Stats 4 June 2006
Rank : Prison Warden Level : 54 Percentage : 33% (+1) Forum Posts : 1,124 (+11)
Submissions Reviews Accepted : 24789 (+86) Shows : 1 Pending : 1 (-2) Episodes : 2 Denied : 121 People : 0 Total : 24911 Total : 3
Edited Guides Trusted User 154 Shows 2 Shows
Oops. I've mentioned here before one of the regular contibutors to one of my show guides. Our paths had crossed through my website and my involvement at TVTome. My first meeting with him at TV.com came when I became the temporary editor for The Bill through the let's-ignore-TVTome-contributions bug. The quality of submissions was so poor that I was pushed into securing the editorship in part to frustrate his plans to destroy the guide! Every Note is misspelled, and half of them duplicate an existing one he couldn't be bothered to find. Some early submissions were to delete duplicate Notes he had himself added! Cast submissions have mis-spelled and uncapitalised character and actor names, and would create new actor IDs. His summaries were a gem. When I identified the source and explained that copy and paste was not allowed, he copied summaries from elsewhere. Eventually, he seems to have decided that I could detect copy and paste through magical powers, and he now copy types the first sentence of summaries, word-for-word but replete with spelling mistakes. A single attempt to write his own submission was laughable, as he copy-typed part of an existing summary and painfully misunderstood the rest. I spent many months providing helpful considered advice on how to make an adequate submission. In the run up to Christmas, however, he went beyond the pale, submitting some superb, mis-spelled, one-sentence summaries of non-existent episodes, which were accepted by TV.com staff dipping into queues and approving anything and everything. I forced the contributor to admit his gaming, and he disappeared. I had hoped he had been banned. I rejected a single submission in his inimitable style from another ID apparently created expressly for that purpose, as it made no other submissions. Apparently, however, he had just decided to hassle other users. When RoxieVelma identified her worst contributor, I recognised the m.o. immediately. The drivel that RV and I rejected has been accepted by TV.com staff and he now presides over a show guide bolstered by mis-spelled versions of the first sentences of synopses from the back of a DVD sleeve. That should have been enough for him, but he is back, submitting cast lists from weekly listings magazines. These would be great, except that the magazine in question lists most (but not all) of the actors from all of that week's episodes under a single entry. When I point this out, he denies the source, and submits the next week's listings from the same source.
I have learned to ignore his asinine reviews and the fact that every episode is a perfect 10, but I cannot ignore his submissions, each of which has to be checked then rejected: 100+ and rising. In my last rejection, I asked why he didn't just concentrate on ruining the show guide he is editor for. Have I gone too far?
Log in to comment