At the old promontoryarts site, we had a ratings guide that reconciled differing systems of rating films. With the advent of the new ratings system in the film board, it's important for us to be on the same page in understanding what various ratings mean.


Click here to see the list of rated films.


Here's my update on that table; please feel free to post a comment with updates, corrections, etc.

A&F 1-5 stars*	0-5 stars	1-4 stars	Grades	1-100	Decent Films	Looking Closer	Metacritic	Rotten Tomatoes
5	5	4	A+	95-100	highly recommended	masterpiece	universal acclaim	certified fresh
			A	87-94		just about a masterpiece
			A-	81-86		excellent
	4
4			B+	76-80	recommended	impressive	generally favorable reviews
		3		75				fresh
			B	67-74
	3		B-	61-66		somewhat impressive
3			C+	55-60	your call	muddled and mediocre	mixed or average reviews
								rotten
			C	50-54		flawed
		2
	2			47-49
			C-	41-46		has some merit
2			D	33-40	discouraged	sorely flawed / has some merit	generally unfavorable reviews
	1			26-32
		1		21-25
1			F	1-20	unacceptable	sorely flawed	overwhelming dislike
	0

* subtract one star to get a 0-4 star system

Here is a link to the posts split out from this thread. I'd like to reserve this topic to be purely about the ratings themselves rather than website enhancements, personal grievances, and the like.

Hey, I've noticed I can vote more than once. Is it because I'm a Chicago area voter?

-s.

No -- it's not voting more than once; it's just changing your existing vote. This is the first implementation of ratings on the software. I hope future versions will allow users to track their votes and allow for more administrative controls.

Do you have an idea of films that have 3-4 votes that are on the verge of breaking through?

I'm not sure that information would help the integrity of our ratings. I get the feeling people are already trying to manipulate the ratings.

Everyone should rate each film indepent of other films, and indepently of other voters or the current average.

Hurray!

We now have an AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED list of ratings

Click here to see the list of rated films. (fixed)

I'll be adding a "Ratings" up by the "Top 100 films" link at the top of the board.

Please note that I now have an easy way to generate a report listing which films you've voted for and what your votes were.

For now, this capability is only available upon request. I will go ahead and generate these reports for our top 11 users, but others will need to send me a private message requesting a report be run for them.

Please also note, as I've promised for a long time, that I'll be reviewing voting patterns and responding if I detect someone trying to manipulate the voting system (i.e. an abnormally high number of 1s and/or 5s).

Alan Thomas wrote:
: I will go ahead and generate these reports for our top 11 users . . .

Hmmm, 'twould be interesting to see how number-of-posts co-relates with number-of-films-voted-upon. I post a heck of a lot of messages here, but I am not all that interested in assigning ratings to films -- it's a part of my "job" that I don't like so much -- so I haven't done it here all that often.

All to say, I may be in the "top 11" as far as posts go, but I'm probably not in the "top 11" as far as ratings go. And I imagine some people who don't post much in the way of messages, because they're shy or whatever, might be rating up a storm, since it's something they can do pretty much anonymously.

OK, then, HERE are our top ten VOTERS (thank you all very much!)

• Alan Thomas (102)
• Darrel Manson (100)
• rjkolb (70)
• Jeffrey Overstreet (67)
• Husker4theSpurs (58)
• BethR (46)
• The Invisible Man (46)
• musicwiz (42)
• Jeff Rioux (37)
• Russ (34)

I will send each of these folks (not in the top 11 posters) a list of their votes.

Oh, and DanBuck. He was #11.

And, similarly, here are the top ten most voted-FOR films (good or bad):

• Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe (27)
• King Kong (22)
• Crash (21)
• Millions (20)
• Munich (19)
• O Brother, Where Art Thou? (19)
• The New World (19)
• Napoleon Dynamite (17)
• Batman Begins (15)
• Brokeback Mountain (15)

As to DM's question above, I won't list them, but there are eighteen films with exactly four votes each -- get out there and vote!

kenmorefield wrote:
: . . . look how much grief a certain CT critic got for his A&F rating of Superman Returns (an
: anonymous vote which was, in fact, defacto made public . . .

