| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 12/04/2006 : 17:57:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
Except it shouldn't be the average; it would be tidier to have the total votes for the top 100 reviews. |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 18:08:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
Except it shouldn't be the average; it would be tidier to have the total votes for the top 100 reviews.
Does it really matter? The average of 100 votes is 100 times the average.  |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 18:14:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
I don't get impressed by the "it fits the site" argument.
Answer my point about the threat to quality if you want to convince me that this is a good idea, because, if it is a threat to quality, then it cannot, in my opinion, be a good idea.
End of.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 18:24:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Does it really matter? The average of 100 votes is 100 times the average.
It doesn't matter massively, but given the possibility of avoiding using decimal places when they are completely unnecessary, I would. Also, the whole point of averages is to compare between figures from different-sized sets; that is not the case here. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 18:27:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I don't get impressed by the "it fits the site" argument.
Answer my point about the threat to quality if you want to convince me that this is a good idea, because, if it is a threat to quality, then it cannot, in my opinion, be a good idea.
End of.
Too bad; I would think that Benj would want aspects of the site to fit together.
I'd also rather not see dull reviews, but that's a personal point of view that contradicts other people's preferred reviewing methods. I really feel that this would not encourage masses of accolade chases. Any that it did for some reason encourage will be exposed to films they were previously unfamiliar with, which would be a good thing.
And I take it that you were using "End of" ironically.   Anyone that used it genuinely (a la Saskia and Maxwell from Big Brother) could not hope to be taken seriously. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 12/04/2006 18:28:58 |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 21:41:58
|
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 like Sean's idea for this list as well. In fact, I propose this list replace the current "average votes per review" list. |
Edited by - GHcool on 12/04/2006 21:42:48 |
|
|
|
rabid kazook 
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 12/05/2006 : 00:44:05
|
| Great campaign Yukon, great add-ons benj! |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 12/05/2006 : 03:10:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
Great campaign Yukon, great add-ons benj!
I see you're six reviews away from jumping into the top 5 of average votes per review.
It's one thing I like about the page, it gives newbies something to strive for. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/05/2006 : 09:28:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I like Sean's idea for this list as well. In fact, I propose this list replace the current "average votes per review" list.
I'm not sure I'd go that far! However, that way, so long as it were totals rather than averages, it would eliminate the too-few-reviews problem. (Pudking etc. could still be in the list, but would have fewer reviews to get their total from.) |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 12/05/2006 09:29:15 |
|
|
|
rabid kazook
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 12/05/2006 : 13:29:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
Great campaign Yukon, great add-ons benj!
I see you're six reviews away from jumping into the top 5 of average votes per review.
It's one thing I like about the page, it gives newbies something to strive for.
Aha.  
My synonym for FWFR is "making fun giddy reviews". Everything other is everything other.
|
Edited by - rabid kazook on 12/05/2006 13:30:37 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/05/2006 : 21:49:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I don't get impressed by the "it fits the site" argument.
Answer my point about the threat to quality if you want to convince me that this is a good idea, because, if it is a threat to quality, then it cannot, in my opinion, be a good idea.
End of.
Too bad; I would think that Benj would want aspects of the site to fit together.
Yes, all aspects should fit together, but that's not the same as saying that the site should include all aspects which would fit together, which is what you seem to be arguing.
I'd also rather not see dull reviews, but that's a personal point of view that contradicts other people's preferred reviewing methods.
It's more than a personal point of view you and I happen to hold. It's something Benj has asked people to try not to do and something which he perceives, rightly in my opinion, as something which should be discouraged without trying to be too heavy-handed about it.
I really feel that this would not encourage masses of accolade chases. Any that it did for some reason encourage will be exposed to films they were previously unfamiliar with, which would be a good thing.
Hmmm. Your point of view is reasonable but, in my view, probably wrong. Some people are very taken up with accolades and this would give an added prominence, and therefore encouragement, to that activity.
And I take it that you were using "End of" ironically. Anyone that used it genuinely (a la Saskia and Maxwell from Big Brother) could not hope to be taken seriously.
I'm not sure my usage is strictly ironic. (Try looking up Wikipedia for a discussion on what is and is not ironic!) It is meant to be amusing. It's actually quite a clever and snappy idea I think, in that the rest of the phrase is redundant given that the discussion is over. I think I first heard the phrase on "Buffy" - was it in US youth culture before that?
|
|
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 12/06/2006 : 03:03:10
|
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.
Thanks for pointing that out Whippa. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 12/06/2006 : 06:57:36
|
quote:
I'm not sure my usage is strictly ironic. (Try looking up Wikipedia for a discussion on what is and is not ironic!) It is meant to be amusing. It's actually quite a clever and snappy idea I think, in that the rest of the phrase is redundant given that the discussion is over. I think I first heard the phrase on "Buffy" - was it in US youth culture before that?
I don't think it's very commonly used yet. If so, it must have taken over the phrase spot previously held by "Talk to the hand..."
|
Edited by - w22dheartlivie on 12/06/2006 06:58:24 |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/06/2006 : 08:23:55
|
quote:
My synonym for FWFR is "making fun giddy reviews". Everything other is everything other.
I, too, agree with this. I always strive to bring the funny (or, if you will, the punny) with my reviews. I usually fail miserably, of course, but what else is new?
|
|
|
|
zulu
"Resisting the Bay lobotomy"
|
Posted - 12/06/2006 : 14:04:43
|
I am coming to this party a bit late after a few weeks away. Great idea Yukon, great execution Benj, great reviews Biggerboat. I was delighted to find myself tucked in behind BB!   I have to get back to writing some reviews now to chase him.
Does anybody else think of good reviews, but by the time you come to submit or write them down you cannot remember them? I do this all the time and it sucks. 
Zulu |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
How to make this site better...
