The Four Word Film Review Fourum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Return to my fwfr
Frequently Asked Questions Click for advanced search
 All Forums
 FWFR Related
 Site Maintenance
 Duplicate Reviews
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 75

benj clews 
"...."

United Kingdom

Posted - 10/06/2005 :  12:23:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Sean

I can't say that I'm a fan of duplicate reviews across a series, I suppose the main reason is that it takes something away from the original writer of the review. Also, if it's considered a generally acceptable practice then it might be just a matter of time before it's open-season on copying the best reviews across the series. I certainly won't be doing it, but somebody might.



As a rule of thumb, I tend to allow reviews that could apply to the whole series against the first one only. If a series-generic review is against anything after the first film, please let me know and I'll consider whether it should be there or not.

Go to Top of Page

Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."

New Zealand

Posted - 10/06/2005 :  13:23:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews

quote:
Originally posted by Sean

I can't say that I'm a fan of duplicate reviews across a series, I suppose the main reason is that it takes something away from the original writer of the review. Also, if it's considered a generally acceptable practice then it might be just a matter of time before it's open-season on copying the best reviews across the series. I certainly won't be doing it, but somebody might.



As a rule of thumb, I tend to allow reviews that could apply to the whole series against the first one only. If a series-generic review is against anything after the first film, please let me know and I'll consider whether it should be there or not.


"Hard Hobbit to Break" is on LOTR:ROTK (9th one down by votes), could apply to all three movies. And it was already on LOTR:FOTR (8th one down).

There are about 700 reviews across that series, so I won't bother reading them all , although a quick scan down the first pages of LOTR x 3 did turn up "Old Hobbits die hard" on LOTR:ROTK, although you could argue it's more suited to that one than the other two.
The rest that I looked at look OK though.

I also had a look throught the first pages of Star Wars II & III and didn't see any that stood out as being intra-series generic.

So I take it that the duplicate of "Ani mated" gets the thumbs up because in SW2 Anakin gets married (mated) and in SW3 there is evidence that he has.... errmmm.... 'mated'?

Go to Top of Page

benj clews 
"...."

United Kingdom

Posted - 10/06/2005 :  13:27:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Sean

So I take it that the duplicate of "Ani mated" gets the thumbs up because in SW2 Anakin gets married (mated) and in SW3 there is evidence that he has.... errmmm.... 'mated'?



That's the way I look at it, yup.

When you have the same review or gag but against different films, *usually* it's in a slightly different context. In the same way, I think this works here.

Go to Top of Page

Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."

New Zealand

Posted - 11/06/2005 :  10:48:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews

quote:
Originally posted by Sean

So I take it that the duplicate of "Ani mated" gets the thumbs up because in SW2 Anakin gets married (mated) and in SW3 there is evidence that he has.... errmmm.... 'mated'?


That's the way I look at it, yup.

When you have the same review or gag but against different films, *usually* it's in a slightly different context. In the same way, I think this works here.


Yep, fair enough. I suppose there are two angles to look at it from:- the site, and the user.

From the perspective of the site, is there anything really wrong with having the same review near the top of the page (by votes) on one film and also on it's sequel? I would agree, there's not much wrong with it. In fact given it's a good review it helps give the review more exposure, more people get to see it and enjoy it, so it's all good from that perspective.

But, if one looks at it from the angle of the user, it might not all be quite so rosy. The reaction of users to their high-voted review appearing on a sequel with someone else's name on it and picking up plenty of votes will tend to vary from indifference to righteous indignation. Anecdotal evidence from fourum posts following various other incidents of deliberate or accidental review duplication suggests to me that most users are somewhat less than happy about having their reviews accidentally or willfully copied by other users.

An example:- I've got the highest voted review for Harry Potter 1, "Son of a witch". This is clearly a case of intra-series generic, ie, it could apply to the sequels. But if say (being hypothetical here) one of the sequels had something about it that made the review applicable in a slightly different context from the way it applies in the first movie (eg, Harry's mother appears to him in a dream in HP3 and does some witchy thing or whatever, make something up if that doesn't make sense ), and someone else submitted "Son of a witch" to that sequel, I know I would be somewhat less than happy about it. To say the least.

