GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine General
Feedback
Have suggestions, criticism or praise for the GreenCine community? Post them here. Please maintain a sense of decorum here.
1063

What's the deal with the list ratings?
Topic by: bloodytaco
Posted: November 28, 2004 - 8:43 AM PST
Last Reply: February 24, 2005 - 11:35 AM PST

page  1  2  3  4  5      prev | next
author topic: What's the deal with the list ratings?
jross3
post #81  on December 4, 2004 - 12:44 PM PST  
> On December 4, 2004 - 12:12 PM PST RWaller wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I wonder if it would help, to add a "not interested" button to the rating, like they do for movies at That Other Place. Then those can just be discarded.
> ---------------------------------

As I understand what I've been told, that "not interested" merely keeps movies from re-appearing, and doesn't affect the way it rates or chooses movies (which becomes more obvious after the third or fourth time you've hit "n.i." through an entire series, one disc at a time); since there's no similar system involving lists, and since lists often change and become better, stronger, and faster than before, I don't know if that would be such a good idea.
(and discarded from what?)
RWaller
post #82  on December 4, 2004 - 1:21 PM PST  
> On December 4, 2004 - 12:44 PM PST jross3 wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On December 4, 2004 - 12:12 PM PST RWaller wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > I wonder if it would help, to add a "not interested" button to the rating, like they do for movies at That Other Place. Then those can just be discarded.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> As I understand what I've been told, that "not interested" merely keeps movies from re-appearing, and doesn't affect the way it rates or chooses movies (which becomes more obvious after the third or fourth time you've hit "n.i." through an entire series, one disc at a time); since there's no similar system involving lists, and since lists often change and become better, stronger, and faster than before, I don't know if that would be such a good idea.
> (and discarded from what?)
> ---------------------------------
Duh. I meant "ignored." ... I just thought that if they had the option of saying "not interested" they might sometime refrain from rating it poor, just cause they don't care about the subject.

Bowwow
post #83  on December 4, 2004 - 1:24 PM PST  
I think there is something to be said about "The Wisdom of Crowds." Lists that have a lot of people reviewing them probably end up with fairly decent ratings at least as far as general purpose utility is concerned.

But until you get a lot of people rating a list (and by a lot, I mean over 100 or so), the ratings are kind of pointless.
RWaller
post #84  on December 4, 2004 - 1:30 PM PST  
> On December 4, 2004 - 1:24 PM PST Bowwow wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I think there is something to be said about "The Wisdom of Crowds." Lists that have a lot of people reviewing them probably end up with fairly decent ratings at least as far as general purpose utility is concerned.
>
> But until you get a lot of people rating a list (and by a lot, I mean over 100 or so), the ratings are kind of pointless.
>
> ---------------------------------
The new thing we have to deal with, is the Internet. I don't know about you, but I still am adjusting to the all-ages aspect of the Net .. that means that little boys who have to Be Cool must be figured into the equation along with adults. This is good. But their opinions are not always relevant to subject, sometimes they just rate poorly to show how cool they are. I don't think there's anything to do about this, just for everyone to take it into consideration, and realize that it's a new world.
Bowwow
post #85  on December 4, 2004 - 1:37 PM PST  
> On December 4, 2004 - 1:30 PM PST RWaller wrote:

> > ---------------------------------
> The new thing we have to deal with, is the Internet. I don't know about you, but I still am adjusting to the all-ages aspect of the Net .. that means that little boys who have to Be Cool must be figured into the equation along with adults. This is good. But their opinions are not always relevant to subject, sometimes they just rate poorly to show how cool they are. I don't think there's anything to do about this, just for everyone to take it into consideration, and realize that it's a new world.
> ---------------------------------

That is kind of my point. Unless you get large numbers of people rating lists so that each is about as likely as any other to have the same number of "cool boys" effecting their numbers, the ratings are kind of meaningless.

Just a thought.
woozy
post #86  on December 4, 2004 - 4:09 PM PST  
--------------
>
> Unless you get large numbers of people rating lists so ... the ratings are kind of meaningless.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> ---------------------------------

well, yeah. It's easy to come up with nifty ideas and they seem like good ideas and then in actuality we see in hindsight some problems.

In this case rating lists seemed like a good idea but in actuality it's pretty useless, we all agree. I'd be upset if I thought lists and rankings had pontential to be useful but were sabotaged by list-prickers (much as I get annoyed when I try to google a company with a boring name like "dialog"). But as lists are just extra and viewing them by ranking doesn't works. Feh! I don't worry about it. Better to trick the darkness than to screw a candle and all that rot...

hamano
post #87  on December 4, 2004 - 4:17 PM PST  
The other thing GC could then do is to open the lists up to the general public. Only GCitizens can MAKE lists but anyone with access to the GC Daily can also "use" and rate the lists. That way we could get more votes for the lists... of course we're opening it up to list nazis outside of GC, also...

We hashed all this out about a year ago, too. GC said that some of the ideas were really good, they'll take it under consideration, yadda yadda yadda, but nothing's happened.
woozy
post #88  on December 4, 2004 - 4:51 PM PST  
> On December 4, 2004 - 4:17 PM PST hamano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> The other thing GC could then do is to open the lists up to the general public.

