I find it a curious observation about human nature that the thread dedicated to our faves that didn't make the cut has had 22 posts since the most recent list went up, while the thread considering the actual winners has had 5 posts (one of which is about faves that didn't make the cut). We're sadder about our films that got excluded than we are happy about the ones that got included.
Which led me back to The Mighty Spreadsheet to see how individual ballots related to the overall results. I tallied the total number of votes cast by an individual for films which ended up making the Second Round list, to see what percentage that formed of all the votes they cast. Using myself as an example, my V.S.Q. (Voting Success Quotient or Voting Satisfaction Quotient, also known as V.C.Q., Voting Conformity Quotient) is 48%: of the 94 votes I cast, 45 of them went to films that ended up "winners," which is 48% of my total votes.
Here are the results;
(M)Leary 49%
ALAN 39%
Alvy 54%
ANDREW 41%
Anne 54%
ASHER 61%
BA 62%
BethR 32%
CHRISTIAN 67%
Clint M 55%
DARREL MANSON 37%
DIANE 71%
Doug C 63%
douggimmick 68%
JASON BORTZ 63%
Jeffrey Overstreet 64%
John 56%
M Dale Prins 28%
MattPage 29%
Mike Hauser 50%
mike h 45%
NEZPOP 40%
Peter Veugelaers 58%
Rich Kennedy 34%
robdolan 67%
Ron 48%
Russell Lucas 87%
schilleriana 58%
SDG 56%
seth 78%
solishu 55%
SoNowThen 45%
stef 62%
Tim Willson 48%
WhyFjord 61%
At first I thought there might be a correlation between V.S.Q. and total number of votes cast: that people with huge honkin' big wads of votes to throw around would influence the tally more, and thus have higher V.S.Q.s. Not the case: our two voters with the most weight to throw around had V.S.Q.s of 63% and 45%, and the four with the most modest plebescitial heft ranged from 50% to 67%.
Full Version: Stats: Half Full, Half Empty?
Arts and Faith > Art & Media > Film > Film Awards, Festivals, and Lists > The Top100 > Top100 Discussion (2004 archive)
Ron, were you an engineer in a previous life?
Wow--let's just have Russell make the list next year!
I stink. I am ashamed.
I stink. I am ashamed.
Good work Ron.
I only got a VSQ of 29% - the 2nd lowest out of everyone.
Does this mean that I'm actually allowed to have a good moan?
(or just that I really am bottom of the pile when it comes to judging films
)
(...though that doesn't explain why I beat Dale)
(maybe its amero-centric conformity)
(..though that doean't explain Alvy doing mid-table)
FWIW here are the VSQ's in descending order...
87% Russell Lucas
78% seth
71% DIANE
68% douggimmick
67% CHRISTIAN
67% robdolan
64% Jeffrey Overstreet
63% Doug C
63% JASON BORTZ
62% BA
62% stef
61% ASHER
61% WhyFjord
58% Peter Veugelaers
58% schilleriana
56% John
56% SDG
55% Clint M
55% solishu
54% Alvy
54% Anne
50% Mike Hauser
49% (M)Leary
48% Ron
48% Tim Willson
45% mike h
45% SoNowThen
41% ANDREW
40% NEZPOP
39% ALAN
37% DARREL MANSON
34% Rich Kennedy
32% BethR
29% MattPage
28% M Dale Prins
Matt "loser" Page
I only got a VSQ of 29% - the 2nd lowest out of everyone.
Does this mean that I'm actually allowed to have a good moan?
(or just that I really am bottom of the pile when it comes to judging films
)(...though that doesn't explain why I beat Dale)
(maybe its amero-centric conformity)
(..though that doean't explain Alvy doing mid-table)
FWIW here are the VSQ's in descending order...
