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 Maintenance
 Duplicate Reviews

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
Mr Savoir Faire Posted - 07/06/2004 : 21:53:15
Sean and Dante both have "One mint too many." For "Monty Python's the Meaning of Life".

The "Godzilla vs. Space Godzilla" movie is listed under it's Japanese name "Godzilla vs. Supesugojira"

15   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Alphonsehadd Posted - 19/08/2017 : 19:49:15
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown

I suppose...but that brings up the issue of whether proper use of the secockpit with google keywords tools https://www.musicglue.com/secockpit/ for niche keywords using secockpit has been consistantly enforced here. I don't believe it has.

On this particular review, I don't know if it's proper or not. American Heritage dictionary says it's two words, while Merriam-Webster has it hyphenated. But I do know that overall, there are a large number of questionable hyphens on this site.



In the Dictionary, it's 2 separate words when utilized as a noun, which is hyphenated when used as an adjective.
Scorelopian Posted - 17/12/2015 : 04:59:07
There are loads of duplicates here, especially of genie-ous, which should be genie-us anyway.
Scorelopian Posted - 15/07/2012 : 22:04:26
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

As well as the above example, which has still not been addressed, I have had another case.

My "Ice 4ge" (485695) was rejected, for some reason, long before demonic's identical one (496172) was approved.

And at almost exactly the same time as mine was rejected, the dreadful "IV-ce Age" (485874) was submitted and, even more astonishingly, approved.

The MERPs strike again.

And this one too.
Scorelopian Posted - 15/07/2012 : 22:03:35
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

quote:
Originally posted by Cracovian

quote:
Originally posted by Cracovian

quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

This review has now been approved, while my older identical review is still pending. (i) Shouldn't the newer one have been automatically declined? (ii) Once both were somehow pending, shouldn't mine have been approved instead?

The last time this happened, although I highlighted the situation whilst my review was still pending for the first time, I had to resubmit it twenty times before it was approved (and even then the other review, a near duplicate in that case, was left on the site). I'd really rather not go through all that again.

My review has now been rejected with the following comment:
quote:
The exact same review is already posted. I know you want to appeal the chronology but sub-editors don't have that power. So, if you're going to get all whiny about you being first, take it up with benj, although he has more important things to deal with right now. So don't hold your breath.

I always get this same charming attitude from the new MERP: (s)he always sounds the same so I can tell that it is him/her. (N.B. Because of posting above, I hadn't even made a comment, so the MERP's malicious tone is not even in response to anything.)

(1) We all always have more important things to deal with than four-word film reviews. (Well, maybe this MERP doesn't, but the rest of us do.)
(2) I had already taken it up with Benj, by posting about it here.
(3) We all know what powers 'sub-editors' have.
(4) Processing reviews is not sub-editing.
(5) Not being able to remove the other review does not imply needing to reject this one. A more logical option would have been to leave my review pending for Benj, or better to have approved it, and let him remove the newer one later. Either of those options would have taken much less effort that writing the inane tirade above.

Benj, please could you sort this out and also tell this MERP to be more reasonable? (My review is number 481446 and the approved one is number 481795.)

Benj?

Benj?

Benj?
MguyXX Posted - 16/02/2012 : 20:36:43
Catuli and Whippersnapper had the same idea for this Jewish-Buddhist film, but Catuli had it 2 years earlier.
Scorelopian Posted - 06/09/2011 : 01:42:48
As well as the above example, which has still not been addressed, I have had another case.

My "Ice 4ge" (485695) was rejected, for some reason, long before demonic's identical one (496172) was approved.

And at almost exactly the same time as mine was rejected, the dreadful "IV-ce Age" (485874) was submitted and, even more astonishingly, approved.

The MERPs strike again.
Scorelopian Posted - 25/02/2011 : 23:36:06
quote:
Originally posted by Cracovian

quote:
Originally posted by Cracovian

quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

This review has now been approved, while my older identical review is still pending. (i) Shouldn't the newer one have been automatically declined? (ii) Once both were somehow pending, shouldn't mine have been approved instead?

The last time this happened, although I highlighted the situation whilst my review was still pending for the first time, I had to resubmit it twenty times before it was approved (and even then the other review, a near duplicate in that case, was left on the site). I'd really rather not go through all that again.

My review has now been rejected with the following comment:
quote:
The exact same review is already posted. I know you want to appeal the chronology but sub-editors don't have that power. So, if you're going to get all whiny about you being first, take it up with benj, although he has more important things to deal with right now. So don't hold your breath.

I always get this same charming attitude from the new MERP: (s)he always sounds the same so I can tell that it is him/her. (N.B. Because of posting above, I hadn't even made a comment, so the MERP's malicious tone is not even in response to anything.)

(1) We all always have more important things to deal with than four-word film reviews. (Well, maybe this MERP doesn't, but the rest of us do.)
(2) I had already taken it up with Benj, by posting about it here.
(3) We all know what powers 'sub-editors' have.
(4) Processing reviews is not sub-editing.
(5) Not being able to remove the other review does not imply needing to reject this one. A more logical option would have been to leave my review pending for Benj, or better to have approved it, and let him remove the newer one later. Either of those options would have taken much less effort that writing the inane tirade above.

