| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Downtown |
Posted - 12/06/2006 : 16:56:42
Recently, I've been getting an increasing number of declines without any reason given. If it's not "generic" and it's not over four words and it's not factually inaccurate and it's not similar to another review, I have to wonder if it was declined just because someone didn't find it entertaining enough.
This is a very recent trend. Since the decline reason feature was resurrected, initially nothing was declined without a reason given. Now it seems that for half my declines, I have to guess as to the reason. It's a little hard to fix something when you don't know what's wrong with it. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 20:06:13
quote:
Originally posted by AIRBOLT
I have just had a review declined (with no reason given ) for that much-reviewed film about Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom.
Most reviews for that film are not accurate, so your review ought not to have been rejected without a strong reason. In other words, it shouldn't really be a case where none of the specific options can be given for rejection. |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 19:55:36
I have just had a review declined (with no reason given ) for that much-reviewed film about Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom.
I have resubmitted it because I think it's a winner and it doesnt appear to fall into the Dupe or Too Generic areas. Hopefully another MERP may see it's merits. I'm pretty sure that I havent commented on a decline before and there's no intention to upset Benj or the MERPS |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 13:13:17
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
As far as I'm aware, no MERPs are declining SWYS reviews.
I was just about to say that I didn't think they were either, but since I never submit such reviews, I wouldn't know. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 13:11:57
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I've always assumed that some blank declines come from two MERPs giving different reasons. Does that happen, benj?
If that's happening, it's certainly not the intention. It's supposed to be the majority decline reason- if there isn't a majority, then the first decline reason is used.
I think I just originally assumed that from seeing the blanks. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 13:02:44
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Benj actually requested in another thread somewhere here (where? don't know!) about all the "straight plot" reviews on the site and how he didn't want to see them any more and that we should be more careful in our reviewing.
Yes, but he definitely didn't say they were disallowed. The MERPs have misunderstood if they are declining on that basis.
That's correct- they aren't disallowed, just generally disliked, That's why I made the post rather than stamping my foot and saying these will now be declined.
As far as I'm aware, no MERPs are declining SWYS reviews. There's certainly been no official change in approval policy on these. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 12:46:10
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I've always assumed that some blank declines come from two MERPs giving different reasons. Does that happen, benj?
If that's happening, it's certainly not the intention. It's supposed to be the majority decline reason- if there isn't a majority, then the first decline reason is used. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 09:14:51
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Benj actually requested in another thread somewhere here (where? don't know!) about all the "straight plot" reviews on the site and how he didn't want to see them any more and that we should be more careful in our reviewing.
Yes, but he definitely didn't say they were disallowed. The MERPs have misunderstood if they are declining on that basis. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 06:43:52
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Choccy - as I said sometimes they just need a pointer as to what you're getting at rather than a re-haul. My reviews for "Seven" (currently 22 votes), "The Libertine" (20) and "Crouching Tiger" (16) as three pertinent examples were all "no reason" declines that I resubbed exactly as they were with an explanation in the box.
I just had a review declined because the MERP didn't understand it. For that one, I first put the missing information into the explination but then realized that I could do better with the review. So I copied that information, deleted the review and put in a slightly changed one. While sometimes an explanation can help, we can always tweek a review to make it even better.
|
| demonic |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 02:11:38
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
"Not that clever or funny" has never been listed as a legitimate decline reason, and "what is funny" is so totally subjective that I don't see how that criteria can be used. The site is already filled with "straight plot" reviews that don't even try to be funny and new ones get approved every day, so I don't see why individual reviews should be arbitrarily excluded because someone doesn't find it clever enough.
Benj actually requested in another thread somewhere here (where? don't know!) about all the "straight plot" reviews on the site and how he didn't want to see them any more and that we should be more careful in our reviewing. I think the phrase used was "say what you see" reviews, something like "Titanic sinks, Leo drowns" or "DeNiro plays Travis Bickle". You're 100% right that cleverness or wittiness is not a valid decline reason, nor should it be, I used the example as an indication of the way I personally think and resubmit after a "no reason" decline because I try not to submit anything that isn't one of those two things. I also mentioned "not clear enough", and "poorly phrased".
Choccy - as I said sometimes they just need a pointer as to what you're getting at rather than a re-haul. My reviews for "Seven" (currently 22 votes), "The Libertine" (20) and "Crouching Tiger" (16) as three pertinent examples were all "no reason" declines that I resubbed exactly as they were with an explanation in the box. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 15:27:03
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Quite often there are reviews that are fall into none of the pre-defined decline reason and if we were to define these there'd be about 200 decline reasons, which would slow the approval process even more than it presently is.
In these instances, the best bet is to decline with no reason in the hope the reviewer will simply look a little closer at the review and reconsider it. This system is by no means perfect, but it's a world away from the simple approve or decline (with no explanation) system that used to be in place.
The other possibility is that there's a problem with my code and the decline reasons aren't coming through 
Could I trouble you for a couple common examples of those "other reasons?" I'm "looking a little closer" and the only possible reason I'm able to come up with is one of the pre-defined ones which wasn't used ("too generic," although I don't think they are but obviously I've been wrong before), and maybe that someone just didn't think they were entertaining enough. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 09:46:57
While we're on declines, benj, could you please change "Film could not be found" to "Film not on the IMDB", since this is what is actually meant by it? I recently had one declined for which I had provided a British Film Institute page, so the film clearly could be found. (I don't much mind this decline, as I am relatively confident of getting the film on to the I.M.D.B.) |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 09:42:41
I've always assumed that some blank declines come from two MERPs giving different reasons. Does that happen, benj?
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 06:17:09
I've gotten to the point where when I get these declines, I delete the review and try again with a variation of what I first submitted, instead of just changing the original review. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 02:19:13
Quite often there are reviews that are fall into none of the pre-defined decline reason and if we were to define these there'd be about 200 decline reasons, which would slow the approval process even more than it presently is.
In these instances, the best bet is to decline with no reason in the hope the reviewer will simply look a little closer at the review and reconsider it. This system is by no means perfect, but it's a world away from the simple approve or decline (with no explanation) system that used to be in place.
The other possibility is that there's a problem with my code and the decline reasons aren't coming through |
| Sean |
Posted - 12/06/2006 : 23:43:46
There could be other decline reasons that could apply that perhaps are a bit harder to put in words. E.g.:-
a) Is it actually a review of the film? Or four words that don't describe plot or 'review' the movie? E.g. "2005 Best Picture Oscar" is neither generic or incorrect or inaccurate or a dupe, but is not a 'review' as it's a statement about something related to the movie but not the movie itself.
b) Does it contain 'illegal' or excessive punctuation etc to the point where it becomes a mess? E.g., B(la)h bL-Ah b(LAH) bL(aH). kind of thing.
I can't comment more as I don't know the review. I've had reviews declined with no reason given (as none of the specific reasons applied) but I was reasonably sure of the reason for decline.
I'm fairly sure that "Not funny enough" is not a decline reason, most reviews passed are not funny or clever. |
