| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Josh the cat 
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
 Posted - 11/26/2009 : 13:16:21
|
For the first time ever(that I can remember), when I logged in this morning I had 0 reviews pending. Now that is amazing.
Personally I am chuffed to bits about this, but, I do not believe that it is good reason to remove the cap, and to be honest I don't even think it is good reason to extend the cap either.
Thanks for the processing benj & the MERPs, personally, I truly appreciate the effort.
THANKS
Josh the cat |
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 11/26/2009 : 13:21:22
|
Josh at one stage yesterday they were approving my reviews faster than I could write them, I was very impressed.
Hmm my ego asks if this says something about the quality of said reviews!! ;-)
Either way GO MERPS!! |
 |
|
|
aahaa, muahaha 
"Optimistic altruist, incurable romantic"
|
Posted - 11/26/2009 : 15:23:18
|
| I touched zero pending reviews at least couple of times in the last two weeks. Once after I submitted my review I could not find it in pending reviews - finally, i found it in approved reviews. Surreal to say the least. Thanks Merps for approving reviews even on the thanksgiving day! |
|
|
|
Larry 
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 11/26/2009 : 17:33:20
|
Ditto, the previous three posts. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 08:54:25
|
Here's the thing... I sumbit a few and sometimes within a few hours they've all been vetted one way or another. This has been going on for several days now.
Those MERPs are AMAZING! |
|
|
|
ci�nas
"hands down"
|
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 20:58:30
|
I haven't had any reviews pending for more than a few hours recently either.
But how about this? Having just given up on trying to watch the excruciatingly twee The Brothers Bloom, I submitted this review & it was accepted � & gathered a vote � while I was writing an explanation of it.
Superb.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 03:12:46
|
Yes, I am also down to no reviews pending for the first time ever. It is really weird seeing the pause symbol shaded blue. Well done to Benj and the MERPs for any positive results from this situation. (AussieCanuck came back; suddenly a lot more MERP activity occurred; then he noticed that the MERPs happened to stop at exactly 300,000 approved reviews. What an amazing coincidence.)
I hope that Benj will consider the cap issue (seeing as it was explicitly a temporary remedy). Having said that, I'd be fairly happy for it to be kept, although a slightly higher limit or especially a rolling quota (so not unfairly penalising those with less regular lives) would make it a lot better. Of course, if the cap is to be kept, then the total-reviews ranking must not retain primacy. It's totally unfair to laud some reviewers according to parameters that are now not attainable.
However, the most important thing for me is that now no review-processing time has to be used on the backlog, there should be more time for each decision. Although I've had more <Click for details>s lately, I've still been getting quite a lot of blank rejections, including for many reviews that I have resubmitted asking for a reason. Even more frustrating is that my reviews are routinely rejected before then being approved. As you can see here, my approval rate is fairly low given that I submit twenty the vast majority of weeks and I have only a few hundred rejections from that period. In other words, each successful review has been submitted on average about twice (within the cap, i.e. on top of over-quota submissions). (It's not practical to update that list every week, so it currently assumes no approved reviews between now and 10th January, but that only makes a small percentage difference so it gives an accurate general idea.)
quote:
Originally posted by lamhasuas
I submitted this review & it was accepted � & gathered a vote � while I was writing an explanation of it.
This raises an issue that I wanted to highlight. I think it would be a good idea to add a five-minute window before a review can be processed. This is because a MERP can just as easily reject a review while one is writing an explanation for it. Nice review, by the way.
Similarly, upon submitting a review and seeing it in the pending list, I often immediately think of an improvement, so too-speedy processing would mean that would use up another quota slot. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 11/28/2009 20:30:14 |
|
|
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 04:01:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sa10pian
I hope that Benj will consider the cap issue (seeing as it was explicitly a temporary remedy).
So was the Canadian personal income tax, introduced in 1917 to help defray the cost of the war. Needless to say, it never went away.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 04:05:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
So was the Canadian personal income tax, introduced in 1917 to help defray the cost of the war. Needless to say, it never went away.
Do you remember it bitterly, lemmy?  |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 15:35:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sa10pian
Yes, I am also down to no reviews pending for the first time ever. It is really weird seeing the pause symbol shaded blue. Well done to Benj and the MERPs for any positive results from this situation. (AussieCanuck came back; suddenly a lot more MERP activity occurred; then he noticed that the MERPs happened to stop at exactly 300,000 approved reviews. What an amazing coincidence.)
Interesting theory, which might hold up if it weren't for the fact we'd been getting the backlog down quite nicely some time before AC returned. I don't want to take all the credit, but I've been back at the MERPing station somewhat more of late as a by-product of reworking on the book manuscript.
quote:
I hope that Benj will consider the cap issue (seeing as it was explicitly a temporary remedy). Having said that, I'd be fairly happy for it to be kept, although a slightly higher limit or especially a rolling quota (so not unfairly penalising those with less regular lives) would make it a lot better.
I'm currently considering it. However, I do think it serves an important job: making people carefully consider what they're submitting rather than lobbing every variant on a review they can think to, effectively leaving the MERPs to filter the repeated chaff. They have better things to be doing with their time and it's you the reviewers who should decide which version of a review you want to use.
I agree the cap should probably be a bit higher though.
quote:
Of course, if the cap is to be kept, then the total-reviews ranking must not retain primacy. It's totally unfair to laud some reviewers according to parameters that are now not attainable.
"Must not"
I'm sorry... did I recently die and, in my final, mad death throes hand over all creative control to you? 
