Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 688
Location: WA State, USA
mmbossman wrote:
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.
Bad example. The movie is a 15% improvement, so I'd bet that it's really that much better.
Nach wrote:
I also used to wake up every morning, open my curtains, and see the twin towers. And then one day, wasn't able to anymore, I'll never forget that.
Hmm, I vote for Yes/no/meh again. I, too, have stopped voting for anything. Too much brain power to give a decent rating, as opposed to a high or low number if i want a yes/no vote
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
There was a good point made earlier in the topic. Instead of nullifying peoples ratings e.g. all 10's meaning 5's. How about basing them on the average deviation based on the ratings of movies. That way, people who only rate the few exceptional popular games don't get penalised too much.
The problem is that the numbers don't mean too much without a reference, and I've special troubles rating technical aspects, too. Many months ago, I thought it would work to have something like the pain scale. You have a favorite TAS, a less favorite TAS and a somewhat-in-the-middle one, and the voting system would present you with three random movies from the list of ones you have watched, and ask if the one in the workbench is better/worse than them, adjusting their values accordingly.
I didn't suggest the system before as it seems a lot of work to implement, and might be as flawed as the others, but I leave it there now just in case it inspires someone to come with a better system.
Hmm, I vote for Yes/no/meh again. I, too, have stopped voting for anything. Too much brain power to give a decent rating, as opposed to a high or low number if i want a yes/no vote
I don't understand this sentiment that keeps coming up. You don't like the new system, because it allows you to be more specific than 0.0, 5.0, or 10.0.
The solution to your problem seems clear. :p
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1977
Location: Making an escape
Dromiceius wrote:
Sticky wrote:
Hmm, I vote for Yes/no/meh again. I, too, have stopped voting for anything. Too much brain power to give a decent rating, as opposed to a high or low number if i want a yes/no vote
I don't understand this sentiment that keeps coming up. You don't like the new system, because it allows you to be more specific than 0.0, 5.0, or 10.0.
The solution to your problem seems clear. :p
That's assuming that you can assign "Yes", "No", and "Meh" clean numerical equivalents to a 100 point scale. A "Yes" isn't necessarily a 10, or any other value, really. It's a "Yes".
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
This post in a nutshell:
I think a single "1,2,3,4,5" rating system would be ideal; No, Weak No, Meh, Weak Yes, Yes, clearly labeled. It would supplement common sentiments on the forum before the rating system was changed, without providing an excessive level of choices, keeping things simple.
-----------------
I still like the old "stars" idea other sites use. 1-5, no stupid decimal places.
It would mostly fit within the old metrics too:
1: No
2: Weak No
3: Meh
4: Weak Yes
5: Yes
Arguably, you could simply label them as such. As Upthorn said, it's hard to justify more significant ratings, and having 100 possible values (!) is just absurd.
I personally liked the Y/N/M system more than the ratings, but I think ratings on a scale from 1-5 (clearly labeled so that "Meh" is the average) would be better. It would also enforce the idea of "averages" better when it is tied to old meanings... whereas most people who have done schooling are reinforced that ~75% is "average" (this is also pervasive in schools).
I personally see no need to provide distinguished "Technical" / "Entertainment" ratings for submissions; they must have at least a decent amount of both regardless or the run is not publishable, and it's made redundant by movie ratings.
But this is just my thoughts on the matter; adding 2 extra ratings for between Yes and No would be a supplemental system to something many people were already using on the forums.
I have reverted the voting system now to the old "yes / no / meh" system.
With any submission that are submitted after this, the voting question will be changed to "should this movie be published", but it will remain "did you like this movie" for the current ones.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
This is passive:
People walking in circles, that's what I meant.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
I like the change.
Does look funny though, seeing sami's run published with only 2 nods of approval!
I don't know why you changed this back, but I think it was a good move.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
adelikat wrote:
I think changing back to the yes/no system was a good move.
While I still think it's a very flawed system (A no, weak no, meh, weak yes, yes type system would probably be best), I agree with the decision. It was pretty clear that my proposed plan looked good on paper, but failed pretty miserably when actually applied.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
(A no, weak no, meh, weak yes, yes type system would probably be best)
For what's worth, I think this suggestion has merit. More choices than in the old (and now also current) system, but shouldn't have the problems with the 0-10 voting system. If people want something published, then they can go ahead and give a "full" yes vote, but they won't be skewing the ratings, and other more moderate people will have more choices for their votes.
Cpadolf wrote:
klmz wrote:
Should people re-rate those "over-rated" movies?
If someone has rated a movie higher than they actually think that it is worth then that person should probably re-rate them, yes :)
How likely is it that someone who voted a straight 10/10 in the submissions forum just to see his favorite run published will now go back and re-rate it? Clearly such a person doesn't care about the rating system, so why should he bother?
It's a bit of a pity that there are a bunch of movies with probably a bit skewed ratings, but there's little that can be done about it, other than resetting their ratings completely, which would be a rather drastic measure...
Bisqwit> I have reverted the voting system now to the old "yes / no / meh" system.
While we are at it, can we reorder the options to "yes / meh / no" or "no / meh / yes"? That seems to make a lot more sense to me.
If it is implemented later, people will complain about having learned the positions and voting wrong by accident.
People walking in circles, that's what I meant.