Or take the rating away from the general public.
Bowwow
post #89  on December 4, 2004 - 4:55 PM PST  
ah well. I pretty much ignore the list ratings anyways.
RWaller
post #90  on December 4, 2004 - 5:11 PM PST  
The obvious (to me) solution to this, is to have lists categorized rather than rated.
hamano
post #91  on December 4, 2004 - 6:16 PM PST  
I say get rid of the ratings, and start a thread where members who care can post stuff like, "hey I found a really good list the other day!" or "hey did you see any good lists of Italian Horror films?"

In addition, create a random list "roulette" server, that shows you links to 5 lists a day or per access without bias. A lot of good list "finds" are serendipitous anyway. Also keep the "new lists" window, but expand it to include more than the ten or so most recent lists.
kamapuaa
post #92  on December 4, 2004 - 8:30 PM PST  
> In this case rating lists seemed like a good idea but in actuality it's pretty useless, we all agree.

There's 4 Bollywood related lists. Even if I don't agree with the specific numbers, to my mind the better they are, the higher the ranking.

"Kuch Kuch Hota Hai" prominently displays what are indeed the best two related lists, skipping over lists such as a movies-I-happen-to-have-rented-in-the-last-year list, and the list based off Greencine's weak Bollywood Primer recommendations. These lists are still just a click or two away.

The system works fine.
hamano
post #93  on December 4, 2004 - 9:05 PM PST  
> On December 4, 2004 - 8:30 PM PST kamapuaa wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> There's 4 Bollywood related lists. Even if I don't agree with the specific numbers, to my mind the better they are, the higher the ranking.

I think there are more, and just as highly rated.... How about amit's list? Granted it doesn't have "Bollywood" in the title, but XiuLong's list isn't strictly Bollywood, either... it's more of a lateral linking list that begins with Ashoka. Your own list is also rated 6 but doesn't show up on the "Kuch Kuch Hota Hai" page, and it seems just as useful as the two that do. So how can you say "the system works fine"? Maybe we'd like to see all 4 or 5 lists if they are all rated 6... those decimal differences are nearly meaningless! It seems to just reflect the number of total votes that went into the scoring.

amit's other list is short, but it's just as highly rated and it is what it says it is, a short introduction for people new to Indian Cinema. kamapuaa, maybe you're an expert on Indian films, but a lot of members are not and are newly curious about the genre. Why do you think they would place the same value on these lists that you do? To the intended audience (people who are new to Indian Cinema) maybe a shorter, simpler introductory list has a value that you, an expert, cannot see.
hamano
post #94  on December 4, 2004 - 9:13 PM PST  
....and look, dpowers' list is rated 5.67 with only 9 votes. One more person adding a 9 rating or two more people giving it a 7 could put it at the same rank as the other Bollywood/Indian Film lists! I don't think this is proof that "the system works"...
TGrimshaw
post #95  on January 10, 2005 - 6:26 AM PST  

> Um, mind self-censoring your own posts next time around? ;-)


man, i just read that and, sorry . whew. whats the matter with me ? to much internets i guess.

NLee
post #96  on February 23, 2005 - 12:15 PM PST  
Talking about List Nazis: I have an interesting observation today...

Take a look at this list. Normally, such a hastely made list will receive a rating of 1 to 2 from the (alleged) list nazis. But as of this writing, its rating is a solid 7.

So, why did this particular list receive special treatment from the raters? Could it be that most list nazis are also Bush haters? That would be the most logical explanation.
underdog
post #97  on February 23, 2005 - 1:23 PM PST  
> On February 23, 2005 - 12:15 PM PST NLee wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Talking about List Nazis: I have an interesting observation today...
>
> Take a look at this list. Normally, such a hastely made list will receive a rating of 1 to 2 from the (alleged) list nazis. But as of this writing, its rating is a solid 7.
>
> So, why did this particular list receive special treatment from the raters? Could it be that most list nazis are also Bush haters? That would be the most logical explanation.
>
> ---------------------------------

Frankly, it likely *is* a political statement, the fact that it's receiving a consistently high rating... It does serve some use, too, though, as a list for "Bush haters" to quickly access the documentaries on that subject. (Given that there's no other such list on the site and we're not about to go there.) But I'm not sure they caught all of them.

And of course the lack of commentary on each entry on the list would drop it down a few notches in my book, were I rating it.

Still, I think it serves some use, as I said, for people already in that camp, because if they click on one such film, the list will help them find the others. Over time, I feel like most of these lists end up with a rating close to one they "deserve" - after they've lived on the site awhile and more members have seen them. But that's just my opinion.
Eoliano
post #98  on February 23, 2005 - 1:27 PM PST  
> So, why did this particular list receive special treatment from the raters? Could it be that most list nazis are also Bush haters? That would be the most logical explanation.

Go figure. Being someone who dislikes Bush for every sensible reason imaginable, I could only muster one digit for that list.
kohnfused1
post #99  on February 24, 2005 - 11:35 AM PST  
> On February 23, 2005 - 1:27 PM PST Eoliano wrote:

> Go figure. Being someone who dislikes Bush for every sensible reason imaginable, I could only muster one digit for that list.
> ---------------------------------

Pa dum pum! Nice punchline...too bad I didn't think of it.

Schucks!
page  1  2  3  4  5      prev | next

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.