| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ali 
"Those aren't pillows."
|
 Posted - 10/02/2008 : 13:38:41
|
Is anyone surprised by the arrogance on display in the "Click for details" messages? It would be worth taking seriously if it weren't so mired in shit.
Also, some messages are veritable essays (badly written, and wrong), to which one cannot respond except for on the forum.
And the literalism. Don't get me started on the literalism.
Also, and many others have brought this up before, some reviewers have an almost free reign here, while others, such as yours truly, have to explain the simplest of puns, and resubmit the same fricking review seventeen times before finally getting it approved. Maybe it's just my luck, and I keep getting that one MERP with the IQ of a retarded chimp.
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie 
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 13:59:34
|
| I know it's frustrating. I have adopted the viewpoint that someone is really trying to be helpful, and honestly, it seems sometimes the MERPs are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I mentioned it elsewhere, but it's worth a repeat. I recently had a "click note" on a review where I'd made what turned out to be a prominent typo, but couldn't discern that because my vision has been bad lately (I hit N instead of M, I think). The note said that while the MERP thought it was an unnoticed error, MERPs had been getting hit over changing what seemed to be obvious errors and thus, he or she didn't know if it was intentional and what it meant was just not apparent. I appreciated the effort and passed on my permission to fix obvious errors if I make them. Again, I know it's frustrating, but lately, I've decided I can't let myself get so upset over reviews. Just sayin'. |
 |
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 14:04:15
|
| Can you give us examples of arrogant comments? I can't say I've seen an arrogant one, most of the ones I've had have been useful, a couple admittedly literal. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 15:35:39
|
Actually it so happens that one of the MERPs IS a retarded chimp, so cut out the discriminatory language and show some inter-special gratitude.
|
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 18:08:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
Also, and many others have brought this up before, some reviewers have an almost free reign here, while others, such as yours truly, have to explain the simplest of puns, and resubmit the same fricking review seventeen times before finally getting it approved. Maybe it's just my luck, and I keep getting that one MERP with the IQ of a retarded chimp.
Ali -
You are trying to fix a system that is irretrievably broken. It will only frustrate you. |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 20:49:42
|
I love the click for details. I've never seen arrogance, I always thought the person is being helpful. Even if I get a rejection at least I know why it was rejected. Sometimes it's just a judgement call but as the website rules say, the MERPS have the final say.
At first, declines really pissed me off but now that I have a bunch of approvals under my belt, I don't let it get to me.
And I've said this before, I provided an explanation for every review I submit, no matter how obvious I think it is. Sometimes in the FYC, people will say they absolutely loved a review that made no sense to me. What's obvious to a Fwiffer in Canada my be unknown to a MERP in England. |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 21:02:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Actually it so happens that one of the MERPs IS a retarded chimp, so cut out the discriminatory language and show some inter-special gratitude.
There's also a very opinionated octoplegic spider in there too, but he "rarely" approves or declines reviews (though no one is supposed to talk about his relative productivity rate, if you know what I mean).  |
|
|
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 22:58:23
|
A good word is an easy obligation, but not to speak ill, requires only our silence, which costs us nothing.
John Tillotson
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 10/03/2008 : 05:59:04
|
Re-posted from thread "Third Rejection":
I think MERPs are like news stories: there's no remarkability, and thus no chatter, regarding the many decisions they get right, and judging from my own submissions, it's most of 'em. But that's not newsworthy: "dog bites man" and all that.
Over the years, I too have been miffed over benj's or a MERP's periodic inability to appreciate my ineffable brilliance. Nearly every fwiffer must have had a similar experience. But frankly, I like hearing back from the editors if their reasons for declining me are presented constructively, and so far they have been, without exception.