87% Russell Lucas
78% seth
71% DIANE
68% douggimmick
67% CHRISTIAN
67% robdolan
64% Jeffrey Overstreet
63% Doug C
63% JASON BORTZ
62% BA
62% stef
61% ASHER
61% WhyFjord
58% Peter Veugelaers
58% schilleriana
56% John
56% SDG
55% Clint M
55% solishu
54% Alvy
54% Anne
50% Mike Hauser
49% (M)Leary
48% Ron
48% Tim Willson
45% mike h
45% SoNowThen
41% ANDREW
40% NEZPOP
39% ALAN
37% DARREL MANSON
34% Rich Kennedy
32% BethR
29% MattPage
28% M Dale Prins
Matt "loser" Page
| QUOTE (MattPage @ Apr 26 2004, 08:13 AM) |
| Good work Ron. I only got a VSQ of 29% - the 2nd lowest out of everyone. |
Then think of it as the VCC - "Voting Conformity Quotient" - and celebrate your individuality, the uniqueness of your own personal cinematic vision. You and Prins - good company, I'd say!
| QUOTE |
FWIW here are the VSQ's in descending order... |
Matt, you make my day! I'm not the only numbers geek around here. (Well, I suspect Alan may also have the same bizarre predisposition, but I'd hate to impugn the man unjustly.) Apart from your predeliction for rugby, I swear we're some kind of twins. First our irrational degree of affection for DIRTY PRETTY THINGS, then there's the left-leaning politics, now this numerical aberation... I'm thinking, one of us must be the other's evil twin.
(And no, I wasn't an engineer in a previous life. But I did have a model train when I was a kid. Perhaps that explains everything?)
Wait a second though. Isn't yor V.S.Q related to the actual amount of votes you have to cast? Such that a person that has 40 votes to cast has a greater chance a getting a low V.S.Q than a person with 140?
who the heck is BA?
Baracas? Mr. T?
Baracas? Mr. T?
| QUOTE ((M)Leary @ Apr 27 2004, 09:56 AM) |
| Wait a second though. Isn't yor V.S.Q related to the actual amount of votes you have to cast? Such that a person that has 40 votes to cast has a greater chance a getting a low V.S.Q than a person with 140? |
I thought so myself, and still don't know why it's not true, but it's not. To quote world-class statistician Ron Reed, "At first I thought there might be a correlation between V.S.Q. and total number of votes cast: that people with huge honkin' big wads of votes to throw around would influence the tally more, and thus have higher V.S.Q.s. Not the case: our two voters with the most weight to throw around had V.S.Q.s of 63% and 45%, and the four with the most modest plebescitial heft ranged from 50% to 67%."
If Mr Reed ends up with time on his hands later, he may give you a quick rundown of V.S.Q. as compared to V.W. (Voting Weight).
It really does seem to have more to do with how closely one's tastes match the A&F "norm" - though any word grammatically related to "normal" seems dodgy when applied to this group of misfits.
: I'm thinking, one of us must be the other's evil twin.
If that's the case it must be you. I'm only "quasi-evil"
Ron, is it possible to publish it as a graph. I mean if you put no of votes on the x axis and VQC on the y axis we could see if there was a fair degree of correlation...
...hello...hello...
...anyone?
Matt Page B.Eng (Hons) (yes really)
If that's the case it must be you. I'm only "quasi-evil"
Ron, is it possible to publish it as a graph. I mean if you put no of votes on the x axis and VQC on the y axis we could see if there was a fair degree of correlation...
...hello...hello...
...anyone?
Matt Page B.Eng (Hons) (yes really)
You all have bad taste in film. Please go tell Ron that you wish to change your votes to My Dinner With Andre and Barcelona.
twenty-eight Dale
twenty-eight Dale
Admittedly, my strategy played a role in my last-place finish: I went deep-and-narrow rather than wide-and-shallow, making such strategic choices as giving five points to each of these losers: After Life, Barcelona, Gates Of Heaven, Hannah and Her Sisters, and My Dinner With Andre. That's not even to mention the token loser points I threw to Yi-Yi, You Can Count On Me, etc.
Also, you all have bad taste in film.
twenty-eight Dale
Also, you all have bad taste in film.
twenty-eight Dale
| QUOTE (M. Dale Prins @ Apr 28 2004, 08:24 AM) |
| Admittedly, my strategy played a role in my last-place finish: I went deep-and-narrow rather than wide-and-shallow, making such strategic choices as giving five points to each of these losers: |
Ditto. I didn't pan out like I thought it would.
