| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 10/09/2008 : 03:12:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
What a slow round. 
Tell me about it. I've so far got a total of two votes from at least six people.  |
 |
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 10/09/2008 : 03:24:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
What a slow round.
Tell me about it. I've so far got a total of two votes from at least six people.
Looks like your theory on late entry in FYC may be true.
For what it's worth- I voted on one, had already voted on one, and didn't get three. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/09/2008 : 03:36:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Looks like your theory on late entry in FYC may be true.
Yep, but just wanted to note that I didn't enter late as a test -- I have just been very busy with work/the Raindance Film Festival and didn't have time to enter till then. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/09/2008 : 09:01:11
|
I'm wondering if it's because lately it's been very hit and miss whether various of the site's pages loads at all, or only after a very loooooooooooooong wait.
I'm sorry to say I often give up, and sometimes forget to try again later. 
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/11/2008 : 03:28:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
What a slow round.
Tell me about it. I've so far got a total of two votes from at least six people.
I've now got five votes across four reviews. This is much worse than I pretty much ever do, and I don't remember getting no votes on a review that had not been in the F.Y.C.T.H. ever before. As I entered almost two and a half days ago, everyone has surely had time to enter. I must therefore assume that my theory about the negative impact of pointless V&V posts was entirely correct. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/11/2008 : 10:46:18
|
Well, my theory would be that waiting until 19.45 on the Sunday to post your reviews is unlikely to maximize the chances of other reviewers visiting your selection and will therefore limit the amount of votes you receive.
And people posting V&V has little to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 01:00:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Well, my theory would be that waiting until 19.45 on the Sunday to post your reviews is unlikely to maximize the chances of other reviewers visiting your selection and will therefore limit the amount of votes you receive.
And people posting V&V has little to do with it.
This rather strangely seems to assume that these factors cannot interact. Are you really saying that if there weren't all the pointless V&V posts, people wouldn't revisit the thread when they saw that there was a new post (whether they saw so on Wednesday evening or Thursday or Friday or Saturday)? That does not seem very likely. N.B. Myself, I always check new posts to the previous round before I look at the new round, in case there have been late entries or anything else of note. (Unfortunately, the majority of the posts are always pointless V&V ones, which are no use to anybody except for untrusting people.) Of course, if someone enters one round on the last day it would be silly to enter the next one on the first day. Assuming that they have the sense to not do that, others should still look at their entry. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 01:27:22
|
I suppose I'm telling you that anyone who chooses to post on the final evening of a round is likely to miss out on votes because some people will have already posted and consider themselves finished with that round, whether they have posted "V&V" or not.
I'm also saying that anyone who chooses to post that late is unlikely to get any sympathy from me (or, I think, many others) if their reviews do not get the same consideration as earlier postings.
Instead of bitching about other people posting "V&V," which has a legitimate purpose, and expecting others to change their behaviour to indulge you, why don't you just amend your own behaviour to fit in with other people's voting habits?
To me it seems like just one more sad example of your dysfunctional behaviour which manufactures problems for yourself unnecessarily and irritates others.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 02:33:27
|
| V&V again! |
Edited by - randall on 10/13/2008 02:33:58 |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 05:34:08
|
| Even though I had V&Ved earlier, I did it again to accommodate tards. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/18/2008 : 13:23:52
|
Note to thefoxboy and anyone else who likes to whinge about such posts: If you don't want to read this, here's a crazy suggestion - don't!
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I suppose I'm telling you that anyone who chooses to post on the final evening of a round is likely to miss out on votes because some people will have already posted and consider themselves finished with that round, whether they have posted "V&V" or not.
That's the issue. The point is that without all the pointless V&V posts, when people see that there are new posts they wouldn't think "Well, I've done my voting, so I won't bother going into the thread again". They would think "Oh, I wonder what someone has said" and go and read it, not expecting it to be a new entry but nevertheless seeing it if it was. Another problem with all the V&V posts is that even if people look in the thread they may miss genuine posts amongst all of them. (For example, I had far fewer votes when at least six people had looked in the thread after I entered than I would normally get from six people even in my weakest rounds.)
quote:
I'm also saying that anyone who chooses to post that late is unlikely to get any sympathy from me (or, I think, many others) if their reviews do not get the same consideration as earlier postings.
No one is asking for your sympathy (or anyone else's, not that it is your position to speculate on that).
quote:
Instead of bitching about other people posting "V&V," which has a legitimate purpose, and expecting others to change their behaviour to indulge you, why don't you just amend your own behaviour to fit in with other people's voting habits?
It is perfectly clear that my objection to V&V posts is nothing to do with wanting votes myself. I have always objected to it in principle, and recently discussed it in detail before by coincidence I could only enter this round late. I have not often entered late and have already got plenty enough votes to not be desperate for more. I realise that for you there is no categorical distinction between objecting to something and objecting to something because it impacts on you, but please try to understand that that is not the case for everyone. Please feel free to specify what this imagined 'legitimate purpose' of the V&V posts is. They explicitly originated from people not trusting that others had voted, and the game always worked fine before such posts began. Endorsing people's lack of trust is not what I consider 'legitimate'. And no one would be being 'indulged' by people complying with the rules of the game, which the V&V posts unfortunately prevent.
quote:
To me it seems like just one more sad example of your dysfunctional behaviour which manufactures problems for yourself unnecessarily and irritates others.
We'll take this hypocrisy as intentional irony, shall we? I don't know what problems you are imagining. There are some people here whose good opinion I would rather have in some areas, though not to the extent of not standing for what is right. There are others about whose view of me I don't mind either way. Then there is the category of people whose approval of anything about me I would feel absolutely disgusted by. There is one person in that category. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 10/18/2008 13:28:10 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Sean's FYCTH #446
