Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
A sentence that imbeds review quotes shouldn't be excluded just because it contains "accollades", IMHO.

Agreed, but a paragraph with no content other than strung-together review quotes would be considered 'dedicated to reviews'.

It's a subjective call, but I would leave out a "standalone" review because it is just quoting someone else.  When someone strings together two or three to make a sentence, then it was written specifically for that DVD back cover, and I'd include it.

Agreed.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
A sentence that imbeds review quotes shouldn't be excluded just because it contains "accollades", IMHO.

Agreed, but a paragraph with no content other than strung-together review quotes would be considered 'dedicated to reviews'.

It's a subjective call, but I would leave out a "standalone" review because it is just quoting someone else.  When someone strings together two or three to make a sentence, then it was written specifically for that DVD back cover, and I'd include it.

Agreed.

Also have to agree

I've seen both voted. Some says these are review that should not to be included and some say these is something that is accepted according to the rules.

Imho I would like to have them in. These are often nice information that I like in the overview.
I think including them is better than leaving out, because even if some users perhaps won't like it, it's much easier to remove this part of the Overview locally than add it.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:


It's a subjective call, but I would leave out a "standalone" review because it is just quoting someone else.  When someone strings together two or three to make a sentence, then it was written specifically for that DVD back cover, and I'd include it.

I can agree with that, although I wonder if it will add some confusion since on one hand we aren't accepting reviews but if they are written in a combined format we are. A little inconsistent but I understand the reasoning.

I'd also add that "standalone" mean it's absolutely clearly separated from the rest of the overview in some manner. I wouldn't want to see people removing single sentences from the middle of overview paragraphs simply because they happen to be a review from a single source.

It seems like this is a tad difficult to define in a black or white fashion. 

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
If we are going to include a review, based solely on the fact that more than are strung together to make a haphazard sentence/paragraph, then why do we not include everything that is on the rear.  Whether stand alone or not, they are still nothing more than a review or opinion of a person.  They do not serve any point except to influence the purchasing of the DVD.

I do not expect to exclude reviews that are built as part of the overview paragraph

Quote:
Charlie Babbitt (Cruise) has just discovered he has an autistic brother named Raymond (Hoffman) and is now taking him on the ride of his life. Or is it the other way around? From his refusal to drive on major highways to a "four minutes to Wapner" meltdown at an Oklahoma farmhouse, Raymond first pushes hot-headed Charlie to the limits of his patience...and then pulls him completely out of his self-centered world! But what begins as an unsentimental journey for the Babbitt brothers becomes much more than the distance between two places - it's a connection between two vastly different people...and "a poignant, profound and powerful film" (Joel Siegel, ABC-TV)!

But to include the first part, serves no purpose to an overview of the film(dvd) itself;

Quote:
Dustin Hoffman is a "triumph" (People) in an Oscar®-winning* role, and Tom Cruise is "terrific" (ABC Radio) in a film that's "fascinating, touching and full of smart surprises" (Newsweek)!

It is irrelevant, at least to me, whether it is separated by a "window", a different size font, or color, or typeset.  It is still nothing more than a review.


As always

IMHO

Charlie

I agree completely.

Skip

They are not part of the overview as i have explained from my POV, martian...plain and simple. It's not about HARM, it's about are they part of the overview andthey clearly are not from several point s of view. Physical separation, reviews and so forth. However, as I have also noted, I see similar things ALL the time, and I recognize that they are merely different points of view, I do not submit different points of view, I keep MY point of view locally in such cases. In this case a user has decided (1) that HIS POV is the correct one and (2) bringing it to the Forums to create controversy. Based on his comments in the recent (uncredited) thread, i suspect that he did so deliberately to make a "point" again. I can see arguments both pro and con on both sides, which simply makes it different points of view.

Skip

Yves:

You can make a "common sense" argument that the data is part of the overview. It still comes down to differing points of view and differences in "common sense". IF this title had already had that Review sentence included, I would not replace it with my POV of the Overview, I would have what the Overiew IS in view locally...it's simple. Like i said I see similar issues frequently and if it's gray, I don't mess with it, not will I vote yes to a user simply saying his POV is better than another POV in a gray area. I don't like gray areas but they are inevitable, not everything can be handled within the Rules strictly.<shrugs> We are probably at a point where 95% of the time the Rules are Black & White, that's probably pretty good. But something will come up that makes Black & White Gray, something which wasn't seen, planned for or anticipated, why is it necessary to take a one of or a rarity and turn it into a controversy.<shrugs again>It makes no sense to me, never has and never will.

Skip