Benj, please could you sort this out and also tell this MERP to be more reasonable? (My review is number 481446 and the approved one is number 481795.)

Benj?

Benj?
Scorelopian Posted - 05/02/2011 : 11:46:57
quote:
Originally posted by Cracovian

quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

This review has now been approved, while my older identical review is still pending. (i) Shouldn't the newer one have been automatically declined? (ii) Once both were somehow pending, shouldn't mine have been approved instead?

The last time this happened, although I highlighted the situation whilst my review was still pending for the first time, I had to resubmit it twenty times before it was approved (and even then the other review, a near duplicate in that case, was left on the site). I'd really rather not go through all that again.

My review has now been rejected with the following comment:
quote:
The exact same review is already posted. I know you want to appeal the chronology but sub-editors don't have that power. So, if you're going to get all whiny about you being first, take it up with benj, although he has more important things to deal with right now. So don't hold your breath.

I always get this same charming attitude from the new MERP: (s)he always sounds the same so I can tell that it is him/her. (N.B. Because of posting above, I hadn't even made a comment, so the MERP's malicious tone is not even in response to anything.)

(1) We all always have more important things to deal with than four-word film reviews. (Well, maybe this MERP doesn't, but the rest of us do.)
(2) I had already taken it up with Benj, by posting about it here.
(3) We all know what powers 'sub-editors' have.
(4) Processing reviews is not sub-editing.
(5) Not being able to remove the other review does not imply needing to reject this one. A more logical option would have been to leave my review pending for Benj, or better to have approved it, and let him remove the newer one later. Either of those options would have taken much less effort that writing the inane tirade above.

Benj, please could you sort this out and also tell this MERP to be more reasonable? (My review is number 481446 and the approved one is number 481795.)

Benj?
Scorelopian Posted - 24/12/2010 : 01:20:59
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

This review has now been approved, while my older identical review is still pending. (i) Shouldn't the newer one have been automatically declined? (ii) Once both were somehow pending, shouldn't mine have been approved instead?

The last time this happened, although I highlighted the situation whilst my review was still pending for the first time, I had to resubmit it twenty times before it was approved (and even then the other review, a near duplicate in that case, was left on the site). I'd really rather not go through all that again.

My review has now been rejected with the following comment:
quote:
The exact same review is already posted. I know you want to appeal the chronology but sub-editors don't have that power. So, if you're going to get all whiny about you being first, take it up with benj, although he has more important things to deal with right now. So don't hold your breath.

I always get this same charming attitude from the new MERP: (s)he always sounds the same so I can tell that it is him/her. (N.B. Because of posting above, I hadn't even made a comment, so the MERP's malicious tone is not even in response to anything.)

(1) We all always have more important things to deal with than four-word film reviews. (Well, maybe this MERP doesn't, but the rest of us do.)
(2) I had already taken it up with Benj, by posting about it here.
(3) We all know what powers 'sub-editors' have.
(4) Processing reviews is not sub-editing.
(5) Not being able to remove the other review does not imply needing to reject this one. A more logical option would have been to leave my review pending for Benj, or better to have approved it, and let him remove the newer one later. Either of those options would have taken much less effort that writing the inane tirade above.

Benj, please could you sort this out and also tell this MERP to be more reasonable? (My review is number 481446 and the approved one is number 481795.)
Scorelopian Posted - 18/12/2010 : 01:04:28
This review has now been approved, while my older identical review is still pending. (i) Shouldn't the newer one have been automatically declined? (ii) Once both were somehow pending, shouldn't mine have been approved instead?

The last time this happened, although I highlighted the situation whilst my review was still pending for the first time, I had to resubmit it twenty times before it was approved (and even then the other review, a near duplicate in that case, was left on the site). I'd really rather not go through all that again.
BaftaBaby Posted - 14/06/2010 : 19:43:39
quote:
Originally posted by demonic

Thanks Sal, that does explain it as I recently moved over to Google Chrome... much better it is too - my computer doesn't freeze three times a day any more when I'm trying to look at more than one site at a time...



I wanted to switch, but, uless they've changed it - Chrome wouldn't integrate with RoboForm - which, if you've got gazillions of passwords, is simply essential.

When I queried their tekkie team, they admitted they had no plans to develop it. So I am Chromeless. But I've got lovely wheel hubs

dem20nic Posted - 14/06/2010 : 19:35:11
Thanks Sal, that does explain it as I recently moved over to Google Chrome... much better it is too - my computer doesn't freeze three times a day any more when I'm trying to look at more than one site at a time...
Scorelopian Posted - 14/06/2010 : 00:48:42
This has always been the case with Google Chrome, and I recently told Benj about it, so perhaps he is in the middle of tweaking things.
dem20nic Posted - 14/06/2010 : 00:08:53
Quick question Benj - has the capability to report reviews recently been turned off or is my web browser playing up? I was trying to report a straight duplication of two "Princess Bride" reviews tonight and the submit button isn't doing anything at all.
Scorelopian Posted - 24/11/2009 : 10:47:31
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews

Looking into this now.

Thanks. I don't really want it to be like that previous case where my older review was rejected twenty times! It's a bit of a waste of my quota.

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