| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ali 
"Those aren't pillows."
|
 Posted - 05/06/2008 : 12:58:00
|
Yep - what Salopian said.
|
 |
|
|
bife 
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 14:36:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
As I have said before, I have observed that some reviewers get an easier pass for their reviews than others.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Ali can see a review rejected for himself that he is more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to a review approved for someone else.
All that shows is inconsistency, not the blatant favouritism that Ali is suggesting.
I can see reviews rejected for myself that I am more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to other reviews approved for myself.
Should I complain that my reviews are being favoured over my reviews, that I am getting an 'easier pass' than myself? 
There is inconsistency and it is a right pain in the bum. But inconsistency and favouritism are not the same things.
|
Edited by - bife on 05/06/2008 14:40:04 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 14:46:25
|
Could it be that the MERPs have a distinct bias against paranoids? 
|
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 15:04:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
As I have said before, I have observed that some reviewers get an easier pass for their reviews than others.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Ali can see a review rejected for himself that he is more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to a review approved for someone else.
All that shows is inconsistency, not the blatant favouritism that Ali is suggesting.
I can see reviews rejected for myself that I am more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to other reviews approved for myself.
Should I complain that my reviews are being favoured over my reviews, that I am getting an 'easier pass' than myself?
There is inconsistency and it is a right pain in the bum. But inconsistency and favouritism are not the same things.
I analyse subjects everyday considerably more complicated than the issue at hand. I know what I'm talking about.
quote:
Could it be that the MERPs have a distinct bias against paranoids?
No. I think they have a distinct, very human, bias against people who call them on their shortcomings. Rightly or wrongly. Needless to say, I'd opt for the former. But that's just my being biased.
|
Edited by - Ali on 05/06/2008 15:09:07 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 15:45:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Ali can see a review rejected for himself that he is more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to a review approved for someone else.
All that shows is inconsistency, not the blatant favouritism that Ali is suggesting.
Um, not from a few unpatterned instances, no, which is why I then said "If approved reviews in this category often seem to be for certain people, then Ali can reasonably infer what he has".
As I said when MERPs were brought in, it is humanly very difficult for committee members/judges in any scenario to avoid favouring each other in their decisions. The fact that it may not be conscious does not mean it doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 15:55:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by bife
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Ali can see a review rejected for himself that he is more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to a review approved for someone else.
All that shows is inconsistency, not the blatant favouritism that Ali is suggesting.
Um, not from a few unpatterned instances, no, which is why I then said "If approved reviews in this category often seem to be for certain people, then Ali can reasonably infer what he has".
Wouldn't that be affected by how many declined reviews the same reviewer has in the same category? If they are getting 100% approved where you usually get a decline, then it looks like favouritism. If they are getting 5% approved where you usually get a decline, then it doesn't look so much like favouritism.
But you can't see what declines other reviewers are getting, can you? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 16:11:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
Wouldn't that be affected by how many declined reviews the same reviewer has in the same category? If they are getting 100% approved where you usually get a decline, then it looks like favouritism. If they are getting 5% approved where you usually get a decline, then it doesn't look so much like favouritism.
That is of course true in principle, but common sense (and the cap) suggests that if someone is getting numerous approvals of a certain type then it is very unlikely that they are also getting many times that number of rejections.
Any inconsistency needs ironing out. If one gets a rejection for reason X and then responds by saying "Well, review Y (frequently the top one) contravenes X" (N.B. I am not talking about old reviews that wouldn't passs muster today), then there are only two valid outcomes. Either the review is approved or the cited review is removed. I appreciate that the MERPs probably cannot do the latter, but there should be a system in place so that Benj does it. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Title Play Confusion
