| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 26/11/2009 : 13:16:21
For the first time ever(that I can remember), when I logged in this morning I had 0 reviews pending. Now that is amazing.
Personally I am chuffed to bits about this, but, I do not believe that it is good reason to remove the cap, and to be honest I don't even think it is good reason to extend the cap either.
Thanks for the processing benj & the MERPs, personally, I truly appreciate the effort.
THANKS
Josh the cat |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| clay |
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 16:38:31
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sa10pian
Of course, if the cap is to be kept, then the total-reviews ranking must not retain primacy. It's totally unfair to laud some reviewers according to parameters that are now not attainable.
"Must not" 
I'm sorry... did I recently die and, in my final, mad death throes hand over all creative control to you? 
I laughed myself silly over this exchange. It is so much like the Book of Job--"where were you when I made the world?"
And then later, the discussion of "must" as an ethical imperative--I laughed myself sillier.
It's not a perfect world nor a perfect website, but there is certainly fun to be had! |
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 15:41:55
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
A newbie today doesn't get that joy of spending all their free time on this insanely addictive site. I suggested before a good idea would be to allow newbies to get to 200 approvals before the cap kicks in.
I have a feeling that a newbie is not immediately restricted by the cap, I believe they do have some time at a higher/unrestricted level
Josh the cat |
| Yukon |
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 13:34:29
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'm currently considering it. However, I do think it serves an important job: making people carefully consider what they're submitting rather than lobbing every variant on a review they can think to, effectively leaving the MERPs to filter the repeated chaff. They have better things to be doing with their time and it's you the reviewers who should decide which version of a review you want to use.
When I first started out on FWFR, I submitted a few reviews. I checked back 10 minuets later and couldn't understand why they weren't approved. I checked back the next day and the next and the next and they still weren't approved. I didn't know this was a site run by volunteers. I couldn't understand what was taking the FWFR Corporation (which I was sure was staffed with hundreds of review approvers) so long to approve movies on its website.
So I left the site. Three months later, some encouragement from Corduroy Pillow and Dalmac pulled me back in. (I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for those two.)
So anything that can speed up the approval process -- while increasing the quality of the reviews - is a good thing.
The only drawback to the cap in my opinion is that when you first sign up to FWFR, you get really addicted. I was submitting 50-75 reviews a week. A newbie today doesn't get that joy of spending all their free time on this insanely addictive site. I suggested before a good idea would be to allow newbies to get to 200 approvals before the cap kicks in.
(Just my two cents Benj -- it's your site.)
|
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 09:52:25
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
...
I agree the cap should probably be a bit higher though.
...
Go on then I'll ask what do you imagine the new level would be? and when do you think it might happen?
No I didn't really expect you to give me specific answers to these questions as that would give some people too much ammunition.
Josh the cat |
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 05:30:21
quote:
Originally posted by wildheartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by Sa10pian
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
So was the Canadian personal income tax, introduced in 1917 to help defray the cost of the war. Needless to say, it never went away.
Do you remember it bitterly, lemmy? 
Hehee. I LOLed on that.
Easy for you to LOL. Your tax rates are lower than ours.  |
| benj clews |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 00:51:02
quote:
Originally posted by Sa10pian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
That was part of it. Another was a bug in my code and another was an issue with the order the backlog was being presented to the MERPs. To my knowledge all these have been resolved however.
As I showed when I first raised it, the backlog does not seem to have anything to do with it. This stat seems to just cover reviews submitted and approved in the specified period. I tested this by checking the approval results for recent periods: when older reviews had been approved within the period, but no reviews submitted within it had been, the stat indicated 0.
Since I first highlighted it some time ago, those two reviewers' stats have been approximately the same, which further indicates that the backlog was not what was inflating them.
Blimey- for someone who apparently struggles to fit things in with their hectic and not at all mundane and predictable life, you sure spend a lot of time sitting around analysing fwfr data and creating stats 
As for the backlog factor, you're just plain wrong I'm afraid. As I said, the backlog was part of the problem- not ALL of it no, but certainly was part of it for a time. I know this from the many, many hours I spent pouring over the raw data. Meanwhile, your analysis relies entirely on the information I choose to provide you with through the website. This is why you only get to use terms like 'seems to' and 'indicates' whilst I get to use the fun ones like 'I know' and 'certainly was'. |
| SixFourian |
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 23:17:42
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
That was part of it. Another was a bug in my code and another was an issue with the order the backlog was being presented to the MERPs. To my knowledge all these have been resolved however.
