If you have a run on the wall of shame then chances are you probably already know it sucks. It doesn't reflect on you as a person. I completely fail to see how any reasonable person would take this as an insult of any sort.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Is there a good reason for the absence of a "lowest number of ratings" section? I think it would be interesting and that in practice no harm would come of it. I almost added
! Least rated movies
[module:MovieStatistics|comp=numberOfVotes|fields=numberOfVotes=Number of votes]
but wasn't sure that wouldn't undermine the rating system or incite rioting or something.
Is there a good reason for the absence of a "lowest number of ratings" section?
As laughing_gas said, that list would be constantly changing with new movies, and it would IMO be mostly obsolete. Also, there are probably lots of movies with 1-5 votes and only 10 of them would be shown in the list (of course a top-100 subpage could be created but I don't see the point in that either). I'm not sure this list would be useful. (Of course nothing stops any editor from adding the list there. In fact, the list can be added basically anywhere, so if you want to test it somewhere else, eg. in your own page, you can do it to see how the list would look like.)
Btw, I perfectly understand comicalflop's opinion, and it's precisely why I wanted to create a poll in the first place. I wasn't sure if it would be good to create such lists. Personally I find such lists mildly interesting but in no way critical to the page, so either way is ok IMO. I added it because the majority seemed to think it should be there.
Is there a good reason for the absence of a "lowest number of ratings" section? I think it would be interesting and that in practice no harm would come of it. I almost added
! Least rated movies
[module:MovieStatistics|comp=numberOfVotes|fields=numberOfVotes=Number of votes]
but wasn't sure that wouldn't undermine the rating system or incite rioting or something.
I'm almost tempted to add this to my user subpage somehwere (if it isn't on the site already).
But yeah -- Some people will be offended, some will look at it as a chance to determine what runs could use a reworking. And obsolete movies could just not be listed (naturally), since most obsolete movies are, well, old.
Yes. Just add "minAge=14" to the module parameters.
Edit: I added that list, just to see how it looks like. With the 2 weeks minimum it might actually be useful.
to solve the age problem, you could sort that list not by a global downloads counter, but by a downloads per month counter. this way it would work with every movie, in both orders.
I never sleep, 'cause sleep is the cousin of death - NAS
Yes. Just add "minAge=14" to the module parameters.
the age of a movie is simply the number of days it has been published on the site.
you cannot compare the numbers of downloads of a movie if you don't take its age into account. say, a 2-week-old movie with 200 downloads has technically more downloads than a 2-year-old movie with 250 downloads... on the same period. I propose that we replace the download counter by a "number of downloads per month". this will solve such problems.
I never sleep, 'cause sleep is the cousin of death - NAS
I don't really understand what's the problem you are seeing here. The problem which the "minAge=14" parameter solves is that recently-published movies needlessly scramble the least-voted-movies list. By only listing movies published more than 2 weeks ago this problem is greatly alleviated.
This has nothing to do with download amounts. Download amounts play absolutely no role in this list. I don't understand why you are talking about that in this context.
As for a list of most downloaded movies compensated for time, ever noticed the "All-time audience favorites" table in the statistics page?
