Clarification About Newspaper Reviews inRecent Peformances and Heads Up!
Posted 17 October 2007 - 09:18 AM
What we'd like to avoid are posts that are only links to reviews, or links and quotes. Why? We want to know what you think. "Recent Performances" was created for us to describe our thoughts about and reactions to the things we see. It is perfectly legitimate to cite a published review in the forum if you have a specific comment to make about it, such as "She described it perfectly in the Miami Herald" or "I disagree with XYZ because..." Or if there is a print-only review, it's fine to quote a short excerpt to get the discussion rolling. "Heads Up!" is to let you know when an event occurs. We hope that if you attend, you'll post in "Recent Performances."
Published online reviews in the "Links" forum are posted by noon Pacific Time in the thread for the date on which they were originally published. If by the end of the day you find a link that we haven't posted, please feel free to send us a PM or email to the "Contact Us" link at the top of the page, and we'll confirm the link is working and add it. Search engines -- even Google -- don't catch everything, and the beauty of the Internet is that articles are published round-the-clock, and are often posted after we complete links for the day, which is why we add posts to days past.
Posted 17 October 2007 - 12:28 PM
The "Heads Up" forum is the most straightforward in my mind. Technically I suppose, there should be nothing there except single msg threads that give, well, a heads up (and maybe a clarification reply or two). But in practise it is very natural to reply to an announcement of, let's say, Jewels at MCB if you had just seen it or were thinking about it for some reason. I suspect most of us access the board via the "View New Posts" facility. So if one sees a thread titled "Jewels at MCB" in the "Heads Up" forum, and one has something to say, one is going to click on that thread regardless of which forum it is in. Hence "Heads Up" gets longer threads discussing the subject rather than just a simple announcement. How to get around that? Beats me.
Again, I'm not suggesting change, but it is hard for me to imagine the average person being clear-headed enough to remember to post an announcement for their favorite company in "Heads Up", then send a msg for a link for a review they just read if it has been missed (or simply not yet posted), then go over to "Recent Performances" to post their own thoughts. OTOH, perhaps with enough reminders the users of this board can be trained. (New members will follow whatever they see happening, so they are not part of the problem.)
I guess it comes down, as it must so often do, to the patience limits of the moderatorors.
Posted 17 October 2007 - 08:57 PM
Generally, we catch most of the reviews in Links, which over one quarter of our members only read We do miss a few, and we're happy to add them, with attribution. The problem with dropping review links into other forums -- which we don't even do in the Links forum, where we give a relevant quote, unless it's a simple announcement -- is that links generally kill the discussion, unless there's something controversial written. We do want to hear what the critics say, but we're trying to encourage people to discuss what they see, especially since we can ask them about it and engage in a dialogue, while our questions to Alastair Macaulay or Joan Acocella, for example, are rhetorical
Posted 19 October 2007 - 04:40 PM
Actually, when i finished writing my review on "Jewels", i almost made the mistake to post it on the thread that i had started on"Heads on" . . Then, i remembered that "Recent Performances" had been created for that matters, and opened a new topic there..but i agree that is easy to forget...
Thankfully, Quiggin posted the link to the MCB Jewels video preview, the discussion of which has made the thread. But I'll be more diligent about posting a link to the "Recent Performances" review, so the corresponding review thread is one click away.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users