Clearly we should have approached this like a Congressional vote, with somebody keeping track of which films had been taken care of on a big marker board and parceling up the extra votes more efficiently, trading votes, backroom deals, smoke-filled room, etc, etc. I tried to use some strategy, but I still feel like a dope for losing votes to films that were never in any danger.
62% of you like me!! YOU REALLY LIKE ME!! (sniff) (sniff) -s.
| QUOTE (mike_h @ Apr 28 2004, 10:24 AM) |
| I tried to use some strategy, but I still feel like a dope for losing votes to films that were never in any danger. |
That was the catch in this process though. I voted the first time around with that assumption, that whole "certain films were shoe-ins so I don't need to vote for them" thing. But it turns out that films I thought were shoe-ins weren't at all. So you were voting for the films I guess I was expecting people to vote for, and I was voting for things that never had a chance. Which is fine, we have a really good list so far.
Do these back room deals include snacks?
| QUOTE ((M)Leary @ Apr 28 2004, 08:44 AM) |
| Do these back room deals include snacks? |
What are you saying here? That your vote might be bought with a Twinkie? That really would be like a Congressional vote.
Aside from the obvious conclusion that we could reach (i.e., that I am the pulse of spiritual film), there are other, lesser conclusions we could propose. For example, I've seen mostly the sort of things that most of us have seen. My movies-seen count was middle-of-pack in number (79, I think), but pretty modest in regard to a lot of films that are obscure or which require some significant effort to see. The films lamented as lost by many above are, by and large, ones I want to see, have heard great things about and hope to enjoy and appreciate, but haven't seen, and thus I felt I couldn't vote for them.
This list, as a final product, will be useful for defining who we are as a critical and aesthetic community and giving folks a place to start, but for me personally, frankly-- the list of proposed films which didn't make the cut will be the most valuable thing for me as a list to take to the video store.
Maybe I could use my obvious persuasive influence to leverage Repentance onto the list? Maybe?
This list, as a final product, will be useful for defining who we are as a critical and aesthetic community and giving folks a place to start, but for me personally, frankly-- the list of proposed films which didn't make the cut will be the most valuable thing for me as a list to take to the video store.
Maybe I could use my obvious persuasive influence to leverage Repentance onto the list? Maybe?
: I voted the first time around with that assumption, that whole "certain films were
: shoe-ins so I don't need to vote for them" thing
Well that's the price you pay for trying to cheat the system
Matt
: shoe-ins so I don't need to vote for them" thing
Well that's the price you pay for trying to cheat the system
Matt
| QUOTE (mike_h @ Apr 28 2004, 10:50 AM) | ||
What are you saying here? That your vote might be bought with a Twinkie? |
HALF a twinkie. I am ready to play the system for all it is worth. And Stef knows how much I will do for a hot dog.
| QUOTE (mike_h @ Apr 28 2004, 10:24 AM) |
| ...but I still feel like a dope for losing votes to films that were never in any danger. |
Indeed, I didn't vote for anything I knew everyone else would.
| QUOTE |
| Indeed, I didn't vote for anything I knew everyone else would. |
B-but...what if we'd all done that...
(shudder!)
| QUOTE (Doug C @ Apr 28 2004, 12:10 PM) |
| Indeed, I didn't vote for anything I knew everyone else would. |
And yet you are close to the top of the VSQ. You must have a sack full of Twinkies laying around somewhere.
| QUOTE (Jason Bortz @ Apr 29 2004, 03:47 PM) |
| B-but...what if we'd all done that... |
Well, a, I know y'all too well, and b, if there had been intense sunspots and a minute, northwesternly breeze and Orson Welles had rolled in his grave and everyone had voted on titles they suspected no one else would have, we'd at least have a pretty unique listing, eh?
