Poster:
|
Roland Deschain |
Date:
|
Aug 30, 2003 3:22pm |
Forum:
|
prelinger
|
Subject:
|
Review ordering |
Just a minor gripe - as a hobby a couple weeks ago I started reviewing stuff in the need meta catagory (like spuzz and others) that previously have no reviews/meta etc.
I was a little disappointed when more recent reviews actually go ahead of the older ones. I'm sure though there's a reason for it and that it's a coding thing that couldn't be changed easily anyway.
I just thought that it takes away some of the credit from going out there and trying these untested films.
I welcome any feedback =P
This post was modified by Roland Deschain on 2003-08-30 22:22:41
Poster:
|
Steve Nordby |
Date:
|
Sep 3, 2003 2:12pm |
Forum:
|
prelinger
|
Subject:
|
Re: Review ordering |
Interesting to note that new reviews of films that already have already been reviewed a few times (how many?) do not appear on the "Recently Updated Review" list.
Poster:
|
Jonathan Aizen |
Date:
|
Sep 3, 2003 2:59pm |
Forum:
|
prelinger
|
Subject:
|
Re: Review ordering |
This is a known bug... sorry about that.
Poster:
|
Steve Nordby |
Date:
|
Aug 31, 2003 11:06am |
Forum:
|
prelinger
|
Subject:
|
Re: Review ordering |
Hey, they have to go in *some* order... newest/oldest, highest/lowest rating, number of reviews by the reviewer, alphabetical order of the reviewer's name... besides if you revise your review, I think it goes back to the top, so you can practice revisionist history and always appear trendy!
Poster:
|
Jonathan Aizen |
Date:
|
Aug 31, 2003 12:11pm |
Forum:
|
prelinger
|
Subject:
|
Re: Review ordering |
the point is to show people the most recent reviews. that way if you come to the details page again, it shows you something new.
Poster:
|
Roland Deschain |
Date:
|
Aug 31, 2003 4:31pm |
Forum:
|
prelinger
|
Subject:
|
Re: Review ordering |
Both good points - at the end of the day the movie is reviewed for people, so that's the important thing =)