| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
 Posted - 12/03/2006 : 23:31:57
|
Just to put Bigger Boat's position into perspective, he has written 127 reviews averaging just over 21.
TFB's top 200 reviews each have 23 votes or more. And he's 77th.
|
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 23:57:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Just to put Bigger Boat's position into perspective, he has written 127 reviews averaging just over 21.
TFB's top 200 reviews each have 23 votes or more. And he's 77th.
Well, true enough, Whipper; it stands to reason that the more reviews one writes and has approved the more likely the 0 vote pages will have expanded exponentially. So, sweet as the new Top list is [and thanks for doing it so quickly, Benj], there are in fact many ways we could quantify our several and various distinctions.
We might, for instance, have a list of top number of accolades made and/or achieved. Or top number of films added to the site. Each equally significant to the overall benefit of the site. I think we may be in danger of assuming that just because someone can rack up lotsa votes, that in some way automatically makes them a priori a better reviewer. Number of votes is affected by many things, including length of time on the site.
The way the site is constituated it would be extremely difficult to arrive at a kind of FWFR Award for Best Reviewer because the voting is in the hands of people with a vested interest in the site, i.e. us. No true award presentations are self-selected in that way. It's for exactly this reason that the Oscars have been the subject of industry cynicism since studios can pack out the voting with their own employees.
If we truly want to have objective assessments of all our FWFR gems either Benj himself should be the arbiter, or someone outside the membership could be brought in to choose from some kind of short-list, tricky enough to whittle down in a totally unbiased manner.
Are we really sure we want to pursue this competitive avenue all the time? Must there forever be winners and losers to make participation in this amazing, fun site worthwhile. I dunno, maybe it's a boy thing. Pissing contests, etc.
I can't be the only one who, when faced with the implicit challenge on the HomePage that "if you're not on this list you're not trying hard enough," knuckles down to make that list and climb that list. But, I've got to admit, if that list weren't there I'd enjoy the site anyway. Because it's wonderful. Full stop. End of.
Know what I mean? 
|
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 00:23:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Just to put Bigger Boat's position into perspective, he has written 127 reviews averaging just over 21.
TFB's top 200 reviews each have 23 votes or more. And he's 77th.
I think that's an amazing statistic for both reviewers. I have no doubt that if BiggerBoat wrote as many reviews as thefoxboy, he would have an average much closer to thefoxboy's. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 00:23:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Are we really sure we want to pursue this competitive avenue all the time? Must there forever be winners and losers to make participation in this amazing, fun site worthwhile. I dunno, maybe it's a boy thing. Pissing contests, etc.
I'm not adding these lists (I've just added the Most Votes one too, btw) to make winners or losers, although I appreciate more competitive people will treat it that way. I'm just trying to find more ways to bring attention to reviewers who have made different kinds of contributions to the site. In this way, I suppose the other lists you suggested might also be worth considering adding |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 00:24:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Are we really sure we want to pursue this competitive avenue all the time? Must there forever be winners and losers to make participation in this amazing, fun site worthwhile. I dunno, maybe it's a boy thing. Pissing contests, etc.
I'm not adding these lists (I've just added the Most Votes one too, btw) to make winners or losers, although I appreciate more competitive people will treat it that way. I'm just trying to find more ways to bring attention to reviewers who have made different kinds of contributions to the site. In this way, I suppose the other lists you suggested might also be worth considering adding
Thanks for adding the "Most Votes" list. I was surprised to find myself in the top 20!  |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 01:02:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Are we really sure we want to pursue this competitive avenue all the time? Must there forever be winners and losers to make participation in this amazing, fun site worthwhile. I dunno, maybe it's a boy thing. Pissing contests, etc.
I'm not adding these lists (I've just added the Most Votes one too, btw) to make winners or losers, although I appreciate more competitive people will treat it that way. I'm just trying to find more ways to bring attention to reviewers who have made different kinds of contributions to the site. In this way, I suppose the other lists you suggested might also be worth considering adding
Adding any other lists should depend on that list's perceived merits and likely impact on the site.
Personally I would fugeddabout the "Most Accolades Won" list, as it would encourage quantity over quality, exactly the opposite intended effect of "Average Votes Per Review".
|
|
|
|
Airbolt
"teil mann, teil maschine"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 01:33:27
|
Thanks for the new Lists Benj . It's kinda nice to get into the Top 100
It will be intriguing to see if reviewers cut back on quantity and Go for the Gold Standard on every review
|
Edited by - Airbolt on 12/04/2006 01:39:37 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 02:19:19
|
Top reviewers by total votes.
Nice work, benj. 
Only problem is "sum" only has three letters. And none of them are "e".  |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 02:23:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Adding any other lists should depend on that list's perceived merits and likely impact on the site.
Perhaps, but then we have the worst possible list on the site already- namely Most Reviews  (And yes, I realise I'm only making the problem worse by putting the list on the homepage...)
Still, I think it might be an interesting discussion to see what other lists people think would give a different spin on things around here. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 02:27:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Top reviewers by total votes.
Nice work, benj.
Only problem is "sum" only has three letters. And none of them are "e".
Oh arse... okay, fixed now |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 06:38:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Adding any other lists should depend on that list's perceived merits and likely impact on the site.
Perhaps, but then we have the worst possible list on the site already- namely Most Reviews (And yes, I realise I'm only making the problem worse by putting the list on the homepage...)
Still, I think it might be an interesting discussion to see what other lists people think would give a different spin on things around here.
List of people on the most lists?  |
|
|
|
MguyXXV 
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 07:34:29
|
| What lists? I don't see the link(s)! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 09:27:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
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.
O.K., that was an extreme example, but there are as many examples as you like with a group size of 2, 3, etc.
People with one review (or even no reviews) are in the total reviews ranking, so why not? Or if not, why not start with two reviews? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 09:28:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
You simply cannot say someone consistently writes good reviews if they've only written one.
I don't see it say anywhere 'List of people who consistently write good reviews'. It says that it's the list of averages. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 09:30:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
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.
Well, not quite. Reviewer rarely write a 20-vote review in their first ten (at least without then staying around a long time and those first reviews slowly getting a lot of attention). I don't think they have just been lucky; they have just chosen not to write more. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 12/04/2006 09:31:20 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
How to make this site better...
