Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Anna J

Top100 2010: IMAGE needs your help

Recommended Posts

  • 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.

The problem I see with using postings to weight the voting is that some of us have been here a long time to get our numbers as high as they are. Some of us just post because we're do a post. Some who post rarely have a better quality than some who post frequently.

Does this count toward the weighting? Maybe I should divide it into two posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this count toward the weighting? Maybe I should divide it into two posts.

Doesn't make any difference, since I capped it at 1000 posts and you're close to 5 times that.

All I'm arguing with my methodology is that people with over 1000 posts are *generally* more active in/useful for the forum than people with 250 posts, who are probably more active in/useful for the forum than people with 50 posts. If there are obvious exceptions, fix them manually. No, it's not perfect, but.

Really, if people have alternate suggestions for weighting, let's put them out on the table. And honestly, I think weighting no one is a pretty reasonable idea as well.

Dale

Edited by M. Dale Prins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to weighting. I'm not completely sold on it, but if it's used I think the following need to be true:

  • The weighting must be transparent. The rationale must be clear on who is being weighted and why they are.
  • The weighting must be quantitative. Even if someone doesn't know their exact weighting, they should know (or be able to look up) the formula that their weighting is derived from.
  • The weighting must be modest. I would say someone at the top should receive no more than about double the amount of weight as someone on the bottom.
  • The weighting must be gradual. Putting some people into a 2x bucket and everyone else into a 1x makes the arbitrary line that separates them far too important.
  • The weighting must be fair. And that's where we run into problems with probably any weighting system anyone comes up with.

Anyway.

Dale

Edited by M. Dale Prins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part, I like M. Dale's strategy.*

*This is a fluff post in hopes to quickly reach the 1,000 post mark. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part, I like M. Dale's strategy.*

*This is a fluff post in hopes to quickly reach the 1,000 post mark. :P

Yes, and under my strategy, each fluff post you write will, on average, increase your voting power 1.0005x to 1.001x. Woo hoo.

Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M. Dale Prins wrote:

: And so on and so forth, until all voters with over 1000 posts will have their votes weighted a full 2.0x. [1] . . .

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

This reminds me, Overstreet recently joined me in the five-digit club. (Welcome, Overstreet!) Shouldn't those who have TEN thousand posts here be weighted, like, a gazillion-x or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, but if I ever get around to sifting past threads and deleting those posts that proved unnecessary and unhelpful, that number will drop a digit or two. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M. Leary   

I am also wondering if the idea that 20 people get to pick 20 films is sensible. The probability is that those 20 films would be in the nomination pool anyway, and taking those out may throw everything else off balance. What if, for example, one of the 20 pick something that could have very well been on the top ten?

Also, I am not fond of singling people out like that. If this is going to be a community effort, then make it a community effort through and through. In at least one of the Top 100 rounds, we somehow made small groups of 5-6 people that had weighted votes on specific areas of cinema, because they had demonstrated competency in those areas. I believe I was in a group that we was asked to vote for 10 or 15 foreign language films that would definitely make it on the list, and then they ended up becoming part of the final tally process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persona   
we somehow made small groups of 5-6 people that had weighted votes on specific areas of cinema, because they had demonstrated competency in those areas. I believe I was in a group that we was asked to vote for 10 or 15 foreign language films that would definitely make it on the list, and then they ended up becoming part of the final tally process.

I'm pretty sure I remember it this way too, I think they had my weighted vote in the "slapstick humor" and "gross-out-farts and-bugers comedy" area.

None of my films made the Top 100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MattPage   

I think we only did this the first time, and to be honest, despite being on one of those small groups, I was glad that it didn't make it onto subsequent lists.

Otherwise I agree with Dale.

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're pondering the process, I have a few questions/suggestions:



  • Do we have a mission statement for the list? What is our purpose for publishing it?
  • Will this be an official Image Journal list?
  • I assume the list layout pages will be redesigned and updated?
  • I think an effort should be made to have at least a brief introduction, if not critique, of each film
  • In addition, wouldn't it be cool once we have the list to invite a cross section of special guests (film critics/theologians/film studies academics/film makers/etc.) to write an essay for each?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anna J   

Thanks for your comments and suggestions, everyone! You all have asked some great questions. We are not ready to take action yet. Stay tuned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persona   

I want to make a motion that no matter how we do this -- weighted votes, whatever -- that it will be easiest to title the Top 100 simply, "Arts & Faith Top 100," or if IMAGE wants their name involved as well (which I think you should, but I don't know how these things work, I simply post here), maybe "The IMAGE and Arts & Faith Top 100 Significant Films."

Take that word spiritual out. It doesn't need to be there, and it only causes confusion. A title like one of the two above would be fine and would get the point across without necessarily using that word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SDG   

First Things' Joe Carter is disappointed with our list.

By his count, he has seen just over half the films on our list. Rating the 51 films he's seen on a scale of 0-4 stars--for spiritual content--Carter awards a total of 115 stars, i.e., just over 2.25 stars per film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, SDG. I got to "ho-hum entries like Fearless" in the third paragraph and stopped reading.

OK, trying to contain myself. After all, Carter has, in that short beginning text, mentioned that the list serves its purpose -- generating discussion/debate -- and also that "Every Friday on First Thoughts we host heated, half-serious, half-cocked arguments about some aspect of pop culture." So I should give the list another chance.

But the dismissal of "Fearless" isn't an argument of any kind, not even "half-serious, half-cocked."

