Stats 11 May 2006
Rank : Prison Warden Level : 54 Percentage : 1% (+4) Forum Posts : 952 (+12)
Submissions Reviews Accepted : 23187 (+156) Shows : 1 Pending : 3 (+2) Episodes : 2 Denied : 121 People : 0 Total : 23311 Total : 3
Edited Guides Trusted User 143 Shows 3 Shows
Prison Warden? It's a bit lonely here!
A little story to encapsulate much of what is wrong with the principle of TV.com. I used to submit new show guides for adoption, but these are never adopted. Wrong country, wrong demographic, I guess, but in any event, not meeting the "quality threshhold" of being deemed of interest to the user base. I was surprised, then, to see on emaldalani's latest blog that a recent British drama – Elizabeth I – had been adopted. When I checked the guide, I found out why: someone was passing it off as a new U.S. show. In fact, this international co-production was aired on HBO some 7 months later than it appeared on the UK's Channel 4. I went into the show guide and corrected the summary page, which is supposed to reflect original network and broadcast dates. (In contrast, the Rome co-production is correctly recorded as an HBO show, as it was broadcast on HBO 3 months or so before it aired on BBC1. You see where I'm coming from?)
Anyway, I revisited Elizabeth I today and found that someone had changed it back (but got the end date wrong). They had also added two episode summaries (cliché-ridden, not plot-specific and full of spelling errors). Now, this person obviously wants the show guide: one of three contributors to the guide (emaldalani and I each have 5 points, for the original summary and the correction) s/he has managed to accumulate 58 points for corrupting the summary, adding two episodes, three show stars and one quote. By my reckoning, that cannot be worth more than 5+8+8+2+1=24 points (28 if s/he is adding a show star at a time). So, here's my dilemma: someone badly wants the show, and is gaming to get it. They have chosen to remove the correct information I submitted. TV.com staff approving the recent submissions are not exercising quality control. I cannot ensure that the correct information is held without securing the editorship – an impossible thing to do legitimately for a two-part mini-series. I also don't want to have anything to do with a guide for what was, in truth, a truly dreadful production, no more than a vanity project for show star Mirren, who was far too old for the part. The later Elizabeth I: The Virgin Queen, with Ann-Marie Duff, was far superior, but why would anyone want to remake the story when Glenda Jackson gave the definitive portrayal in Elizabeth R?
I have been here before with another show guide, of course. I saw someone trying to secure a guide through gaming, drew it to missribs's attention, and she disallowed all of the bogus pending subs at that time. However, that contributor just resubmitted them, someone else accepted them, and the contributor became the editor.
Stats 10 May 2006
Rank : Commander in Chief Level : 53 Percentage : 97% (-) Forum Posts : 940 (+24)
Submissions Reviews Accepted : 23031 (+124) Shows : 1 Pending : 1 (-) Episodes : 2 Denied : 121 People : 0 Total : 23153 Total : 3
Edited Guides Trusted User 143 Shows 3 Shows
Log in to comment