Review AGAIN declined - no rational explanation!

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 4 months ago
  • Solved
I had two reviews of “Bird Box” already published. I decided to amalgamate them into one. So, I duly deleted the two already on the reviews page, combined/rewrote the two and submitted.

Like reviews of recent, my submission (#190109-171439-177504) was declined on the basis of “Bad formatting”. I clicked on the ‘guidelines’ link that was presented with the notification only to find a glut of blurb with no further indication nor link to rules for formatting.

I can see no problem with my formatting. Could someone please explain why - of recent - I seem to be getting victimised and/or bullied with this incessant declining of my submissions?
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 32 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
  • Annoyed, puzzled, frustrated, irritated and sick of it

Posted 4 months ago

  • 2
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3204 Posts
  • 2979 Reply Likes
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/why-has-my-review-not-been-published?topic-reply-list[settin...
On another note, my review of "Bird Box"
has just been declined on the basis of "Badly Formatted"...!
.
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 32 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
Do you think you could use words and explain what exactly this ‘reply’ of yours is?
I don’t understand what your point is nor to what you’re attempting to refer in merely supplying links.
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3200 Posts
  • 2974 Reply Likes

Message from IMDb.com
For Problems or Questions,
please include a link to the page(s)
you are referring to if possible.
If you have submitted data to IMDb via the Edit Page function,
please include the 18-digit Contribution ID.
This additional information will give context on the issue to our staff,
which typically leads to expedited resolution.

- - -

You had problems before with your reviews...

With LINKS we can check status ? ?


daniele-iannarelli
IMDb member since April 2016
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur66217985/
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur66217985/reviews - 23 Reviews

(Edited)
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 32 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
The previous problems have been resolved. They are not the issue. The issue is white my latest IMDB review, for “BIRD BOX”.

If you read my post about this problem, you’ll see that I have already given my contribution number.
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 32 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
In fact, tell you what... could you please put me in touch with one of your other friendlier, more sympathetic advisors... Vincent Fournois or Will would be appreciated.
Thank you.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 10728 Posts
  • 12195 Reply Likes
You are Correct Grasshopper
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 10812 Posts
  • 12277 Reply Likes
Daniele Iannarelli

Apologies for Act_1
He means well.
Have been trying to get him to "SPEAK" for some time!
His data can be a little unusual when seeking help.
He speaks by way of data that is usually out of context.
I took me a while to just get used to his help.
Sometimes it helps a lot.
I have tried to ask him to give his unique type of help, only when needed.
Sorry.

Daniele,
Could you post the text of the Review?
It Helps to see it.
Can give you some advice as to what fly's and what won't.
Cheers.
(Edited)
Photo of karrotts

karrotts

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
ACT_1 does not need your permission to do anything, he is as much a member of this forum as you are.
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 32 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
What exactly are you blabbering about???!!! I’ve said nothing about him ‘requiring my permission’. ‘Requiring my permission’ to do what???
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 10812 Posts
  • 12277 Reply Likes
Hi Daniele,
karrotts reply is an intimidation tactical response to see if somebody will lose their temper.
But we are all above that.
Ignore that comment.
Photo of karrotts

karrotts

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
This is not you Daniele Iannarelli it is Ed Jones (XLIX) who thinks he is an admin and can tell ACT_1 what to do.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 10812 Posts
  • 12277 Reply Likes
Dan Please
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 10812 Posts
  • 12277 Reply Likes
karrots. There is no need to reply to you directly but this one time. Act_1 is a user as am I. You make an assumption, that you think, I think something, that you cannot know how or what I think. I have never claimed what you think I think I am. I think I am done thinking what to say to you further.
Thanks for your thoughtful input.
Cheers.
Photo of karrotts

karrotts

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Have a nice time on here and remember you are not an admin. That means no ordering people around.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6572 Posts
  • 8123 Reply Likes
Hi, karrotts. It doesn't seem that you've informed anybody here of anything they did not already know. ACT_1 does not have to listen to—let alone obey—Ed; and Ed does not have to listen to—let alone obey—you. But you already knew those things, right? Just in case there is any mistaking what I'm trying to convey, nobody has to listen to—let alone obey—me. You can go on and do what you please, and then face the consequences.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 10812 Posts
  • 12277 Reply Likes
Jeorj we had a discussion I think about this.
Remember the Fake Credits one? Isabel?
Read it. Once I made reference to something the replies stopped.
This is the same thing.
I'm smarter than the average bear.
Will not fall into anyone's trap.
Cheers
Photo of karrotts

