| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Yukon 
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
 Posted - 12/02/2006 : 19:06:30
|
Here is an idea to improve the quality of reviews on the site and -- at the same time -- make for less work for Benj.
As the site is right now, it rewards quantity instead of quality.
I still have a standard for my reviews that I try to maintain, but I admit I'm submitting reviews that I would grade C's instead of A's.
WHY? Because I like seeing my name move up on the top 100 list.
So I suggest Benj post another top 100 list for the top reviewers based on votes per review (with a minimum of 50 reviews to be eligible). That way people such as Bigger Boat who try to make every review an A+ review get some recognition.
What I also like about this list is that it will change more often than the top 100 reviewers. It will encourage people to delete older reviews that failed to get votes to boost their average.
Also, people who are on the votes-average-review list will be more selective about submitting reviews, thus reducing the massive pending pile for Benj and the MERPs.
What do you think Benj? Everyone else in the FWFR world? |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 20:58:07
|
Sounds good to me.  |
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 22:17:34
|
I did pm Benj a couple of months ago with exactly this idea but got no reply  .
I also thought that labelling "top reviewers" as merely quantative was encouraging people to just write reviews without enough regard to their quality (says no 62 in the world by average votes  ).
I also suggested having a list of total votes as another way of people quantifying "top reviewers". This currently exists in a weird form by the "Salopian lists" but names have to be added manually and it has next to no prominence. Can we have this too please Benj?
None of these quantifications are perfect means of judging any reviewer but at least they broaden out the meaning of "top reviewer" beyond being merely prolific.
|
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 22:20:26
|
| Well that was easy. Thanks Benj. |
Edited by - Yukon on 12/02/2006 22:23:49 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 22:20:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
Here is an idea to improve the quality of reviews on the site and -- at the same time -- make for less work for Benj.
As the site is right now, it rewards quantity instead of quality.
I still have a standard for my reviews that I try to maintain, but I admit I'm submitting reviews that I would grade C's instead of A's.
WHY? Because I like seeing my name move up on the top 100 list.
So I suggest Benj post another top 100 list for the top reviewers based on votes per review (with a minimum of 50 reviews to be eligible). That way people such as Bigger Boat who try to make every review an A+ review get some recognition.
What I also like about this list is that it will change more often than the top 100 reviewers. It will encourage people to delete older reviews that failed to get votes to boost their average.
Also, people who are on the votes-average-review list will be more selective about submitting reviews, thus reducing the massive pending pile for Benj and the MERPs.
What do you think Benj? Everyone else in the FWFR world?
Though I have no fundamental objection to this -- academic as Benj has already done it -- there is an important consideration vis-a-vis votes. As we all know, participation in the 4UM is vital to upping the vote ratio of any review. And, as has been pointed out before, some FWFRers aren't into the whole voting thing at all, let alone reciprocity via various 4UM threads. So the Top Vote list will always be skewed to reflect a certain kind of registered participant, whereas the quantitative Top List will always reflect the speed of MERP approvals.
Another factor which may be relevant. It's pretty obvious that many reviews using innuendo or other sexual reference consistently receive votes despite the fact that some of them merely comment on a tiny part of the film in question. Some of these may admittedly be clever in themselves [and I'm not denying I've not only voted on some of these, but have written a few myself  ], but I don't believe there's another General Heading of reviews that gets anywhere near the predictable number of votes.
Once again, don't get me wrong ... I'm not against the new list. I just think we shouldn't forget these factors.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 22:34:19
|
Just as in "Citizen Kane" each list tells the story from its own perspective.
There is no "right" list but at least this new list, and hopefully the total votes list I have proposed, will broaden out the criteria for "top reviewer".
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 22:38:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Though I have no fundamental objection to this -- academic as Benj has already done it -- there is an important consideration vis-a-vis votes. As we all know, participation in the 4UM is vital to upping the vote ratio of any review. And, as has been pointed out before, some FWFRers aren't into the whole voting thing at all, let alone reciprocity via various 4UM threads. So the Top Vote list will always be skewed to reflect a certain kind of registered participant, whereas the quantitative Top List will always reflect the speed of MERP approvals.
