The Four Word Film Review Fourum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Return to my fwfr
Frequently Asked Questions Click for advanced search
 All Forums
 FWFR Related
 Site Features
 Quota issues

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

Smilies
Angry [:(!] Approve [^] Big Smile [:D] Black Eye [B)]
Blush [:I] Clown [:o)] Cool [8D] Dead [xx(]
Disapprove [V] Duh [7] Eight Ball [8] Evil [}:)]
Gulp [12] Hog [13] Kisses [:X] LOL [15]
Moon [1] Nerd [18] Question [?] Sad [:(]
Shock [:O] Shy [8)] Skull [20] Sleepy [|)]
Smile [:)] Tongue [:P] Wink [;)] Yawn [29]

   -  HTML is OFF | Forum Code is ON
 
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Salopian Posted - 11/01/2009 : 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.
15   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Beanmimo Posted - 01/09/2010 : 22:00:57
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews

quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo


FMI, I submitted a review which was rejected as the film in question was unadded... does this count in my quota?



Er... far as I'm aware there is no such decline reason. I'm assuming it's either pending me adding the film or automatically declined as not being a film. The former will obviously use your quota, the latter will if you don't delete it from your declined pile.



Sounds like it was un-added just after I submitted the review.

I'll get deleting so.

Thanks Benj.
benj clews Posted - 01/09/2010 : 10:31:55
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo


FMI, I submitted a review which was rejected as the film in question was unadded... does this count in my quota?



Er... far as I'm aware there is no such decline reason. I'm assuming it's either pending me adding the film or automatically declined as not being a film. The former will obviously use your quota, the latter will if you don't delete it from your declined pile.
Beanmimo Posted - 01/09/2010 : 01:13:46

FMI, I submitted a review which was rejected as the film in question was unadded... does this count in my quota?
Salopian Posted - 04/03/2009 : 06:08:39
quote:
Originally posted by [matt]
So benj, you mean if I submit a review and it gets declined within the week, then a resubmission of that review doesn't count towards the week's quota?

Since Benj said that, whenever I have tested it it has not been the case.
quote:
Also, if I submit a review but then decide to change it slightly, and then press 'update', does that count as another slot or the same one?

The same one.
quote:
And I especially hate to waste slots resubmitting when there's no feedback so I don't know what's wrong with it! I'd say I get no feedback over 50% of the time now.

The vast majority of my rejections are blank now, presumably because whenever they ever gave a reason I could virtually always refute it. Most of the reasons that are given are still ridiculous -- I have just got a title-play only one where the title describes the whole film and another when my review has no (positive) correlation to it (the title refers to nighttime and my review refers to one of the characters having a tan!).

But I guess the MERPs' strategy is working, because although I want to resubmit these reviews I similarly feel that I cannot use up the slots when they very well may do the same thing again.
[matt] Posted - 03/03/2009 : 02:45:56
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews

quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

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.



So benj, you mean if I submit a review and it gets declined within the week, then a resubmission of that review doesn't count towards the week's quota?

Also, if I submit a review but then decide to change it slightly, and then press 'update', does that count as another slot or the same one?

In my ideal world, resubmissions simply wouldn't count in the quota (or at least first-time resubmissions), since I so hate to waste my precious slots resubmitting!

quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I agree that MERP feedback should be given where possible however.



And I especially hate to waste slots resubmitting when there's no feedback so I don't know what's wrong with it! I'd say I get no feedback over 50% of the time now. Don't the MERPs like me?!

Salopian Posted - 18/01/2009 : 06:13:17
Stranger and stranger... Two new reviews that I submitted after posting the above went straight into my pending list.
Salopian Posted - 17/01/2009 : 20:54:16
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews

your quota should not be affected by a resubmission that's already been submitted that week.

Have you changed this now Benj? It's just that I have now resubmitted a review in this category and it was rejected as being over quota.
Salopian Posted - 13/01/2009 : 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.
benj clews Posted - 13/01/2009 : 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.
Salopian Posted - 12/01/2009 : 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?
benj clews Posted - 12/01/2009 : 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.
Whippersnapper Posted - 12/01/2009 : 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.


Salopian Posted - 12/01/2009 : 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.
BaftaBaby Posted - 12/01/2009 : 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.

Whippersnapper Posted - 12/01/2009 : 11:08:55

Well, in that sense I can think of someone who submitted the same review three times.

The Four Word Film Review Fourum © 1999-2016 benj clews Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000