karrotts

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Jeorj Euler you are a mind of great knowledge, don't waste it on trying to  lecture me. My brain is full and can't take anymore input from such a great mind as yours.
Remember the Fake Credits one? Isabel? 
I'm smarter than the average bear.
Will not fall into anyone's trap.
face the consequences.
I think I am done thinking....
Puzzles.
(Edited)
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 32 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
What’s brought all this on?! You’re talking absolute rubbish. There’s always some crazy guy bothering people and, congratulations, it’s you!
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6572 Posts
  • 8123 Reply Likes
https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1763182/RackMultipart20181120-117584-1c1j46l-headless.png?1542695791
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 32 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
Ok, thanks, here it is:
[BIRD BOX]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Firstly, in reference to the 'reviewer' who wrote: "You're being trolled by negative reviews"... that is exactly the sort of tasteless (in many ways) typical reviewer who would label dissenters of his/her opinion as 'racists', 'sexists' etc etc etc. As it is, the 'reviewer' is happy to insult anyone who gives a sensible rating appraisal as "...teenage boys who need guns and violence...". How ridiculous and narrow-minded!


The review in question goes on to refer to "clever flashbacks". "Clever flashbacks"??? I'd suggest they were 'confusing and unnecessary flashbacks' that actually served as spoilers for the 'real time-frame' part! The only "clever" attribution was probably the writer and/or director trying - unsuccessfully - to be TOO clever!


"Hollywood's output is littered with trash films"... well, yes, I agree. This film is the latest in Hollywood's incessant litany of trash!


This 'reviewer' obviously has no sense of rational critical assessment whatsoever if he/she genuinely believes (with a '9' rating) that the film is on a par with - for example - Citizen Kane, The Apartment, Taxi Driver, and many other 9- and 10-rating deserving classics!


So, yet again, here we have another waste of my time. The concept of the movie has been done so many times in the past, but with fog, rain, zombies etc., and is furthermore filled with the typical shock-style clichés and predictability of similar low-grade movie efforts.


Terrible intelligence-insulting, left-wing propaganda, clichéd, slow, boring, daft and very predictable ‘movie’.


How some people, with obviously no taste nor sense of critical appraisal, can rate it so high (some gave it an 8, 9 and even 10 on IMDB...!) as to equal it with the likes of “Gone With The Wind” , “The Apartment”, “The Godfather”, “Citizen Kane”, etc etc etc... is beyond my comprehension.


So, yet again, here we have another waste of my time. The concept of the movie has been done so many times in the past, but with fog, rain, zombies etc., and is furthermore filled with the typical shock-style clichés and predictability of similar low-grade movie efforts.


It hits a ludicrous level of unbelievability with silly scenes such as the trio falling off the boat and into the raging whitewater and coming up again with their blindfolds intact. In reality, there is no way their blindfolds would’ve stayed on... NO WAY whatsoever! Also (earlier) to ask us to believe the group were able to negotiate their way down the street to the supermarket in the car - totally blind! - is a completely silly ludicrous ask. Similarly, navigating the boat down the river- in effect, BLIND... oh for God’s sake! Gimme a break from this nonsense!


What about the cop and the druggie just disappearing...! No explanation. Well, in that case, what was the point of them being included in the first place then? They gave no depth nor reason to the cockeyed ‘story’.


Later, we’re given no explanation whatsoever why the little boy and little girl haven’t been given proper names... just “boy” and “girl”. Come on! We’re also asked to believe that the three love-birds, having been put through the mill, tossed and turned and battered from pillar to post... are STILL alive at the end, they survive it all! The director missed a trick here... if she’d made them parrots, you could say they’d ‘survived to tell the tale’!


Neither is there any explanation as to what’s going on. What are these demons/aliens? I think the reason is a political one... in other words, could the whole concept of the invading aliens be a projection of yet more left-wing, globalist, anti-white, political propaganda set to try and influence society? Hmmm... I’ll say no more.


Rubbish movies often contain rubbish acting... well I wasn’t disappointed, the acting wasn’t great although it could have been worse. So, no more than a basic 1 point on the rating scoreboard for that. A further score-point just has to be removed for an ending that smacked heavily of more left-wing political belching, promoting a multiculturalism homogenisation of society... and how nice we'd all be as one. Simple... guff!


