Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Anna J

Top100 2010: IMAGE needs your help

58 posts in this topic

Friends,

We at IMAGE are interested in reviving the Top100 list. Armed with the help of intern labor (an invaluable gift!) and my limited knowledge of HTML, we want to see about updating the list for 2009 (2010?)

But we don't know where to start. We're poring through the archives, but the deleted posts make it a little confusing. Can some of you veterans give us the rundown on how it works and what we need to do?

My assumption is that the Top100 moderators (currently myself and my intern) create a poll with hundreds of titles on it, and everyone discusses and votes, and somehow we use the results of that data to create a final ranked list, which is then uploaded onto webpages and stored at http://artsandfaith.com/t100. Yes? No?

Anyone who has advice for us, please comment here!

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all go to a bar and fight about it and it turns into a bit of a scrum and whoever is left standing gets to name the Top Spiritual Film, yep, that's how it works

And even if I don't win they always give me a sympathy 25 "gimmes" because I am a short white middle-aged man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the procedure has been the same twice. So if you have a way you think will work, propose it and we'll all shoot it down critique it so you can fine tune it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I make the proposition that we add to the Top 100 Spiritual Films List a Top Anti-Spiritual Films list for all of us who believe the word "spiritual" entails every aspect of life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that has been constant is that we have categories with designated voters that have weighted votes.

Basically we need to start a thread with the top 100 and people are free to toss out suggestions of films that are not currently on the list. What we end up with will be a list of 200 or so films. The moderator needs to weed out obviously naff choices (that were perhaps suggested by one person offhand). The list is then published in a thread and voting begins via email according to a system has checks and balances built in by setting up voters that have weighted votes in specific areas. (The first time we had three weighted voters focusing on 1930-1970 international cinema, for example.)

Part of the problem in the past has been that this list touches a lot of very personal nerves as someone might be told that their "spiritually significant" film is actually just a bit of fluff. So I recall a lot of moderator involvement, and an extra effort on the behalf of all involved to practice a peace that passes internet forum understanding.

And then the perennial question is: what does "spiritual" mean. We have covered that well in the past, but there is probably no way around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list is then published in a thread and voting begins via email according to a system has checks and balances built in by setting up voters that have weighted votes in specific areas. (The first time we had three weighted voters focusing on 1930-1970 international cinema, for example.)

If it's all right with everyone, I would like to be the weighted voter in charge of Mike Leigh TV movies.

Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't he from England? HE didn't make Wicker Man, did he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's usually been two phases. Stage 1 nominations. Any member can nominate a film. Alan used to say that in order to nominate a particular film you had to give it's title and a IMDB link and a couple of other things - I think that saved chasing things up later on. Films on exisiting or past lists (or something) were automatically nominated. A list of all the nominated films was compiled.

Things have varied a bit isnce then, but last year (imhp the best arrangement) we all (members/users) got to grade each nominated film on a 1-5 basis (shouldn't be on the list to should be). The top 100 averaging films got in.

I think.

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a couple of other things

IIRC, one of the other things was some kind of commentary on why that particular film was being nominated. Very helpful to moderators, voters, and later users of the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot about a few other rules, glad I can be of help here.

Mike Leigh is not allowed in the Top 30.

Rules of the Game isn't allowed at all.

LVT and Haneke always tie for #1 (whichever film, it really doesn't matter).

Two thru ten need to go to cool countries like Iran and Romania and Sweden and Estonia; directors with last names like Mehrjui, Kiarostami, Bergman, Mungui, Kaurismäki, etc. -- always have cool symbols like ä in the names of the directors.

And Don't. Ever. Discuss. The Spiritual implications. of. 9 Songs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought one or two years we all had to fill out a response to all films nominated based on how many we saw. This list was how the vote-weight per voter was determined. Or am I completely wrong on this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought one or two years we all had to fill out a response to all films nominated based on how many we saw. This list was how the vote-weight per voter was determined. Or am I completely wrong on this one?

No, no, you're right. I do remember something vaguely like that.

Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the list these days, btw? Cuz I can't find it and really don't know if you guys screwed it up without me the last two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought one or two years we all had to fill out a response to all films nominated based on how many we saw. This list was how the vote-weight per voter was determined. Or am I completely wrong on this one?

I think you are right. I can't remember exactly how the weighted category thing worked, but it had something to do with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't certain participants "game" the weighted voting, and subsequently get banned? I thought I read strong hints of that, although I never knew the whole story.

Anna: Having read through this thread, are you sure you really want to go down this road again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't certain participants "game" the weighted voting, and subsequently get banned? I thought I read strong hints of that, although I never knew the whole story.

I don't think that had anything to do with the Top 100. There was a certain rebellious response to the voting toggle on threads that was part of a board upgrade. ("Please remember to rate this film, etc...") I made a pact with someone that I would only ever vote 1 and he would only ever vote 5 (as we would always even out or something), or vice versa, it was ill received.

Edited by MLeary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't certain participants "game" the weighted voting, and subsequently get banned? I thought I read strong hints of that, although I never knew the whole story.

