| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 01/11/2009 : 03:22:05
|
Benj, I just deleted a pending review from this week and then resubmitted one of my auto-rejected ones. The latter was auto-rejected as being over twenty submissions again. Surely it should have gone into my pending list, as a slot had been freed up?
Secondly, a wider issue has recently occurred to me. I have always tried to be pretty strict about submitting each review at most twice in so far as this is possible without the information being displayed (although there certainly are occasional exceptions, such as when any of the rejections were for being over quota, when a new rejection reason is given that I haven't previously had the chance to disprove or when a review is unfairly repeatedly rejected as a duplicate or otherwise ridiculously declined). However, with the cap being in place I was wondering whether this rule still exists at all. Since we have a finite number of submissions, there isn't really the need to limit the same reviews being submitted again and again, as was presumably the original reasoning behind the rule. So may we in fact use the twenty however we like? Benj and the MERPs would obviously not be especially keen to see the same reviews repeatedly, but realistically people are not going to often want to waste their quotas on reviews unlikely to pass. It seems only fair, however, that they now be allowed to if they really want to. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/15/2009 09:09:40 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 16:39:43
|
Okay, I think you should be able to submit that 20th review now.
As for the second issue, sorry but I just can't see why anyone would want to submit the exact same review more than once- there didn't even seem to be any explanation in your post either  |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 18:16:24
|
Thanks.
Well, just because they like it and think it's valid, of course. Anyway, the issue isn't their reason, but whether they have the right to use their own quota that way whatever the reason. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 18:50:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Well, just because they like it and think it's valid, of course. Anyway, the issue isn't their reason, but whether they have the right to use their own quota that way whatever the reason.
...and whether they have the right to waste disk space, bandwidth and MERP time by multi-submitting the same review. I say nay thrice. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 22:25:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Okay, I think you should be able to submit that 20th review now.
As for the second issue, sorry but I just can't see why anyone would want to submit the exact same review more than once- there didn't even seem to be any explanation in your post either
Well, I'll tell you.
I have a review which has been refused twice without any explanation.
I think the review is entirely valid and, frankly, I have no idea why it has been refused in the first place (or second place for that matter).
So I resubbed it asking for either an acceptance or at least an explanation for the refusal.
Is this unreasonable?
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 01:31:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
...and whether they have the right to waste disk space, bandwidth and MERP time by multi-submitting the same review. I say nay thrice.
Yes, that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that everyone is allocated equal resources and so they are not unfairly using up resources whatever they do with them. Also do bear in mind that I don't think this would amount to many cases in practice: it's mainly about the principle.
Whippersnapper is right that it's not a rare event for a review to be twice blankly declined when it is objectively fine. No one is suggesting that the MERPs should be capable of being perfectly consistent, but I am saying that we ought to be allowed to use our quotas to remedy the situation when they fail to be even on a second occasion. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 03:02:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Okay, I think you should be able to submit that 20th review now.
Something went wrong. I resubmitted that review after reading that but didn't check where it went until 'today', only to find it in my rejected list for the same reason again. I have resubmitted it again and its number is 4 (1 when I submitted it already over quota, 2 when I resubmitted after deleting the other one, 3 when I resubmitted it after reading your post). So (i) the problem is still in the system and (ii) if at all possible please could my quota for this week still be 20 excluding that review? |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/12/2009 03:05:41 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 11:00:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Whippersnapper is right that it's not a rare event for a review to be twice blankly declined when it is objectively fine. No one is suggesting that the MERPs should be capable of being perfectly consistent, but I am saying that we ought to be allowed to use our quotas to remedy the situation when they fail to be even on a second occasion.
Ah... I see now. I read your original post wrong. I was thinking you were talking about submitting the same review twice (i.e. using two of your allocated review slots), rather than resubmitting without change after a decline.
Yep, fair enough. I'll have a think about this. My concern is that it's all too easy to get into a match of ping-pong where the same review is thoughtlessly batted back to the MERPs repeatedly just because the reviewer disagrees with the decision. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 11:08:55
|
Well, in that sense I can think of someone who submitted the same review three times.  |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 12:20:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
[
Ah... I see now. I read your original post wrong. I was thinking you were talking about submitting the same review twice (i.e. using two of your allocated review slots), rather than resubmitting without change after a decline.
Yep, fair enough. I'll have a think about this. My concern is that it's all too easy to get into a match of ping-pong where the same review is thoughtlessly batted back to the MERPs repeatedly just because the reviewer disagrees with the decision.
Hi benj and pmfji but here's a quote from your FAQs.
quote:
Any user may resubmit a review if they believe it was unfairly declined and doesn't fall into any of the common reasons for declining a review (http://www.fwfr.com/fourum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=268).
For clarity, you may make a brief (maximum of 100 characters) explanation of your review in the Further Details box on the edit review screen, but if, after resubmitting with this additional information, the review is still declined THE EDITOR'S DECISION IS FINAL. We mean this. No further discussion is expected, partly to avoid delays in approving the remaining (usually sizeable) backlog of reviews, but mostly because these discussions can get lengthy and, to be brutally honest, "a bit fucking irritating".
I'm prob'ly missing something, but I don't see why that isn't the end of the matter.  
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 16:55:40
|
| Yes, you're missing the whole clearly stated point of the thread. That rule was put in place before the quota, when there was obviously a need to stop the risk of endless resubmissions. Under the quota, re-resubmissions cannot really add to the workload, as they are instead of new reviews. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/12/2009 16:56:49 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 18:13:27
|
The point of the faqs quote is to make sure that people do not resub their reviews without very good reason and self-belief.
As far as I am concerned I have written a perfectly good review of a film which I have seen (and quite likely the MERPs haven't as its a little obscure) and I cannot imagine any reason for declining it.
Under these circumstances, and where I have not been assigned any reason for the refusal, I think its perfectly reasonable to ask that either the review be accepted or a reason for the refusal be given.
If Baffy or anyone is happy under the above circumstances not to resub the review again then that's their business, but I really would like an explanation of why my review has been declined, because I have not the slightest idea what it could be.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 18:28:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yes, you're missing the whole clearly stated point of the thread. That rule was put in place before the quota, when there was obviously a need to stop the risk of endless resubmissions. Under the quota, re-resubmissions cannot really add to the workload, as they are instead of new reviews.
Well, they do because they aren't instead of new reviews- your quota should not be affected by a resubmission that's already been submitted that week. If it is, it's only down to a fault in my code and hopefully I'm getting closer to pinning this down through threads such as this.
I agree that MERP feedback should be given where possible however. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 23:58:56
|
I didn't know that, Benj, but (i) even nowadays it is not usually the same week when a review is resubmitted and (ii) I would be perfectly happy for resubmissions within the same week to count towards the quota (or at least as happy as for later ones to count towards other weeks' quotas).
Does my quota for this week exclude that review that should have gone through last week but which wouldn't? |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/13/2009 02:50:48 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/13/2009 : 00:10:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Does my quota for this week exclude that review that should have gone through last week but which wouldn't?
Anything submitted after midnight Monday will count towards your quota for that week. If the review was last submitted prior to that then it won't count towards this week's quota. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/13/2009 : 01:05:32
|
| I'm talking about my particular case this week. As a review unfairly failed to go through last week, I would like the (first, if there turns out to be another) submission of it this week to not use up any of this week's quota. It's not a major issue though. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/13/2009 02:49:36 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Quota issues