I distinctly remember a Titanpa review for FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, something like "Six raise 50." This was before MERPs could talk back, and evidently they kept declining it as "inaccurate." I know this because there was a big Fourum discussion over precisely how many soldiers lifted the Iwo Jima flag, when -- as we all should have realized -- the problem actually lay with the second number Titanpa cited. Downtown eventually solved the problem, the corrected review is on the site -- but if a MERP had been able to talk back, Titanpa would never have been frustrated in the first place. So yeah, I'm frustrated sometimes too, but so far it's all worked out for the best. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 10/07/2008 : 03:01:44
|
I had a fun one recently that I thought I'd share a bit on the arrogant side...
My review for Snow Falling on Cedars: "Hicks: Shiver Me Timbers" The movie was directed by Scott Hicks.
The click for more details comment: "Could you please resubmit a review that is more specific to this film and less about your pirate pun. Thank you."
A simple 'title play only' would probably have sufficed. Obviously someone A)tired of pirate puns B) tired of my title play only puns or C) really loved Snow Falling on Cedars.
(I secretly hope for A) |
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 10/07/2008 : 15:56:42
|
Turrell -
I love yours. I would have voted for it.
The recent Title Play I had rejected was "Great Mikes think alike" for THREE GUYS NAMED MIKE. It's an accurate description of the film since all the guys like the same woman. Not as clever as yours, but I still don't understand why it was rejected as Title Play. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 10/07/2008 : 20:15:33
|
| Because they don't know the film I guess. A resub explaining that it's actually representative would probably see it approved. As for Turrell's - it's a funny review (and an understandable decline to be fair). A crying shame there are no pirates in that film. Might have made it a lot better. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 10/08/2008 : 06:21:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Because they don't know the film I guess. A resub explaining that it's actually representative would probably see it approved. As for Turrell's - it's a funny review (and an understandable decline to be fair). A crying shame there are no pirates in that film. Might have made it a lot better.
I never saw the film I admit - but it was one of the better puns I ever came up with - I just thought the more info commenter was ver exasperated which made me chuckle. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 01:30:43
|
Well, Ali, I expect you know where I stand on this!
On the other hand, when a MERP's comment has actually occasionally enlightened me about something (e.g. there being a lot of films in a certain category without my realising it), I have noted this in the Fourum, not that anybody remembers that. Here's another recent improvement: I am no longer getting such a stream of rejections on the basis of there being one other possible film (though there are still some), so writing "Please see the 'new' rules" again and again has obviously paid off. However, I seem to be getting a lot of rejections on the basis of reviews applying much less well to other films. An example is a recent review for The Mist about the fog being evil. Now, I think there's also The Fog, is that right? But all the other films in which fog is a negative presence do not focus on it throughout or say that it is bad in and of itself, do they? Another, that had to use up a second slot before being passed, was this for Beethoven's 2nd. It was rejected on the basis that it could apply to Ferris Bueller's Day Off!
I must also say that it is not a case, from me at least, of 'damned if they do, damned if they don't'. I am not in a hurry to get new approved reviews. I don't want the MERPs to go through them faster. Indeed, I would like them to go through them slower, so that they make fewer faulty decisions. |
Edited by - Salopian on 10/13/2008 03:28:09 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 02:57:43
|
I take it back Ali - I had an arrogant rejection comment yesterday.
I'm actually very annoyed about it; being rather uncourteously told you are wrong about something is a little off-putting, but when you're not actually wrong it's doubly frustrating, particularly when you can't answer back directly and a second pass inevitably sits in the pending pile.
I guess I've been lucky so far but just bumped into your unfriendly MERP. It's not very nice. |
Edited by - demonic on 10/13/2008 03:02:59 |
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 12:20:25
|
I don't know whether to be happy or sad that I'm not getting the click-for-details message. My last three rejections have been dismissed without ANY comment, so I have no idea how to fix them. I'm guessing they thought my most recent rejection ("A True Documentary" for the film A LETTER TO TRUE) sounded generic, although there are plenty of precedents including "Faithfull Biography" for MARIANNE FAITHFULL: DREAMING MY DREAMS. It's a shame precedents mean so little in this game. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Click for Details
