| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Salopian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 10/24/2008 : 02:55:01
|
... at least half the votes of your best?
It's clear from Airbolt's thread that people's most voted reviews are near the beginning of their time here, so I thought it would be interesting to see how severe that skewing is.
Approved 13th October 2004. I was quite shocked by that. I knew that most of my good reviews were early, but I didn't realise that every single one of my reviews from all these later years was so low. That most recent one is also the lowest of those above halfway. Lower down on my top page there are a sprinkling from 2005 and 2006, two from 2003 and one from 2007, but everything else is from 2004. |
Edited by - Salopian on 10/24/2008 03:03:37 |
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 09:24:07
|
Yup Sal(opian),
I found that pretty much my entire first page of highest votes were from my first 18 months on the site and most of them from my first year with the clear exception of another Michael Jackson stroke of genius in this one!!
31 July 2008...The Dark Knight
First approved review May 26th 2005
Ah I was just thinking that OF COURSE our earlier reviews will have more votes due to a longer exposure time!!!
|
Edited by - Beanmimo on 10/24/2008 13:35:45 |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 10:13:52
|
Joined March 2006
Most recently approved on
May 2007 with exactly half the votes of my highest voted.
|
|
|
|
Airbolt 
"teil mann, teil maschine"
|
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 11:53:19
|
I'm very front loaded on this criteria. Only 8 of 900 reviews fall above the "Top Review divided by two ".
I joined in Jul 2004, had top review ( 49 ) in Aug 2004 and three more 25+ reviews in 2004.
Where's the magic gone?
|
Edited by - Airbolt on 10/25/2008 00:34:18 |
|
|
|
Larry 
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 13:12:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
Most votes, July 2009
Wow! A psychic amongst us! 
My latest half-top-vote from 09JUL07
Incidentally, can anyone top my total of 156 reviews with half or more votes of their top review?
|
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 10/24/2008 13:24:25 |
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 17:09:19
|
I can't beat you in numbers, Whipper, but I can in percentages --
Almost 9% of my reviews have votes that are half or more of my top review.
Edit - Crap. Somebody just voted for my top review, so now I don't have as many half-or-betters. Now it's just more than 6.5% |
Edited by - Larry on 10/24/2008 17:18:17 |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 17:34:23
|
| Jan 8 2007 and 49 reviews that have at least half the votes of my top review. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 18:17:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
Crap. Somebody just voted for my top review, so now I don't have as many half-or-betters. Now it's just more than 6.5%
The rotten bastards! 
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 23:07:07
|
| Only 23/1648 = approximately 1.4 per cent of my reviews have at least half the votes of my top one. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 10/25/2008 : 03:28:34
|
My most recent half-top is from February 2007 for this one.
Interestingly only 14 of my top 100 reviews are from after my first year (2006), and only this single review is from 2008. I'm pretty sure my work hasn't declined that dramatically!
I'm sure the reason must be fewer regular forumites taking part in FYC. When I joined the average number of was around 30 week in week out, these days it's more frequently around 20. That's going to make a big difference to how your best new reviews get pushed up the pile. I do also think there's more cautious voting going on than there was back then. Don't know why.
edited: for my poor grasp of mathematics. |
Edited by - demonic on 10/26/2008 01:47:57 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/25/2008 : 13:23:04
|
Well, 28 isn't at least half of your top review so it's not that one. 
Everyone's quality goes down because if one will have an idea for an old film then it's not in most cases going to take years and years to come along (though of course some will do). So that mainly leaves new films (to the world or oneself) for new reviews.
An even bigger issue is that even if one thinks of a new idea, it's now much less likely to be wholly original on the site. I give fewer votes now as there are so many jokes that I recognize. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/25/2008 : 17:18:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I do also think there's more cautious voting going on than there was back then. Don't know why.
Lack of originality is one reason. Of course originality becomes progressively more difficult as the site matures, but that's the reality we live with.
|
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 10/26/2008 : 01:46:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Everyone's quality goes down because if one will have an idea for an old film then it's not in most cases going to take years and years to come along (though of course some will do). So that mainly leaves new films (to the world or oneself) for new reviews.
I don't think I really follow what you mean... can you explain again?
I have ideas for old films on a regular basis, it just depends on when I devote some attention to the subject. I review on a film by film basis, mainly after a cinema, DVD or TV viewing. My recent "Walk the Line" review you liked came after re-watching on DVD, three years after I saw it in the cinema.
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Lack of originality is one reason. Of course originality becomes progressively more difficult as the site matures, but that's the reality we live with.
I guess it's hard to be fresh with every review, but I do believe that there are great un-mined puns for every film waiting to be found, even if it's a film that has already been reviewed to death.
I also don't believe as an example that my, or yours, or Sal's most recent 100 reviews are significantly less competent or worthwhile that our first 100, simply that perceptions on the fourum have changed as to what a vote worthy review is. Maybe we're just harder to please. |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Where's your most recently approved review with...