I never got banned and I wasn't a weighted voter. But you're probably thinking of me because I was trading votes for films I wanted for votes that I didn't really care about one way or the other. No one can monitor this or prove a thing, yes it is dishonest I suppose but then again, what politician ever got to the top without stepping on the faces looking up at him?

OH PS Seriously, was there no change in the Top 100 for two years or more now?

Edited by Persona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stef: The Top 100 has been on hold. Alan had life/family situations that delayed him more than once from undertaking an update.

Mike: That sounds right. Except the guy I'm thinking of got banned. If you were in cahoots, wouldn't you have been banned as well? Maybe I'm all wrong on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we upgraded the board the link to the Top 100 got lost in the shuffle.

The page is still there but we're crushed with work. Part of the problem is that the list is not in good shape when it comes to graphic design and usability.

If you'd like to take a look, the link remains the same:

http://artsandfaith.com/t100/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't certain participants "game" the weighted voting, and subsequently get banned? I thought I read strong hints of that, although I never knew the whole story.

I don't think that had anything to do with the Top 100. There was a certain rebellious response to the voting toggle on threads that was part of a board upgrade. ("Please remember to rate this film, etc...") I made a pact with someone that I would only ever vote 1 and he would only ever vote 5 (as we would always even out or something), or vice versa, it was ill received.

That is hilarious, I don't even think that was me. So all this stuff comes out years later.

Christian, I'll vote for Black Dahlia if you vote for Apocalypto. (Not true, but just to give you an idea.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may be talking about different things, Christian. So much humbuggery afoot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say we forget about what may have been done in past and try to come up with a method that will work for 2010. Such as this:

  • Nominations: All films listed on any previous iteration of the A&F Top 100 list are automatically nominated. Any A&F member can nominate any film with an IMDB date of 2007 or before with a running time of one hour or more provided they (1) list the film, director, and IMDB year; (2) give the IMDB link; and (3) write -- or copy and paste from any review -- two or more sentences supporting the film's nomination. IMAGE may disqualify any nomination that does not meet these guidelines or that they do not think was done in good faith.
  • Voters: The voters will be the august body of A&F, along with anyone whom IMAGE would like to invite from the world at large.
  • Weighting: Voters will have their votes weighted between 1x and 2x dependent on their participation in A&F. Voters with 1 to 99 posts will have their votes weighted 1.0x. Voters with 100 to 199 posts will have their votes weighted 1.1x. And so on and so forth, until all voters with over 1000 posts will have their votes weighted a full 2.0x. [1] All moderators, Image employees, and outside voters will have their votes weighted the full 2.0x, along with anyone else IMAGE deems necessary.
  • Voting: All voters will be able to rate all nominated films (that they have seen) from 1 to 5 -- 5 meaning this film should absolutely be on the list, and 1 meaning this film should absolutely not be on the list.
  • Scoring: The score for each film will be the average of all the votes minus 1/SQRT(n) (n being the number of weighted votes), which helps to ensure that a film only seen by one or two people isn't an automatic no. 1.
  • Ranking: The films with the top 10 scores will be ranked 1 to 10. The films with the next 70 best scores will be on the A&F 100, but unranked. The next 20 films will be chosen one each by 20 people whom Image deems awesome enough.

There. All settled. No need to debate, since this system is absolutely perfect.

Dale

[1] Joke about PTC elicited, as I think it's confusing the issue.

Edited by M. Dale Prins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    Weighting: Voters will have their votes weighted between 1x and 2x dependent on their participation in A&F. Voters with 1 to 99 posts will have their votes weighted 1.0x. Voters with 100 to 199 posts will have their votes weighted 1.1x. And so on and so forth, until all voters with over 1000 posts will have their votes weighted a full 2.0x, except for Peter, who will have his votes weighted 18.0x. All moderators, Image employees, and outside voters will have their votes weighted the full 2.0x, along with anyone else IMAGE deems necessary.

And voters with more than 5,700 posts will rule the world!

I like this rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Weighting: Voters will have their votes weighted between 1x and 2x dependent on their participation in A&F. Voters with 1 to 99 posts will have their votes weighted 1.0x. Voters with 100 to 199 posts will have their votes weighted 1.1x. And so on and so forth, until all voters with over 1000 posts will have their votes weighted a full 2.0x, except for Peter, who will have his votes weighted 18.0x. All moderators, Image employees, and outside voters will have their votes weighted the full 2.0x, along with anyone else IMAGE deems necessary.

I like most of your suggestions, but don't like this one. Post count is too arbitrary to be a guideline for additional weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post count is too arbitrary to be a guideline for additional weight.

It may be many things, but I'm not sure weighting post count is "arbitrary." (The cutoff of 1000 posts was arbitrary, though; I'll cop to that.) Post count is a decent proxy for participation in A&F, which is, after all (along now with Image) the creator of the Top 100 list, so it makes sense to me that those who participate in A&F more (or in Image) should have more voting weight. It's certainly much less arbitrary than picking out specific voters by hand to give extra voting power to. (I'm not saying it's *better*, just less arbitrary.) And I did allow IMAGE to bump up anyone they believed appropriate.

Dale

Edited by M. Dale Prins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0