| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 11/21/2008 : 01:22:32
|
| Could I please pay so that only you process my reviews? I am so tired of these ridiculous decisions. How does �50 sound? Sorry that I cannot offer more but that's the best I can do without really having an income! |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 01:34:54
|
Hmm, I think checking back on the old days, you'll find I was criticised *almost* as much as the MERPs are now. There's also a far larger number of reviews already approved to which comparisons for what should or shouldn't be approved will now be made.
As further evidence of this, I am still processing reviews on occaision, yet some of my decisions are still been questioned here. I seriously doubt you'd be any happier with me looking over your submissions. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 02:15:56
|
Certainly you made/make decisions I disagree with, but I did not feel exasperated as I do now. I also know that the infuriating 'Click for details'es are not from you as they are punctuated correctly.  The new MERP seems keen to race through decisions, merrily returning things with 'Don't understand' that really are not at all hard to understand. (Really. I am happy to list examples if you like.) She/he doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that she/he is using up our quotas at double speed by doing so.
Is there any way of telling what proportion of one's (recent) reviews were approved on first/non-first pass? Now that the backlog is virtually eliminated, isn't it time to consider amending the quota? I think that it should be kept, but should only apply to first submissions (and resubmissions that were originally rejected for being over quota). Resubmissions of normal rejections should not count. That way, the ridiculous rejections would just be a bit annoying - they wouldn't be theft. The normal self-imposed rule of two passes would still apply (as it did pre-quota), although there are always exceptions such as when the second rejection invites a response that the first one didn't. |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 03:08:23
|
I have been trying to stay out of these bitching threads, I promised myself not to participate anymore about 3 years ago. But you have either a short or a selective memory, Sal!
Here is just one thread from 2004, when benj was approving reviews alone. There were many, many threads during this time in which you expressed as much frustration with benj's lack of consistency as you do today.
Best Declined Reviews
Here are a few posts very quickly pulled from that thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Salopixn
This is why I advocate a 'Too obscure' reason. I have had quite a few rejections under 'Too generic' or 'Inaccurate film summary' when (objectively, I promise!) neither of these has been the case. 'Too generic' has become too generic a rejection reason!
quote:
Originally posted by Salopixn
Yup, bife's second highest review would be my second highest had Benj approved it for me when I submitted it first. Heigh ho.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopixn
In contrast, when I mentioned that I was depressed by my favourite reviews getting through, the responses were very unsympathetic. People just said to forget about them and write more reviews. Well, I am just not interested in producing a large quantity, and also I cannot just opt to forget about those ones. The fact that this is different to how most of you feel about your reviews is irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopixn
Anyway, he has rejected quite a lot of my reviews. Of those that I have resubmitted, I would say that it has been about half-half for then being accepted. I agree with Rockgolf that initially-rejected reviews do still quite often get votes. Of those which are still rejected, I *do* try to let them go, but there are still quite a number which I have kept. I may post those here later in order to gain help to do this. However, I am posting this message because of a couple of rejected reviews that I am utterly gutted about. Am even feeling quite depressed about it! Now, I know that it has been said that the decision process is not to be criticised, but I really do think these are good. The only thing is that they are a bit different and thus may not be obvious to many people. Nevertheless, I would like to think that they would have added a different flavour to things.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopixn
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Thanks for your comments, Sean- as you can see this has really started to get me down, but I appreciate your genuine intentions when beginning this thread.
O.K., I really don't want to make you feel depressed, even if I think I am right. I will make a point of not discussing rejection reasons (although I had no more to say on these anyway), at least for quite a while.
And just to prove that bife was prescient:
quote:
Originally posted by bife
On a slightly related note - we have often seen calls for Benj to hand over some of his reviewing and control function to un-named 'others'. This thread is one reason why I would be very wary of doing any such thing. At least now we are only asking Benj to be consistent with himself. Imagine how hard it would be if multiple 'review reviewers' were trying to be consistent with each other!
