| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 26/02/2006 : 18:57:04
Here's the rules,
Post a link to a page of your reviews that you want me to read and vote where appropriate.
Only 1 post / link per FWFR�er.
No link no votes
I guarantee to read and vote for every person who gets their post in on the first page (I will try to get to people who are on the second page).
Get your link in early I am off tomorrow and will try to get around everybody before I head back to work on Tuesday
You don't have to return votes but if you want to Click here good luck!
Josh the cat
V&V'd
Chris C
Thefoxboy
lemmycaution
Lindsey K
Going to bed will be back in the morning to FYC and carry on
Paddy C
Whippersnapper (again)
Randall
Sean
Silly
turrell
Yukon
ChocolateLady
Falken by the way, you have a stat that says accolades completed and its 1081, but there are only 12 in your trophy cabinet, are you hiding the rest under the bed and in the coal shed?
Beanmimo
zulu
Puzzgal at silly's suggestion
TitanPa
Tori because she's lovely!
End of Game 
This will return some time in the near future
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| SixFourian |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 18:01:10
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
If the link is "unvoted by you" then other peoples votes won't change the reviews you see. 
They will.
How so?
As I've explained with my Jack and Jane example.
|
| randall |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 14:50:57
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
That's exactly how Mania works -- the game where we try to give some recognition to 0-voters. If you have sorted by review votes and your target page is in the middle of a list of 0-voted pages, then every time somebody votes for a review, a new one springs up for the next person, as it should, so the following voter gets a full 100 to peruse. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Mania?
Will the March winds blow in another round so that our unpolished gems can receive their lustre?
Ta-daaaa! |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 21:58:32
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
If the link is "unvoted by you" then other peoples votes won't change the reviews you see.
They will.
How so? |
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 21:32:17
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
hey i have been a bit slow but i splashed most of you with at least a few votes.
BUT something funny happened, I came across a few pages that i had viewd and voted already but i had to re-vote??????
Can anyone explain.
I think I know. It occurred to me that this will happen if anyone links to a page of reviews sorted by number of votes, then that page will change when more votes received. Especially if we linked to zero vote reviews. The minute someone votes for one of them, then the next person to visit that same link will get a few different set of reviews to include only the non-zero voted ones. The reviews with zero votes won't be on that page anymore, since someone already voted on them.
That's exactly how Mania works -- the game where we try to give some recognition to 0-voters. If you have sorted by review votes and your target page is in the middle of a list of 0-voted pages, then every time somebody votes for a review, a new one springs up for the next person, as it should, so the following voter gets a full 100 to peruse. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Mania?
Will the March winds blow in another round so that our unpolished gems can receive their lustre? |
| randall |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 21:28:43
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
hey i have been a bit slow but i splashed most of you with at least a few votes.
BUT something funny happened, I came across a few pages that i had viewd and voted already but i had to re-vote??????
Can anyone explain.
I think I know. It occurred to me that this will happen if anyone links to a page of reviews sorted by number of votes, then that page will change when more votes received. Especially if we linked to zero vote reviews. The minute someone votes for one of them, then the next person to visit that same link will get a few different set of reviews to include only the non-zero voted ones. The reviews with zero votes won't be on that page anymore, since someone already voted on them.
That's exactly how Mania works -- the game where we try to give some recognition to 0-voters. If you have sorted by review votes and your target page is in the middle of a list of 0-voted pages, then every time somebody votes for a review, a new one springs up for the next person, as it should, so the following voter gets a full 100 to peruse. Nothing wrong with that at all. |
| SixFourian |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 17:50:09
Um, the unvoted thing doesn't affect the issue at hand.
Anyway, what I think we should do is say that whoever starts threads like this can specify whatever they like. So if they say it can be any type of page, it can, and if they say that it cannot be vote-based, it cannot. Personally, I prefer the former and so I am glad that that is what you did here. |
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 20:29:09
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
The next time we do this - I think we'll have to re-think the link business. In order for it to be fair, it should be a page sorted only by date, film score or title of the film, and not by the number of votes.
