| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Montgomery 
"F**k!"
|
 Posted - 11/22/2004 : 16:01:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I'm not sure where this 'point out reviews written by others that we think are bending the rules so benj can delete them' habit is going. And I'm not sure I like it too much.
It's one thing to point out a review that is hopelessly wrong, eg, someone has posted a review for a film but their memory failed them and they posted it for the wrong film, like the one that started this thread. But it's another thing to find 'rule benders that have bent the rules a little too far' and try to have them deleted.
I can see why Emily noticed the 'Snap Crackle Pop' review was associated with a different brand of cereal, she is an Advertising Creative. Probably she associates that slogan with the brand, knows it was created in 1967 by Joe Smith and caused an increase in sales of 38% within 6 months and increased brand-awareness of 27% in the 9-16 year age group. (Ok, I'm making this up but you get my drift). It's her profession. So that review would have jumped out at her with bells on.
And Downtown presumably immediately noticed that the 'Montreal Expos' were a baseball team, he is a self-confessed baseball fanatic.
But, when I read both of those reviews I neither noticed that the cereal brand was different from the slogan or noticed that the Montreal Expos were a baseball team. And I didn't care either, in neither case did it make any difference to my appreciation of the review. I voted for both of them, and still think that both are valid, as the cereal brand and type of sport are indicental to the review. Anyway, benj has made his decision on both of these so I won't go on about them.
So my point is, where is this going? And why should people like me who like those reviews be cheated out of reading them because they are a 'stretch'? How many reviews at fwfr are a 'stretch'? Thousands at a guess, including most of my favourites.
Anyway, for the record, I'm not going to look for 'wrong reviews' from any reviewer, I'd rather write them, read them, and vote for them. 
I wrote this whole kind of thing in a thread titled "Be kind to your fellow reviewers." And I was told at that time that this was doing a service to the website, because we didn't want inaccurate reviews on the site. That's what I was told. For reference go back to the thread. I'll put the link here in a few minutes, once I find it.
I was just following what I was told. And, yes, I did think that that review was hopelessly inaccurate. Hence, I pointed out the mistake. But, I don't think it's not clever. I just thought, since I was told before that we WANTED to be accurate, that it should be noted that it wasn't accurate.
That's it.
I'm not really into pointing out others flaws either. In the thread I started, you'll see very clearly that I was trying to say exactly what Sean said here. Let's NOT pick out each other's reviews and try to get them booted.
I'll leave it to you to read through and decide which is right.
Accurate or not accurate.
I'm all for letting people get reviews by Benj and then leaving it between them and Benj what is approval-worthy and what isn't.
EM :)
|
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/22/2004 : 18:10:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I'm not sure where this 'point out reviews written by others that we think are bending the rules so benj can delete them' habit is going. And I'm not sure I like it too much.
It's one thing to point out a review that is hopelessly wrong, eg, someone has posted a review for a film but their memory failed them and they posted it for the wrong film, like the one that started this thread. But it's another thing to find 'rule benders that have bent the rules a little too far' and try to have them deleted.
And who has asked for the reviews currently in question to be deleted?
quote:
But, when I read both of those reviews I neither noticed that the cereal brand was different from the slogan or noticed that the Montreal Expos were a baseball team. And I didn't care either, in neither case did it make any difference to my appreciation of the review. I voted for both of them, and still think that both are valid, as the cereal brand and type of sport are indicental to the review.
That's fine as a subjective view, but no more fine than the subjective view that in some cases too much is sacrificed for the sake of a pun. Since it is essentially impossible to discuss this valid issue without talking about specific reviews, there is no use pussy-footing around them.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/22/2004 : 18:13:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by noncentz
Public humiliation ain't my bag baby, unless it's my own.
On the other hand, I would much more be offended by a private message on the subject (which would come across as an individual thinking they could tell me what was right and wrong, plus kinda intrusive) to it being mentioned here (which I would see as an opinion being aired to find out what people in general thought about it). |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 11/22/2004 18:14:13 |
|
|
|
noncentz 
"Myself in four words."
|
Posted - 11/22/2004 : 18:40:43
|
I'll make sure not to private message you then. You do it your way and I'll do it mine and the world will continue to spin happily.
