After a few months of using the new system, I have to admit that it is deeply flawed. Much like communism, the rating system works great in theory, but utterly fails when it is applied in the real world. Many borderline submissions are artificially bolstered by people who are seemingly unable to make intelligent ratings, such as shown
here and
here. The ratings of recently published movies have become incredibly inflated, and have rendered the entire idea of ratings nearly useless (many people would argue that the technical rating was useless beforehand, but that's already been covered). One recent example is adelikat's
Earnest Evans, which jumped by nearly 2 full points.
As I was the one who proposed the new system, I figured that I would be the best person to say that it simply isn't working out well. While the yes/no/meh system also had its flaws, I don't believe this system is any better, and has caused the ratings system to become even less reliable and helpful. I don't know what the best solution would be, but as of right now, I'm starting to think that removing the polls altogether and making people voice their opinions through a post would be the best. But seeing as how I proposed the current system, I may not be the best person to listen to at the moment.
I don't think that any system we implement will be perfect, but the current system has been too polluted by non-discriminatory raters to be of any use. Any ideas on how to make the submission discussion more productive and less crappy?
