Jump to content


Photo

Stats: Half Full, Half Empty?


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Ron Reed

Ron Reed

    Listmaster Extraordinaire

  • Member
  • 3,254 posts

Posted 26 April 2004 - 10:59 AM

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%.



#2 Doug C

Doug C

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,564 posts

Posted 26 April 2004 - 11:03 AM

Ron, were you an engineer in a previous life?


#3 MattPage

MattPage

    Bible Films Geek.

  • Member
  • 4,192 posts

Posted 26 April 2004 - 11:14 AM

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 sad.gif )

(...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


#4 Ron Reed

Ron Reed

    Listmaster Extraordinaire

  • Member
  • 3,254 posts

Posted 27 April 2004 - 02:13 AM

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?)



#5 M. Leary

M. Leary

    Member

  • Member
  • 5,455 posts

Posted 27 April 2004 - 12:57 PM

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?

#6 DanBuck

DanBuck

    Bigger. Badder. Balder.

  • Member
  • 2,419 posts

Posted 27 April 2004 - 01:32 PM

who the heck is BA?

Baracas? Mr. T?

#7 Ron Reed

Ron Reed

    Listmaster Extraordinaire

  • Member
  • 3,254 posts

Posted 27 April 2004 - 05:37 PM

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.

#8 MattPage

MattPage

    Bible Films Geek.

  • Member
  • 4,192 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 03:21 AM

: 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)




#9 M. Dale Prins

M. Dale Prins

    Stop! Do a drum solo instead!

  • Member
  • 1,420 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 07:15 AM

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

Edited by M. Dale Prins, 28 April 2004 - 07:17 AM.


#10 M. Dale Prins

M. Dale Prins

    Stop! Do a drum solo instead!

  • Member
  • 1,420 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 07:25 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: 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

Edited by M. Dale Prins, 28 April 2004 - 07:27 AM.


#11 M. Leary

M. Leary

    Member

  • Member
  • 5,455 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 09:18 AM

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.

#12 mike_h

mike_h

    Flickerer

  • Member
  • 331 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 09:25 AM

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.

#13 Persona

Persona

    You said you'd wait... 'Til the end of the world.

  • Member
  • 7,460 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 09:33 AM

wub.gif 62% of you like me!! YOU REALLY LIKE ME!! (sniff) (sniff) wub.gif

-s.

#14 M. Leary

M. Leary

    Member

  • Member
  • 5,455 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 09:45 AM

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?

#15 mike_h

mike_h

    Flickerer

  • Member
  • 331 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 09:51 AM

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.

#16 Russell Lucas (unregistered)

Russell Lucas (unregistered)
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2004 - 10:00 AM

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?

#17 MattPage

MattPage

    Bible Films Geek.

  • Member
  • 4,192 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 10:32 AM

: 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 tongue.gif


Matt


#18 M. Leary

M. Leary

    Member

  • Member
  • 5,455 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 10:56 AM

QUOTE (mike_h @ Apr 28 2004, 10:50 AM)
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?

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.

#19 Doug C

Doug C

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,564 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 11:11 AM

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.


#20 Jason Bortz

Jason Bortz

    Unafraid of Ghost Cows.

  • Member
  • 1,442 posts

Posted 29 April 2004 - 02:48 PM

QUOTE
Indeed, I didn't vote for anything I knew everyone else would.


B-but...what if we'd all done that...



(shudder!)