As moderator of the script boards, I have in the past gathered input from the community on the questions such as "harsh" reviews, or reviews that consider only the first few pages.  I try to keep deletions in line with what "most" people here think.

I have another question for the active community.

Earlier this morning, I deleted a post in which the author made a short comment on just the logline.  Then, I deleted another.  Same guy.

Then, I came to discover this (new) member had commented (only) on six or so loglines -- some comments longish and perhaps helpful, others, not so much.

I began to wonder -- Since I had deleted two, did I then have to delete them all?  Was I wrong to delete the two I had?  Should I keep some of them and not others?

It occurred to me that this has become something of a new trend lately among "newbies" and "vets" alike -- commenting on the logline alone.

I contend that it is kind of useless to say "killer logline" if you have not read the script -- because if it did not draw you in to read the script, how killer can it be?

Similarly, if you have not read the script, it is also hard to call a logline terrible.  It might suit the script perfectly.  You are really just guessing.

And telling an author their logline is riddled with misspellings?  Is that really necessary?  We can see for ourselves, and such an author is unlikely to care anyway.

But then, sometimes these comments are clever or funny -- and they might even contain a grain of something useful.

So I am once again curious about what the general community thinks:

What about posted reviews of ONLY the logine and NOTHING about the script?  Should those stay or go?

Or should it be case-by-case, and then, what criteria should be used?

Personally I think commenting on just the logline is a bit slack. If I was gonna post I'd have to have at least a quick look at the script before I did.

However, I would say I'd prefer if these type of posts weren't deleted. I don't mind seeing "I'll read this tomorrow" posts going but any posts about the script, logline or even just the title should stay. The auithor should get a chance to read them and respond - they may learn something they wanna know.

Rendevous

I can't see how you can really "review" a logline - you may comment on it, say it is too long (as some are - one I saw recently was like a synopsis), or doesn't really suit the project, but I think it has to be within context as part of a review of the whole project - not instead of.

I don't know about deleting them - as Re says, leaving does give the author a chance to respond, but then again, what are they responding too? Commenting on a logline isn't all that useful unless it relates to the script as a whole.

I am crap at loglines and if all I got were reviews telling me this and ignoring the actual scripts, I wouldn't see much point hanging around SS!

I can't really see how they think they can help the writer by reviewing their logline if they haven't read everything in the script. Posts like that should go, in my opinion.

That's where we're going.

"I'll read this later" turns into a new thread about two months down the road about owing reads.

Maybe the specific people who can't seem to read features or only want to review loglines should stick to super shorts and save the eyesore of them posting and the writer not calling them on it.

I've always said don't delete something until people have a chance to see it first.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley I've always said don't delete something until people have a chance to see it first.

I'd say that's spot on. Unless it's a complete waste of space all posts should stay for a few hours at least

Re

To comment alone on just a logline is just slack.  A logline is not enough to grasp how good a script is and that's why I never ever read them.  

The reviewer is only letting themselves down if they are put off a script based on a logline when the script is great.

DELETE all reviews on loglines.  They are not the bases for improvement when it comes to script writing.

Quoted from rendevous The auithor should get a chance to read them and respond - they may learn something they wanna know.

So what about six "logline reviews" -- in six different threads -- for authors that are probably not even around?

The portal is then clogged with these non-reviews -- while your own scripts are driven down or entirely off the portal as a result.

"The author should get a chance to respond...?"

And how long, exactly, is that?

You can see how the decisions get kind of complicated.  It is not "censorship" so much as it is a courtesy to the scripts of active authors -- and not setting a poor example for newer members -- who then think, "Oh, so I can build up my post count by just commenting on a bunch of loglines!"

I see that some do not care for this at all, under any circumstances.

To them I would ask, "Never?  No exceptions?"

Loglines are essential in getting your script read by either a Studio Exec or an Investor . . . it is the first thing they hear/see before they decide whether or not they will read your script or Investment Packet . . . and isn't that the ultimate goal of everyone on this site, to sell or have your script(s) optioned?

Some authors can write an amazing script and have a poor logline and their work will never get read, not even on this site and that sucks! But on the flipside, poor script, stellar logline, and then they get slammed on how poor their script was. You choose, would you rather get slammed on a script that you spent months writing or a logline that you thought up as you were trying to submit? (Okay, yes, if your script isn't great it will get slammed anyway, but that's not the point of this thread)

Some authors will admit that they are not so hot on writing loglines. (kudos Niles for being honest) If that's the case, ask for help once your script gets posted. There is so much knowledge and talent on this board . . . share the wealth, for karma sake alone.

Anyways, that is my 2 cents and it is worth exactly that much!

