| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 06/16/2009 : 17:40:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Position will require you to be unstinting in following a set of rules.
Or, rather, "Position will require you to be inconsistent, partisan, forgetful, disproportionate and unable to grasp basic concepts."
Perks include: regular abuse from those with no real idea of the enormity of the task who misguidedly believe they can do a better job. |
 |
|
|
Yukon 
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 21:01:44
|
I was lucky enough to join about a year and a half before the cap so I managed to get up in the top 100. But when I first joined, I remember being jealous off all the folks who were here before with reviews in the top 100. After five years of serious, hardcore pimping, I still haven't cracked the top 200. I don't think I ever will because all those top 100 reviews are constantly get votes thanks to the great exposure of the top 100 page.
So like other folks have said, Clay, pick new goals. I'd shoot for average votes per review. There is nothing wrong with quality of quantity. Most folks here would agree that Bigger Boat is one of the best reviewers on the site and he only has 268 reviews. |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 22:25:06
|
I may be the leader in total reviews [and if I continue to get an average of 18+/week approved, not even foxy can catch me], but I'll never make the top 100 in votes for a similar reason; they're entrenched as well. Each new fwiffer visits that page and adds more votes, so I can't see anyone catching up with foxy in that respect, no matter how good their reviews are.
I've said before that being #1 in total reviews is like being recognized for growing the longest beard. I amassed most of my reviews before there was a submissions cap; but in fairness, before there were multiple editors it also took literal *months* to get them judged. I don't know how foxy feels, but everybody on the top 100 in votes page has a similar built-in advantage, and breaking into that group would be a rare achievement.
I guess you just keep writing reviews, set your own goals, and let the beard get even longer, little by little. |
|
|
|
[matt] 
"Cinemattic."
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 22:53:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
I remember being jealous off all the folks who were here before with reviews in the top 100. After five years of serious, hardcore pimping, I still haven't cracked the top 200. I don't think I ever will because all those top 100 reviews are constantly get votes thanks to the great exposure of the top 100 page.
As well as the exposure of the top 100 page, reviews that have been around a long time slowly pick up votes from the fwiffers who come and go. Because a lot of people give up FWFR, they're no longer around to vote on newer reviews! So I doubt I'll even crack even the top 500.  You need 47 votes - my top review has been around for almost a year and still only has 32.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 23:26:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Position will require you to be unstinting in following a set of rules.
Or, rather, "Position will require you to be inconsistent, partisan, forgetful, disproportionate and unable to grasp basic concepts."
Perks include: regular abuse from those with no real idea of the enormity of the task who misguidedly believe they can do a better job.
Benj, can I be a MERP? Then I can decline all reviews submitted by a certain user.  |
|
|
|
clay 
"Viewer discretion is revised."
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 00:20:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Clay,
my philosophy about the unreachablility of certain fwiffers is to focus on the short term milestones and enjoy making up the four word gems as they come to mind!!
That's great advice, which I will do my best to take. Thanks. |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 01:05:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
Most folks here would agree that Bigger Boat is one of the best reviewers on the site and he only has 268 reviews.
Thanks Yukon, very kind of you to say so, but to a large degree I think I'm successful because I'm a populist - most of my reviews do well because they're simple, amusing and deal with obvious or universal themes. And because I don't care about the total number of reviews I have, I disown any I think are not up to scratch. My basic goal is to keep an average of 22, although I've not managed that in a couple of months now.
That's the glory of this site - you can do whatever you want. I don't do accolades, avatar competitions, icon chasing, alliterations, haikus, vote swapping/pimping* or many other things that are available but I don't need to. I've found my groove.
*I'm not sure why I don't do these - I think it's because I don't want to feel beholden to other reviewers. If you like my reviews, vote for them, but I don't want votes for the sake of it because I can't, in good conscience, return the favour and vote for reviews that don't appeal to me.
|
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 01:16:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
Most folks here would agree that Bigger Boat is one of the best reviewers on the site and he only has 268 reviews.
Thanks Yukon, very kind of you to say so, but to a large degree I think I'm successful because I'm a populist - most of my reviews do well because they're simple, amusing and deal with obvious or universal themes. And because I don't care about the total number of reviews I have, I disown any I think are not up to scratch. My basic goal is to keep an average of 22, although I've not managed that in a couple of months now.
That's the glory of this site - you can do whatever you want. I don't do accolades, avatar competitions, icon chasing, alliterations, haikus, vote swapping/pimping* or many other things that are available but I don't need to. I've found my groove.