[ blink ]

Did I miss something?

But yes, I have never seen the point in counting the dangling chads or in trying to guess which ballots were spoiled intentionally and which were only accidentally spoiled, or whatever.

Ken, I probably won't automatically delete any votes, and I won't change any at all.

What I will do is review voting patterns, and then follow up by confronting any individuals who seems to swing to the extremes.

in fact defacto? Votes are not anonymous; they are default private. And I said I don't expect to do that again.

Peter, I think Ken is referring to this.

I moved this from the HJ thread to avoid derailing that thread (again)


3/5 *is* lower than 2.5/4, but 2/5 is waaaay lower than 2.5/4. (That would be like going from 2.5/4 to 1.5/4.)

Now in HD: 0.600 *is* (4%) lower than 0.625, but 0.400 is waaay (36%) lower than 0.625 . That's quite an adjustment.

Is the CT scale 0-4 or 1-4? (The lowest rating I could find, for Hoot was 1.0/4. The true scale would affect the numbers (probably making the disparity even worse). (And what the ... SR has the same rating as RV and lower than MI3 and X3?!?)

Although I agree it shouldn't be expected at all (or most) times, I've gotten the impression that some people strive for this kind of consistency (let's call it "detail oriented"). The only reason I'm harping on it is that the SR score is, I believe, artificially low (currently an abysmal 63, roughly on par with Brokeback Mountain). Some people in all honesty might be rating it lower than they realized, probably because I have failed adequately to explain the rating system.

Alan Thomas wrote:
: Peter, I think Ken is referring to this.

Ah. Well, like you say, we can always change our ratings. And as SDG noted, "In fact, the other critic in question (let's call him 'Peter') mentioned to me that he was having second thoughts about having rated the film too high in his published review, which would certainly justify a lower star rating here."

kenmorefield wrote:
: Yes, Alan's link refers to the post to which I was referring, in which I thought he indicated the
: A&F ranking that Jeffrey gave the film.

Um, except it was I, not Jeffrey, who reviewed the film for CT ("a certain CT critic"?).

Alan Thomas wrote:
: Is the CT scale 0-4 or 1-4?

I believe Catwoman and Doom both got zero stars (so why did I have more fun at both screenings than at a number of films that got higher CT ratings??).

Except that 3/5 *is* lower and 2/5 is *much* lower than 2.5/4, as I noted above.

If CT is 0-4, then A&F = CT + 1 ... so a 2.5/(0-4) = 3.5/(1-5), making a 2.0/1-5 a really, really big adjustment (1.5), equivalent to a 1 at CT.

(Jeffrey was mentioned in the letter-grade link, Peter in the CT link.)

Alan Thomas wrote:
: Except that 3/5 *is* lower and 2/5 is *much* lower than 2.5/4, as I noted above.

Why is this "Except that..."? Not that I share your exacting mathematical precision when it comes to star ratings anyway. I don't think most people think of them that way.

kenmorefield wrote:
: Yes, and the letter-grade link was the one that was cited in conjunction with a specific A&F ranking . . .

Actually, both links were cited in conjunction with a specific A&F ranking of "2/5".

Not upset, just confused.

Do the math... 4/5 is actually, because of the limitations of the board software, as low as a , which, when you do all the math, comes out in the low 60s out of 100. Remember that a 1-5 scale is more truly a 0-4 scale, plus one, so a 3.5 on a 1-5 scale is the same as a 2.5 on a 0-4 scale. It sounds higher, but it's not; the first star doesn't really count.

hey, hey, hey -- be nice. The ratings are working out great; it's the voting system that I wish I could fine tune. All in all, I'll take it, especially as the first implementation of the software.

Alan Thomas wrote:
: The ratings are working out great; it's the voting system that I wish I could fine tune. All in
: all, I'll take it, especially as the first implementation of the software.

Speaking of which, it's great that we can change our ratings, but one unfortunate side effect of this seems to be that we have no way of knowing (unless we have perfect memories) which films we have already rated and which films we haven't. So when I rate a film, I honestly can't remember whether I am doing so for the first time or the second or the third or... Might future software address this somehow?