It's an interesting thread, if anyone can bother to take the time to read it. Both as an exercise in how destructive and unproductive this whinging can be, and in how much the site has changed for the good: there was a time when declines were automatically deleted (!), there was a time before decline reasons existed, and there was a time when we had to wait 6 months for every review to go through
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 03:24:02
|
| No, my memory is excellent. I agree with what I said then and what I have said now. Benj was quite inconsistent, but not as inconsistent as the current set-up. I've said so repeatedly. In other words, the situation was bad but now it is worse. I'd be prepared to pay to go back to only bad. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 11/21/2008 03:36:30 |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 16:21:08
|
Benj, please can you make me a MERP. Reviewers would be treated to reasons for decline such as:
'Boring'
'Total yawnfest'
'A waste of your time and mine'
'So complicated that even God wouldn't get it first time'
'I'm in a bad mood'
'I've never liked you'
'I think you probably stole it because you're not that clever'
'If you try to put this review through one more time without changing it I'm going to print it out, come round your house and ram it so hard up your jacksy you'll be picking little bits of your crap review out of your nose for the next ten years'
I'll need to know what the pay's like and what benefits you can offer before I take the role on though.
BB |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 22:35:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Benj, please can you make me a MERP. Reviewers would be treated to reasons for decline such as:
'Boring'
'Total yawnfest'
'A waste of your time and mine'
'So complicated that even God wouldn't get it first time'
'I'm in a bad mood'
'I've never liked you'
'I think you probably stole it because you're not that clever'
'If you try to put this review through one more time without changing it I'm going to print it out, come round your house and ram it so hard up your jacksy you'll be picking little bits of your crap review out of your nose for the next ten years'
I'll need to know what the pay's like and what benefits you can offer before I take the role on though.
BB
I'd hire you! |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 11/22/2008 : 00:51:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Benj, please can you make me a MERP. Reviewers would be treated to reasons for decline such as:
'Boring'
'Total yawnfest'
'A waste of your time and mine'
'So complicated that even God wouldn't get it first time'
'I'm in a bad mood'
'I've never liked you'
'I think you probably stole it because you're not that clever'
'If you try to put this review through one more time without changing it I'm going to print it out, come round your house and ram it so hard up your jacksy you'll be picking little bits of your crap review out of your nose for the next ten years'
I'll need to know what the pay's like and what benefits you can offer before I take the role on though.
BB
If BB gets to be a MERP, then I would at least get a chuckle from the rejects.
ETA: No complaints here. Most of my recent reviews have been approved. |
Edited by - duh on 11/22/2008 00:53:48 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/22/2008 : 01:39:53
|
I don't think I could be paid enough to go back. My health was starting to suffer, perhaps especially so with the repercussions of working on your reviews, Salopian. I've been much happier since taking more of a backseat, offering my forepenneth to the MERPs, pitching in on approvals whenever I can and working on the coding of the site itself.
P.S. BiggerBoat- you've got my vote  |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 11/22/2008 : 04:16:51
|
Benj spews over reviews.
 |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 11/22/2008 : 04:46:24
|
| I can't help you with review approval, Salopian, but I'll take the �50. I'd advocate for you. |
|
|
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 11/25/2008 : 02:30:37
|
If Benj won't take any money, here's a proposition: you pay me one pound sterling per week not to submit any reviews, thus alleviating the burden and shortening the delay.
This isn't confined to Salopian. I'm happy to be paid by anyone in a hurry. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/25/2008 : 10:09:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
If Benj won't take any money, here's a proposition: you pay me one pound sterling per week not to submit any reviews, thus alleviating the burden and shortening the delay.
I've written two reviews this year, so that must mean I'm owed about 45 quid.  |
|
|
|
rockfsh
"Laugh, Love, Cheer"
|
Posted - 11/25/2008 : 15:04:52
|
For Quantum of Solace, I had rejected "Bond pursues Quantum mechanics" without explaination.
I noted that *spoiler alert*
Bond seeks information on secret organization "Quantum" Also their "mechanics" or hitmen
What is wrong with this review? |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/25/2008 : 15:33:22
|
It seems to have slipped into a black hole in the system.
I think you should resubmit it with a full explanation of quantum mechanics (in 100 characters).
If that doesn't work, I can tell you how to locate the virtual wormhole which goes from the "REJECTED" to the "ACCEPTED" pile.
Of course, you'll have to give me some money... 
|
|
|
|
Beanmimo
"August review site"
|
Posted - 11/25/2008 : 15:44:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by r9ckfsh
For Quantum of Solace, I had rejected "Bond pursues Quantum mechanics" (1) without explaination.
I noted that *spoiler alert*
Bond seeks information on secret organization "Quantum" Also their "mechanics" or hitmen
What is wrong with this review?
I can see another meaning that is valid too.
And now I am bitter that i didn't come up with it myself.
It deserves my vote whether it is accepted or not |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Benj, please could I give you some money?
