| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
[matt] 
"Cinemattic."
|
 Posted - 08/22/2008 : 14:28:31
|
I was just wondering because reviews containing four words as well as + and = often get approved, whereas & seems to be treated as a word, and in my opinion it's not really that different from those symbols?
I brought this up because I recently had a review declined for The Blob which was The Goo: Bad & Ugly. I thought this would be fine since I'd seen so many reviews containing + and =. (You'll have to remember I'm still relatively new.) 
Now I can't decide what works better: Goo: Bad & Ugly or The Goo: Bad, Ugly ...? |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 15:03:28
|
Yes/yes.
Those other symbols have been a point of contention in the past, but the grey area falls entirely over them and not over the somewhat similar ampersand. It directly represents a specific word and is always interpreted as such. |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 15:56:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by [matt]
Now I can't decide what works better: Goo: Bad & Ugly or The Goo: Bad, Ugly ...?
I like the first one 
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 16:26:56
|
I think they're both goo.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 17:24:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by [matt]
I was just wondering because reviews containing four words as well as + and = often get approved, whereas & seems to be treated as a word, and in my opinion it's not really that different from those symbols?
These symbols are not counted as words when used in the formula sense, e.g. Bat + Man = Batman (3 words). When used as shorthand for words they are, e.g. Romeo + Juliet (3 words). |
|
|
|
[matt]
"Cinemattic."
|
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 01:50:50
|
Ok cool thanks for clearing that up.  I understand the formula use now, and agree it's kinda pointless to allow 'word representing' symbols.
BB - that's actually the one I'd already resubmitted so glad you agree with me 
And Whipper - although your input didn't really help my decision, it did make me piss myself haha  |
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 20:50:25
|
Here's a better one for you. Apparently somebody thinks that numbers also don't count as words - see Morlock's review, probably towards the bottom of the page.
(I guess Benj was too busy contributing five reviews for this film to notice the glaring mistake.)
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=22558 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 14:03:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
Here's a better one for you. Apparently somebody thinks that numbers also don't count as words - see Morlock's review, probably towards the bottom of the page.
Fixed- cheers |
|
|
|
Sludge
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 08/25/2008 : 17:56:31
|
Matt, this is a goo observation. Even when these have somehow passed the censors, you'll notice that the voting masses will exact their own punishment by ignoring the review.
I think I have one 'gotta' which I should have reformed or dumped. Just decided to search all my reviews and it appears I already got ridda that one.
I still have this, but it's in proper context in my opinion.
Very goo Blob fwfr.
|
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 08/25/2008 : 18:55:21
|
| I just checked on the Bob Loblaw Blob Law Blog, and yes, in this case the ampersand counts as a full word. |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 08/25/2008 : 22:11:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
Matt, this is a goo observation. Even when these have somehow passed the censors, you'll notice that the voting masses will exact their own punishment by ignoring the review.
I think I have one 'gotta' which I should have reformed or dumped. Just decided to search all my reviews and it appears I already got ridda that one.
I still have this, but it's in proper context in my opinion.
Very goo Blob fwfr.
Dictionary.com lists both "gotta" and "lotsa". |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/25/2008 : 23:13:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
Dictionary.com lists both "gotta" and "lotsa".
Even if it didn't, they would definitely be fine as they are of undeniably widespread usage. Similarly, acronyms, initialisms and contractions such as shouldn't've are definitely fine.
What aren't fine are clitics applied to words which they cannot be applied to in speech. Such cases happen quite often here, and always seem to be allowed to remain. A hypothetical example is "George Bush's running scared" (in the sense of trying to mean "George Bush is running scared" rather than "the running scared of George Bush", which it technically can mean). |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 08/25/2008 : 23:55:01
|
Far be it for me to cliticize...
|
|
|
|
[matt]
"Cinemattic."
|
Posted - 08/26/2008 : 02:39:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
Matt, this is a goo observation. Even when these have somehow passed the censors, you'll notice that the voting masses will exact their own punishment by ignoring the review.
I think I have one 'gotta' which I should have reformed or dumped. Just decided to search all my reviews and it appears I already got ridda that one.
I still have this, but it's in proper context in my opinion.
Very goo Blob fwfr.
Dictionary.com lists both "gotta" and "lotsa".
Yeah I recently had a review using a similar two word abbreviation - 'outta' - which I wasn't sure would be approved, but it's had a few votes so it seems to have been accepted by most people. I'd say if it's a commonly accepted 'word' there's no reason why it shouldn't be used.
And thanks Sludge, glad you like the review
I'll let you know when its been approved so you can vote for it 
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Do/should ampersands count as a word..?
