| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 02/19/2009 : 10:48:05
|
I've been thinking a lot about further development of the site of late and a thought occurred to me about the earning of accolades. Does anyone think that once you've earned an accolade, you should keep it regardless of further films added?
I realise that as the system stands, it does keep the site challenging by having to constantly fight to keep accolades but it strikes me as possibly a bit irritating that you can lose an accolade so easily despite perhaps having worked so hard to successfully earn it originally.
Or should this be an option defined by the accolade creator? Whether an accolade can be kept after new films are added to it (automatically or otherwise)?
Would be interested to hear others' thoughts on this. |
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 11:43:55
|
As the site's resident accolade-collecting obsessive, I can assure you that whacking moles among auto-added accolades is indeed irritating. [Some accolades, which depend on random sequences of letters within a film title, make me suspect that is the creator's *intention*!] Once upon a time, AC had more accolades than I. If he were to check in today, he'd be amazed at how much his total has shrunk due to auto-adding.
But I still don't think you should hold an accolade unless you've reviewed all the films in it.
There is a middle ground. If I could magically change things, I would require all accolade creators to update them, if they wish, by hand, once they're initially created. So if *they* go to the trouble, *I* will too. Eliminating auto-adding would also put some of these randomized accolades within the realm of possibility, but the creator can still keep them out of reach with elbow grease. Frankly, for an accolade of this type, I don't think anyone will bother. |
 |
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 11:48:58
|
| What about if auto-updated accolades were kept once earned? |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 12:25:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
What about if auto-updated accolades were kept once earned?
My own take: then what would be the point? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 12:47:56
|
| I'd guess the point would be in catching the accolade after having chased it and you should get to keep the credit for having achieved that. I'm thinking of the award not so much as something to be kept on top of but something you earned at some point. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 13:05:50
|
All the fun in chasing accolades is trying to hold on to it. I mostly submit new reviews in order to get a new accolade to my collection. It keeps me thinking and working at being creative. If I got it once and didn't have to do it again even if a new film or two is added, I'd be making far less submissions.
(And I wouldn't want that.)
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 14:32:13
|
Okey-doke... now I know some general feelings on this I'll leave it be  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 14:34:25
|
I create a lot of accolades but don't usually care whether anyone achieves them or whether I achieve any accolades myself. (This is not to say that I create them only for myself -- I just see them as a way to highlight groups of films that people may or may not be interested in. But when reviewers express pleasure in attaining them, such as ChocolateLady with my Bronte one, then I am pleased for them.) Therefore, I don't mind either way about Benj's suggestion.
Objecting to auto-adding doesn't really make any sense, though -- it's obviously a good idea for accolades about e.g. certain stars and if someone doesn't like an accolade about e.g. a certain word then they just shouldn't chase that one.
One issue to remember, though, is that all of the films in an accolade could have changed since someone achieved it and thus it might be a bit strange for someone holding it to have reviews for none of its films! Occasions this could occur include the creators finding better films (e.g. I change the entries in my month and colour accolades when I come across films I like more), the game-type accolades that sometimes appear and an old accolade I.D. being recycled into a totally different one (I don't like I.D. numbers being wasted and so when I don't like an accolade any more I change it into another one; I also swap accolades round when I notice that one of them has an apt number).
Another issue is that an accolade could start off with just a provisional couple of films while the creator is finding others to add. In many cases, a lot of people would achieve it automatically in the beginning.
How about having separate achievers' and past achievers' lists? There's also the possibility of what I mentioned in the 'Functional suggestions' thread of listing partial achievers with the numbers of films they've reviewed from the accolade. |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 15:38:09
|
Since becoming more interested in collecting and creating accolades I have another suggestion.
Would it be possible that accolades for people for example Josh the cat's can you Caine it accolade should be able to auto update as that is a reasonable(IMHO) group of related films.
But
Films, that are linked by a word in the title or a character in the title should be managed manually.
In this way if you wanted to make an accolade of all the films of a specific director actor etc. then that is possible but if you want an accoalde that has yesterday, today or tomorrow in the title as this relationship is a thin/weak one this should be managed by the creator.
This is a middle road which some may not like but to me seems a fair compromise.
As a guide for accolade chasers I have recently started to down size accolades and for the yesterday today or tomorrow example I have seriously limited the requirements for this. I am doing this for all word associated accolades as I want them to be achieved.