Overall though, a completely, slow, boring, terribly clichéd, corny, daft, unsatisfying, unsatisfactory and disappointing attempt at a movie.


If people are easily pleased and unable to give a sensible - comparative - appraisal... I give them my blessing, they can watch the film to their heart’s brain-numbing content.


If, however, they have a keen sense of critical movie appraisal, and have great respect for the quality of *true* classics... I happily suggest they don’t waste their time.


This film, a poor attempt at ‘Hitchcockian’ suspense, is testament to badly thought out scripting and directing.

Hitchcock will be spinning in his grave.


I paraphrase another reviewer who - somewhere - said: 'It would be better watched blindfolded!' He was so right!


THIS... FILM... IS... TRASH!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6571 Posts
  • 8118 Reply Likes
Hi, Daniele Iannarelli. When writing a review, please do not reference let alone acknowledge other IMDb registered users in the context of reviews they've submitted. If a review other than your own does this, then please report it.
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 32 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
Well, I’ve taken care not to name any other reviewer specifically.
Also, though, what’s that got to do with “bad formatting”? Formatting is the mechanical adjustment/manipulation of text. Very misleading.
Ok, I’ll re-edit and re-submit in the afternoon. Off to sleep now.
Thanks.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6571 Posts
  • 8118 Reply Likes
Good point, and on that note, the spacing between paragraphs seems a little unusual.
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 32 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
I noticed that too. Not my fault. There’s one-line paragraph spacing in my review proper, but when I copied and pasted here for you, it automatically came up as double line spacing between the paragraphs. The published review(if/when it gets published) should be fine though... it always is.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6571 Posts
  • 8118 Reply Likes
I considered the possibility that it was something the forum software had a hand it, and furthermore it could be a compatibility issue between your word-processing program and any number of websites.
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 32 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
Off to bed now, Ed. It's 2.45am here.
I'll log on again probably tomorrow afternoon.
Cheers
D
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 10812 Posts
  • 12277 Reply Likes
References to others reviews should be left out. What Jeorj said.
Instead of detailed continuity gaffs.
Just say "Annoying multiple continuity gaffs abound".
Tighten and compact your review.

Things like this should also be left out
If people are easily pleased and unable to give a sensible - comparative - appraisal... I give them my blessing, they can watch the film to their heart’s brain-numbing content.
Hitchcock will be spinning in his grave.
I paraphrase another reviewer who - somewhere - said: 'It would be better watched blindfolded!' He was so right!
Reviews are being scrutinized to a greater extent now.
What passed before is being rejected now.
They are making attempts to address the overflow of the Netflix reviewers that were never approved or denied their submissions. They are a little over correcting. Netflix removed all reviews and this place has been flooded with bad reviews from those contributors that did not pass any real scrutiny.
Because of those  reviewers, standard of approval has been toughened.
Cheers.
Happy Editing!
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3204 Posts
  • 2979 Reply Likes

With LINKS we can check status ? ?


https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/why-has-my-review-not-been-published?topic-reply-list[settin...

Michelle, Official Rep :
11 January 2019 1:46 pm
Hi Daniele -
Thanks for posting the additional information.
Your most recent User Review for "Bird Box"
has now been approved and should be listed on the site shortly.  Cheers!
- - -

Daniele Iannarelli
Thanks for letting me know, Michelle.
- - -

daniele-iannarelli
IMDb member since April 2016
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur66217985/
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur66217985/reviews - 24 Reviews

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw4574901/
Bird Box (2018)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2737304/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2737304/reference
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2737304/reviews?sort=submissionDate&dir=desc&ratingFilter=0  - 2,033 Reviews


2/10 
Awful and pretentious! 
11 January 2019

I remember reading somewhere, that "Hollywood's output is littered with trash films"
well yes, I agree, and this film is the latest trash offering
in Hollywood's incessant litany of trash!

The film is full of flashbacks, with nothing clever about them
just confusion initiated by a director trying to be too clever,
and winding up unsuccessfully so....


I paraphrase someone else who - somewhere - said:
'It would be better watched blindfolded!' He was so right!

THIS... FILM... IS... TRASH
- - -

(Edited)
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 11928 Posts
  • 7963 Reply Likes
Hi Daniele -

As ACT_1 mentioned above (and as per your other thread), your recent "Bird Box" review has been approved.  Cheers!
(Edited)