http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/43691...-peyton-place/

Stuart Galbraith mentions in his review that these Fox collections don't seem to be available via Amazon. In fact they are, but you have to search "Classic Quad" to find them. I'm surprised Amazon sells any of them labeled this way:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=classic+quad+set&x=0&y=0

At this point, they're not even listing the titles of the movies on the page, which will make the sets almost impossible to find. You have to read the titles off the photo of the box. And they show the same box for set 1 & set 3. Hopefully they'll get around to fixing it.

I'm aware of this, and even mentioned it in a thread devoted to these 75th Anniversary titles elsewhere on this forum.

The fact remains that Mr. Galbraith's review is in error, as these titles CAN be found on Amazon, even if it's not an easy task. The fact that the error persists, as do others in various reviews all over this site, makes makes me question why more editorial input isn't exercised before reviews go live. My guess it that there are no editors (preferably experienced ones) checking the work that represents this site. Not that many will care, but this will look sloppy to future researchers and fans (and generations?) who might stumble across these reviews.

Galbraith compounded the error also in his review of "20th Century Fox Studio Classics - Anna and the King of Siam / Can-Can / Daddy Long Legs / Star!", wherein he claims there are only three of these sets available to promote Fox's 75th anniversary, when in fact there are at least 10, so far.

Do you think that perhaps Amazon added titles after he wrote his review?

And do you really expect constant editing of every review to make sure all facts are current?

Galbraith has kindly updated his review (click link in first post above), but for Trevor's benefit I'll point out that I posted a link to these "Quads"—which numbered NINE at that time—in another part of the forum on April 22nd. The review in question was on May 13, so no, I do not think that perhaps Amazon added more titles after hthe review was written. They've added more since that time, and as I write this, Amazon has FIFTEEN quads available.

Interestingly enough, many of the Amazon listings are now retitled "20th Century Fox Studio Classics" with the included titles right there in the heading. Perhaps Mr. Galbraith's update to this review deserves yet another update!
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ad+set&x=0&y=0


As of the date they're posted, yes. But apparently they go through unvetted. In-depth reviews for these quads are not plentiful online, so potential buyers reading Galbraith's pieces—before he corrected them—could have been left with the erroneous impression that there are only three of them to choose from.

Glad this has been taken care of, and sorry it generated the usual condescending forum response.

So I'm condescending for pointing out possibilities?

It's very possible that the reviewer never saw your post, like perhaps 99.99% of the forum.

Reviewers and reviewer admin don't necessarily see these threads either. Unless you email them directly, they might not have known about the problem.

Looks to me like they fixed the error fairly quickly, and that you picked a strange windmill to get upset about.

Everything gets at least a look, but are things that meticulously fact-checked, to the point of doggedly searching for alternate titles on Amazon to how readily available for sale something might be...? No. With the volume of reviews DVD Talk posts, that'd be a full-time job. The site doesn't have the resources for that. With as difficult to find as you admit these titles were, why do you think an editor would inherently have better luck than anyone else?

Possible, but then I'd be curious about which "helpful readers on DVD Talk's discussion boards" he might be referring to in the addendum to his review. I guess someone beat me to the punch. Oh well, all is cleared up now. That's the main thing.



That's fine. This part of the forum still exists, though, so I decided to use it in the manner in which I've seen other people use it. To try and fix things for the better.



No, I think it was a perfectly acceptable windmill to tilt at. I'm surprised it generated such enmity when it was obviously an easy fix.



I pointed out a easily-made, easily-fixed error in a DVD Talk review, and provided a helpful link in what I felt was an appropriate forum, as I've seen others do. I didn't think an editor would need to do much legwork at that point. If I hadn't brought the subject up, or wasn't aware of the bizarre Amazon listings as I was, I would still hold out hope that, at some point, the writer or an editor would spot or be alerted to the error (perhaps by reading the ongoing thread on the quads in the main "DVD Talk" forum) and fix it for the simple sake of accuracy going forward. I never argue with a reviewer's opinions here, even when I disagree, but facts are another matter, and it's nice to know that, in spite of protestations in this thread, errors do indeed get fixed, and fairly quickly.

I also didn't realize that a PM would be a better method than posting errata in the Reviews and Recommendations forum, but I'll keep that in mind for the future.

My thanks to Mr. Galbraith for presumably taking the time to read this thread.

Oh! I apologize. I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting the error should never have been posted on the site in the first place...that an editor should have caught it before it was ever posted. Sorry about the confusion.

You construed my comments as enmity and protestations? Really? Wow. That's my second today. Remind me to never piss off a Canadian.

I just thought you were being a bit impatient with two different threads about the problem, not giving them any time to respond.

[QUOTE=Trevor;10169446]Remind me to never piss off a Canadian.

You didn't piss me off. Reading back through this, I worry the reverse may have happened. Regardless, what does my nationality have to do with this? Is this where I'm supposed to make inferences about Americans, or West Virginians? I don't see where that would get me.



Yes, I posted two threads, a while apart, but how was I not giving them any time? My second post in this thread was five days after my first, and then only in response to another member. I wasn't making repeat demands that it be fixed, only suggesting that it should be, both for the sake of readers with an interest in these titles and for posterity. If I kept bumping these threads every few hours or every day—before anyone else responded—then I could rightly be accused of jumping the gun, looking stupid, being Canadian or whatever, but I respond to a couple of people who respond to me, one of whom asks a direct question ("do you really expect . . .") and things sure go south fast, don't they?

Oh well, thanks for reminding me where I'm from, anyways! So cold up here.

I'm still relieved to know that errors do get fixed here, one way or the other--editorial review, private message, or posting in the forums (at one's own risk).

What confusion? What apology? You were right, and probably know that anyways. When I first posted, I was genuinely ignorant about the editorial procedures of this site in regards to submitted reviews (are such procedures posted?), though I only specifically admitted it in the other thread I started regarding a review of a different Quad set. Yes, at the time I thought that—perhaps—everyone's reviews were given a more detailed once-over than they actually were before being posted. I then thought (wrongly, I'll admit) that this was the kind of error that should have been spotted up front. Figuring it wasn't, I brought it up here, and it was fixed. I'll freely admit I didn't know what the procedure was, you've since explained it, and now I know how to approach the reviews I read on the site going forward. And yes, it would be awesome if all errors were caught by editors before they were posted on the site—and I'll always wish they were, here and just about everywhere else on the internet—but I now realize that's just not possible, all things considered.

[QUOTE=Brian T;10169899]Your nationality has nothing to do with anything, of course. I was trying to make a little joke, thought that was plainly obvious.

But I should have known better. My previous attempts at help or clarification resulted in you thinking me condescending, having enmity, or giving protestations.

I should have quit while I was behind.

Relax Brian, we're all on the same side.