*I'm not sure why I don't do these - I think it's because I don't want to feel beholden to other reviewers. If you like my reviews, vote for them, but I don't want votes for the sake of it because I can't, in good conscience, return the favour and vote for reviews that don't appeal to me.
Totally agree about "That's the glory of this site - you can do whatever you want" 
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote. |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 01:52:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote.
I agree that some are better than (or not as bad as) others, but those that promise a certain number of votes just for replying at a certain hour, for instance, (to me) goes against the whole point of the vote system. I guess we're entitled to our own ideologies though. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 03:24:45
|
I have never voted, and will never vote, for a review I didn't think deserved it; I don't mercy-vote. I'll go farther: I'll bet I've very, very infrequently, maybe even never, received a mercy vote. However, I find there are lots of vote-worthy reviews on the site whenever something makes me dive into 0-votes. Lots of 'em I've never even seen.
As for pimping reviews, the reason I refer to lemmy as "Sensei" is because (1) he was the first person to call attention to my reviews, so he's sorta my fwiffer mentor; and (2) long ago we made a game of it, and his ability to call non sequitur phrases back to his reviews is so impressive that I went to Tibet to study his vote fu skills. It's only a harmless game, and most everybody knows we're playing it. |
Edited by - randall on 06/17/2009 03:28:05 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 03:32:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote.
I saw that too and was heartsick. Not because you got votes you didn't deserve [if somebody had done that to me, I would ruefully admit to just that], but because it ruined a perfectly fine game where we were encouraged to judge 0-voters [see my previous post]. Whoever did that was shameful and awful, and poor Cankie had to throw up his hands and kill the game. |
Edited by - randall on 06/17/2009 03:41:59 |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 03:37:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
I have never voted, and will never vote, for a review I didn't think deserved it; I don't mercy-vote. I'll go farther: I'll bet I've very, very infrequently, maybe even never, received a mercy vote. However, I find there are lots of vote-worthy reviews on the site whenever something makes me dive into 0-votes. Lots of 'em I've never even seen.
As for pimping reviews, the reason I refer to lemmy as "Sensei" is because (1) he was the first person to call attention to my reviews, so he's sorta my fwiffer mentor; and (2) long ago we made a game of it, and his ability to call non sequitur phrases back to his reviews is so impressive that I went to Tibet to study his vote fu skills. It's only a harmless game, and most everybody knows we're playing it.
Grasshopper, your lucidity, as always, passeth understanding. Perhaps a key to your insights may be found here. |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 03:42:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote.
I saw that too and was heartsick. Not because you got votes you didn't deserve [if somebody had done that to me, I would ruefully admit to just that], but because it ruined a perfectly fine game where we were encouraged to judge 0-voters [see my previous post].
I shared your heartsickness, Grasshopper. This was a random kamikaze move that did nothing to recognize deserving 0 vote reviews. Unfortunately the miscreant chose not to bomb my reviews!!!! |
Edited by - lemmycaution on 06/17/2009 03:42:55 |
|
|
|
Canklefish 
"Let's Get OUTTA Here!"
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 04:44:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Whenever I take part in vote pimping, I only ever vote for a review that I like. I see vote pimping as a way to advertise the reviews for a vote, not a sure fire way to get a vote. In saying that tho, a few months ago someone voted on all my crappy accolade fillers in the Cankle zero vote thread. It's nice having all voted reviews, but I know a lot of the reviews didn't really justify the vote.
I saw that too and was heartsick. Not because you got votes you didn't deserve [if somebody had done that to me, I would ruefully admit to just that], but because it ruined a perfectly fine game where we were encouraged to judge 0-voters [see my previous post]. Whoever did that was shameful and awful, and poor Cankie had to throw up his hands and kill the game.
Yes, the game had to be taken out back and shot... Too bad, 'cuz the thread had been progressing nicely up to that point, and I too was nauseous when I saw all the votes coming in for what seemed like no apparent reason(for my zeroes anyway). 'til then there had been a nice quid pro quo aspect to the participation. The thread will be started up again in due time, but it may be awhile.
|
Edited by - Canklefish on 06/17/2009 04:54:24 |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 16:57:35
|
I have a good idea. Everyone who has more reviews than Clay should delete their lowest vote getters and least favorites until they have reached the same number that he has.  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
How can I ever possibly catch up?