Actors accolades are auto-updating.
As for keeping it once it has been achieved personally as much of a pain as it is I believe if an accolade is worth chasing then you should be willing to maintain it and recapture it as necessary.
people may choose to disagree but those are my opinions
Cheers
Josh the cat |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 16:21:31
|
I'd be perfectly happy with that.
I think I have one accolade that auto-updates on a term, but as it is a number (23) it is really a nuisance as it is always adding titles that include an e with an acute accent. I've therefore been meaning to fix it at twenty-three films anyway. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 16:47:18
|
I wouldn't favor automatically keeping an accolade earned if it was updated. An example would be the large number of "The Definitive..." series I created. It is explicit in the accolade decision that they reflect my opinion of the best of someone's work, and occasionally, that will actually change, especially so for artists whose work continues. The Heath Ledger accolade was changed with Dark Knight. Yes, I've lost accolades when someone has updated them, but I take that as par for the course and don't really feel a compulsion to complain. I suppose I see it as if it is important to the person who completed the accolade, they can certainly discover what needs to be reviewed to reclaim the accolade.
On a completely different note, I would love a feature that would allow me to find or track the posts I've made in the fourum so that I don't have to necessarily go hunting through all the threads. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 17:07:43
|
To Josh's point, I should have added that I see nothing wrong with an accolade devoted to one or two actors auto-adding. It becomes more problematic when an accolade is devoted to every movie featuring any member of the ever-expanding casts of, say, LOST, or SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE. Before auto-adding became a feature, shoon did a herculean job keeping ahead of us on his SNL accolade. It was fun to chase it, and him. [shoon graciously notes the three fwiffers who once held this accolade in his intro to it.] Now, of course, it's become impossible, so nobody bothers any more, especially since we're limited to 20 submissions a week. Me, I just pick the lower-hanging fruit, whack moles wherever I can, and resign myself to the fact that there are some accs that will forever be physically impossible for me to attain: i.e., they're no fun any more, because any challenge has vanished.
Further out there in la-la land are the accs that depend on a specific series of letters -- one of 'em is only three letters long! -- appearing by random chance in a film title. Here, not even the creator has any idea which films belong. So these are not only impossible, they're also pointless, and nobody chases them any more either.
I don't really expect auto-adding to be rescinded: the toothpaste is already out of the tube. But some of us do enjoy the game, yet only when there's a fighting chance to see the goal line. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 17:10:41
|
Yeah, provided you don't slip on the toothpaste as you run for the goal-line, of course. 
 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 17:29:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
To Josh's point, I should have added that I see nothing wrong with an accolade devoted to one or two actors auto-adding.
My point, you mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Further out there in la-la land are the accs that depend on a specific series of letters -- one of 'em is only three letters long!
Which one is that?
quote:
So these are not only impossible, they're also pointless, and nobody chases them any more either.
Well, if someone chooses to create them, then they're not pointless, since they obviously get something out of having them in their list. Given that accolades are really the only way of grouping films on the site, it's inevitable and reasonable that they won't always be created purely for chasing. If accolades you don't want to chase caused you any inconvenience at all, that would be one thing, but they just don't. It makes no difference to you whether they exist or not. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/19/2009 17:31:27 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 19:32:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I think I have one accolade that auto-updates on a term, but as it is a number (23) it is really a nuisance as it is always adding titles that include an e with an acute accent. I've therefore been meaning to fix it at twenty-three films anyway.
I've done this now and a problem kept occurring that has happened occasionally. This is that it slips out of the accolade into creating a new one. It's presumably after being on one page for too long. Benj, is there please any way that it can be made more stable? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 20:18:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I think I have one accolade that auto-updates on a term, but as it is a number (23) it is really a nuisance as it is always adding titles that include an e with an acute accent. I've therefore been meaning to fix it at twenty-three films anyway.
I've done this now and a problem kept occurring that has happened occasionally. This is that it slips out of the accolade into creating a new one. It's presumably after being on one page for too long. Benj, is there please any way that it can be made more stable?
Yes, it probably could be fixed but I'm currently trying to focus my efforts on fwfr stuff that will replace the accolade wizard entirely. I don't mean to sound dismissive of the problem but if this is only a hindrance that affects people sometimes and isn't stopping the core functionality of the site I think my time would be better spent finishing off the work I'm in the midst of. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
A thought about how accolades are earned
