2 Messages
•
100 Points
User Reviews-Requirements
I just went to post my latest review and had to waste 15 minutes trying to whittle it down to fit the 1000 word maximum requirement.
As an avid IMDb user for the past 15 years, I have some thoughts on this topic. I realize a lot of this has been covered, however I have a few points I'm not sure were shared. First, I will share what I think the requirements should be.
1) 10-line mininum requirement is good IF other guidelines are met
2) 13,000 word maximum
3) Reviews that only describe the plot, that they thought the lead actor was so incredibly hot with his shirt off, or reviews only detailing Blu-ray features should NOT be approved.
I personally see no reason for the maximum, as they are all truncated when viewing the list of reviews anyway, and if someone does not want to take the time to read a detailed review that the moviegoer so acidulously took the time to craft, then they need not read it. Problem solved! I put a great deal of time and effort into my reviews, and if they are long, it is usually only because there is a lot to praise, or a lot that needed improvement. I keep a Word document of my film reviews, and actually got to where I quit posting them to IMDb because I grew tired of having to continually modify them to meet the maximum, which I find a tragedy in and of itself.
I also feel intelligent reviews can be a tool to give others a different viewpoint that they would not have otherwise had, for example when the reviewer has some firsthand knowledge or expertise regarding a plot line, location, or occupation in the film. A perfect example of this is that most of the reviewers of Jurassic World missed the intricacy and research that went into the theory behind training of the Velociraptors, and how that could work in a real-world application. From an animal behavior standpoint, they went to a great deal of effort to ground the idea in real-world practices, and that was one of the things I touched on in said review.
I won't bore you with further details, but my point is I feel it should be enough that I have taken the time to write a thoughtful review and should not have to further waste time and omit details by shortening it when readers may simply skip it.
Personally, when I'm combing through reviews, I'm skipping the short ones because they don't really have anything to say, or only summise the plot--that's what the plot summary is for, and if we wanted to be doing our readers a service, it would be not approving such 'reviews' in the first place. I also never read a review before I see the film--I do my very best to not be influenced by outside sources until I have formulated my own opinion, and then I read reviews to perhaps gain some outside knowledge or experience it from a viewpoint other than my own, expounding on my own opinion. That is one of the many things I view as a service this site provides.
In short, please change the maximum to 13,000 words. Most of us should be intelligent to stop reading if we find the review too wordy... (one would hope).
As an avid IMDb user for the past 15 years, I have some thoughts on this topic. I realize a lot of this has been covered, however I have a few points I'm not sure were shared. First, I will share what I think the requirements should be.
1) 10-line mininum requirement is good IF other guidelines are met
2) 13,000 word maximum
3) Reviews that only describe the plot, that they thought the lead actor was so incredibly hot with his shirt off, or reviews only detailing Blu-ray features should NOT be approved.
I personally see no reason for the maximum, as they are all truncated when viewing the list of reviews anyway, and if someone does not want to take the time to read a detailed review that the moviegoer so acidulously took the time to craft, then they need not read it. Problem solved! I put a great deal of time and effort into my reviews, and if they are long, it is usually only because there is a lot to praise, or a lot that needed improvement. I keep a Word document of my film reviews, and actually got to where I quit posting them to IMDb because I grew tired of having to continually modify them to meet the maximum, which I find a tragedy in and of itself.
I also feel intelligent reviews can be a tool to give others a different viewpoint that they would not have otherwise had, for example when the reviewer has some firsthand knowledge or expertise regarding a plot line, location, or occupation in the film. A perfect example of this is that most of the reviewers of Jurassic World missed the intricacy and research that went into the theory behind training of the Velociraptors, and how that could work in a real-world application. From an animal behavior standpoint, they went to a great deal of effort to ground the idea in real-world practices, and that was one of the things I touched on in said review.
I won't bore you with further details, but my point is I feel it should be enough that I have taken the time to write a thoughtful review and should not have to further waste time and omit details by shortening it when readers may simply skip it.
Personally, when I'm combing through reviews, I'm skipping the short ones because they don't really have anything to say, or only summise the plot--that's what the plot summary is for, and if we wanted to be doing our readers a service, it would be not approving such 'reviews' in the first place. I also never read a review before I see the film--I do my very best to not be influenced by outside sources until I have formulated my own opinion, and then I read reviews to perhaps gain some outside knowledge or experience it from a viewpoint other than my own, expounding on my own opinion. That is one of the many things I view as a service this site provides.
In short, please change the maximum to 13,000 words. Most of us should be intelligent to stop reading if we find the review too wordy... (one would hope).
No Responses!