It's interesting then that there are quite a few entries in the Top 100 Average Votes that have never appeared in the fourum 
Certainly, there's a lot of vote reciprocation going on in the fourum (I don't approve of the whole "you vote on mine, I'll vote on yours" thing, but what can you do really?) which skews this list also, but it clearly does highlight quite a few reviewers who wouldn't otherwise get recognition. This is partly through happy chance of people voting on their reviews over time, but it's also down to the positive effect the fourum too- threads highlighting up-and-coming reviewers.
There's never going to be an automated list that will fairly highlight reviewers who deserve it. The best I can is offer as many different angles on top reviewers as we can come up with.
|
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 22:39:57
|
Hey! I'm in the top 10! Smart idea Yukon. 
Talk about simple pleasures, but having been working hard to reach the other top 100 this is a cool bonus (and coded incredibly fast - how do you do it Benj?). Thanks for the votes everyone. 
quote:
Certainly, there's a lot of vote reciprocation going on in the fourum (I don't approve of the whole "you vote on mine, I'll vote on yours" thing, but what can you do really?) which skews this list also, but it clearly does highlight quite a few reviewers who wouldn't otherwise get recognition. This is partly through happy chance of people voting on their reviews over time, but it's also down to the positive effect the fourum too- threads highlighting up-and-coming reviewers.
I guess it's also the best way to see the good work that people are doing. There may be an element of 'willingful reciprocation for the sake of it' going on, but I only click on reviews that I think are worth it, and that's it, same applies for the FYC. At least it's a way to encourage and highlight the good reviews, which otherwise wouldn't happen so much I suspect. The only other way I regularly review is from reading through existing pages on films I am about to submit a personal review for, but that's a rate of a handful of reviews per film, say three or four films a day at most, often less. I enjoy that voting as I'm frequently hitting regular fwiffers who never visit the fourum. |
Edited by - demonic on 12/02/2006 22:54:29 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 22:40:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I did pm Benj a couple of months ago with exactly this idea but got no reply .
Sorry about that Whippa... it's just a matter of catching me at the right time, I think |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 22:55:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I did pm Benj a couple of months ago with exactly this idea but got no reply .
Sorry about that Whippa... it's just a matter of catching me at the right time, I think
Whippa forgives Benj.  |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 23:25:24
|
| I like this list! Some of the places are surprising. Noncentz at 37? |
Edited by - GHcool on 12/02/2006 23:26:41 |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 23:56:40
|
This is the only way that Alma beats me on this site.
You've made her a little happy I suspect!! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 01:04:13
|
Wow, I cannot believe Benj has done this after all this time! We begged for this, and I had to fall back on my laborious method mentioned above.
I am very glad to have it. However, I don't think the 50-review minimum is fair. I realise that there are a few reviewers with few reviews, one or more of which has many votes. Yes, this is a slightly different kettle of fish, but their average is still perfectly genuine. The other ranking does not specify a basic average before one's number of reviews counts, so why should the reverse be the case? It is muddily conflating two different things. (Bear in mind that I am arguing for something which will proportionately push me down quite a lot.) In particular, this list exclude Slippy Tin, the archetypal high-quality reviewer.
The ideal would be to have a third list, which is the one that I think is overall the fairest - a ranking by total number of votes. This would mean that quantity and quality could do battle together. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 02:20:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
There is no "right" list but at least this new list, and hopefully the total votes list I have proposed, will broaden out the criteria for "top reviewer".
Sorry - did not read all the posts before. I agree, but then I would, since I suggested it first. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 02:22:09
|
| Benj, if you keep the 50-reviews thing, could I suggest wording it as "(movie buffs and above only)" instead? That would make it seem slightly less arbitrary, as at least the figure has some other meaning on the site. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
How to make this site better...