It's not like I tell people to remove a review...or else. I merely mention that their facts may be askew or that they may be thinking of a different film and sometimes I may suggest an altered and more accurate revision.
Stating that a review is "wrong" in public is a lot more decisive a judgement than giving someone their own chance to correct an apparent error, which they do 9 times out of 10.
Just my opinion, however wrong it may be.
Of course, we all toil in our own way and I respect your right to present inaccuracies in any way you feel comfortable. No judgement here. I wasn't saying you were wrong in how you do it. I was only reporting my own method.
 |
Edited by - noncentz on 11/22/2004 18:55:53 |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 11/22/2004 : 19:33:12
|
Took me awhile, but here is the thread for what I first had to say on this topic.
http://www.fwfr.com/fourum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1039
Is it best to correct inaccurate reviews and therefore make the site better and more accurate, or not?
I'm actually on the other side of things.
I feel like, "Can't we all just get along?"
Which means: Once approved, leave it.
EM :)
|
Edited by - Montgomery on 11/22/2004 19:33:53 |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 11/22/2004 : 19:55:12
|
I've pm-ed a few folk when I feel they've made an error (mostly on which character murdered/slept with who etc) with positive feedback. I guess it depends on how many friendly smilies you use. 
IMHO it's gentler than an all out assault in the Fourum. I nearly always prefer being told quietly that my fly's undone; a booger's on display; I've got toilet paper stuck to my shoe... than to have it broadcast across a crowded room (although my standard response to my zip being at half mast is that it pays to advertise - it just doesn't pay to say it within elbowing range of my wife). 
|
Edited by - Conan The Westy on 11/22/2004 19:57:08 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/22/2004 : 22:00:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by noncentz
Stating that a review is "wrong" in public is a lot more decisive a judgement than giving someone their own chance to correct an apparent error, which they do 9 times out of 10.
Yup, I certainly never would have named the thread this way, but it did not seem efficient to start a separate one.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/22/2004 : 22:05:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan the Reefer
IMHO it's gentler than an all out assault in the Fourum.
However, there have not been any 'assaults' here, let alone all-out ones. And in cases where everyone would agree that a review is borderline, a private message would just be pointless. In addition, the general issues at stake would not be discussed, which is all the more important now that there will be multiple approvers.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/22/2004 : 22:24:58
|
Well, I've just submitted a bunch of reviews based on other breakfast cereals, and one on another type of building brick, seeing as Lego is featured in a key scene.
While I was there, I noticed that one of the reviews says that it takes place in the back yard, whereas in fact it is the front. Nothing about the review will be lost as far as I can tell by changing it.
|
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 11/22/2004 : 22:48:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
There are many more breakfast cereal brands than ring-shaped foods.
Prove it.
quote:
I was not imagining the spoon to be an important part of the story, and indeed it is not.
It's a huge spoon! It scoops the kids up! They nearly get eaten off it! It's a major set-piece in the film- how can it *not* be important?
And, therefore, the Cheerios are also huge in the scene. But, I am alone in my fight for the distinction between different brands of cereal here, so I won't continue . . .
And, as I said before, review and let review is fine by me.
EM :)
|
Edited by - Montgomery on 11/22/2004 22:50:32 |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/22/2004 : 22:53:09
|
I think the issue of deleting hopelessly generic reviews, and the issue of bringing 'marginal' reviews into the fourum for reassessment and possible deletion by benj are different issues.
There are old reviews on the site that would have no possibility of being accepted today if submitted, eg, "Great cinematography and acting". So when people find these, or other reviews that shouldn't be there like 5-worders, then I think it's good to point them out so benj can tidy them up, and I think he agrees.
But, a 'marginal' review posted recently has received recent assessment by benj (ie, before posting it), and he has thought about it, decided it's ok, and posted it. So, shouldn't we just accept his judgement on such a subjective issue and leave it alone? If every review that somebody at fwfr finds to be marginal is pointed out here, then there will possibly be 10-50 per day up for reassessment. I see 'marginal' reviews all the time, I sometimes wonder how some reviews got past benj, and occasionally wonder how some of my reviews got past benj. I probably have plenty that if posted here and discussed would be considered unsuitable and recommended by some for deletion.
