. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 21:41:48
|
I think there's every reason to be positive about this new feature, and to be grateful for an explanation.
It seems a shame that MERPs are put to this extra work only to be rewarded by being told that they seem smug. 
They're just doing their unpaid job to the best of their ability. If you can't show any appreciation at least try to show them a little respect even if you disagree with them.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 21:49:18
|
| I'm just telling it as it is. As you noted in your own wording, I just said that they came across as smug - not that they were. I'm not grateful to them for taking on the job, as I'm sure there are numerous other people who would be glad to do it. It's a privilege for them, not a burden. I also wouldn't mind if they chose to skip my reviews. Unlike most people, I don't mind the delay for myself other than in rare special circumstances. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 22:40:57
|
No, you're not telling it as it is, you're telling it as you see it, and you're doing so without any apparent regard for the feelings of the other people involved.
I sincerely hope the MERPs involved read your comments and do skip your reviews. By the sounds of it, everyone will be happier that way.
We've finallly found a good reason why MERPs should know the name of the reviewer.
|
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 08:25:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It's a privilege for them, not a burden.
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.
6. an advantage or source of pleasure granted to a person: It's my privilege to be here.
from dictionary.com
I particularly like No. 6 'source of pleasure'. I personally think that actually it is a burden, just one that they are happy to carry for the good of the community.
Members of our community are willing to give up hours of their lives to read my and everyone else�s reviews and get nothing back but complaints, smart comments, resubmissions, public and at times angry discussions on errors they may or may not have made and the occasional thanks guys, yep I call that a privilege (insert sarcastic sod smiley here!)
We should just accept that if you disagree with a decision then you have a right of reply / explanation / resubmission, not constantly start threads debating the rights and wrongs of every little thing they do, the fact that MERPs are willing to write explanations should aid you to fix errors or address them in the explanation not make them seem smug but make them seem helpful.
I am not aiming this at any one in particular and I don't want to appear angry or annoyed thanks for reading my short rant now you can do more interesting stuff again!
Josh the cat
|
Edited by - Josh the cat on 04/17/2008 08:28:08 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 10:46:59
|
I'd also like to note that this feature was added at the request of the other MERPs, not me.
When I originally wrote the site I never for one second imagined anyone would have so much dedication to helping reviewers that they would be actually willing to write feedback on individually declined reviews. As far as I'm concerned, the MERPs can write as much (or little) as they wish- it's already going above and beyond the call of duty to personally address anything and for that I salute them. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 07:49:57
|
| Well, I for one am thrilled! I just had a review rejected where the MERP asked me to explain one particular word in my review. Now, I sent that information in (after removing my previous explination), I think the review has a good chance of getting accepted. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
<Click for details>