As I showed when I first raised it, the backlog does not seem to have anything to do with it. This stat seems to just cover reviews submitted and approved in the specified period. I tested this by checking the approval results for recent periods: when older reviews had been approved within the period, but no reviews submitted within it had been, the stat indicated 0.
Since I first highlighted it some time ago, those two reviewers' stats have been approximately the same, which further indicates that the backlog was not what was inflating them. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 18:51:27
quote:
Originally posted by Sa10pian
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
So was the Canadian personal income tax, introduced in 1917 to help defray the cost of the war. Needless to say, it never went away.
Do you remember it bitterly, lemmy?
Hehee. I LOLed on that. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 15:15:19
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Sal, benj, in response to this
"Please could you also look into how two reviewers have submitted an average of more than twenty successful reviews a week since the cap began? I raised this before but the only explanation anyone could offer was "Well, I'm sure it isn't true", which it is."
Does this not have something to do with the said reviewers having a wonderfully large pile of unapproved review at the instigation of the Cap and then adding twenty a week thus keeping a step ahead of the Merps til maybe now?
That was part of it. Another was a bug in my code and another was an issue with the order the backlog was being presented to the MERPs. To my knowledge all these have been resolved however. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 15:01:25
Sal, benj, in response to this
"Please could you also look into how two reviewers have submitted an average of more than twenty successful reviews a week since the cap began? I raised this before but the only explanation anyone could offer was "Well, I'm sure it isn't true", which it is."
Does this not have something to do with the said reviewers having a wonderfully large pile of unapproved review at the instigation of the Cap and then adding twenty a week thus keeping a step ahead of the Merps til maybe now? |
| benj clews |
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 14:31:37
quote:
Originally posted by Sa10pian
More important is that it not be allocated on a weekly basis (without rolling over). This gives an advantage to those with mundane and predictable lives. I often have to struggle to squeeze the twenty in and occasionally am just too busy to manage it at all.
If you ask me, those of us with mundane and predictable lives deserve any advantage we can get. It makes up for missing out on cheaper, quieter film screenings and having to queue around the block for several hours to pick up undelivered post on a Saturday morning.
quote:
I'd also like to reiterate the suggestion that I've made to you before. If we have a review approved that has previously been rejected, then I think we should automatically get an extra slot.
Hmm. I'll think about it. Right now this sounds awfully fiddly and with a high probability of breaking whatever system stability there is.
quote:
Must does not necessarily imply a rule from an authority figure; it can also indicate an ethical duty.
Well, then thank God such a well-balanced and fair individual as your good self is here to instruct me as to my ethical duties.
Glad we both agree that yours is not a voice from an authority figure.
quote:
Everyone being under the same cap makes no difference other than for people who go away for periods, and even then it does not have much effect. The top of the total-reviews rank has had only a handful of order changes in the last three years, as the cap just means that the distances between people stay about the same. Randall does not need to 'keep at it' to stay ahead of me -- were he to stop reviewing altogether and all my submissions be approved, it would take a decade for me to catch up! That is not a ranking that should be given prime place as a currently meaningful thing. Total votes would probably be the best one as a compromise.
Fair point, but the top ranks are always going to be pretty unreachable, especially when you have such dedicated and still active reviewers at the top. I think a good compromise is to offer total reviews ranking AND total votes, and a few others perhaps. After all, not everyone is about quantity.
quote:
Please could you also look into how two reviewers have submitted an average of more than twenty successful reviews a week since the cap began? I raised this before but the only explanation anyone could offer was "Well, I'm sure it isn't true", which it is.
I've spent quite a bit of time working to correct this over the last couple of years. Do you have evidence it's still happening? |
| Chris C |
Posted - 29/11/2009 : 14:46:48
quote:
Originally posted by Josh the cat
For the first time ever(that I can remember), when I logged in this morning I had 0 reviews pending. Now that is amazing.
