Since I don't have permission to create a poll post, and since nobody who has seems to care, I'll just create a "manual poll" post instead. You'll have to reply to this post in order to vote.
The question which has been posed: The MovieStatistics page currently lists the best rated movies. Should it also list the worst rated movies too?
Arguments pro: Statistics are "neutral" and only state the facts which can already be seen by other means by anyone anyways, so there should be no harm in showing them here. It's not like the authors of worst-rated runs wouldn't already know how their runs have been rated. In fact, since becoming worst rated is because of a bad choice of game and not sloppy playing, this list may guide and encourage people to concentrate the improvement efforts on games which are more popular instead of the less popular ones.
Arguments con: This kind of list could be seen by some as a "hall of shame" list which mocks the authors of the movies. The authors should be spared from this. There's no useful informational value in worst-rated movies because it's unlikely that anyone would want to watch such a movie, and it would only serve as making the already-long MovieStatistics page even longer.
Go me! I'm 25th for worst overall, 49th for worst entertainment and 32nd for worst technical.
What's interesting is, this has positively affected me. I had been planning to make a second TAS of Tom and Jerry, which would be improved maybe 2 seconds (almost all on levels 8, 9 and 10). However, now that I know these movies are not as popular as I thought (I used to assume a 5.0 rating meant "average") I'll just work on other games.
This attitude is destructive. The statistics are there to build a better site, to fill it with better content, and what are you doing, calling it a wall of shame? Awesome.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 6/13/2006
Posts: 3300
Location: Massachussetts, USA
"worst rated movies" page showing who has the statistically poorest TASes to me sounds like a wall of shame. The site had more than enough content and statistics already. The only thing destructive here is downplaying TASes that may be sloppy and not widely liked by the audience, but which the authors did put time and effort into.
And this is a poll. I'm guessing my opinion won't change it (although technically I could undo these efforts since it's site related, but I find it nonconstructive and intrusive to do so) but that's my opinion, that this addition is insulting to the efforts of the TASers who have their work displayed as "Failure" for having low technical/entertainment quality.
The only thing destructive here is downplaying TASes that may be sloppy and not widely liked by the audience, but which the authors did put time and effort into.
[...]
TASers who have their work displayed as "Failure" for having low technical/entertainment quality.
So you're also against rejecting submissions, just because the author put time and effort into it?
I don't see the point in hiding or downplaying flaws to soothe the author - if the author can't bear to accept flaws in his work, he'd better learn to handle criticism, and he'd better lern over here than in real life where it might seriously hurt.
And unless the author can't handle it, honest feedback is way more useful to anyone.
so, I'd vote yes.
"worst rated movies" page showing who has the statistically poorest TASes to me sounds like a wall of shame.
You wouldn't perceive it as offending if the authorship didn't concern you that much. It's not the author who is rated, it's the run. If its author can't accept the rating, then it's his fault. People rate the runs, anyway, statistics are here to gather and arrange the results.
comicalflop wrote:
The only thing destructive here is downplaying TASes that may be sloppy and not widely liked by the audience, but which the authors did put time and effort into.
I fail to see how statistics can downplay anything.
comicalflop wrote:
this addition is insulting to the efforts of the TASers who have their work displayed as "Failure" for having low technical/entertainment quality.
No-one promised to like anything, I thought Guidelines had it covered pretty well. I like how Tub has put it above.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 6/13/2006
Posts: 3300
Location: Massachussetts, USA
I'm not against rejecting submissions. I have one of those myself.
I'm against a list of published runs listed showing the "worts" of the site. It's the principle of a 'wall of shame', not whether or not the author is or is not insulted.
A wall of shame is made to make fun of and insult people that are on it.
By creating such a list, we are publicly saying "here's a list of TASes that the audience rates as sucks."
I'd believe the overall aims of the site to not stoop to such childish displays of "let's display, point and laugh at these bad movies!"
A wall of shame is made to make fun of and insult people that are on it.
By creating such a list, we are publicly saying "here's a list of TASes that the audience rates as sucks."
I'd believe the overall aims of the site to not stoop to such childish displays of "let's display, point and laugh at these bad movies!"
Man, you can't be serious. Your argument goes like this: "you are selling knives — knives are used to kill people — you're selling means to kill people; I thought you weren't supposed to".
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 6/13/2006
Posts: 3300
Location: Massachussetts, USA
Not quite like that. but if you want to perceive it that way, fine by me. as I stated, I hate walls of shame, I suppose others (who actually have feelings and their runs mean something to them) would too, some seem to not perceive this as a wall of shame, and in the end, if you just want to call it statistics, and not see how those statistics can have implied meanings, whatever.
Ok, let me present it to you in a more elaborate fashion.
comicalflop wrote:
I'm against a list of published runs listed showing the "worts" of the site. It's the principle of a 'wall of shame', not whether or not the author is or is not insulted.
You've confused the cause and the effect. Listing the lowest results isn't made to construct a wall of shame, while a wall of shame always lists the lowest result. It's a logical fallacy to think that listing should lead to or is made for constructing a wall of shame.
comicalflop wrote:
A wall of shame is made to make fun of and insult people that are on it.
In continuation of your fallacy, you give the statistics page a certain negative connotation and immediately attack it, therefore implying a certain "normal" (=expected) way of behavior that would occur, while it most likely wouldn't if you didn't bring it up.
comicalflop wrote:
By creating such a list, we are publicly saying "here's a list of TASes that the audience rates as sucks."
Again, bringing up your own connotations, thereby doing the opposite of what you've wanted — you're insulting the runs and covering it with public.
comicalflop wrote:
I'd believe the overall aims of the site to not stoop to such childish displays of "let's display, point and laugh at these bad movies!"
Another implied pattern of behavior. While no-one did what you described, you were the one to bring it up as if it's a phenomenon observable here. While analyzing the mistakes and trying to improve the content would be mature, what you just did was an example of what was childish.
comicalflop wrote:
I'm not against rejecting submissions. I have one of those myself.
On a bit unrelated note, but let's debunk this as well. I'm not sure how bringing up the fact that you have a rejected submission helps proving you're not against rejecting. Or did you want to say you were agreed with rejecting it? I don't remember it to be so.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I personally wouldn't look at these statistics as a wall of shame, or as a way to point and laugh at authors. I see it more of a way to guide people. It can point out how to choose a more appropriate game to TAS (if the entertainment score is low) and how to spot mistakes in runs (if the technical score as low). We have to take the good with the bad, and I think that being able to look at the bad grouped together will help to gradually better the site.
EDIT: Wait... don't we already have this here? It's just not grouped.