The way I see it, we're all subject to the same cap (well, not me, obviously, but everyone else is) so everyone's on the same level playing field here. Sure there's those who put in the reviews before the cap, but they still need to keep at it to ensure they stay ahead of everyone else. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 20:23:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I agree the cap should probably be a bit higher though.
More important is that it not be allocated on a weekly basis (without rolling over). This gives an advantage to those with mundane and predictable lives. I often have to struggle to squeeze the twenty in and occasionally am just too busy to manage it at all.
I'd also like to reiterate the suggestion that I've made to you before. If we have a review approved that has previously been rejected, then I think we should automatically get an extra slot. This is because one has been unfairly wasted on that review. Under the current system my real quota is about ten, since most of my approvals take about two submissions (and it's not that I often add explanations after rejections, since I generally include them from the beginning).
quote:
"Must not"
I'm sorry... did I recently die and, in my final, mad death throes hand over all creative control to you?
The way I see it, we're all subject to the same cap (well, not me, obviously, but everyone else is) so everyone's on the same level playing field here. Sure there's those who put in the reviews before the cap, but they still need to keep at it to ensure they stay ahead of everyone else.
Must does not necessarily imply a rule from an authority figure; it can also indicate an ethical duty.
Everyone being under the same cap makes no difference other than for people who go away for periods, and even then it does not have much effect. The top of the total-reviews rank has had only a handful of order changes in the last three years, as the cap just means that the distances between people stay about the same. Randall does not need to 'keep at it' to stay ahead of me -- were he to stop reviewing altogether and all my submissions be approved, it would take a decade for me to catch up! That is not a ranking that should be given prime place as a currently meaningful thing. Total votes would probably be the best one as a compromise.
Please could you also look into how two reviewers have submitted an average of more than twenty successful reviews a week since the cap began? I raised this before but the only explanation anyone could offer was "Well, I'm sure it isn't true", which it is. |
|
|
|
Chris C
"Four words, never backwards."
|
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 14:46:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Josh the cat
For the first time ever(that I can remember), when I logged in this morning I had 0 reviews pending. Now that is amazing.
Personally I am chuffed to bits about this, but, I do not believe that it is good reason to remove the cap, and to be honest I don't even think it is good reason to extend the cap either.
Thanks for the processing benj & the MERPs, personally, I truly appreciate the effort.
THANKS
Josh the cat
Me too. Had my last one cleared today, and that was a 2 week old re-submit, with explanation. Well done and thanks to all the MERPS |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 14:31:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sa10pian
More important is that it not be allocated on a weekly basis (without rolling over). This gives an advantage to those with mundane and predictable lives. I often have to struggle to squeeze the twenty in and occasionally am just too busy to manage it at all.
If you ask me, those of us with mundane and predictable lives deserve any advantage we can get. It makes up for missing out on cheaper, quieter film screenings and having to queue around the block for several hours to pick up undelivered post on a Saturday morning.
quote:
I'd also like to reiterate the suggestion that I've made to you before. If we have a review approved that has previously been rejected, then I think we should automatically get an extra slot.
Hmm. I'll think about it. Right now this sounds awfully fiddly and with a high probability of breaking whatever system stability there is.
quote:
Must does not necessarily imply a rule from an authority figure; it can also indicate an ethical duty.
Well, then thank God such a well-balanced and fair individual as your good self is here to instruct me as to my ethical duties.
Glad we both agree that yours is not a voice from an authority figure.
quote:
Everyone being under the same cap makes no difference other than for people who go away for periods, and even then it does not have much effect. The top of the total-reviews rank has had only a handful of order changes in the last three years, as the cap just means that the distances between people stay about the same. Randall does not need to 'keep at it' to stay ahead of me -- were he to stop reviewing altogether and all my submissions be approved, it would take a decade for me to catch up! That is not a ranking that should be given prime place as a currently meaningful thing. Total votes would probably be the best one as a compromise.
Fair point, but the top ranks are always going to be pretty unreachable, especially when you have such dedicated and still active reviewers at the top. I think a good compromise is to offer total reviews ranking AND total votes, and a few others perhaps. After all, not everyone is about quantity.
quote:
Please could you also look into how two reviewers have submitted an average of more than twenty successful reviews a week since the cap began? I raised this before but the only explanation anyone could offer was "Well, I'm sure it isn't true", which it is.
I've spent quite a bit of time working to correct this over the last couple of years. Do you have evidence it's still happening? |
|
|
|
Beanmimo
"August review site"
|
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 15:01:25
|
Sal, benj, in response to this
"Please could you also look into how two reviewers have submitted an average of more than twenty successful reviews a week since the cap began? I raised this before but the only explanation anyone could offer was "Well, I'm sure it isn't true", which it is."
Does this not have something to do with the said reviewers having a wonderfully large pile of unapproved review at the instigation of the Cap and then adding twenty a week thus keeping a step ahead of the Merps til maybe now? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 15:15:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Sal, benj, in response to this
"Please could you also look into how two reviewers have submitted an average of more than twenty successful reviews a week since the cap began? I raised this before but the only explanation anyone could offer was "Well, I'm sure it isn't true", which it is."
Does this not have something to do with the said reviewers having a wonderfully large pile of unapproved review at the instigation of the Cap and then adding twenty a week thus keeping a step ahead of the Merps til maybe now?
That was part of it. Another was a bug in my code and another was an issue with the order the backlog was being presented to the MERPs. To my knowledge all these have been resolved however. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 18:51:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sa10pian
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
So was the Canadian personal income tax, introduced in 1917 to help defray the cost of the war. Needless to say, it never went away.
Do you remember it bitterly, lemmy?
Hehee. I LOLed on that. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
1st time event