I suppose there's ego involved, I like getting plenty of votes for reviews and like seeing my reviews at or near the top of a movie page, so if I saw someone else getting credit for my review by posting it for a sequel, then I would feel that I was being cheated out of votes/credit for that review. There's also the healhy competitive spirit at fwfr, ie, watching a good review move up a movie page and overtake lesser reviews (eg, those written by thefoxboy ) is quite a good feeling, particularly if the review lands right near the top of a movie page containing hundreds of reviews. So, watching a copy of a top-voted review from a prequel shoot up the page doesn't seem quite fair.

I'm not on a 'witch' hunt here (fnarr fnarr snigger snigger ), I just thought I'd mention how these matters can appear to those who work on the review-generation end of the site.

Go to Top of Page

randall 
"I like to watch."

NYC, USA

Posted - 11/06/2005 :  13:32:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree with Sean. I wouldn't like seeing a review of mine duplicated by someone else either -- even for a subsequent movie in the same series.

Go to Top of Page

benj clews 
"...."

United Kingdom

Posted - 11/06/2005 :  16:22:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Sean

quote:
Originally posted by benj clews

quote:
Originally posted by Sean

So I take it that the duplicate of "Ani mated" gets the thumbs up because in SW2 Anakin gets married (mated) and in SW3 there is evidence that he has.... errmmm.... 'mated'?


That's the way I look at it, yup.

When you have the same review or gag but against different films, *usually* it's in a slightly different context. In the same way, I think this works here.


Yep, fair enough. I suppose there are two angles to look at it from:- the site, and the user.

From the perspective of the site, is there anything really wrong with having the same review near the top of the page (by votes) on one film and also on it's sequel? I would agree, there's not much wrong with it. In fact given it's a good review it helps give the review more exposure, more people get to see it and enjoy it, so it's all good from that perspective.

But, if one looks at it from the angle of the user, it might not all be quite so rosy. The reaction of users to their high-voted review appearing on a sequel with someone else's name on it and picking up plenty of votes will tend to vary from indifference to righteous indignation. Anecdotal evidence from fourum posts following various other incidents of deliberate or accidental review duplication suggests to me that most users are somewhat less than happy about having their reviews accidentally or willfully copied by other users.

An example:- I've got the highest voted review for Harry Potter 1, "Son of a witch". This is clearly a case of intra-series generic, ie, it could apply to the sequels. But if say (being hypothetical here) one of the sequels had something about it that made the review applicable in a slightly different context from the way it applies in the first movie (eg, Harry's mother appears to him in a dream in HP3 and does some witchy thing or whatever, make something up if that doesn't make sense ), and someone else submitted "Son of a witch" to that sequel, I know I would be somewhat less than happy about it. To say the least.

I suppose there's ego involved, I like getting plenty of votes for reviews and like seeing my reviews at or near the top of a movie page, so if I saw someone else getting credit for my review by posting it for a sequel, then I would feel that I was being cheated out of votes/credit for that review. There's also the healhy competitive spirit at fwfr, ie, watching a good review move up a movie page and overtake lesser reviews (eg, those written by thefoxboy ) is quite a good feeling, particularly if the review lands right near the top of a movie page containing hundreds of reviews. So, watching a copy of a top-voted review from a prequel shoot up the page doesn't seem quite fair.

I'm not on a 'witch' hunt here (fnarr fnarr snigger snigger ), I just thought I'd mention how these matters can appear to those who work on the review-generation end of the site.



But in the example you state for a repeated review, it wouldn't be allowed because it could apply to any of the series, ergo it only goes on the first film in my book (I realise this is largely irrelevant, but I thought I'd point it out anyway ).

As for other people getting credit for your work, it's taken me a while to realise it, but there's not much you can do. It's virtually impossible to *prove* someone else took your idea*

Really, the only thing that can be done is to create site-wide general rules (such as the 'only on the first film' rule) to minimise repeats without pointing fingers and potentially upsetting people.

*Take this from someone who's created a website that has spawned *at least* two multi-million pound ad campaigns that have made both the company in question and the 'genius' advertising firm a fair whack of money.**

**Infact, it's also pretty hard to prove *I* came up with the four word idea, even


Go to Top of Page

Josh the cat 
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."

