| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
United Kingdom
|
 Posted - 05/07/2005 : 12:58:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by StaLean
This may or may not have been submitted before (I tried a search, but no luck), but they are virtually identical and a little too close IMO:
Joss & noncentz. I didn't check to see who was first. 
I guess noncentz was first, but Joss's has more votes.
Nope- Joss was first. Fixed now.
|
 |
|
|
benj clews
"...."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 13:00:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan the Author's Husband
13 Going On 30
AliasToby & chaz both have 13 Going On Flirty.
I voted for chaz and noticed I'd already voted for AliasToby. Not sure who was first though.
Fixed- ta'
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
United Kingdom
|
|
|
Animal Mutha 
"Who would've thunk it?"
London, UK
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
The Hub of the Universe
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 22:04:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Animal Mutha
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=12735
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=8632
Not to get on the wrong side of anyone, but doesn't this all seem a bit... samey. Especially as 2 of the reviews are identical. I know they're different films, but this has to fall into the whole generic argument somewhere.
Okay, I think this obsession with "generic reviews" is really going too far. These are two identical documentaries...they're about the EXACT SAME THING. If we're going to insist that the reviews need to distinguish between these two films beyond a doubt, then we might as well just delete EVERY REVIEW for both films.
Part of the point of the "What Film?" feature is that there's actually some guesswork involved. You MIGHT guess the wrong film. If you want it to be a little more obvious which film it is, that's what the "Hint" is for.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 22:06:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Animal Mutha
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=12735
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=8632
Not to get on the wrong side of anyone, but doesn't this all seem a bit... samey. Especially as 2 of the reviews are identical. I know they're different films, but this has to fall into the whole generic argument somewhere.
I'll allow these- neither particularly seems to have more claim to the review than the other and both these seem to be low profile gimmick-review films anyway.
|
|
|
|
Animal Mutha
"Who would've thunk it?"
London, UK
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 22:41:18
|
Fair enough But my point kinda was that they were identical films with identical reviews, just seemed that the second film may have been added to get some votes out of a review that already existed, but hey, I'm a cynic
|
Edited by - Animal Mutha on 05/07/2005 22:44:42 |
|
|
|
bife 
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
Singapore
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 22:51:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Animal Mutha
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=12735
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=8632
Not to get on the wrong side of anyone, but doesn't this all seem a bit... samey. Especially as 2 of the reviews are identical. I know they're different films, but this has to fall into the whole generic argument somewhere.
I'll allow these- neither particularly seems to have more claim to the review than the other and both these seem to be low profile gimmick-review films anyway.
Shit.
I don't agree with you benj.
I know it isn't a dupe under the strictest reading of fwfr-law, but it's the exact same review, meant in the exact same way and about the exact same thing.
If the reviews were really low-vote low-profile I would probably live with it, but they're not. Between them they have nearly 30 votes and growing.
I don't think it does the credibility of the site any favours to have them both there, and unfortunately it seems to be happening frequently these days (more as a factor of the high volume of reviews on site, I believe, than any deliberate 'borrowing' of reviews).
Since it looks like thefoxboy was first and I was second, I will delete mine (bums - picked up 16 votes already in FYC). Before I delete it though, can I ask a favour benj - can you transfer my votes to foxy's review?
And foxboy - didn't you notice it? If it had been the other way round I'd have been well peeved, and I would probably have sent you a PM 'pointing it out'. Probably not asking directly for its removal, but at least making sure you knew it was there!
|
|
|
|
Animal Mutha
"Who would've thunk it?"
London, UK
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 22:55:11
|
No hard feelings man, will head straight to your page and will vote on at least 16 reviews that I enjoy. It's only fair
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
The Hub of the Universe
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 22:57:10
|
I didn't mean to come across as so abbrasive. Sorry 'bout dat.
|
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
Singapore
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 22:57:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Animal Mutha
No hard feelings man
None - good spot, to my mind.
|
|
|
|
AC 
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
Canada
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 22:57:37
|
Just Smithee it. Then it's there to enjoy without the guilt attached. AND you can vote on it yourself once it's been disowned!!!
|
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
Singapore
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 23:00:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by AC
Just Smithee it. Then it's there to enjoy without the guilt attached. AND you can vote on it yourself once it's been disowned!!!
Nah. I Smithee reviews when I don't like them (or when I've managed to offend myself with one of my own reviews  ). I don't think this one belongs on the site.
btw - I do make a habit of voting for my own Smitheed reviews - no real reason except that it's fun to be able to
|
Edited by - bife on 05/07/2005 23:00:44 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
NYC, USA
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 23:11:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Animal Mutha
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=12735
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=8632
Not to get on the wrong side of anyone, but doesn't this all seem a bit... samey. Especially as 2 of the reviews are identical. I know they're different films, but this has to fall into the whole generic argument somewhere.
I'll allow these- neither particularly seems to have more claim to the review than the other and both these seem to be low profile gimmick-review films anyway.
I have to agree with AM and bife on this one, benj. It opens the door to what you hate: identical reviews for series. It's a little dodgy [thank you, thank you, Brits!] because there are two separate films, but they're on the same subject. I think the identical review that got there first should be allowed, and the second Smitheed.
However, everyone, remember: this is benj's site, we're only guests. What he says goes, by definition.
|
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
Eastern Suburbs, Melbourne, Australia
|
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 23:32:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
And foxboy - didn't you notice it? If it had been the other way round I'd have been well peeved, and I would probably have sent you a PM 'pointing it out'. Probably not asking directly for its removal, but at least making sure you knew it was there!
I did notice it.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Duplicate Reviews
