My goals for Film Ratings

Home Forums Governmental Forums Citizens My goals for Film Ratings

This topic contains 93 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Profile photo of Ladon Ladon 8 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 94 total)
  • Author
  • #249895 Reply
    Profile photo of hali

    The rubric idea is awesome. Can’t believe I use them to assess things at school (even films) but have not thought to apply it here.

    I’ve had long term issues with the rating system (particularly the way things are calculated, the ‘maths’ has always allowed for someone who hates a film or likes a person to really skew the results, and it is very subjective – I should know I’ve reviewed so many in the past), so this looks like an awesome way to go.

    Rubrics work multiple ways, they help to review with more accuracy and they allow filmakers to plan more effectively and get better ‘feedback’.

    Rubrics are not that good for experiemental/non-standard films though…

    (Edit: What I mean is that a film may intentionally have bad lighting , animation, and a simple plot, but it may be done VERY WELL to contribute a certain effect or convey an idea; a reviewer sticking to the rubric may miss the point and give it a poor score. BUT I really do think it is a great idea.)

    Top work, Ladon.

    #249896 Reply
    Profile photo of hoogiman

    Awesome idea Ladon. :o

    #249943 Reply
    Profile photo of RyanD

    I like this idea a lot. I have never rated any films for the main and simple reason that I don’t know what the standards are. With this, nobody will get confused

    See ya,
    Ryan :)

    #249944 Reply
    Profile photo of Watson

    I would like to comment on Ladon’s ethics as a matter of debate for this election.

    In particular, I’m going to cite an incident involving my film, The Citizen of the Year. This is not meant to be an appeal for action on my part – I don’t seek sympathy or rectification. This is meant simply to analyze an incident which happened, and Ladon’s reaction to that incident. I use my film only because – for obvious reasons – I am most familiar with its situation.

    During Septemberfest this year, some objected to the festivities. One or two members took it upon themselves to perform what I’ll call punitive rating – the act of purposely rating a film with very low numbers with the goal of crushing its ratings. That in itself is fine – I’m not particularly concerned about what ratings it has received in the directory. I’m happy with it, and I’ve managed to find other ways to expose it to the public. Nevertheless, this is a problem that comes up from time to time in the ratings process. Members will rate a film with the objective of trying to reduce its rating as much as possible, and not on the basis of giving it what they feel it deserves. This generally has nothing to do with the film, but is a personal attack on the director.

    In this particular case, because of the number of ratings involved, and the amount of change in the scores, ratings of at or near zero would have been required. While I am willing to accept that some won’t like the film nearly as much as others, I think most reasonable members would agree that a string of zero ratings is not meant as an honest judgement of a film, but, as I said earlier, as a punitive rating.

    There was some suspicion on my part, and on that of others, that Ladon may have been involved. He had been one of the most outspoken critics of Septemberfest, and at that time, was quite upset about the whole thing. When, in one thread, Tim raised the issue of the recent ratings, Ladon’s response was that “people have most likely rated the film what they think is fair … people are probably tired of hearing about it … I believe the expression ‘advertise to death’ is quite literal here. You’ve hyped it enough for people to hate it’s [sic] existence.” Indeed, Ladon was the most vocal of anyone in expressing his feelings that it had been “advertise[d] to death.” Evidently, he felt that this made punitive ratings acceptable in this situation.

    The implication here is that Ladon sees nothing wrong with this sort of behavior. In fact, he defended it. Regardless of our suspicions as to who was responsible, that kind of thinking has no place from the member who wishes to be the minister of film ratings.

    My question, then, is, do you still feel this was acceptable?

    #249949 Reply

    My question on whether if people will be able to change their ratings later still stands.

    #250007 Reply
    Profile photo of Ladon

    To Watson:

    I wasn’t saying that his was the right thing to do, I was saying that the advertising scheme that was put into place had unfortunately resulted in this action by the raters.

    I don’t want to try and stop people from expressing themselves, it’s their right. This is where the Staff Rating will come into effect. Members will only be able to touch one of the ratings, therefore rendering their punitive rating irrelevant. Seeing as they won’t be able to affect the film’s standing, there will be much less of a want to sabotage the film’s ratings.

    To Lord_Of_The_LEGO:

    I don’t think this is as good an idea as it sounds. I want to retain the ‘This is what you rated, are you sure about that?’ style of screen that will appear after the rubric, but I don’t want to separate people’s ratings. The only way to let you change your ratings would be to keep everyone’s ratings separate, and that would bring up the idea of ‘who rated what’ once more.

    The rubric is also going to help you rethink your choices while you’re rating. After spending a few minutes considering what you’re giving, you should feel more satisfied with the final result when you’re done.

    chosen1, thank you for your input. I do want to try and get it to be more acceptable to give a 5 as an average rating. If you aren’t thinking about the numbers when using the rubric, perhaps you’ll think more about the description you’re ending up with. This most likely means that I’ll end up removing the numbers from the rubric so that you can’t really try and guess what the final score will be, you’ll be more focused on your own experience while watching the film.

    People, be prepared for something that will seem to be a ‘lapse in ratings’. This is going to change the way we rate, and for a time it’ll look like films aren’t getting the ratings that they deserve. It won’t be because films aren’t as good anymore, and it won’t be because people are being too harsh. It’ll be because the ratings will be more fairly averaged. Less films will get a score that comes close to eclipsing all other films in the directory, because there will be more understanding of what score you’re actually giving.