East Yorkshire, England.

Posted - 11/06/2005 :  16:39:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews

But in the example you state for a repeated review, it wouldn't be allowed because it could apply to any of the series, ergo it only goes on the first film in my book



ergo a much underused word well done Benj for bringing unto us some interesting words.

Josh the cat


Edited by - Josh the cat on 11/06/2005 16:40:23
Go to Top of Page

GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."

Los Angeles, CA, USA

Posted - 11/06/2005 :  19:24:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Blueducks "Emperor's new Jedi groove" is basically the same joke as my "The Empire's New Groove" for Star Wars Episode III. Since "new" and "groove" are the only words in both reviews that is exactly the same, I suppose it is up to benj to decide whether it is truly a duplicate review.


Edited by - GHcool on 11/06/2005 19:25:02
Go to Top of Page

benj clews 
"...."

United Kingdom

Posted - 11/06/2005 :  20:09:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool

Blueducks "Emperor's new Jedi groove" is basically the same joke as my "The Empire's New Groove" for Star Wars Episode III. Since "new" and "groove" are the only words in both reviews that is exactly the same, I suppose it is up to benj to decide whether it is truly a duplicate review.



Nah- same pun, sure, but composed of different words. If that were enough to warrant deleting, then there'd only be one "I see..." review on the site (which, admittedly, some people might see as a good thing).

Go to Top of Page

GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."

Los Angeles, CA, USA

Posted - 11/06/2005 :  23:01:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews

quote:
Originally posted by GHcool

Blueducks "Emperor's new Jedi groove" is basically the same joke as my "The Empire's New Groove" for Star Wars Episode III. Since "new" and "groove" are the only words in both reviews that is exactly the same, I suppose it is up to benj to decide whether it is truly a duplicate review.



Nah- same pun, sure, but composed of different words. If that were enough to warrant deleting, then there'd only be one "I see..." review on the site (which, admittedly, some people might see as a good thing).





No way! I love the "I see" reviews. I just thought it was more than "just the same pun" because it was for the same film, but I'm willing to share.


Edited by - GHcool on 11/06/2005 23:02:11
Go to Top of Page

tortoise 
"Still reviewing, but slowly."

United Kingdom

Posted - 12/06/2005 :  00:17:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Sean

quote:
Originally posted by benj clews

quote:
Originally posted by Sean

I can't say that I'm a fan of duplicate reviews across a series, I suppose the main reason is that it takes something away from the original writer of the review. Also, if it's considered a generally acceptable practice then it might be just a matter of time before it's open-season on copying the best reviews across the series. I certainly won't be doing it, but somebody might.



As a rule of thumb, I tend to allow reviews that could apply to the whole series against the first one only. If a series-generic review is against anything after the first film, please let me know and I'll consider whether it should be there or not.


"Hard Hobbit to Break" is on LOTR:ROTK (9th one down by votes), could apply to all three movies. And it was already on LOTR:FOTR (8th one down).




Quite so.

Go to Top of Page

Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"

The Hub of the Universe

Posted - 12/06/2005 :  20:33:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The 'A.' in "L.a. Law: The Movie" should be capitalized.

Go to Top of Page

benj clews 
"...."

United Kingdom

Posted - 13/06/2005 :  00:02:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown

The 'A.' in "L.a. Law: The Movie" should be capitalized.



Fixed now.

Go to Top of Page

thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."

Eastern Suburbs, Melbourne, Australia

Posted - 14/06/2005 :  09:53:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Star Wars 3

Obi-Wan, Anakin zero
Obi-wan - Anakin 0


Not sure if this counts as a dupe

Man(akin) on fire
Anakin = Man on Fire

Edited by - thefoxboy on 14/06/2005 10:02:35
Go to Top of Page

benj clews 
"...."

United Kingdom

Posted - 14/06/2005 :  10:09:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy

Star Wars 3

Obi-Wan, Anakin zero
Obi-wan - Anakin 0


Not sure if this counts as a dupe

Man(akin) on fire
Anakin = Man on Fire




Fixed first.

I'll let the second case slide.

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 75 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
The Four Word Film Review Fourum © 1999-2016 benj clews Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000