| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Canklefish 
"Let's Get OUTTA Here!"
|
 Posted - 03/21/2009 : 19:11:52
|
I've grown quite tired of the <click for details> option following most of my rejected reviews(I know it's all been said before), when it's quite clear the details outlined are inaccurate at best...
Latest examples: I'd written several reviews for the Benjamin Button flick way back when:
1. Benj never grows up
2. Button simply fades away
3. Button makes fine Memento
4. Leaving 'Golden Years' behind
5. Growing younger every day
There may not be an overly clever review in the bunch, but all are relevant, and not one was a re-sub from an earlier rejection. Yet, the <click for details> option reads...
'This review was already declined as bad. Why are you submitting it again without even an explanation to justify the review.'
Not once in my Fwiffering career have I resubmitted a review without an explanation, let alone 5 for the same film. Usually, I write many more than the weekly quota will allow, then submit my faves at 7pm EST every Sunday, which means most of my reviews rarely come thru as a 'first pass'
This is just the latest in a series of mind-numbingly frustrating rejections in the <click for details> vein. Recently, I was told to resub a review 'cuz I misspelled Aykroyd(Akroyd). Upon resub, I had the same condescending rejection reason thrown in my face that I so accurately documented above. Talk about false hopes.
We only get so many reviews per week, so wouldn't it stand to reason that I would do everything in my power to make my reviews worthy of passing MERP muster?! Please quit grinding axes on my time.
<Click here for details> My Ass! |
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 03/21/2009 : 20:44:21
|
Gosh, a rude MERP! 
|
 |
|
|
MguyXXV 
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/21/2009 : 22:56:18
|
If I am going to see your ass  when I click for details, I am not going to be clicking for details! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/21/2009 : 22:58:46
|
Most of my submissions are technically second pass for the same reason. I have also suspected that they might be getting treated differently to first pass ones.
I've similarly had one rejected because of a typo in a name. Given how many are passed with spelling errors, that was a little perplexing. |
|
|
|
Gentleman Ghost 
"Brevity: soul of wit."
|
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 02:14:19
|
| I sympathize, CankleFetish. While I haven't had very many "click for details" rejections, the ones that I have experienced were far more soul-killing than a mere unexplained decline. I would hope that the reason why a MERP would provide a detailed rationale would be to improve communication, not to pick fights. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 13:27:26
|
I've got a problem with a decline from today - my click for details reason was "this is the same review Zulu has for his top-voted for ----".
Since when do we have reviews declined because they already exist somewhere else on the site? I've not heard of that before - and I disagree with it. I had the idea entirely independently and it fits the film I'm applying it to perfectly. The film that Zulu used the review for is an obscure one I've never heard of before from the 70s that only one other person has reviewed. With some research I've seen that my use of the review is actually a better fit too.
Do we seriously have to search for existing reviews on the site every time we use a pun now? And does that mean every time we spot a review coming through FYC that uses a pun in exactly the same way as we've used it we should report it? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 13:36:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Since when do we have reviews declined because they already exist somewhere else on the site?
Since before today, as I already mentioned it as a problem in my non-duplicates thread.
I think it's best that duplicate reviews be avoided whenever they don't add anything. (It seems that that is not the case here, if yours is a better fit -- thinking of it separately or its being for a better-known film have got nothing to do with it.) However, it has quite clearly been stated numerous times that duplicates across different films are not disallowed. Any rejections on this basis are therefore straightforwardly wrong. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/24/2009 13:37:02 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 14:21:46
|
Thought so. Thanks for clarifying.
I don't really understand your non-duplicates thread. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 14:38:05
|
Don't tell Yukon about your decline Dem, he'll have a heart attack! 
(Sorry Yukon!  )
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 15:20:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I don't really understand your non-duplicates thread.
I'm guessing you can understand "there's no rule about not having the same review for different films" which I stated there in response to a review being rejected as a duplicate. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 15:21:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Don't tell Yukon about your decline Dem, he'll have a heart attack!
I have to confess that that was my first thought too. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 16:02:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I don't really understand your non-duplicates thread.
I'm guessing you can understand "there's no rule about not having the same review for different films" which I stated there in response to a review being rejected as a duplicate.
Yes I can understand that, but I never got past your first post in that thread. There aren't enough hours in the day to unpick all that without clearer details. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 16:03:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Don't tell Yukon about your decline Dem, he'll have a heart attack!
(Sorry Yukon! )
Are you referring to a particularly fine cutting implement by any chance?  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 16:11:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
There aren't enough hours in the day to unpick all that without clearer details.
Well, it needed to be expressed like that in order to be unambiguous without quoting the reviews concerned because when rejections are named people (i) get in a strop and (ii) start expressing opinions about them that aren't relevant to the issue. It's just about older reviews being rejected as duplicates when newer reviews have been approved first. |
|
|
|
Canklefish
"Let's Get OUTTA Here!"
|
Posted - 03/25/2009 : 07:36:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
If I am going to see your ass when I click for details, I am not going to be clicking for details!
Well, happily, you will never see my when you click for details, my friend, 'cuz I haven't been promoted to MERP status... A man can dream, tho... |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/27/2009 : 10:30:33
|
I've just read one (I only read them when I have space to resubmit them if appropriate, as it is just too frustrating otherwise) that said "This review has the feel of a crossword clue and I agree with the previous decline reasons."
This is annoying because:
(i) The review just consists of four rhyming words and so bears no resemblance to a crossword clue.
(ii) Resembling a crossword clue is not a valid rejection reason cf. Corduroy Pillow's great "Stallone's all into Stone" and several lesser reviews of my own.
(iii) I cannot see the previous decline reasons and so referring to them abstractly is not in principle fair (although luckily I can remember them, as it happens).
(iv) The previous 'reasons' were that the film does not feature a hire car (which the review doesn't claim that it does -- the MERP assumed that a perfectly normal word that is also the name of a hire-car brand was referring to the latter, for some reason) and then that this word is not relevant (which I showed that it clearly was). Therefore, announcing that they agreed with these 'reasons' is not really satisfactory. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Oh please, talk at me like me stupid...