I wanted to suggest to Ron that we use some of our spare votes to cast negative votes toward certain titles, but the math started giving me a headache.
| QUOTE |
| And yet you are close to the top of the VSQ. |
Ah, good point. But maybe I just put a lot of votes behind a few films, thus ensuring their success?
| QUOTE (Doug C @ Apr 29 2004, 02:30 PM) | ||||
Well, a, I know y'all too well, and b, if there had been intense sunspots and a minute, northwesternly breeze and Orson Welles had rolled in his grave and everyone had voted on titles they suspected no one else would have, we'd at least have a pretty unique listing, eh? I wanted to suggest to Ron that we use some of our spare votes to cast negative votes toward certain titles, but the math started giving me a headache.
Ah, good point. But maybe I just put a lot of votes behind a few films, thus ensuring their success? |
That couldn't ensure their success. The most you could put toward a film was five votes. To make the list, a film needed at least, what, seventeen?
And there's no way I would have allowed anybody to cast negative votes. If the people who see the most movies get to take other players out of the game just because they've accumulated more "power," that's hardly democratic, now, is it? Part of what makes this group interesting is its diversity, and that ought to be reflected in the list we select.
Is it really an A&F list if it's all Tarkovsky, Bresson and Ozu? Come on now, Mr "Power To The People" Cummings - you don't want to be voting other people off the cinematic island any more than you want them negating your choices, do you?
Of course, another approach to this whole thing would be to take the tack the late JRobert suggested, and have people give something like a five-star rating to each of the films on the list that they had seen. Take out some of the second-guessing: it's our real assessment of the film's value, without regard to the mathematical politics of the voting process (if you know what I mean).
But really, when all's said and done, any such list will be kind of a "we gave it our best shot" sort of deal. The process is fun, we end up with a fascinating list of movies in any case, even the second-guessing is a blast, and it's all provisional enough that another year will yield a whole other slate o' flicks. Which I find kind of nifty.
Ron
(And hey - Andy, Bob and Yazoo are alright by me!)
Ron, I was only joking!
(I did wonder how many votes it would take to "qualify" a film, though, so it sounds like if roughly 3.5 people gave a movie five votes, it automatically would? And, say, five votes each for ten pictures would've probably had a higher success ratio than one vote each for fifty pictures. It's the way you set it up--I could have scattered my votes everywhere or focused my attack. Thus, probably the more focused one's attack, the higher their VSQ, albeit for fewer pictures.)
Another way to look at this is to rank everyone by total number of "winning" films. I bet I'm pretty far down the list.
(I did wonder how many votes it would take to "qualify" a film, though, so it sounds like if roughly 3.5 people gave a movie five votes, it automatically would? And, say, five votes each for ten pictures would've probably had a higher success ratio than one vote each for fifty pictures. It's the way you set it up--I could have scattered my votes everywhere or focused my attack. Thus, probably the more focused one's attack, the higher their VSQ, albeit for fewer pictures.)
Another way to look at this is to rank everyone by total number of "winning" films. I bet I'm pretty far down the list.
| QUOTE (Doug C @ Apr 29 2004, 07:15 PM) |
| Ron, I was only joking! |
Totally understood! I was only meaning to jibe back in your direction. Sorry if I seemed offended. (I look back at my post now, and see that the dry humour was too dry, and kind of missed the mark in any case. My apologies. In this case rendered more obscure by the fact that I then went on to treat the whole proposal as if it were for real, on kind a "what if" basis. That's my numbers geek side coming out. A hopelessly uninterpretable muddle.)
(I realize it's actually a kind of humour that may be a bit peculiar to me, and probably works better in person than in writing. Kind of "pretend to take this to heart and see if you can pick a pretend fight" - but yeah, it's dicey in print. Hope I didn't alarm you! Not that long ago, I'm afraid I put a bit of a fright into my dear friend Matt with similar shenanigans. I think I'll be a tad more careful about this sort of tangent in future.)
| QUOTE |
| (I did wonder how many votes it would take to "qualify" a film, though, so it sounds like if roughly 3.5 people gave a movie five votes, it automatically would? And, say, five votes each for ten pictures would've probably had a higher success ratio than one vote each for fifty pictures. It's the way you set it up--I could have scattered my votes everywhere or focused my attack. Thus, probably the more focused one's attack, the higher their VSQ, albeit for fewer pictures.) |
Yes, those of us who approached it less strategically - I'll admit to being among these - and allocated one vote here, two votes there, etc, did have less success at seeing our peculiar favourites make the cut. I think you're onto something with the idea that the more focused one's votes, the higher the VSQ. (Though maybe not entirely: that still doesn't work for films that don't have other supporters. Hmmm...)
