| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 12/04/2006 : 09:37:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
This list is essentially a list of those who consistently write voteworthy reviews.
I just don't think it is this. If it is, then it is pointless, as there is no real meaning to getting into the top 10 etc.
quote:
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'.
Again, I don't think we can go around judging people to have only been 'lucky', and a list of the best reviewers is entirely what it is not explicitly defined as. That is a vague notion that cannot be properly encoded in such lists, however many fudging factors one adds in. Also, the total votes list is a better representative of overall quality anyway, so there is no need to try to get this list to reflect the same information. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 09:38:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
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.
This would only be fair if the averages were also added into the total reviews list. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 09:45:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
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".
Um, I think that that encouragement is already heavily supplied by the main review totals list. Accolade achievers are driven by attaining the accolades themselves. Being listed cannot significantly increase their fervour.
There should definitely be an accolades completed list, though not an accolades created one. (It doesn't really require any effort to create accolades, especially now.) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 09:48:42
|
| With regard to the issue of who should be included, I would very much like a proper explicit answer as to why Alan Smithee should be on any list if any real reviewer is excluded from any. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 10:19:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
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.
How about a list of decline rate. I.e., ranked according to ratio of declines to approvals, with the highest decline rate on the top. 
 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 10:45:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
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.
I think the three current lists cover most bases, i.e., quantity, quality and overall success (total votes). And of course the Top 500 Reviews provides some extra information about who writes the most voteworthy reviews (yeah, I know how subjective this is due to time, exposure etc etc). But, there's one other stat that would give a good indication as to the quality of a reviewer's creme de la creme. I.e, there are some reviewers who write some pretty damn good reviews, and a whole pile of ordinary reviews that drag down their average, so how about qualifying that somewhat? So, how about:-
Average votes per review of a reviewer's Top 100 reviews.
I.e, what's the average votes/review on someone's front page? I think 100 would be a good arbitrary level. Don't ask me why, I just think it would be.  |
|
|
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 12:51:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
What lists? I don't see the link(s)!
The links have been added to the "My Rank" page. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 13:29:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I don't see it say anywhere 'List of people who consistently write good reviews'. It says that it's the list of averages.
Would it shut you up if it did? |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 14:06:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
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.
I think the three current lists cover most bases, i.e., quantity, quality and overall success (total votes). And of course the Top 500 Reviews provides some extra information about who writes the most voteworthy reviews (yeah, I know how subjective this is due to time, exposure etc etc). But, there's one other stat that would give a good indication as to the quality of a reviewer's creme de la creme. I.e, there are some reviewers who write some pretty damn good reviews, and a whole pile of ordinary reviews that drag down their average, so how about qualifying that somewhat? So, how about:-
Average votes per review of a reviewer's Top 100 reviews.
I.e, what's the average votes/review on someone's front page? I think 100 would be a good arbitrary level. Don't ask me why, I just think it would be.
I agree that this would be a valuable Stat. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 15:57:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
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".
Um, I think that that encouragement is already heavily supplied by the main review totals list. Accolade achievers are driven by attaining the accolades themselves. Being listed cannot significantly increase their fervour.
There should definitely be an accolades completed list, though not an accolades created one. (It doesn't really require any effort to create accolades, especially now.)
Disagree. It may not further encourage accolade achievers, but it probably will encourage more accolade achievers.
Anyhow, as Benj says, its all up for discussion.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 15:59:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I don't see it say anywhere 'List of people who consistently write good reviews'. It says that it's the list of averages.
Would it shut you up if it did?
If only!   |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 16:26:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I think the three current lists cover most bases, i.e., quantity, quality and overall success (total votes). And of course the Top 500 Reviews provides some extra information about who writes the most voteworthy reviews (yeah, I know how subjective this is due to time, exposure etc etc). But, there's one other stat that would give a good indication as to the quality of a reviewer's creme de la creme. I.e, there are some reviewers who write some pretty damn good reviews, and a whole pile of ordinary reviews that drag down their average, so how about qualifying that somewhat? So, how about:-
Average votes per review of a reviewer's Top 100 reviews.
I.e, what's the average votes/review on someone's front page? I think 100 would be a good arbitrary level. Don't ask me why, I just think it would be.
I agree that this would be a valuable Stat.
Well, the site pioneers will love it, as its 'orribly skewered towards older reviews, particularly those that made the top 100 ages ago and get self-perpetuated.  ... ... ... ...
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 17:51:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Average votes per review of a reviewer's Top 100 reviews.
Yes, I agree with this very strongly (although there may be a limit to how many lists there should be). It would allow accolade chasers to still have their quality recognised. I cannot tell you how hard I tried to create a stat for this - I had pages of working, but I just couldn't find a way to do it. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 17:53:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Would it shut you up if it did?
It would be a good start. I P.M.ed Slippy to suggest it was time to come back, but it bounced back.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 17:56:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Disagree. It may not further encourage accolade achievers, but it probably will encourage more accolade achievers.
Well, as dull as I find the idea of chasing accolades, that is the point of their existence (rather than to record sets of films, which is why I create them). It therefore fits the site to recognise this. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
How to make this site better...
