| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 14:02:08
'He' has now overtaken me (and damalc and Dante and Mr Stupid). This is the thing I have dreaded since 'he' was invented. It pains me so much that A.C.'s "Trans parent" has contributed towards pushing me down the list below a nonexistent reviewer.
I don't think that Alan Smithee should be allowed to have reviews that offend anyone. If people do not want them/do not want to stand by them and be counted, then all of the 'free speech' arguments are completely redundant.
However, much more strongly than even that, I just don't think that Alan Smithee should be in the rankings. 'He' is great as a general idea, but it's wrong that people's amalgamated trash and shame should come ahead of real individuals. Benj, can he please not be excluded from them? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 15:28:10
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Salopian, to add insult to injury, I was checking out one of your accolades All for Nought and discovered that Alan Smithee achieved it I wonder how many accolades 'he' has accdidentally won....
I don't think he has won any accidentally, not of mine, anyway. I am sure this is why A.C. disowned all his Pitcairn reviews, for example. I don't care about Alan Smithee holding my accolades, but I do mind A.C. transferring the votes that I gave him in good faith. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 14:44:46
Salopian, to add insult to injury, I was checking out one of your accolades All for Nought and discovered that Alan Smithee achieved it I wonder how many accolades 'he' has accdidentally won.... |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 13:46:31
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
Iv'e noticed that there are some Anonymous reviews out there. Noone has ever claimed them. Should these reviews be given to Mr. Smithee? THey certainly need a home. Im not going to vote for a movie that noone claims. WHat say you all????
I've suggested this before (although in a hoped-for context of Alan Smithee not being in the rankings). |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 13:45:49
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Since the advent of the REPORT button, reports pretty obviously go onto a report queue, so they cannot be overlooked in the same way they could when it was just a matter of posts on the fourum. They must stay on the report queue until they are dealt with, so you really have no need to worry about "human error" any more.
They cannot be overlooked in the same way, but it is possible that they could be overlooked in a different way. Benj could accidentally hit the 'dealt with' button, for example (if there were one). I am sure that we have all accidentally voted for a review or similar before. Also, Benj has stated that the unseen processes are more complicated than one would think. We therefore do not know at all that there is a simple list.
quote:
If you have reported a review, and it has not been deleted, it must either still be awaiting consideration or Benj has decided not to delete it. In either case there is no justification for reporting it again for the same "problem", is there?
Apart from the fact that it could have been overlooked (or lost by a glitch in the system etc. etc.), Benj is not a robot and therefore may have different opinions at different times. Also, I would try to use different wording in order to be clearer about why a review needs removing. (In parallel, one could resubmit reviews even when Benj was the only approver.)
quote:
If what you meant was you would report a review again just in case it had been overlooked, it seems to me that "the worst ones I will report every so often" is a very odd way to put it. To me it implied that you would be doing this ad infinitum, perhaps as a matter of principle, until they were deleted. If they were not deleted, you would go on reporting it as an expression of your opposition to them. Is this what you meant or not?
It certainly is a matter of principle, but I would not be re-reporting them with the mindset that they would not get removed. I would be doing so in the hope that Benj would on one occasion view them as wrong. And it would, as I say, only be infrequently, so Benj could not possibly feel burdened by having to view the report again and again. |
| tortoise |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 22:34:11
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I assume there is a reviewer named Anonymous. 
Actually there are two "reviewers" named Anonymous. One hasn't actually written any reviews, which, I think you'll agree, is taking anonymity to extremes, and the other has written two reviews. 
Maybe s/he did write some, then gave them to Alan Smithee  |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 22:10:37
I assume there is a reviewer named Anonymous.
Actually there are two "reviewers" named Anonymous. One hasn't actually written any reviews, which, I think you'll agree, is taking anonymity to extremes, and the other has written two reviews.
|
| TitanPa |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 20:49:18
Iv'e noticed that there are some Anonymous reviews out there. Noone has ever claimed them. Should these reviews be given to Mr. Smithee? THey certainly need a home. Im not going to vote for a movie that noone claims. WHat say you all???? |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 14:13:03
Since the advent of the REPORT button, reports pretty obviously go onto a report queue, so they cannot be overlooked in the same way they could when it was just a matter of posts on the fourum. They must stay on the report queue until they are dealt with, so you really have no need to worry about "human error" any more.
If you have reported a review, and it has not been deleted, it must either still be awaiting consideration or Benj has decided not to delete it. In either case there is no justification for reporting it again for the same "problem", is there?
If what you meant was you would report a review again just in case it had been overlooked, it seems to me that "the worst ones I will report every so often" is a very odd way to put it. To me it implied that you would be doing this ad infinitum, perhaps as a matter of principle, until they were deleted. If they were not deleted, you would go on reporting it as an expression of your opposition to them. Is this what you meant or not?
|
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 13:43:42
I am just talking about a couple of reviews that unambiguously lower the accuracy of the site, and one of which is through its inaccuracy offensive. I will only re-report them very occasionally. It is (typically) absurd to call this bullying. Also bear in mind that I am only assuming that he has seen the reports. It may be that they got overlooked by natural human error, which would be perfectly understandable. People have numerous times posted the same query in multiple places. Until you go around criticising all of those, I shall just put your comments down to tiresome personal crusade against me. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 13:24:38
Let's see if I understand this.
You report Alan Smithee reviews.
Benj considers your report.
If, after consideration, Benj decides not to delete the review, you are going to report the same review again? What, until he comes around to your way of thinking? Or until he gets so fed up having his time wasted he just gives in to bullying?
Have I understood you properly?
|
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 13:57:22
It was a while ago. I think some did go, but I'm sure Benj will have considered all cases by now. The worst ones I'll re-report every so often. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 13:41:23
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I've reported every Smithee review as anything that I can think of.
So its WAR then... |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 10:59:18
I've reported every Smithee review as anything that I can think of. |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 03:58:55
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
There are some 'good' reviews on Smithee's pages, sometimes people Disown them as they are embarassed about the number of votes a review has.
bife's "I see wed people" is the case that bothers me most other than the two A.C. examples. (I submitted it; it was rejected, which I actually thought was the right decision; bife submitted it; it was approved; it for some reason got loads of votes. This is why I stopped deleting my rejected reviews.) We both agreed that it was a rubbish review and so bife did not like how many votes it had. However, my order of preference would have been (i) its getting deleted (by far my preferred option), (ii) my getting it and (iii) bife keeping it. Now it is there for ever. 
Have you tried reporting it as generic? Smithee's not going to complain if it gets the bullet. And it's clearly generic. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 03/24/2007 : 23:40:19
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
[brThere are some 'good' reviews on Smithee's pages, sometimes people Disown them as they are embarassed about the number of votes a review has.
bife's "I see wed people" is the case that bothers me most other than the two A.C. examples. (I submitted it; it was rejected, which I actually thought was the right decision; bife submitted it; it was approved; it for some reason got loads of votes. This is why I stopped deleting my rejected reviews.) We both agreed that it was a rubbish review and so bife did not like how many votes it had. However, my order of preference would have been (i) its getting deleted (by far my preferred option), (ii) my getting it and (iii) bife keeping it. Now it is there for ever. |
|
|