Personally I am chuffed to bits about this, but, I do not believe that it is good reason to remove the cap, and to be honest I don't even think it is good reason to extend the cap either.
Thanks for the processing benj & the MERPs, personally, I truly appreciate the effort.
THANKS
Josh the cat
Me too. Had my last one cleared today, and that was a 2 week old re-submit, with explanation. Well done and thanks to all the MERPS |
| SixFourian |
Posted - 28/11/2009 : 20:23:51
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I agree the cap should probably be a bit higher though.
More important is that it not be allocated on a weekly basis (without rolling over). This gives an advantage to those with mundane and predictable lives. I often have to struggle to squeeze the twenty in and occasionally am just too busy to manage it at all.
I'd also like to reiterate the suggestion that I've made to you before. If we have a review approved that has previously been rejected, then I think we should automatically get an extra slot. This is because one has been unfairly wasted on that review. Under the current system my real quota is about ten, since most of my approvals take about two submissions (and it's not that I often add explanations after rejections, since I generally include them from the beginning).
quote:
"Must not"
I'm sorry... did I recently die and, in my final, mad death throes hand over all creative control to you?
The way I see it, we're all subject to the same cap (well, not me, obviously, but everyone else is) so everyone's on the same level playing field here. Sure there's those who put in the reviews before the cap, but they still need to keep at it to ensure they stay ahead of everyone else.
Must does not necessarily imply a rule from an authority figure; it can also indicate an ethical duty.
Everyone being under the same cap makes no difference other than for people who go away for periods, and even then it does not have much effect. The top of the total-reviews rank has had only a handful of order changes in the last three years, as the cap just means that the distances between people stay about the same. Randall does not need to 'keep at it' to stay ahead of me -- were he to stop reviewing altogether and all my submissions be approved, it would take a decade for me to catch up! That is not a ranking that should be given prime place as a currently meaningful thing. Total votes would probably be the best one as a compromise.
Please could you also look into how two reviewers have submitted an average of more than twenty successful reviews a week since the cap began? I raised this before but the only explanation anyone could offer was "Well, I'm sure it isn't true", which it is. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 28/11/2009 : 15:35:24
quote:
Originally posted by Sa10pian
Yes, I am also down to no reviews pending for the first time ever. It is really weird seeing the pause symbol shaded blue. Well done to Benj and the MERPs for any positive results from this situation. (AussieCanuck came back; suddenly a lot more MERP activity occurred; then he noticed that the MERPs happened to stop at exactly 300,000 approved reviews. What an amazing coincidence.)
Interesting theory, which might hold up if it weren't for the fact we'd been getting the backlog down quite nicely some time before AC returned. I don't want to take all the credit, but I've been back at the MERPing station somewhat more of late as a by-product of reworking on the book manuscript.
quote:
I hope that Benj will consider the cap issue (seeing as it was explicitly a temporary remedy). Having said that, I'd be fairly happy for it to be kept, although a slightly higher limit or especially a rolling quota (so not unfairly penalising those with less regular lives) would make it a lot better.
I'm currently considering it. However, I do think it serves an important job: making people carefully consider what they're submitting rather than lobbing every variant on a review they can think to, effectively leaving the MERPs to filter the repeated chaff. They have better things to be doing with their time and it's you the reviewers who should decide which version of a review you want to use.
I agree the cap should probably be a bit higher though.
quote:
Of course, if the cap is to be kept, then the total-reviews ranking must not retain primacy. It's totally unfair to laud some reviewers according to parameters that are now not attainable.
"Must not"
I'm sorry... did I recently die and, in my final, mad death throes hand over all creative control to you?
The way I see it, we're all subject to the same cap (well, not me, obviously, but everyone else is) so everyone's on the same level playing field here. Sure there's those who put in the reviews before the cap, but they still need to keep at it to ensure they stay ahead of everyone else. |
| SixFourian |
Posted - 28/11/2009 : 04:05:41
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
So was the Canadian personal income tax, introduced in 1917 to help defray the cost of the war. Needless to say, it never went away.
Do you remember it bitterly, lemmy? |
|
|