I agree with you that this is a shortcoming, Peter. For now, I can produce a custom report of your votes (as I have already done for you and a few others), upon PM request, as often as desired. Did you not receive yours?

It looks like I'm going to have to do some custom programming to get person voting reports to work automatically. (You can see the first signs of that work here (at the bottom).)

I have to be very, very careful with custom programming (1) to ensure that I don't break the board, especially security [engineers love to change stuff, after all] and (2) to carefully document everything I do, since future upgrades to the board software will blow away all my customizations (which will then have to be recoded).

Alan Thomas wrote:
: Did you not receive yours?

I did, but I don't want to pester you every time I have doubts.

THAT could be a full time job. OH, you were talking about the voting...

Alan

although I was #11 in voters (whih I thought you said qualified me) I did not get such a report. I have ince voted many more times. Hopefully for films I hadn't already voted for.

Don't worry about voting again -- subsequent votes by a user just erase previous votes. You're only counted once.

I meant for many more films. Which I hope weren't just the same ones I'd already rated. I'm trying to get more films on the score boards, so to speak. I can honestly say, I single-handedly moved Ikiru out of the top spot.

You are evil. And stick to theater--you OBVIOUSLY can't recognize great cinema. Of course, if I had MY way, no one would be allowed to vote for a film they OBVIOUSLY haven't seen.

And you can't spell "split". And you look funny.

And your avatar is more interesting than your movie.

Split that!

Or that you hadn't seen...so you could know if they were voting...ahem...correctly.

Peace.

Ken

I always check with Alan before posting an opinion here. I wanna make sure it's the right opinion.

I wouldn't say THAT...

Okay, I did my part. I went through at least 10 pages of the Film category and rated the ones I have watched. Not that I'm trying for it, but I bet I'm one of the top 10 voters at this point.

Is there any way to rate a film as: "I wouldn't even give this movie a chance!" ???

That would be a . The last time I checked, VERY few of those (if any) had been cast.

I guess I could give a movie that I refuse to watch one star, but I can't reconcile that as being fair having not actually seen it.

Ah well.

SORRY -- my bad. I thought you meant for movies you haven't seen.

No, please DO NOT rate movies you haven't seen. Ever.

Well, Pay It Forward has a score of 10, which certainly means it has received some votes. This score confused me at first (not because it is low - I understand that), as I had thought a minimum score, if everyone gave the film , would be a 20. I assumed 1 star meant the equivalent of a 20, 2=40, 3=60, 4=80 and 5=100. I assumed that giving it one star was still giving it some value. I now understand that 1 star = 0, 2 stars = 25, etc. I tend to think of my votes of two stars as more like a 40 than a 25, but I certainly don't want to start anything (and I mean that - I am not suggesting a change, and I understand that 1 star = 0 gives you the flexibility to give a film no value).

But with Pay It Forward getting a 10, and working backwards, we can assume that it received at least six ratings of , if it received four votes of . Or, it could have received a from one voter, and from the other nine.

Alright, that's two mathematicians in here at least!! Who keeps letting these people in here?!?!

I know. I'm getting confoo-sed.

By Jove, I think you've got it, Jeff!

For averaging the scores:
= 0 (although on the scale, above, it means 1-20)
= 25 (although on the scale, above, it means 21-40)
= 50 (although on the scale, above, it means 41-60)
= 75 (although on the scale, above, it means 61-80)
= 100 (although on the scale, above, it means 81-100)

Here's the readout from Pay It Forward (VERY close!):

9 | XXXXX XXXX
2 | XX
0 |
1 | X
0 |

SO.... (9x0) + (2x25) + (1x75) = 125. Then, 125/12 = 10.41667, or 10.

Another way to compute it would be (9x1) + (2x2) + (1x4) = 17. Then, 17/12 = 1.4166667. Then (1.41667 - 1 ) x 25 = 10.41667, or 10. If I used a 1-5 (rather than 0-4) scale, and 20 as the multiplier, then the result would be 1.41667 * 20 or 28.

Ladies and gentlemen! We have a celebrity voter among us!!!

Cuz only the director could've given Pay it Forward FOUR stars!!!

OK .. this film has TWO VOTES. We know Steve gave it .