You know, I have an acquaintanceship with the man who is Canada's most famous pollster (Angus Reid - no relation, who'd want to be related to a guy who can't spell his last name right?), and when I was hatching this scheme I almost called him up to see if I could take him out to lunch and find out how he would structure such a ballot. Now that we've seen how this approach plays out, and kicked around the strategies and implications, I'm all the more curious to know what he (or someone else who knows about this sort of thing) would have to say about such a process. Hmmm....
Ron
P.S. Still, I did kind of like the "Andy, Bob and Yazoo" bit.
I've been trying to cut down on my use of emoticons but maybe I should've used one there.
But in case no one has said it recently, your system was an excellent one, Ron! Thanks for planning all that out with such care...
But in case no one has said it recently, your system was an excellent one, Ron! Thanks for planning all that out with such care...
| QUOTE (Doug C @ Apr 30 2004, 07:22 AM) |
| I've been trying to cut down on my use of emoticons, but maybe I should've used one there. |
Yeah, I avoided the little critters for a long time, but now and then they seem to be necessary in this mode of communication - misunderstandings about tone and such are so easy to make. I'm still a novice at this fine art, though - I did drop one into my post in hopes of indicating the intended quasi-humour, but I don't think it communicated much of anything. In this matter I look to Mr Overstreet, who clearly exhibits a mastery of emoticonology.
| QUOTE |
But in case no one has said it recently, your system was an excellent one, Ron! Thanks for planning all that out with such care... |
Thanks. I will say, that's been one of the real pleasures of working on this project - second only to the intrinsic pleasure of, well, working on it! The number of people who've said warm things, on- and off-list, about my involvement. While most of us do have our occasional moments of contentiousness or sheer miscommunication - unavoidable in this kind of venue, I should imagine - we are part of a really fine group of people.
...or should it be...
(Where's the emoticon for :group hug:?)
: I've been trying to cut down on my use of emoticons but maybe I
: should've used one there.
No. No. No. There are so few of us in the world who completely eschew the dreaded emoticons, and as you seem to be so close to converting, we will not allow you to feel guilt from a single misunderstanding. You are an intelligent man, and I'm sure that you can think of numerous and varied ways you could have made your intent clear to Ron without being forced to use punctuation off-label.
Please remember, Doug: Chekhov, Steinbeck, and Shakespeare never once resorted to using smilies.
Dale
: should've used one there.
No. No. No. There are so few of us in the world who completely eschew the dreaded emoticons, and as you seem to be so close to converting, we will not allow you to feel guilt from a single misunderstanding. You are an intelligent man, and I'm sure that you can think of numerous and varied ways you could have made your intent clear to Ron without being forced to use punctuation off-label.
Please remember, Doug: Chekhov, Steinbeck, and Shakespeare never once resorted to using smilies.
Dale
| QUOTE (Ron @ Apr 30 2004, 11:35 AM) |
| (Where's the emoticon for :group hug:?) |
Okay Dale, you've convinced me. Death to emoticons!
Did Mel Gibson direct that emoticon?
"The Passion Of The Happy Face."
Either that or 'Brave-emoticon'
OK, I don't feel so bad. I PM'ed our uber stat geek right after with my dismay. My strategy was not unlike Prins'. Now that I see I am in the august company of Prins, Beth, and Matt; a shade behind Rev. Manson, I don't feel so bad. I voted all fives and one four. I figure my weight was somewhat in the middle.
| QUOTE (Rich Kennedy @ May 1 2004, 03:18 PM) |
| I figure my weight was somewhat in the middle. |
Most of my weight is in the middle, as well. I'm considering Atkins.
Baddaboom TISH
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.