Comment on the logline and maybe it'll be helpful.  

You gotta remember the guy can always resubmit his script with a new logline that will be more attention-grabbing because someone told him how to spice it up -- and in that regard, the writer actually might pull in some readers.

But I can see like 6 posts (in one thread) on just loglines would be a no-no.

Quoted from skylightlynch Loglines are essential in getting your script read by either a Studio Exec or an Investor . . . it is the first thing they hear/see before they decide whether or not they will read your script or Investment Packet . . . and isn't that the ultimate goal of everyone on this site, to sell or have your script(s) optioned? Some authors can write an amazing script and have a poor logline and their work will never get read, not even on this site and that sucks! But on the flipside, poor script, stellar logline, and then they get slammed on how poor their script was. You choose, would you rather get slammed on a script that you spent months writing or a logline that you thought up as you were trying to submit?

How can anyone expect to help improve the logline if they haven't bothered to read the script? I have no problem with people helping with the logline after they read what the actual script is about but writing so many posts with advice on loglines alone doesn't really help anyone if they haven't read the script.

Bert,

Hit the delete key hard!

Three points:

Loglines are like advertising. Some work better than others. And who buys solely on ads without doing a little reading first?

The process of submitting a script asks for a logline and they often are filled in on the fly, so I don't think loglines should be criticized too closley, UNLESS it's part of a review of the script.

I'd hate to see a review "Hey great logline! Read scripts and prosper!" or "Worst logline ever. I'll read your story if you can come up with a go-getter!" That doe not help me with writing my script.

Gary

Quoted from bert As moderator of the script boards, I have in the past gathered input from the community on the questions such as "harsh" reviews, or reviews that consider only the first few pages.  I try to keep deletions in line with what "most" people here think. I have another question for the active community. Earlier this morning, I deleted a post in which the author made a short comment on just the logline.  Then, I deleted another.  Same guy. Then, I came to discover this (new) member had commented (only) on six or so loglines -- some comments longish and perhaps helpful, others, not so much. I began to wonder -- Since I had deleted two, did I then have to delete them all?  Was I wrong to delete the two I had?  Should I keep some of them and not others? It occurred to me that this has become something of a new trend lately among "newbies" and "vets" alike -- commenting on the logline alone. I contend that it is kind of useless to say "killer logline" if you have not read the script -- because if it did not draw you in to read the script, how killer can it be? Similarly, if you have not read the script, it is also hard to call a logline terrible.  It might suit the script perfectly.  You are really just guessing. And telling an author their logline is riddled with misspellings?  Is that really necessary?  We can see for ourselves, and such an author is unlikely to care anyway. But then, sometimes these comments are clever or funny -- and they might even contain a grain of something useful. So I am once again curious about what the general community thinks: What about posted reviews of ONLY the logine and NOTHING about the script?  Should those stay or go? Or should it be case-by-case, and then, what criteria should be used?

I think that it should be weighed on a case-by-case basis for these reasons.

There might be reviewers out there that don't really care that much and will slap anything down be it with regards to logline or not and it just so happens that it's up first and so it's an easy target. These kinds of posts probably ooze negativity without really serving anybody. So, delete those ones.

There might be some very strong reviewers that sincerely believe that a really bad logline is extremely suspect with regards to it being a kind of mirror to the quality of the script as a whole. This reviewer, might feel that the writer has not bothered enough or just doesn't know enough yet and so thus, they point out the logline after reading an equally poor first page, and thus move on.

The long and short of it is this:

Make the call based upon how you feel the review comes across. Even if the reviewer is solely writing on the logline alone it's a relevant point if the logline makes them want to hit close.

Sandra

I think comments on the logline are valid criticism of the author's writing.  They should stay.  And since, more often than not, loglines are used to determine whether or not one should read a script then commenting on them before you've read the script is also valid.  Like any criticism the author should determine whether or not the comments are useful.

Don't know if it's directed at me or not, but I did recently make a comment or two about log lines. The first after a poster extracted information from the writer about the log stating that the story is loosely based on the writer's life. I felt it pertinent, after reading the writer's answer, to make the comment to remove "based upon" from the logline because, in my opinion, the story could not even loosely be based upon the writer's life. I could write a story about trauma-center doctors and say it's based upon my life because I was gurnied into a trauma-center. Not.

The other was about a play, which was in the logline, but I did read some of it before mentioning that it truly was a stage play.

In general, there are loglines I read that get me to read the script and there are loglines that do not. Sometimes I want to comment on page count...like why in the heck would I want to read a 148 page script? But I keep my keyboard-trap for the most part. Should I say why I will or will not read a script based upon the logline? Maybe that is what you're getting at.