Struck a raw nerve.

UPDATE: OK. Eh. Hey, is 2004 our most recent list? I thought we'd updated it once since then.

Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M. Leary   

Thanks, SDG. I got to "ho-hum entries like Fearless" in the third paragraph and stopped reading.

And Secrets and Lies?! If someone says something like this, they aren't a credible source of information on decent cinema.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, Carter explicitly says he's relying on the 2004 list and not on the later lists. ("They’ve put the list out a few other times but this seems to be the best version.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, Carter explicitly says he's relying on the 2004 list and not on the later lists. ("They’ve put the list out a few other times but this seems to be the best version.")

Why does that list "seem to be the best version," I wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the immortal word of Neo: Whoa.

I didn't really have time today for what I felt reading his summation, but I responded anyway. I hope he approves my comment.

Ho-hum?

Secrets and Lies?

Sigh.

And Fearless... is it possible he thought we meant this?

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persona   

I don't know who this guy is. I'd like to put up a giant "WHO CARES?" except that I agree with him on certain films.

He's seen 48% of the list and has never taken part in the endless debate and discussion, the late night coffee arguments, and the changing of minds after an eye opening experience that we have had the pleasure to have had. We intimately know many of the films listed through the wrangling and wrestling that has taken place here for a decade. If he wants to, have him join and take part in the discussion. Until then, the words at his site are nothing more than a grocery list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI:

I was smart -- for once in my life -- and saved my reply in case it isn't approved for their page:

Joe,

I appreciate your discovery of the A&F list. It has been my “go-to” list for movie rentals for years.

Still, I just about choked when you called “Fearless” and “Secrets and Lies” … “ho-hum.”

Really?

You realize that the group was voting for Peter Weir’s celebrated film about the plane-crash survivor, and not the Jet Li action film of the same title, right?

These films were chosen by a wide variety of moviegoers — writers, critics, pastors, teachers, parents, college students, editors, etc. — but here’s what they have in common: they see, and usually write about, a long list of international releases every year. If “Fearless” is on the list, it’s because *many* people, on their own, without conspiracy, are saying that it was “spiritually significant” to them.

Me? I’ve seen all of Peter Weir’s films, and it’s the one that means the most to me. It gave me a powerful exploration of the *cost* of living in relationship with other broken human beings. It gave a vivid picture of how appealing it can be to live with a sort of moral superiority and smugness — a temptation often common to critics, it turns out — as opposed to living humbly, and honestly, in our troubled bodies and with all of our contradictions. What Jeff Bridges’ character experiences in that film is a very unique redemption story, one that moves me and inspires me not just emotionally, but intellectually as well.

I’m not saying it therefore *must* move you, Joe, in the same way. But keep in mind: It’s on the list because many passionate film lovers, Christians all of them (I believe) found this one worth celebrating, not only for the excellence of its artistry, but for the questions it opens up for exploration.

No offense, but you’re *one* moviegoer who doesn’t share the love. Take almost any of these titles that *you* love, and some of the voters would probably have been “ho-hum” on that one too.

What’s valuable to me about this list is that a *majority* of the moviegoers polled — moviegoers whose often-conflicting perspectives and reviews at ArtsandFaith.com I respect — stepped up to recommend these particular titles. That these selections have inspired so many of them tells me that each title is well worth taking seriously. Even if they don’t bowl me over the way they did others.

“Secrets and Lies”? A film about prejudice, class, sacrificial love, reconciliation, peacemaking, and the devastating effects of suppressed truth… it’s my favorite from Mike Leigh’s incredible filmography, and apparently the favorite of many others as well. I’m sorry you didn’t care for it, but please… consider that maybe it’s “ho-hum” to you, but revelatory to many others, and not easily dismissible just because you say so.

Further, I’m not sure what you mean to say when you claim that this list is “the best version.” Does “the best” mean “your favorite”? Even this group of voters cannot arrive at a “provable” result. Every year they revise this list, some have grown in the voters’ estimation, while others have diminished. That’s what’s so great about art. We can come to some conclusions about excellence and artistry, but so much of what *moves* us about a work of art has to do with our individual experiences and preferences.

Personally, I found “Groundhog Day” ho-hum, but that’s just me. I would never argue that it hasn’t been revelatory to many others. The sheer number of testimonies in its favor tells me that it probably belongs on this list.

“Dancer in the Dark”? I thought it was abusive to the audience; that’s sure how it felt to me. But many of the film reviewers I respect have helped me see why it moved so many people, and thus I’m happy it’s on the list – even though I personally never want to see it again.

Okay… rant over.

Again, I’m glad you found the list worth mentioning. I’m hoping that we see a revised list one of these days, as many other great films have been released since the last version of the A&F Top 100 was published.

Jeffrey Overstreet

lookingcloser.org

P.S. If you promise to watch “Secrets and Lies” again — with a group, and then discuss it afterward — I’ll be happy to give “Dancer in the Dark” another go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persona   

Groundhog's Day is one of the huge ones that needs to be removed, although, I think it has, as this is the 2004 list. It must have been some kind of experiment in the making at that time.

But, Jeffrey -- he's saying that Dancer in the Dark should be on the list (it wasn't) and that it should be there instead of Dogville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But didn't it show up on subsequent lists? (I've sent in a correction.) And I've invited him to get involved at A&F so he can be available to help with the voting next time... to help make the list more (ahem) correct.

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persona   

I don't remember. I hope not.

It isn't on the current version.

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  

×