| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| demonic |
Posted - 08/11/2012 : 03:36:42
Hello gang - I've had a double decline today without a specific explanation which I'm trying to understand - any input would be happily received.
I submitted the review "The Californian Job" for the Italian Job remake which was declined with the selected comment "This submission relies entirely on the title of this film and bears little or no relevance to the subject of the film itself". A title play only decline.
I resubmitted without editing with the additional comment: "It bears great relevance to the subject of the film as the scam takes place on the streets of L.A. rather than Turin of the original", but it was declined again without further comment.
I'd usually quit there and find another angle, usually always happy to submit to MERPine minds but this one I think is a valid review, riffing of course on the fact it is a remake hence the play on the title (and a falsely named one given the change in locale) but as I explained, not only that. Do you think a basic qualifier tying it in specifically to the film would make a difference? |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Stalean |
Posted - 12/29/2012 : 03:06:56
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
I'm encountering a technical problem and wonder if others might have had this happen as well. When I submit the explanation for a rejected review, it resubmits the review but does not retain the text of my explanation. I only figured this out by some clear MERP comments. I have tried with Chrome, Firefox and IE. In Chrome & Firefox I have tried it in both Linux and Windows 8 environs. The film reel icon on the right rotates to indicate that it's processing, but it just keeps going and I never get a refresh. If I then manually reload the page, the film has moved back to pending reviews but with out the explanatory text.
Unfortunately, this was happening to me off and on for several months whatever the search engine. I haven't noticed it happening to me lately, but then again, I haven't submitted any reviews with explanations in awhile. I just assumed benj had taken care of the problem because no one had mentioned it until now. I guess I was wrong or it's gone bonkers again.  |
| Sludge |
Posted - 12/26/2012 : 18:56:25
I'm encountering a technical problem and wonder if others might have had this happen as well. When I submit the explanation for a rejected review, it resubmits the review but does not retain the text of my explanation. I only figured this out by some clear MERP comments. I have tried with Chrome, Firefox and IE. In Chrome & Firefox I have tried it in both Linux and Windows 8 environs. The film reel icon on the right rotates to indicate that it's processing, but it just keeps going and I never get a refresh. If I then manually reload the page, the film has moved back to pending reviews but with out the explanatory text.
|
| Stalean |
Posted - 08/12/2012 : 17:49:34
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Oops! I meant "gentlemen" in the all-encompassing sense of humankind of course. ;)
Of course, I knew that!  |
| demonic |
Posted - 08/12/2012 : 17:27:03
Oops! I meant "gentlemen" in the all-encompassing sense of humankind of course. ;) |
| Stalean |
Posted - 08/12/2012 : 14:38:45
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Thanks for your comments gentlemen. Not much to do about it now though as I'm not going to go for a third pass - I might mention it next time I get in touch with Benj though.
Ahem! "Gentlewoman"   |
| demonic |
Posted - 08/12/2012 : 14:29:47
Thanks for your comments gentlemen. Not much to do about it now though as I'm not going to go for a third pass - I might mention it next time I get in touch with Benj though. |
| Stalean |
Posted - 08/11/2012 : 23:53:00
I agree with lemmycaution and Sean--looks good to me. I have had that same decline wording for some of my recently declined reviews, too, and some with other wording:
"The editor believes this submission inaccurately describes the film. Please double check your references to character or actor names, places, plot events, or any other aspects of the film mentioned in this submission."
Which in each case doesn't seem to apply to my review because I always thoroughly research the correctness of my reviews before submitting them.  |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 08/11/2012 : 12:49:21
Yes, the MERPs (or, I suspect, the overzealous newest MERP, since this sort of problem seems to have increased since Benj added her/him) often don't seem to grasp the difference between title play and title play only. I also notice that they (or, again, she/he) often pointlessly write a long-winded reason that equates exactly to one of the standard reasons that Benj has already provided, as in the example here*. They then give completely blank declines when they should be giving specific reasons then instead.
If my review here is valid (which I do think it is), then yours certainly should be.
*Edit: I previously didn't realise that the wording you quoted is in fact the standard explanation of that decline reason. However, it's still true that they often pointlessly rewrite such reasons in their own words. |
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 08/11/2012 : 05:29:40
I'm with Sean. |
| Sean |
Posted - 08/11/2012 : 04:17:31
Looks 100% OK to me. |