There are reviews on the site that fit the movie like a glove, ie, they fit on many levels, and you couldn't find anything 'wrong' with them at all. These tend to get lots of votes.
Then there are other reviews that are a little more contrived, they fit the movie sufficiently to make sense to most readers, but perhaps have some aspect about them where compromise has been necessary, eg, to retain the pun.
Then there are others that really are a stretch, eg, contrived puns or reviews that trivialise the movie, or where significant compromise of 'facts' has been necessary to fit the movie. I'm guessing benj declines many of these borderline reviews where in his opinion the review is too stretched. But, if he thinks it's just acceptable, then IMHO it's acceptable, and I won't try to get it deleted. It's dead certain that there will be fwfrers who think that plenty of reviews from this last category shouldn't be on the site, and there is no way there will ever be general agreement about some of these reviews. Which is what bosses are for, and when benj has made a decision, then that's fine by me.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 11/22/2004 : 23:01:07
|
As already stated, it's all down to how you word your query over the accuracy of a review- be it in the fourum or by pm, I don't think it really matters where if you choose your words wisely (as I think everyone here has).
Regarding inaccuracies, a review being named here doesn't mean instant death for it- I try to take everything into consideration and decline only if I feel it was something I overlooked which is relevant to the film in question. Hence the football film review being inaccurate because it was based on a baseball team- this is an example of me having little knowledge on the subject and giving the reviewer the benefit of the doubt. On the flip-side of the coin, I'll also stick up for reviews, even explaining why I think they're right, if I think they're justified on the site.
I see this thread as a good way of picking up on my errors. However, I stress that I *do* still apply the same criteria to leaving be or declining a review based on the new information as I do at the initial approval stage. All that's happening here is that someone else is kinda' helping out with the review approving, but at the end of the day I get final say. The only person anyone should be getting mad at is me (if I change my mind and decline a review)- nobody is picking on anyone in particular, everyone's just trying to do their bit for the site.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/23/2004 : 00:14:21
|
Hopefully nobody's getting mad at anybody.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that I've always thought of my reviews as 'there'. I.e, submitted, accepted, posted, and safe on my page with their accumulated votes. It might just take a bit of the enjoyment out of fwfr if reviews are possibly only temporary, as 'marginal' ones could be posted here by someone in a bid to have them reassessed and possibly deleted. I just wouldn't like to see it become 'normal' practice for marginal reviews to be reassessed and perhaps deleted en masse, that's all.
We've all felt the 'sting' upon having a review we like declined. But I think the sting would likely be a lot worse if the review is accepted, gets a few votes, and is reassessed at a later date and deleted with it's votes.
When I write a review that I like but accept is possibly a bit marginal, I definitely feel a "Yeehah!" when I see that it's been posted. But I can't honestly say that I'm looking forward to seeing any of my existing marginal reviews in the future subsequently deleted with their votes. A bit like having a winning goal disallowed 'cos someone was offside.
|
|
|
|
David St. Hubbins 
"Armadillo in my trousers"
|
Posted - 11/23/2004 : 00:55:24
|
I'm new here, so I don't quite know the right decorum, but it seems to me someone who points out a review is wrong then posts a smiley after Benj decides to delete it is a complete jerk.
|
|
|
|
Stalean
"Back...OMG"
|
Posted - 11/23/2004 : 01:04:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by David St. Hubbins
I'm new here, so I don't quite know the right decorum, but it seems to me someone who points out a review is wrong then posts a smiley after Benj decides to delete it is a complete jerk.
Welcome, David! I'm not new, and I just browsed this thread to see what was going on (meaning that I don't normally worry about everyone else's reviews being legit or not). Maybe you should come on over to a happier thread, say for instance, the Avatar Contest or one of the other games we occupy ourselves with waiting for benj to approve our reviews or when we have writer's block.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Reviews that are wrong