To be fair about this i have not looked at the thread since I posted game over, sorry I didn't know that this debate was going on. In my mind I said post a link, personally I prefer it if the link is set so it does not show reviews that I have already voted on the idea is to give people votes and I can't vote on the same review twice.
That said, if you wanna post a link that does not specify unvoted only that is your choice all you are doing is limiting the number of votes you can achieve. If for example thefoxboy posted a link to his highest scoring votes and left it as all votes I would be able to give him very very few votes indeed, that is not why I renewed this old idea of mine!
Its your choice but generally I change the pages to unvoted by me when I get there if the FWFRer doesn't.
Where the link points too most recent, oldest, highest, 0's or whatever does not matter I read all the reviews on that page.
Cheers
Hope you all enjoyed the thread it may return in the near future 
Josh the cat |
| SixFourian |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 17:48:07
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
I did mine as my top voted reviews not voted by you - so the only way this changes is if one of my lesser reviews surpasses my top reviews...
Out of 100 reviews, that would likely happen though. If say Jack has already voted on 100 of your top 200 reviews, and Jane has only voted on 15 of them, then when Jack goes through your top 100 unvoted by him, he will probably vote for some that had the same number of votes as the bottom ones that Jane would otherwise have seen (but which happened to be onto the next page for her), so that the newly-voted ones come above any that Jack did not like or had already voted on. Thus if Jane votes after Jack, she will see some different reviews to if she had voted before. Since people vote to very different degrees, this scenario is highly likely to occur. |
| turrell |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 17:32:36
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Some Turrellian reviews for you.
I did mine as my top voted reviews not voted by you - so the only way this changes is if one of my lesser reviews surpasses my top reviews... |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 11:18:05
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
The next time we do this - I think we'll have to re-think the link business. In order for it to be fair, it should be a page sorted only by date, film score or title of the film, and not by the number of votes.
I don't think that's necessary. What does it matter if different people see and vote on different reviews?
I agree with Sal. The point is simply that people see one page of reviews - 100 - and vote on them if they like. There's no problem in my mind if some different reviews come in to replace reviews which have now received a vote.
For some of us the main benefit of this voting is to try to get exposure for our unvoted reviews. |
| SixFourian |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 11:15:25
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Not any clearer I am afraid.
Is it possible to vote twice for the same review??
If you mean that there were reviews that you had definitely voted on (rather than had visited the 'same' page twice and having the effect C.L. has described), it may be a problem that used to often occur. I, for example, used to have a slow connection, and found that the vote did not register if I voted on another review within about 30 seconds. However, I have not known anyone to have this problem for some time. |
| SixFourian |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 11:11:36
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
If the link is "unvoted by you" then other peoples votes won't change the reviews you see.
They will. |
| SixFourian |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 11:10:11
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
The next time we do this - I think we'll have to re-think the link business. In order for it to be fair, it should be a page sorted only by date, film score or title of the film, and not by the number of votes.
I don't think that's necessary. What does it matter if different people see and vote on different reviews? |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 09:30:45
Not any clearer I am afraid.
Is it possible to vote twice for the same review?? |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 08:43:07
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
hey i have been a bit slow but i splashed most of you with at least a few votes.
BUT something funny happened, I came across a few pages that i had viewd and voted already but i had to re-vote??????
Can anyone explain.
I think I know. It occurred to me that this will happen if anyone links to a page of reviews sorted by number of votes, then that page will change when more votes received. Especially if we linked to zero vote reviews. The minute someone votes for one of them, then the next person to visit that same link will get a few different set of reviews to include only the non-zero voted ones. The reviews with zero votes won't be on that page anymore, since someone already voted on them.
Am I making myself clear?
The next time we do this - I think we'll have to re-think the link business. In order for it to be fair, it should be a page sorted only by date, film score or title of the film, and not by the number of votes.
If the link is "unvoted by you" then other peoples votes won't change the reviews you see. |
