| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 04/03/2007 : 23:12:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Josh_the_cat
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Sorry, I will try to go back and delete my messages as you wish, but be fair: this self-directed accolade popcorn frenzy seems to me to be steering fwfr in the opposite direction... Just one member's opinion...
Not sure I understand this if you wanna pm me or explain then I'm all ears.
I am starting to agree with Rovark and others about open ended accolades and I may start to reduce the accolades that react to a word in the title.
With AC now out of commission, I'm probably the only one left who actually enjoys collecting accolades. [Sorry, Sally, I know this allegedly confounds you, but then, I don't understand why you happen to think 0-voters are so horrible!]
These leviathans -- now made childlike by the fact that (1) anybody can add any unknown future movies through benj's brilliant Boolean logic, and (2) anybody can add any new movie s/he wants at any time -- are now impossible, by definition. Josh, I'm currently less than ten away from your Docu dilemma [and I will be thrilled to hoist that particular muffafudda!], but you recently PMed me that you needed to add some more. So be it. If you'll click my name at the left, you'll notice I have two accolade stats: % I've completed, and % completed by at least one other person. During the past three months, the former % has shrunk. The latter % has grown.
Collecting accollades used to be a game. Now it's Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown every time he tries to kick it. That's not a game. |
Edited by - randall on 04/03/2007 23:19:23 |
 |
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 23:24:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Josh_the_cat
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Sorry, I will try to go back and delete my messages as you wish, but be fair: this self-directed accolade popcorn frenzy seems to me to be steering fwfr in the opposite direction... Just one member's opinion...
Not sure I understand this if you wanna pm me or explain then I'm all ears.
I am starting to agree with Rovark and others about open ended accolades and I may start to reduce the accolades that react to a word in the title.
With AC now out of commission, I'm probably the only one left who actually enjoys collecting accolades. [Sorry, Sally, I know this allegedly confounds you, but then, I don't understand why you happen to think 0-voters are so horrible!]
These leviathans -- now made childlike by the fact that (1) anybody can add any unknown future movies through benj's brilliant Boolean logic, and (2) anybody can add any new movie s/he wants at any time -- are now impossible, by definition. Josh, I'm currently less than ten away from your Docu dilemma [and I will be thrilled to hoist that particular muffafudda!], but you recently PMed me that you needed to add some more. So be it. If you'll click my name at the left, you'll notice I have two accolade stats: % I've completed, and % completed by at least one other person. During the past three months, the former % has shrunk. The latter % has grown.
Collecting accollades used to be a game. Now it's Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown every time he tries to kick it. That's not a game.
It would be nice if we had an accolade stat similar to the other three ranking stats that benj has set up. I think that I stood at 309 completed last time I checked.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 23:33:27
|
Scuse me, I didn't completely make the point I was trying to: the high % is not the accolades completed by another person. Only the ones completed by just one person: me!
lemmy, thanks for your concern, but I don't need a stat -- just a fair chance. I believe that chance is gone forever. |
Edited by - randall on 04/03/2007 23:35:13 |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 23:37:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
It would be nice if we had an accolade stat similar to the other three ranking stats that benj has set up. I think that I stood at 309 completed last time I checked.
Here's one that has the stats.
http://www.fwfr.com/user.asp?id=6758 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 23:40:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
It would be nice if we had an accolade stat similar to the other three ranking stats that benj has set up. I think that I stood at 309 completed last time I checked.
Here's one that has the stats.
http://www.fwfr.com/user.asp?id=6758
foxy, don't try to distract me again with that incredibly cute baby. I'm not looking for a stat. I'm just looking for a chance. |
|
|
|
Josh the cat 
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 23:51:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Josh, I'm currently less than ten away from your Docu dilemma [and I will be thrilled to hoist that particular muffafudda!], but you recently PMed me that you needed to add some more. So be it.
Once you have achieved it I will rename it in honour of your efforts and the achievement, then I will add the remaining documentaries approx 120ish.
I considered making a DD part 2 accolade to to hold the next 1000, but the logistics of knowing which are in the first and which are not is a nightmare!
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
If you'll click my name at the left, you'll notice I have two accolade stats: % I've completed, and % completed by at least one other person. During the past three months, the former % has shrunk. The latter % has grown.
Collecting accollades used to be a game. Now it's Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown every time he tries to kick it. That's not a game.
I had over 300 accolades once but the auto update thing appeared! I am also in the midst of a review drought am ticking over but that is about it. I am also concerned about the direction the site is taking and some of the people that have come to the site.
