| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 12/03/2006 : 02:28:03
|
Surprisingly, Alan Smithee is higher up in this list than in the other one.  |
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 02:42:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
Not so statistically speaking- you need to have a certain number of something to start to get a fairly balanced average. This is why accurate surveys are never composed of asking one or two people what they think.
We could debate whether 50 is too high or low a figure to cut-off at but, from a statistical standpoint, the closer this number is to infinity, the more accurate the average is considered to be. |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 03:42:07
|
| I think 50 is just right, but agree with Salopian that it should be worded as "film buffs and above" |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 03:59:09
|
I think 50 is fine. Anyone could write one review clever enough to get 20 votes and go straight to the top of the list. But it's hard to do that 50 times. 
Sure, it's a shame Slippy Tin couldn't be on the list, but that's his fault for quitting after 30-odd. 
Edit:- Yikes, is someone gonna keep an eye on Alan Smithee's quantity rank? Who's gonna be the first to start giving him their low-voters so they can crawl up the average-votes list? |
Edited by - Sean on 12/03/2006 04:03:08 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 04:01:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Not so statistically speaking- you need to have a certain number of something to start to get a fairly balanced average. This is why accurate surveys are never composed of asking one or two people what they think.
We could debate whether 50 is too high or low a figure to cut-off at but, from a statistical standpoint, the closer this number is to infinity, the more accurate the average is considered to be.
No, that applies to an average across e.g. different people, where one is just using a sample group as representative. The result from a total set is genuine, regardless of how many there are in that set. For example, the percentage of female British prime ministers whose fathers were greengrocers is just 100. It's not 'sort of 100, but it doesn't count'. The list is not about people's inherent abilities or what might be if everyone had the same number of reviews. It's just about what their actual average actually is. Also bear in mind that Alan Smithee is in the list. How can 'he' be when actual reviewers aren't? Is 'his' average accurate of anything meaningful?
And if we're going to get into representing statistics, I have to reiterate that '5' has a different meaning to '5.00'.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 04:06:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I think 50 is fine. Anyone could write one review clever enough to get 20 votes and go straight to the top of the list.
But that would be a valid choice. It would also be a valid choice and very easy (if slightly time-consuming) to write 10,000 dull reviews and go to the top of the quantity list. I strongly feel that we should not encode our prejudices as to what is better or worse into statistics like these. It also defines this list as being second rate, as it includes a characteristic that is already wholly covered by the other one. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 04:09:09
|
| Also, one review with 20 votes would not get anyone to the top of the list, thanks to BiggerBoat! |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 04:39:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
No, that applies to an average across e.g. different people, where one is just using a sample group as representative. The result from a total set is genuine, regardless of how many there are in that set. For example, the percentage of female British prime ministers whose fathers were greengrocers is just 100. It's not 'sort of 100, but it doesn't count'. The list is not about people's inherent abilities or what might be if everyone had the same number of reviews. It's just about what their actual average actually is. Also bear in mind that Alan Smithee is in the list. How can 'he' be when actual reviewers aren't? Is 'his' average accurate of anything meaningful?
Sorry, but your comparison to a percentage list of Female PMs blah-blah doesn't fit with the model we're using here. You're talking about something you either are (100%) or aren't (0%). Everyone on the list would be of equal position, i.e. joint 1st, and so it's not a ranked list, just a list of pointless trivia.
Whether you like it or not, having a ranked average list including reviewers with only one review to their name is just plain imbecilic, pointless and I'm not doing it. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 04:46:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I strongly feel that we should not encode our prejudices as to what is better or worse into statistics like these.
It's not a prejudice, it's simple common sense.
You simply cannot say someone consistently writes good reviews if they've only written one. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 04:50:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
No, that applies to an average across e.g. different people, where one is just using a sample group as representative. The result from a total set is genuine, regardless of how many there are in that set. For example, the percentage of female British prime ministers whose fathers were greengrocers is just 100. It's not 'sort of 100, but it doesn't count'. The list is not about people's inherent abilities or what might be if everyone had the same number of reviews. It's just about what their actual average actually is. Also bear in mind that Alan Smithee is in the list. How can 'he' be when actual reviewers aren't? Is 'his' average accurate of anything meaningful?
Sorry, but your comparison to a percentage list of Female PMs blah-blah doesn't fit with the model we're using here. You're talking about something you either are (100%) or aren't (0%). Everyone on the list would be of equal position, i.e. joint 1st, and so it's not a ranked list, just a list of pointless trivia.
Whether you like it or not, having a ranked average list including reviewers with only one review to their name is just plain imbecilic, pointless and I'm not doing it.
I think what Salopian was saying was that if you take a sample of all the female British PMs there ever were and then look for a single trait (in this case, their father's occupation), you will find that 100% of female British PMs are daughters of greengrossers. This is true statistic, but a meaningless one because it cannot predict the political success of other daughters of greengrossers. Similarly, a pudking on FWFR should not have a spot on the same list as BiggerBoat because his/her voting average is as likely to be a "coincidence" as Thatcher's parentage. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 10:09:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
You simply cannot say someone consistently writes good reviews if they've only written one.
I think that hits the nail on the head. This list is essentially a list of those who consistently write voteworthy reviews. One review isn't consistent anything. It's like saying I'm the greatest cricket batsman ever if I stand at the crease, wildly swing the bat at the 160km/h screamer coming at me, and top edge it over the slips for a six, and then retire from cricket with a strike rate of 600.
BTW, the "arbitrary minimum number of whatever" has a track record anyway. Check this list of all-time batting averages:-
http://www3.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/BATTING/TEST_BAT_HIGHEST_AVS.html
Note the minimum number of innings is 20. I recall a few years back when a Kiwi batsman named Matthew Sinclair played his first ever test innings he got 212. So if he had decided to retire after that innings he would be solidly in place at the top of that list on 212.00 ahead of the illustrious and incomparable Don Bradman on a mere 99.94. It would make the list a joke, i.e, it would not be a list of the best batsmen.
Likewise including a Pudking who got lucky with a review and went to the top of that list would render it not a list of 'best reviewers'.
I'm only ranting for the sake of it, I'm aware that the list is the way it ought to be and ain't gonna change.  |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 14:09:36
|
Love the new list - and will let Miss Alice now tht she is now Top 100, she'll be well chuffed
I third having a 'Reviewers by Total Votes list' too - that way I might make it back to Top 10 (might, I said), instead of languishing down at 47 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 14:29:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I strongly feel that we should not encode our prejudices as to what is better or worse into statistics like these.
It's not a prejudice, it's simple common sense.
You simply cannot say someone consistently writes good reviews if they've only written one.
Benj is quite simply right on this.
Of course including all reviewers regardless of number of reviews would be correct. The problem is that it would not be very meaningful.
Benj, it might be an idea next to averages to also put the number of reviews written by the reviewer, as this gives useful extra information to derive meaning from the figures.
|
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 19:42:38
|
Benj the new list is great, having the same with total votes recieved would give little more perspective, if any is required.
Having a minimum seems a good idea to me.
But I have to say that I love the site so any(on the whole) additions are a bonus and welcomed by me.
Benj cheers and keep up the great work much appreciated by me.
I have long said that BiggerBoat is a fantastic reviewer and overall for quality of reviews is my fav to read and vote on. Bloody well done BiggerBoat.
Josh the cat |
Edited by - Josh the cat on 12/03/2006 19:45:05 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
How to make this site better...
