Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Film Ratings

Recommended Posts

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

-s.


In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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??).


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not upset, just confused. :)


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan Thomas wrote:

: Did you not receive yours?

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


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Peace.

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!" ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a 1.0/5. The last time I checked, VERY few of those (if any) had been cast.

Well, Pay It Forward has a score of 10, which certainly means it has received some 1.0/5 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 1.0/5 , 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 1.0/5, if it received four votes of 2.0/5. Or, it could have received a 4.0/5 from one voter, and 1.0/5 from the other nine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Edited by kenmorefield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...