If people wanna know why you chase accolades then all I say is that is your private challenge and how you have fun on the site. There is little logic to reviewing a film in 4 words why do any of us do it, for fun and a bit of a challenge that's why I do it.
Josh the cat |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 03:57:15
|
I counted 10 fwfrers who still have posts in the accolade thread that aren't a list of accolades. Would it be rude to PM them and ask them to delete their posts?    |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 06:41:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I counted 10 fwfrers who still have posts in the accolade thread that aren't a list of accolades. Would it be rude to PM them and ask them to delete their posts?
I am contacting everyone and trying to be tactful I have not done everyone yet I was hoping that chat like this would get some to remove their posts.
I will pm the rest today
I have now pm'd everyone I believe, the thread is looking a lot shorter and neater already, cheers one and all
Josh the cat |
Edited by - Josh the cat on 04/04/2007 14:56:50 |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 13:12:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
It would be nice if we had an accolade stat similar to the other three ranking stats that benj has set up. I think that I stood at 309 completed last time I checked.
Here's one that has the stats.
http://www.fwfr.com/user.asp?id=6758
Thanks foxy! 
Randall, I agree that these self-expanding accolades are a curse. I have chosen not to set up any of mine in this way, but some accolades seem to have been created just for that. Chacun a son gout. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 15:51:50
|
| I have no problem with Randall chasing accolades and do not care what the reason is. I just meant that I also do not care about accolades existing that no one wishes to chase. If they somehow blocked smaller accolades, that would be different, but of course they do not. I create my accolades for my own interest. If anyone also finds any interest in any of them, that is fine. If they don't, that is fine too. Still, the largest couple of them only have a few hundred films, so they are well within the limits of attainability anyway. |
|
|
|
Rovark
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 20:53:28
|
Given the way films are now being added at such an incredible rate I can draw acouple of conclusions.
1) Some reviewers, unable to add more than 20 reviews per week, are bored and trawling IMDB to add films on a vaguely related subject.
2) Other reviewers are systematically searching IMDB on a set theme, presumeably so that at some future date they will be number 1 in the "films added to FWFR" listing.
3) All open ended accolades based on words or especially word elements, have been rendered utterly worthless.
I'm dumping a bunch of my accolades and can only apologise to anyone who had been working towards achieving them.
Entitled; Lords, Kings, Queens, Knights in the title
Continental Colection; Asia, Africa, America etc in the title
Edged Weaponry; Swords, Knives, Daggers etc in the title
Elemental My Dears; Earth, Wind, Fire, Water in the title
Four Seasons; Spring, Summer, Autumn(&Fall), Winter in the title
Happy Holidays; Christmas, Easter, Halloween etc
Siblings; Brother & Sister
Sires and Dams; Mother & Father
Sons and Daughters; Son & Daughter
Spouses and Spouses To Be; Husband, Wife, Bride, Groom
For the time being I'm keeping some open-ended accolades, though in an edited form, so Zodiac has been edited from 101 films to 31 films. Body of Work from 458 films to 144 films.
I think I'll eventually stabilise these type of accolades at a set number of films so that I only add a new film if it's a better 'fit' than an existing one. One in, one out.
I'm also going to try and make sure all my accolades have a nice little Trophy to go with them 
.
|
|
|
|
Rovark
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 11:48:40
|
I've added 2 new accolades, the first a traditional one based on the filmography of an actor.
Glen Ford
The other one, is one of these potentially stupid open ended based-on-a-word-in-the-title ones. However, I've set a limit of 50 films, so will ruthlessly edit out those I consider to be 'less worthy' or overly repetitious of one of the criteria. And it's got a nice trophy which will grace any trophy cabinet.
Great Cats
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 14:16:48
|
| Applause to Rovie for his sentiments stated two posts up. I couldn't agree more. |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:52:32
|
I found some of my accolades that I have made aimless. So I have deleted some.
Fragile! -Movies that are fragile (Glass, etc.)
ACC-Olade - Movies With ACC in the title
I dont want to delete my '5' Accolade. It has a trophy I really like as a pic. But this accolade is childish and may never be gotten. ITs movie titles that can be divided by 5.
I too agree that there are aimless Accolades out there. I find myself adding more just to stay on this site after doing my 20.
I like my FWIFFER Acronmy Name Accolades. Anyone who doesnt? Its just nice to see Names as Accolades. |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 21:27:37
|
This is a positive trend.  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Accolade discussion and suggestions!
