| Author |
 Topic  |
|
[matt] 
"Cinemattic."
|
 Posted - 03/09/2009 : 01:42:13
|
Benj,
I truly hate to complain, but I'm almost constantly getting no reason given when I get declines, and it's really annoying me! 
I've just had 13 declines in one go (most of which I cannot see anything wrong with), only 1 of which has a reason! ("Don't understand".)
But the even more annoying thing is, I actually included explanations for all the reviews which could possibly need them, so as to avoid any problems.
Please can you make the MERPs at least give reasons, because it's really frustrating (especially since that's over half of my submissions declined, which will now have to take up most of this week's slots in resubmissions).
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 02:40:39
|
I think it's O.K. for declines to sometimes be blank, as some reviews are a bit borderline in a variety of ways, so that in total a rejection might be reasonable that wouldn't have been based on any single area.
However, this applies to far fewer cases than get blank declines. Some reviews get this which seem obviously good on every level. More get it which are fine on every level -- I do think that MERPs for example sometimes reject reviews when they don't get the pun. As I've menioned before, though, they don't need to get it: they can just judge the review on a literal basis.
Another ongoing problem is rejection reasons which are inexplicable. As has been mentioned several times, they often given "Title play only" when this is patently not the case. Either the title describes the whole film, the review is title play but comments on the film (cf. Benj saying that things like my "Hopefully also last 'Sunday'" for First Sunday are fine) or, worst, the review bears no conceivable relationship to the title at all. "Don't understand" is similarly frequently hard to understand, either because the content of the review is so obvious or an explanation has already been provided. It seems that the MERPs again sometimes apply this when they actually mean "Don't understand the pun", which is not a valid rejection reason if the direct meaning of the review is clear and appropriate.
After I asked about it Benj recently said something along the lines that the history of a review's comments would probably be visible to the MERP. However, either this is not the case or they are ignoring it. I have had one review going round and round for a long time. It includes a very long medical term. Because of this, when it was initially approved after I had proved it valid, the review was cut short. I therefore resubmitted a minor variation with the comment 'Approved as "..."' But then they asked what it meant again, so due to the 100-character limit I had to remove the evidence that it had already been approved and explain that again, and it's been going backwards and forwards like that for ages. I've asked this before but never got an answer -- if a review has a minor amendment, shouldn't the MERP just respect the previous MERP and not overturn their decision?
On a related note, even individual MERP comments often contain too much to respond to in 100 characters. For example, I have recently had one rejection that said that part of my comment was untrue and that a character's trait that I described in the other part applies equally to the other characters. In my response, I ideally need to say that the first part was true, give my proof, point out that even if it weren't and the MERP's minor variant were correct it would make no difference to the review, refute that the trait applies to most of the characters equally and point out that my review made no claim as to this anyway. It's just not possible!
I've just checked and of my last 26 rejections (not counting being over quota), I've been given only one reason -- a "Don't understand" that I don't understand. Most of them seem totally unproblematic to me. I especially don't understand some of my Bollywood rejections, given that the hopelessly generic "Sikh in the city" was allowed for someone else. However, the decline that perhaps annoys me most is where I had written "PLEASE DO NOT PROCESS YET -- I WOULD LIKE TO WORK ON THIS ONE." I had a core idea that I wanted to note down, but wanted to improve it somehow. Would it have killed them to just leave that review for now? (And anyway, while the pun had not yet been perfected, the literal meaning of the review was totally fine.) |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/11/2009 11:14:22 |
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 11:00:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
However, the decline that perhaps annoys me most is where I had written "PLEASE DO NOT PROCESS YET -- I WOULD LIKE TO WORK ON THIS ONE." I had a core idea that I wanted to note down, but wanted to improve it somehow. Would it have killed them to just leave that review for now?
Bear in mind that the MERPs are constantly trying to clear the sizeable backlog. Nothing is more irritating that someone clogging that up further by sticking something in there that shouldn't be in there. If you need to note down review ideas, your pending list is not the place to do it. I realise a scratchpad area of the site is something presently lacking and I'm working to resolve this but for now please refrain from submitting stuff that you don't want processed.
