| Author |
 Topic  |
|
clay 
"Viewer discretion is revised."
Phoenix, AZ, USA
|
 Posted - 06/16/2009 : 09:27:37
|
I note with dismay that the top reviewer has over 11,000 approved reviews. If I post over 20 reviews in a week everything over the 20th is rejected out of hand as overage. That means I can post a MAXIMUM of 1040 reviews in a 52-week year, of which, optimistically, 60% will be accepted.
I'm in the 330's right now. If my projections are correct I cannot hope to get where Randall is till the year 2027. My dad died of heart disease when he was 5 years younger than I am now. Granted that Movie Deification is a great incentive to get fit and stay alive, but I ask you: is this fair? |
|
|
Salopian 
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 09:31:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by clay
If I post over 20 reviews in a week everything over the 20th is rejected out of hand as overage. That means I can post a MAXIMUM of 1040 reviews in a 52-week year, of which, optimistically, 60% will be accepted.
You never know... Calmer submitted an average of over forty reviews per week in 2008 that have been approved. So anything might happen. |
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
New Zealand
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 10:02:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by clay
I note with dismay that the top reviewer has over 11,000 approved reviews. If I post over 20 reviews in a week everything over the 20th is rejected out of hand as overage. That means I can post a MAXIMUM of 1040 reviews in a 52-week year, of which, optimistically, 60% will be accepted.
I'm in the 330's right now. If my projections are correct I cannot hope to get where Randall is till the year 2027. My dad died of heart disease when he was 5 years younger than I am now. Granted that Movie Deification is a great incentive to get fit and stay alive, but I ask you: is this fair?
I think it's a case of first in, first served. Those at the top of the quantity ranks arrived in the early years when there was no limit. Nowadays, in order to get reasonably speedy throughput there's a cap on submissions. It's not a case of whether it's fair or not, rather a case of what the editors can handle.
Or to put it another way, if you want 11,000 reviews approved to catch up to randall and thefoxboy, who is going to process them? And how much are you prepared to pay to have your reviews processed?
A simple answer to your question is that you'll never catch up. Ever. 
|
Edited by - Sean on 06/16/2009 10:02:55 |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 10:08:46
|
| Unless the 20 review limit ever changes of course. This is something I truly want to remedy once I feel I have the time to dedicate to serious MERPing again. However, I do think there is a good argument for some sort of limit (albeit not as low as 20) since it inevitably makes reviewers more considered over which reviews to submit. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 10:15:10
|
I think clay was being pretty light-hearted, not genuinely saying that randall et all were unfairly advantaged.
I'm happy enough with the cap. Minor amendments I'd favour would be making it monthly (as the current allocation system is biased towards people with very regular lives) and doing something about reviews that ultimately pass but which waste one or more slots on the way (I've submitted 20 almost every week at a success rate of under 8; yet my total rejections since 2003 are far lower than 12 a week since the cap; in other words, most of my submissions rejected in that time are now approved reviews). |
|
|
|
Beanmimo
"August review site"
Ireland
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 11:43:01
|
Clay,
my philosophy about the unreachablility of certain fwiffers is to focus on the short term milestones and enjoy making up the four word gems as they come to mind!!
|
Edited by - Beanmimo on 06/16/2009 11:44:20 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 11:51:50
|
Another small, but real, unfair cap issue I've thought of is this:
If a review is auto-rejected as identical to another, then a slot is used up for nothing. If the review is on the film's page, then it's one's own fault for not checking. However, if it is in someone else's pending or rejected list then it just isn't.
I'd therefore suggest that auto-rejections should not count towards one's quota. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 13:21:22
|
The way I look at it Clay - I've got no interest in writing 10,000 reviews and being the top reviewer on FWFR by volume of content -although full respect to Randall and Foxy for their work. There are other goals that are more attainable and actually more rewarding... To get into the top 100 reviewers you only need 658 reviews at present, and the top 50 just 1347. Also have a have a look at the total votes received and vote average tables by clicking the blue arrow next to "my rank". |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
London, UK
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 14:07:20
|
There is a solution to the sheer volume of reviews that need to be passed for the cap to be removed. Here's the ad:
Wanted!
Movie buffs with Asperger's Syndrome required for fun roles processing huge amounts of film-related data. Position will require you to be unstinting in following a set of rules. Pedantry welcomed.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 14:55:56
|
Is there anyone like that around here? 
|
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
United States
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 15:05:22
|
Who dies with most reviews, wins?
(I did the math once, Bill Gates spent more on landscaping in one year when he was about my age then I have earned my entire career) |
|
|
|
clay
"Viewer discretion is revised."
Phoenix, AZ, USA
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 15:50:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Is there anyone like that around here?
Three minutes to Wapner. I'm an excellent driver. Wheel. Of. Fortune. |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
United States
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 16:02:07
|
I think you are ALL missing the point. Don't you see? Clay might die eventually! My God, man, this is a crisis! I can't believe the callousness we all are displaying. Clay, I'm on your side: I'm here for you buddy, and we can work through this. Yes, the first thing we need to do is make sure you improve your diet: plenty of green vegetbles, and don't forget that protein is a necessary building block. Yes, and exercise, plenty of exercise. Oh: I'm panicking! I think we're losing him! Something tells me Clay may have only another 40 years; I can't bear to watch! Hang in there buddy! Don't you die on me!!!!
Don't just sit there, you guys: DO SOMETHING!!!! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU ALL!?!?!?! HURRY!!!!!!!
It's PEOPLE!
Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!! |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 16:33:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Position will require you to be unstinting in following a set of rules.
Or, rather, "Position will require you to be inconsistent, partisan, forgetful, disproportionate and unable to grasp basic concepts." |
|
|
|
[matt]
"Cinemattic."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 16:49:28
|
I know exactly how you feel clay. Not long after I began fwiffering I realised that I would simply never be able to catch up in terms of number of reviews! But I'm with demonic - I've continuously set myself smaller (and actually achievable) goals such as getting into the set of ten above me (so if you're ranked in the 330s I would aim for the 340s or 350s). My long-term goal has been to break into the top 100 - I've slowly worked up to 112, so not too long to go now!
More than review quantity though, I set my sights on moving up the average vote ranks - through my review-pimping I've managed to move up to 27th. 
|
|
|
|
BiggerBoat
"Pass me the harpoon"
London, UK
|
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 17:38:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Position will require you to be unstinting in following a set of rules.
Or, rather, "Position will require you to be inconsistent, partisan, forgetful, disproportionate and unable to grasp basic concepts."
Thick skin or connections in the criminal underworld a bonus.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
How can I ever possibly catch up?
