Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
Actually that was one of the rules that every single editor asked to be changed but the owner (Croy) wouldn't change it and when CNET took over we would never even get a response to requests. It wasn't overzealous editors, which tbh, is a laughable opinion at best.

If you think about it, it was a coporation that did not know what they had that detroyed it in the end.  Are you talking about the count of TV seasons that the editors wanted to change.  I wish theet did.  It sound like cnet negglected and did not care about the site.  Which I understood at the time but I did not know how bad it was.  They sould have sold it.

Quoting Jericko1:

Quote:
Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
Actually that was one of the rules that every single editor asked to be changed but the owner (Croy) wouldn't change it and when CNET took over we would never even get a response to requests. It wasn't overzealous editors, which tbh, is a laughable opinion at best.

If you think about it, it was a coporation that did not know what they had that detroyed it in the end.  Are you talking about the count of TV seasons that the editors wanted to change.  I wish theet did.  It sound like cnet negglected and did not care about the site.  Which I understood at the time but I did not know how bad it was.  They sould have sold it.

Yes, you understand correctly. CNET didn't care, hence why the editors went on strike to get them to actually respond to several issues (and we let everyone know via the forum). Soon after they shut it down. The editors were as much in the dark as the users. We found out in the same way you did. A message left on the site without an ounce of respect for any of the users or editors who spent a lot of time in building the site up.

Quoting Jericko1:

Quote:
Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
Quoting Jericko1:

Quote:
Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
Actually that was one of the rules that every single editor asked to be changed but the owner (Croy) wouldn't change it and when CNET took over we would never even get a response to requests. It wasn't overzealous editors, which tbh, is a laughable opinion at best.

If you think about it, it was a coporation that did not know what they had that detroyed it in the end.  Are you talking about the count of TV seasons that the editors wanted to change.  I wish theet did.  It sound like cnet negglected and did not care about the site.  Which I understood at the time but I did not know how bad it was.  They sould have sold it.

Yes, you understand correctly. CNET didn't care, hence why the editors went on strike to get them to actually respond to several issues (and we let everyone know via the forum). Soon after they shut it down. The editors were as much in the dark as the users. We found out in the same way you did. A message left on the site without an ounce of respect for any of the users or editors who spent a lot of time in building the site up.

Yeah, that was really low what they did, especally to the editors.

There corporation they have no responsibility unless there's unionisation or government intervention to prevent such action.

Quoting Blair76:

Quote:
Nope, I never had any problems with the editors or the site in general. Sure there were a few customizations that I would have liked to see, but I believe that is the case for any site or software: "It's great, but it could always be greater." The ability and willingness for the editors to correct obvious changes rather than making the user always do it himself/herself was wonderful.

Any of the few mistakes that I made were corrected by the editor with a note left as to why or asking for a reply to clear up the situation. The fact that the few editors chosen managed to handle so many tickets over such a long period without going completely insane still astounds me today.  (And yes, I did say "completely" insane, which leaves the rest open for opinion  )


If I hadn't loved the site so much or didn't approve of what the editors/staff were doing, I wouldn't have stuck with the site from near-conception to closing.

Correct me if im wrong but don't you have only 100 DVDs

I bet he's talking about me.

I was a complete jackass when I was editing stuff over there.

Decline this, decline that. What, "the" is spelled "teh"?? DECLINE!!

Even after I "retired" from being an editor, and totally had a meltdown on Alien and a few of the other editors causing them to hate me more than they probably already did (*sigh* good times...  ), they STILL were incredibly polite in their notes left on all my contributions, corrected errors that I may have made as long as they didn't make the contribution incomprehensible (and considering I approved and submitted tens of thousands of tickets while working as an editor there and I STILL made mistakes, that says alot about the patience they had) and gave me tips and heads up on new guidelines and rules for contributing.

Even before I became an editor, I never had a problem. Things had to get REALLY bad before ANY of us would simply decline a ticket outright with no explanation (such as repeated errors constantly made by contributors that had been left notes NUMEROUS times on how to correct their submissions). And those tickets that got declined were usually held for a minimum of 24-48 hours before they were actually declined.

Quoting Jericko1:

Quote:
It was pure laziness on the part of the editor who recived my request.

Believe me, you couldn't be lazy and be an editor there (although you could be lazy and be a contributor). When you're working through thousands upon thousands of contributions a week, it's not possible to be lazy. We were working our asses off the entire time (with the exception of that strike... which still makes me laugh my butt off to this day).


Quoting Jericko1:

Quote:

If you can't handle the job, give to smeone who has better people skills.

I'm pretty sure that having poor people skills is a pre-requisite for being a dvd/blu-ray nerd.  And believe me, after thousands of man hours, correcting hundreds of thousands of mistakes from the same users over and over, getting absolutely NO thanks in return from the owner of the site (and from most of the members) and taking flack for almost every single decision that was made (it was always fun to be called names in the forums because I declined a ticket), it's hard to keep up your "people skills". It's really quite easy to judge when sitting on the sidelines with no real knowledge of how things actually worked... It's an entirely different story to be sitting on the other side of that fence however.