Use a bit of paper or something. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 11:03:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by [matt]
Benj,
I truly hate to complain, but I'm almost constantly getting no reason given when I get declines, and it's really annoying me!
I've just had 13 declines in one go (most of which I cannot see anything wrong with), only 1 of which has a reason! ("Don't understand".)
But the even more annoying thing is, I actually included explanations for all the reviews which could possibly need them, so as to avoid any problems.
Please can you make the MERPs at least give reasons, because it's really frustrating (especially since that's over half of my submissions declined, which will now have to take up most of this week's slots in resubmissions).
Whenever something like this comes up I always wonder if there isn't something else at work here, possibly one of my infamous bugs. Before we start blaming the MERPs for not posting feedback, I'd like to check they actually haven't and if they haven't, for which reviews they haven't (the person who submitted the reviews is not always the best person to judge how easy said reviews are to act on).
Email me the 13 reviews and I'll check in the database what's going on. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 11:40:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Whenever something like this comes up I always wonder if there isn't something else at work here, possibly one of my infamous bugs. Before we start blaming the MERPs for not posting feedback, I'd like to check they actually haven't and if they haven't, for which reviews they haven't (the person who submitted the reviews is not always the best person to judge how easy said reviews are to act on).
Email me the 13 reviews and I'll check in the database what's going on.
Hi benj - I promised I'd never complain on the 4UM about this stuff, but I think the same thing may have happened to me. Would you mind if I eEmail you as well? Happily, mine are only a handful.
TIA
BB
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 11:47:18
|
And I've just had my WASHING ELEPHANTS review refused - "Buns n Hoses".
Surely this HAS to be a bug, right?
 |
|
|
|
[matt]
"Cinemattic."
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 18:23:27
|
Ok cheers benj, I've emailed you, to [email protected] right?
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 18:28:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by [matt]
Ok cheers benj, I've emailed you, to [email protected] right?
Yep- cheers. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 10:31:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Bear in mind that the MERPs are constantly trying to clear the sizeable backlog. Nothing is more irritating that someone clogging that up further by sticking something in there that shouldn't be in there. If you need to note down review ideas, your pending list is not the place to do it. I realise a scratchpad area of the site is something presently lacking and I'm working to resolve this but for now please refrain from submitting stuff that you don't want processed.
The backlog doesn't seem to be that bad to me now. I'd certainly rather they took their time with my reviews rather than rushed through processing them. And is it really that traumatic for them to skip one? If it is, it shouldn't be set up that way -- there will always be films where it is better for one MERP to leave reviews for another. However, the point here was also that the review was fine. (It specified two characters and accurately said that they were each under pressure.) So they shouldn't have rejected it just because I asked for it to be left altogether.
Do I take it that you agree with all the other problem areas being so? |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 10:48:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The backlog doesn't seem to be that bad to me now.
That's interesting where did you find out that info I have never been able to find a stat about the backlog, or are you making an assumption? I am unsure and asking in a nice manner as to not offend.
I thought the backlog was only visable by Benj and he never really goes into to much detail over it, if you have more detail I'd love to know.
Cheers
Josh the cat |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 11:13:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Josh_the_cat
That's interesting where did you find out that info I have never been able to find a stat about the backlog, or are you making an assumption?
I am just looking at my own backlog. It seems to me extremely unlikely that the MERPs have processed nearly all of my first passes but not done so roughly equally across the board. Why would they?! However, I acknowledge the possibility that they have -- if so, MERPs please stop!
However, one can also get a good idea of the backlog by looking at the I.D. numbers of the most recently approved films and comparing them to those of one's latest submissions. It's of course not a simple subtraction as the MERPs for some reason do not process reviews in order.
When I talk about the backlog (in this context), I mainly mean the backlog of first submissions. This is because when great swathes of reviews get rejected with no reason they are first submissions. Second submissions get dealt with at much more of a trickle and so cannot be what Benj means when he presents the MERPs as battling through the backlog. However, the bulk of my second submissions are also much more recent than they have been most of the time.