    #250009 Reply
    Profile photo of Watson

    “Ladon” wrote: I wasn’t saying that his was the right thing to do, I was saying that the advertising scheme that was put into place had unfortunately resulted in this action by the raters.

    Not quite. Tim condemned this action, but you argued on behalf of those who did it, essentially saying that it was understandable. Do you feel that depending on the context, that kind of behavior can be understandable? Your next point seems to indicate that you do:

    “Ladon” wrote: I don’t want to try and stop people from expressing themselves, it’s their right. This is where the Staff Rating will come into effect.

    So your view is that it’s people’s right to be able to perform punitive votes if they wish?

    #250010 Reply
    Profile photo of Ladon

    No, not at all. What you’re referring to has nothing to do with film ratings themselves, and was actually a direct result of your shameless and over-active promotion of your own film during the event you call ‘Septemberfest’. I won’t go into any more detail as to why this wasn’t a good idea, I will simply say that the drop in ratings for your own film was the unforseen result of your activity. If you had properly calculated cause and effect into your ideas for that specific activity, you would have immediately understood why your ratings dropped dramatically.

    Once again, this is not the subject on hand, and any further attempts at ‘mud slinging’ will be ignored, as they will simply be distractions from developing the potential of the site.

    All I wish to do is help people understand their own ratings, and make the ratings layout more understandable to help standardize the resulting rankings. I do understand that people have previously taken it upon themselves to ‘punish’ specific directors for complaining about their ratings. I believe that the ‘Staff Rating’ will help considerably in putting an end to this, as there will be no way for a potential saboteur to have any effect on both of the ratings. Having an accurate ranking displayed next to the sabotaged ranking would defeat the purpose of engaging in such an act. I am forseeing a drop of at least 70% in these sorts of activities, without removing freedom of speech from the users who are submitting a rating.


    #250011 Reply
    Profile photo of Watson

    This is not mudslinging, Ladon. This is an honest-to-god concern. I’m not trying to be smart or to simply discredit you. As someone who wants to be this site’s minister of film ratings, I would expect that you would take this issue much more seriously. Frankly, I am stunned by your answers thus far.

    You are saying, basically, that if you feel a film deserves it, it’s perfectly okay for people for people to enter punitive ratings — and I’m not talking about low ratings (there’s certainly nothing wrong with that, and everyone is entitled to their opinion) — I’m talking about ratings with the express intent and purpose of crushing the overall ratings of a film, thus undermining the views and ratings of all of the honest reviewers and patrons who voted on it previously. I just want to be perfectly clear about your stand, because your answers so far are certainly pointing to it. You feel that, if a film deserves it, then people are well within their rights to abuse and undermine the system that you are running to oversee?

    What if someone felt that Triumph of the Empire was objectionable because of its Nazi propaganda overtones, and decided that they’d rate it with all zeros — no because of objections to quality, but because they resented its current ratings — would you be as accepting of this?

    I don’t think this is something that should be ignored, and I don’t think that other citizens should ignore it. The split between patrons and reviewers is nice, and it’s clear that voters needed actual guidelines to tell them what the numbers mean, but when it comes down to it, any person voted in as minister of film ratings can do all that. What I’m interested in most of all, and what all people should be interested in, is the ethics of the person in charge — this is unique to candidate. We need someone who will not tolerate or overlook abuses. That is important to me, it’s important to anyone who has a movie in the directory, and it’s important to our visitors, many of whom will first be exposed to our films through the directory.

    #250014 Reply
    Profile photo of Ladon

    Firstly, I will clearly state that purposely attempting to sabotage ratings is the wrong thing to do. I do not support it. I can understand that in the heat of the moment, people may have let their personal judgement get the best of them, but they chose poorly. I am simply trying to have sympathy for them, as they were obviously not able to control their impulses when it was required of them to do so.

    Now, allow me to take your scenario and explain how what I’m doing will change it for the better.

    If someone were to find Triumph of the Empire completely offensive, then that is their opinion. They can talk in the forums if they feel the motives of the film need to be explained, and they most likely would. If the person was still so emotionally stricken as to attempt to sabotage the ratings, then that’s nothing anyone can stop. Yes, it is the wrong thing to do. And so what I want to do is discourage them from doing it, by making the results of their negative rating look foolish. If they realise that their sabotage would be inconcequencial, then hopefully they will give the film a fairer rating, with the help of the rubric.

    Simply put, the Staff Rating will be un-touchable by the general collective of users. Film reviewers, moderators, and administators will have submitted their opinions to this ranking. Because of the limited number of staff members, and their vast knowledge in the areas of brickfilming, the rating they give the film will be the most fair and unbiased possible.
    Now if the user rating mirrors this, with a few minor variations, then the users will know that they are in agreement with the staff members. If it’s higher, then the users obviously have a higher opinion of the film that the staff. And so on for any variation.
    Imagine if someone were to look at that film and say ‘This director is a moron’, or whatever would run through their mind if they disliked the creator of the film. Right now, the ratings system is so basic that it would seem inconcequencial to just put in some lower numbers in order to bring down the score of the film. But if there was another score next to it that represented a more steady rating, any effort to bring down the user score would simply reflect badly on the users, not the director themselves. And hopefully with the rubric, the potential saboteur could come to understand that what they dislike about the film has nothing to do with the film itself, and should not be reflected in the ratings.

    I hope this clears up any confusion about my intentions and position on the abuse of the current ratings system.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 94 total)
Reply To: My goals for Film Ratings
Your information: