| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
 Posted - 07/22/2010 : 18:57:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
I lost a 30+ review in a recent accident so don't think I'm not grieving too.
How do you know? Do you memorise how many votes each of your reviews has?!
No, obviously I don't do that. I've got the 'number of reviews with 30+ votes' stat on my page and I know that number. It's 60. Used to be 61.
I could memorise how many votes each of my reviews had if I wanted to though. |
 |
|
|
RockGolf 
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 21:29:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoatNot too worried about the gay films going. Gay films suck ass.
I'm no expert, but that sounds like they're not doing it right. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 21:50:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
I could memorise how many votes each of my reviews had if I wanted to though.
Who couldn't? That's only a few hundred numbers, in your case. |
|
|
|
Airbolt
"teil mann, teil maschine"
|
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 22:17:15
|
I've never added a film so i don't know what the process is or was. It seems that a lot of films were added that are now being taken away as non-films. It appears that the time to apply strict criteria was at this stage rather than after the fact. That way people might not waste time and effort in reviewing "non-films" that are on a film site and that you take to be reviewable. 
|
Edited by - Airbolt on 07/22/2010 22:18:27 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 23:35:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Airbolt
I've never added a film so i don't know what the process is or was. It seems that a lot of films were added that are now being taken away as non-films. It appears that the time to apply strict criteria was at this stage rather than after the fact. That way people might not waste time and effort in reviewing "non-films" that are on a film site and that you take to be reviewable.
Understood Airy, but the problem derives from a process called for by the users. When benj was the only person approving reviews, people got all huffy about how long it took to get approval. Then he added the MERPs. Now people tend to just get huffy about how the MERPs suck because [fill in the blank], but not so much the time issue any more.
Then people started getting huffy about how long it took to get films added. So benj gave the users the opportunity to add the films themselves by copying the film's url from IMDb. This resulted in people adding non-films to the site.
Because people got all huffy about certain reviews that they felt were violating some rule or other, benj created the "Report" button (sometimes referred to as the "nazi button," but not in public because that really P's some people O and gets them on a tirade about unfair misnomers, but I digress). This resulted in (we are told) a separate backlog of films/reviews that need to be reexamined.
With all of that extra work being tacked on -- by the users, mind you -- it was inevitable that some if not many films/reviews would escape correction/deletion/re-education for a while before being addressed. Also, since benjy doesn't work as just the editor of the FWFR, we are fortunate that he devotes the considerable amount of time he has devoted to the site, which we all use for free to obtain hours and hours of enjoyment.
So, yes, it would be exceeding tidy to address this issue upfront. Unfortunately, the demands of the site, users and its traffic level make that a difficult task. But it appears that folks are working on that.  
(I hope this doesn't sound snippy, Air my bud, as I'm trying to address it to the general folks out there, not just you, my beloved co-fwiffer.  )
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
I lost a 30+ review in a recent accident so don't think I'm not grieving too.
How do you know? Do you memorise how many votes each of your reviews has?!
I think the more appropos question (if it needed to be asked anyway) was whether he memorized how many votes that review had, which answer was quite apparently "yes." |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 07/22/2010 23:51:13 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 00:16:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Airbolt
I've never added a film so i don't know what the process is or was. It seems that a lot of films were added that are now being taken away as non-films. It appears that the time to apply strict criteria was at this stage rather than after the fact. That way people might not waste time and effort in reviewing "non-films" that are on a film site and that you take to be reviewable.
A very valid point, and in an ideal world that's what would have happened. But, who was going to take on a full-time position as Non-Movie Remover? Benj has a life to live in addition to managing fwfr. Users have been known to add 1000 new titles to the database in a weekend, and I sure as hell would not be prepared to go through every one of them sifting the movies from the non-movies.  |
|
|
|
rockfsh 
"Laugh, Love, Cheer"
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 02:28:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I think the more appropos question (if it needed to be asked anyway) was whether he memorized how many votes that review had, which answer was quite apparently "yes."
No, quite the reverse, as he had answered quite clearly well before your post. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 02:30:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Airbolt
It appears that the time to apply strict criteria was at this stage rather than after the fact.
More to the point, it would be better to have ever applied strict criteria. There have never been any given, and there also cannot be any in private (at least ones which are followed) since the films removed don't form logical sets relative to the ones retained. |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 02:35:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
I could memorise how many votes each of my reviews had if I wanted to though.
Who couldn't? That's only a few hundred numbers, in your case.
I know! I only get a few votes each week, so I'd just have to review my pages every day to see which ones had changed... et voil�! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 03:19:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Then people started getting huffy about how long it took to get films added. So benj gave the users the opportunity to add the films themselves by copying the film's url from IMDb. This resulted in people adding non-films to the site.
Because people got all huffy about certain reviews that they felt were violating some rule or other, benj created the "Report" button (sometimes referred to as the "nazi button," but not in public because that really P's some people O and gets them on a tirade about unfair misnomers, but I digress). This resulted in (we are told) a separate backlog of films/reviews that need to be reexamined.
With all of that extra work being tacked on -- by the users, mind you -- it was inevitable that some if not many films/reviews would escape correction/deletion/re-education for a while before being addressed. Also, since benjy doesn't work as just the editor of the FWFR, we are fortunate that he devotes the considerable amount of time he has devoted to the site, which we all use for free to obtain hours and hours of enjoyment.
I've replied to this in the proper place. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 03:29:02
|
| Taking half a step back in this conversation I believe I would definitely know if I'd lost a 30+ review from my set as I consider 30 the mark of a top flight review and am mightily proud of any of my little fellows who manage to leap to those heady heights. Given the amount of time you seem to devote to all things Salopian I'd be very surprised if you didn't know the appropriate votes for your top page. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 05:58:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Given the amount of time you seem to devote to all things Salopian I'd be very surprised if you didn't know the appropriate votes for your top page.
Is this supposed to be "... to all things Salopian, I'd..." or "... to all things, Salopian, I'd..."? If the latter (i.e. it's addressed to me) then I've already indicated that I do not, so it's quite strange that you "would be" surprised. I could memorise them of course, but such things aren't important. (I'm interested in the range of statistics here, but that's not the same as wanting to memorise them. If they never changed, then of course I couldn't help but remember them over time, but they do.) |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 10:04:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
People being able to add films to the site directly bears no relation to what types of film have been added.
Wha? I can go to IMDb, copy the url for a sitcom and add it. Like this. Accordingly, the ability to add correlates directly with the incidence of non-films being added. When benj was the only "adder," this was not an issue. So you are wrong.
quote:
Before they could do so, Benj explicitly and repeatedly stated that this site followed the I.M.D.B. in what was classified as a film.
But that fiat didn't stop people from adding non-films, because kids in a candy store will try everything. like this*quote:
There was never an occasion where someone asked for a film to be added and he declined.
Really? Perhaps during your tenure as benj's personal secretary you were privy to each of his decisions, though I wonder whether you were present at all times. The key word in your tell-all revelation is "film": no, benj likely seldom declined to add a "film," as he was able to confirm that it was a "film" in the first place. However, "never" is strong as black tea. Perhaps you might use some lemon or milk in that brew.quote:
People adding films and Benj's change of opinion are totally separate matters.
Wrong on both counts: people adding and being able to add anything is the core matter; and who, other than you, said benj changed his mind? Deletion of an improperly added item does not necessarily constitute a change of mind; it very well may constitute an overdue policing issue, as with Playboy.quote:
People often like to confuse the situation by talking about such-and-such not being a movie.
Argumentative error: you set up a straw man. But rock on with that.quote:
Despite one of the alternative domains, this is the Four Word Film Review, and film is a broader term than movie (shorts and I would say documentaries are not movies, for example).
And "jet" is different than "black," right? Much like the "loo" is differemt than the "restroom." Yellowtail is not Ono, which is not bluefin, which is not bigeye, but they are all tuna, which is not pompano, or trout, or salmon, though they are all sushi (if served the right way). Six.quote:
Therefore, some people are getting all high and mighty about certain entries not being within a parameter that has never been implied on any level.
Right ... ish, and wrong: right in that the site has never implied that a non-film gets play here; and wrong in that nobody's getting all high and mighty, except the high and mighty. And who are the high and mighthy? By my account, that would be the gods of FWFR, namely, benj and the MERPs, who ARE the decisionmakers. Digressing a bit -- so you would accuse God of arrogance for imposing His rules if they seemed inconsistent to You? Please stand at least 20 feet away from me at all times. Feel free to stand on the pedistal, too. quote:
Now, that's not to say that some of the removed entries are also not films, but some of them certainly are.
Name the ones that are, Rudy, so we can have a go at it.quote:
The Report feature was not created because people were 'huffy' or because they demanded it. It is simply a more efficient way (for Benj, especially) of doing what was already happening via specialised threads, one of the main ones of which you started. It therefore did not create work: it saved it.
The nazi button creates work because it creates a log: it's just a more efficient way of streamlining the same work that would be created by relegating complaints to the fourum. (Did someone say "nazi button"??? where is he?!?! Lemme at em!!!) It's an efficient convenience, but it's still its own job.
Sal, being a "deity" on FWFR is only a figure of speech.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I've replied to this in the proper place.
As have I.
* benj and the MERPs will eventually catch this, but it is a link to "Three's Company" -- a sitcom -- that I added just to demonstarate my point. |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 07/23/2010 10:09:18 |
|
|
|
boydegg
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
Posted - 07/24/2010 : 16:26:30
|
Wow - what a kettle of worms.
All I know is - losing 50+ reviews in one swoop like that has really disheartened me. I feel like quitting FWFR ... after all, I made it into the top 50, which was my goal for ages.
Now I feel like I don't want to bother any more ... I keep wondering how many more reviews I'll have lost before this process is done.
*sigh*
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Playboy - gone.