I stress though that I am not keen to have my backlog cleared, especially at the cost of proper decisions, so I do not view it as a priority at all. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 11:18:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I've asked this before but never got an answer -- if a review has a minor amendment, shouldn't the MERP just respect the previous MERP and not overturn their decision?
Benj, please would it be possible to get an answer to this? By the way, I don't mean cases where the second MERP realises that there is actually something wrong with the review (of which I haven't had any). I mean cases where they just don't happen to know why the substance of the review is fine.
Please could you also let me know whether you are able to deal with my non-duplicates from what I have detailed in the other thread, or whether I do need to e-mail you after all?
Thanks. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/11/2009 11:34:00 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 13:27:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
And is it really that traumatic for them to skip one? If it is, it shouldn't be set up that way -- there will always be films where it is better for one MERP to leave reviews for another. However, the point here was also that the review was fine. (It specified two characters and accurately said that they were each under pressure.) So they shouldn't have rejected it just because I asked for it to be left altogether.
Yes they should since it had no reason being in the pending queue, adding to the backlog and, yes- being a bit irritating. It certainly shouldn't merely be skipped so other MERPs have to also stumble across the review that can't be processed. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 13:29:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I've asked this before but never got an answer -- if a review has a minor amendment, shouldn't the MERP just respect the previous MERP and not overturn their decision?
Benj, please would it be possible to get an answer to this? By the way, I don't mean cases where the second MERP realises that there is actually something wrong with the review (of which I haven't had any). I mean cases where they just don't happen to know why the substance of the review is fine.
Please could you also let me know whether you are able to deal with my non-duplicates from what I have detailed in the other thread, or whether I do need to e-mail you after all?
Thanks.
Depends on what the minor amendment is, I guess. One person's minor change is another person's complete change of review intent. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 14:47:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
And is it really that traumatic for them to skip one? If it is, it shouldn't be set up that way -- there will always be films where it is better for one MERP to leave reviews for another. However, the point here was also that the review was fine. (It specified two characters and accurately said that they were each under pressure.) So they shouldn't have rejected it just because I asked for it to be left altogether.
Yes they should since it had no reason being in the pending queue, adding to the backlog and, yes- being a bit irritating. It certainly shouldn't merely be skipped so other MERPs have to also stumble across the review that can't be processed.
There are two issues here. One is how big a trauma leaving the reviews would be, even for a few MERPs in a row. Let's pretend that that would be a big trauma. Fine.
However, the other issue is what to do with the review if such a request would be traumatic to acquiesce to. It was valid for it to be in the pending queue because it was a totally valid review. The pun was not perfected but the literal meaning was still valid. Ignoring the polite request did not mean that the review should then be rejected. Ignoring it meant that it should then have been processed on face value. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/11/2009 14:59:59 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 14:55:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I've asked this before but never got an answer -- if a review has a minor amendment, shouldn't the MERP just respect the previous MERP and not overturn their decision?
Benj, please would it be possible to get an answer to this? By the way, I don't mean cases where the second MERP realises that there is actually something wrong with the review (of which I haven't had any). I mean cases where they just don't happen to know why the substance of the review is fine.
Depends on what the minor amendment is, I guess. One person's minor change is another person's complete change of review intent.
Oh come on. We all know that we are not talking about ambiguous cases. As an example, in the medical one I mentioned above, I only changed "a... condi[tion]" to "ailment". There was no double meaning or anything like that on "condition". It was simply used in the sense of "illness".
Furthermore, I'm not talking about a scenario where one just tells the MERP that it is a minor change. I'm talking about one where the comment takes the form Already approved as "..." They can readily judge for themselves that it is a minor change. It is ridiculous for the new MERP to ask what the condition is and for it to then go round and round and round and round in circles for ever.
Anyway, are you acknowledging that if they agree it is a minor change then they should re-approve? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
BENJ: no decline reasons