Does someone really hate it? ? Have the courage of such strong convictions, and tell us more. Maybe you're right. Steve has written eloquently and at length to share his thoughts. What are yours? (Or maybe it was an error?)

The voting issue has been resolved. It turned out the film had three votes, and the appears to have been an error and will be removed shortly. One user was casting numerous votes for films that hadn't yet been released or screened (or even made). As a result, all of that user's votes have been erased. That user also voted overwhelmingly with 1s and 5s, indicating a pattern that may have been intended to manipulate the outcome.

Then why does it already register a star-rating when I open the page... and it's only a three-star rating? Are there that many votes now that it averages out to 3 out of 5?

1. Voting for movies on a five-star scale on a board-wide basis is quite possibly the least useful use of technology I can think of.

2. Alan, you're constantly imploring people, with robotic precision, to vote to rate movies. Not to comment on them-- just to vote on them. Now you're playing Katherine Harris? WTF?

1. I agree to some extent, Russ--especially on a micro level--but it's all that's available now. Many people otherwise opposed to rating films use the voting system here as a general "thumb to the wind" to get a feeling for a film. It's also helpful for films, such as Great Silence that may be particularly powerful for individuals yet fail to gather broader critical momentum.

I'm hoping it can go to a 1-10 scale at some time. I think the 1-100 scores on the ratings list is more useful than the stars. It's a generalization and often not useful for specific films. It cannot predict whether an individual person would like a specific film. It's useful for broad (perhaps shallow) analysis, for example, to compare A&F's films to Metacritics or RTs. (Note that I do not use any kind of scale on MoviesMatter.)

2. I didn't act because there was no comment. I acted because there was a bizarre vote. Initially I thought that maybe someone accidentally rated the film and didn't know what to do. After examining the individual's voting record, I came to the conclusion that he or she was acting in bad faith. It might even have been antagonistic. I have sent a note to the individual and have not received a response.

Jeffrey, ratings for works with less than five votes shows up on in discussions, but not on the index page or on the ratings list. That's hard-wired and I cannot change that.

Again, I'm not concerned about this film receiving a low rating. Steve could be wrong.

Great Silence is currently still a , with a vote of a and a . I will not reveal the identities of the voters (but they may "out" themselves), and discussion is not required. All of those votes are from senior members of this community who exhibit voting patterns indicating good faith. But initially, with only two votes, that meant someone gave it a , and without explanation, that raised a flag that after investigation indicated that one person may have been acting in bad faith.

For the record. I received an e-mail notice of a PM from Alan sent at 1:30 am. The message did not ask for an explanation, only commented that he noticed I had cast a vote. Alan's post that the issue was "resolved" (apparently because there was no response) is time stamped 3:14 am. So, the lack of response that evidenced bad faith was the lack of a response between 1:30 and 3:00 am...when I was in bed.

I received Alan's message when I logged on around 9:30 this morning and sent a reply to Alan within 10 minutes of receiving it. By that time he had already posted that he had determined that it was a fradulent vote and deleted it, so I think it's disingenous for him to say that a non-response was a significant factor in his determining whether or not the vote was fraudelent, especially given the fact that every vote that has been cast (1, 2, 3, and 5 stars) has been unique rating.

Ken

P.S. Alan for you to say you were not given a reply is simply not true. I send a PM which the system refused to let me send (saying I had exceeded by limit despite having only 1 other message in my box) and I copied the message to the email window and used the send e-mail function to your registered e-mail address.

P.P.S. When, in the Grace Hill takes over Hollywood Jesus thread, Chris stated that there was an A&F "elite," Jeffrey scoffed at that claim. I'm not sure what evidences "senior members of the community" but I know Peter has said that I've been around here long enough for it to come across as disingenous for me to claim I was not one of them, and I've apparently been senior enough to have Alan harangue me with threads OF MISSING IN ACTION! and calling me a deadbeat for NOT voting.

It wasn't a factor at all, and I apologize if I implied that it was a factor. I did receive an email reply after I posted my comment.

The ratings are clearly a burden to some and a system to be manipulated by others. I vote to eliminate the star-rating system here and leave our evaluations to the discussion threads.