June 10, 2007 at 6:32 pm #294228
I wish to announce my candidacy for the position of Minister of Film Ratings. If elected, I would endeavor to implement the following system:
- A usergroup of Brickfilms members permitted to rate films will be created and its roster selected and maintained by the Minister of Film Ratings. (This bullet was modified from its original “all member may rate films” in an attempt to address these comments from RevMen.)[/*]
- A member may only rate a particular film once. Any member discovered to have multiply rated a film would lose all privileges to rate films in the future (this would only be possible if the member registered under different accounts).[/*]
- The rating system would be simplified to the following:[list]
The film was extremely enjoyable and I would be proud to share it with others.
The film was enjoyable and I would be pleased to watch it again.
The film was worth viewing once but I will probably not view it multiple times.
The film was not enjoyable and I regret watching it.
[*]The average of a film’s rating will be provided as a real number between 1.0 and 5.0 (along with the appropriate emoticon).[/*][/list]Pre-existing ratings data will be incorporated by averaging the film’s ratings relative to the cumulative distribution of all pre-existing films’ ratings and scaling it to the range 1.0 to 5.0; the result will be assigned a weighting equal to the number of original raters of the film.(Note: this would only be necessary at the transition to the new system; after that, new ratings would follow the proposed system.)
Such a system would enable the entire community some level of participation in the Directory and provide a more meaningful representation of a film’s worthiness of being viewed –meaningful because there will be vastly more opinions expressed and because those opinions will accurately represent the feelings of the rater.
As a final note, once the system is implemented, the position of Minister of Film Ratings would be obviated, further simplifying site operations.June 10, 2007 at 7:22 pm #294252
…June 10, 2007 at 7:37 pm #294264
I fully support the intention to objectify the rating system, but I think there is a risk of over simplification.
In addition to this, giving all members the ability to rate could, and I suspect would, degrade the ratings to something akin to the YouTube star rating system. That would not be a good thing.June 10, 2007 at 7:44 pm #294267
I would vote for you if it weren’t for the member thing, yes.June 10, 2007 at 7:53 pm #294274
I agree that this is over-simplifying it. From the standpoint of viewers looking for a good film to watch, however, I think that it might be nice to include an overall (not an average) rating like what you’ve suggested.June 10, 2007 at 9:26 pm #294346
I am completely against removing the ratings for the different aspects of filmmaking. I’m always using those ratings for searches, and I think the value of the search function would be significantly diminished if they were removed.
Might I recommend leaving the current system as is for patrons, but implementing the system you’ve highlighted in addition to it?June 10, 2007 at 9:27 pm #294348
“Dewfilms” wrote: I agree with most of what you just stated above. I especially liked the emoticon rating. However, if we have non-patrons vote as well it would lessen the value and privilege of becoming a patron. This might even cause a decrease in amount of people becoming patrons.
Indeed, a valid point and I fully agree that we should promote patronage of the site; however, I have to believe there are more effective ways of doing so than restricting participation in the rating of films. How much of an incentive is film rating to becoming a Patron? If the Directory is to be a showcase of offerings from the Brickfilms community, perhaps it is better to consider it a loss leader* for attracting more members — hoping that a portion of those new members might become Patrons.
The promotion of patronage should not serve as a limitation to the services provided by Brickfilms. Restricting ministerial positions to Patrons might also serve to promote patronage; and the fact that RevMen opposed such a precondition indicates that he is willing to let patronage recruitment take back seat to the effective administration of the site.
“Dewfilms” wrote: What about having the patrons, ministers and review panel give a numerical rating. Then have the registered members give an emoticon rating.
Again, an extremely valid suggestion and I should hope that other candidates might adopt it as part of their platform. As for my own feelings, once the simplified “emoticon rating” is implemented, the effort to modify the current rating system to a meaningful state would not be worthwhile. Part of the elegance of my plan is that it eliminates the need for a minister to watch over it.
“Gray Scale” wrote: In addition to this, giving all members the ability to rate could, and I suspect would, degrade the ratings to something akin to the YouTube star rating system. That would not be a good thing.
I am not that familiar with the YouTube rating system and whether or not it is a good thing or why that should be. If you care to explain in more detail, I think we should all benefit from the discussion. It is fine for such a discussion to take place in this thread. My candidacy is about how the Directory is to be administrated in the future, not whether I am the one doing it.
If you are worried about potential for abuse — people joining solely to promote “a friend’s” film — I would agree that there is a component of that. Nonetheless, it is my opinion that such shenanigans should be rendered futile once the rating of films becomes so simple that any member who actually watches it will take the time to leave their opinion.
It is time to show a little faith in our membership, just as there has been a democratization of the administration of the site, why should that same openness not be applied to the ratings of Directory films?
“Smeagol” wrote: I agree that this is over-simplifying it. From the standpoint of viewers looking for a good film to watch, however, I think that it might be nice to include an overall (not an average) rating like what you’ve suggested.
Isn’t the very existence of the Directory for “viewers looking for a good film to watch”? Video is going to become a first class citizen of the Web by the end of this year; Brickfilms needs to position itself to take advantage of this. The presentation of our community’s offerings has to be apprehensible to the average visitor and it is better to have an “over-simplified” rating system which accurately represents the opinions of a film’s viewers than some convoluted and arbitrary assignment of numerical values where even the rater has no clue as to whether his choices accurately reflect his views.
* “loss leader” is a term used in marketing for services and/or commodities offered at no profit or even a loss in order to attract potential customers.June 10, 2007 at 10:34 pm #294384
The intial point of creating the 15 fps patronage at $3 per year is not so much to make money for the site as much as it is to ensure that people who rate films are serious about doing it. It’s very little money, but someone has to go through the process of paying it… something not likely to be done by someone who wants to mess around with film ratings. The site certainly could withstand losing revenue from 15 fps patrons if it meant a better rating system.
One of my original ideas for creating the Minister of Film Ratings was to have someone who bestowed the right to rate films on people he thought were responsible and involved in the community.June 10, 2007 at 11:33 pm #294417
I personally don’t like your plan, Saulgoode. As others have mentioned, it seems to simple, and it basically removes any reason to be a 15fps patron aside from just donating to the site.June 11, 2007 at 12:10 am #294424
“RevMen” wrote: One of my original ideas for creating the Minister of Film Ratings was to have someone who bestowed the right to rate films on people he thought were responsible and involved in the community.
Well, that kind of throws a left-handed monkey wrench into my plans for early retirement. I will adjust my proposal to incorporate that concept. My first bullet shall be replaced with:
- A usergroup of Brickfilms members permitted to rate films will be created and its roster selected and maintained by the Minister of Film Ratings.[/*]
“Nick Durron” wrote: I personally don’t like your plan, Saulgoode. As others have mentioned, it seems to simple, and it basically removes any reason to be a 15fps patron aside from just donating to the site.
Both of your concerns are valid points of discussion. Let me address the second one for now and I will get back to you with my thoughts on why it is not overly simplified sometime within the next day or so.
I should think that the greatest barrier for the majority of members becoming Patrons is not the $3.00 per annum dues that are required, but the complications arising from banking transactions over the Internet. The youth of our membership and their geographic location in many cases make it very inconvenient to become such Patrons. The potential revenue sacrificed by removing one of the incentives to becoming a Patron has to be weighed against the loss to the community of having a large portion of its membership prevented from participating and contributing in this matter. I do not wish to see the owners of Brickfilms suffer financially but I do believe that funding can be had in a less detrimental manner.