| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Salopian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 11/23/2007 : 09:01:44
|
| On the smiley thing, yes this happens it every case now, but it didn't use to happen. It started maybe about a year ago. |
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 11/23/2007 : 11:56:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Ah - I think I just spotted a clue. You're talking about individual film pages. I tend to award scores on my list of films approved, or films pending approval. So it may be that I rush down the list too quickly. Could that be something to do with it? Clearly, that's how I know one try to award a score affects another film, because I see it in front of my eyes. e.g. I click on the 5 box of Casablanca which is two films under Saw IV, and it's the latter that gets the 5-er ... whether or not there was already a score there. Then again, sometimes it all works perfectly.
Would you suggest that we only add scores on the actual film page? I'm happy to do that - but, of course, if there's an easy fix to the other way, that would be sublime.
Ah-ha... I can see how that might cause problems. Will let you know if I fix this. Meantime, yup- best bet is to score on a film's page only. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/23/2007 : 13:18:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by 8enj clews
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Ah - I think I just spotted a clue. You're talking about individual film pages. I tend to award scores on my list of films approved, or films pending approval. So it may be that I rush down the list too quickly. Could that be something to do with it? Clearly, that's how I know one try to award a score affects another film, because I see it in front of my eyes. e.g. I click on the 5 box of Casablanca which is two films under Saw IV, and it's the latter that gets the 5-er ... whether or not there was already a score there. Then again, sometimes it all works perfectly.
Would you suggest that we only add scores on the actual film page? I'm happy to do that - but, of course, if there's an easy fix to the other way, that would be sublime.
Ah-ha... I can see how that might cause problems. Will let you know if I fix this. Meantime, yup- best bet is to score on a film's page only.
Big thanks, benj!
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/27/2007 : 20:47:52
|
Benj, is there any way that the glitch can be fixed such that James Cromwell films can be added to this accolade?
It's also annoying that if one sets an accolade to auto-update according to a criterion, it removes any films that one has added separately. |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 12/27/2007 : 21:37:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by 8enj clews
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Ah - I think I just spotted a clue. You're talking about individual film pages. I tend to award scores on my list of films approved, or films pending approval. So it may be that I rush down the list too quickly. Could that be something to do with it? Clearly, that's how I know one try to award a score affects another film, because I see it in front of my eyes. e.g. I click on the 5 box of Casablanca which is two films under Saw IV, and it's the latter that gets the 5-er ... whether or not there was already a score there. Then again, sometimes it all works perfectly.
Would you suggest that we only add scores on the actual film page? I'm happy to do that - but, of course, if there's an easy fix to the other way, that would be sublime.
Ah-ha... I can see how that might cause problems. Will let you know if I fix this. Meantime, yup- best bet is to score on a film's page only.
I always score a film as soon as I get an approved review for it, that's how I keep track of the films that I've reviewed, I never have an issue doing it on the approved films page of My fwfr.
Josh the cat |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/02/2008 : 08:27:49
|
I just added the stat for Number of Reviews in 2008 and the four that I found were accepted when I logged on this morning aren't showing up. Is this because the stat counts reviews from when they're submitted or is there a problem with the stat that isn't showing my four 2008 approved reviews?
(2007 was a good year for me here - despite the fewer reviews accepted, I finally got one with enough votes to push it into the top 500 reviews!)
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/02/2008 : 12:24:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I just added the stat for Number of Reviews in 2008 and the four that I found were accepted when I logged on this morning aren't showing up. Is this because the stat counts reviews from when they're submitted or is there a problem with the stat that isn't showing my four 2008 approved reviews?
(2007 was a good year for me here - despite the fewer reviews accepted, I finally got one with enough votes to push it into the top 500 reviews!)
Yup- it's looking at date submitted. Would this be worth changing to when they were approved instead? (Obviously, this would also affect every Number of Reviews in xxxx stat though) |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/02/2008 : 12:38:15
|
| The person who created them should have the choice, but they should have to be clearly named. |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 12:43:17
|
I created the 2007 and 2008 stat, I believe that I followed the formula used previously and labelled it the same for consistency.
I like the stat as it stands approved reviews written in 2008. I did check that this was what the previous versions were 2002 2003 etc.
sorry for any confusion but reviews that have been approved this year yet were written last year will be counted in last years stat.
Hope this clears this up. If Benj is to change them could he please change them all so that there is consistency.
Cheers
Josh the cat
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 14:22:02
|
| I think these stats are fine too, and agree that if they are changed they should all be done for consistency. However, only the names (if anything) should be changed. Let other people write stats for reviews by year approved if they want them. And I am not even as sure as I was before that the names should be amended - date of submission is the principal (and thus default) thing as far as I am concerned. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 06:41:31
|
Here's the problem - after a review is accepted, the only date we can see on it is the acceptance date. From that moment on we haven't any way of seeing the date we submitted it. If we could see the submission dates on our reviews after they've been accepted, then I would agree.
As it is, I'm leaning towards asking someone to make up stats for 2005, 6, 7 & 8 that counts the number of reviews accepted in those years. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 11:12:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Here's the problem - after a review is accepted, the only date we can see on it is the acceptance date. From that moment on we haven't any way of seeing the date we submitted it. If we could see the submission dates on our reviews after they've been accepted, then I would agree.
The submission date appears in the F.Y.C. and the chronological order on film pages is determined by it, I think.
Even if one never saw it, it wouldn't make it not exist. The stat based on that is to do with you; the stat based on approval dates is just to do with the MERPs. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 11:30:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Here's the problem - after a review is accepted, the only date we can see on it is the acceptance date. From that moment on we haven't any way of seeing the date we submitted it. If we could see the submission dates on our reviews after they've been accepted, then I would agree.
The submission date appears in the F.Y.C. and the chronological order on film pages is determined by it, I think.
Um... yes and no. FYC does have the submission date, but when you go to your reviews and sort them by chronological order, you get only the acceptance dates. There's no way to see the submission dates unless they're put into FYC - that I can tell.
quote:
Even if one never saw it, it wouldn't make it not exist. The stat based on that is to do with you; the stat based on approval dates is just to do with the MERPs.
I didn't think the submission dates didn't exist, I just didn't see how we could see them, aside from prior to them going through the MERPs and after that, putting them into FYC. I can live with the stat being based on the submission date and not the acceptance date - no biggie, really.
What I'd really like to see is a way to reveal the submission date of an approved review without putting it into FYC.
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 11:41:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Here's the problem - after a review is accepted, the only date we can see on it is the acceptance date. From that moment on we haven't any way of seeing the date we submitted it. If we could see the submission dates on our reviews after they've been accepted, then I would agree.
The submission date appears in the F.Y.C. and the chronological order on film pages is determined by it, I think.
Um... yes and no. FYC does have the submission date, but when you go to your reviews and sort them by chronological order, you get only the acceptance dates. There's no way to see the submission dates unless they're put into FYC - that I can tell.
Sure (about seeing the dates), but the chronological order on film pages is (rightly) done by submission date. I've asked for dates to be displayed on those pages but Benj says that it would slow them down too much.
You probably don't know, but there was a big debate in the past as to which date should have precedence. I was for submission date (as that is the only meaningful one as far as I can see), but some people insisted on having their pages by approval date for voting purposes. I see voting as an extra rather than a core thing. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 12:18:23
|
I didn't know. I'm a bit on the fence as to which is better - but I tend to think that submission date is more true to what the reviewer is doing rather than acceptance date - which as you said, is really up to the MERPs and the site.
(It's all about me, isn't it?)
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Programming glitches
