My goals for Film Ratings

HomeForumsGovernmental ForumsCitizensMy goals for Film Ratings

This topic has 1 voice, contains 93 replies, and was last updated by Avatar of Ladon Ladon 2881 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 94 total)
Author Posts
Author Posts
January 5, 2007 at 8:35 pm #250117
Avatar of Dragoon

Despite the absurdity of much of his post, saulgoode actually made a valid point that to me is the major flaw in Ladon’s candidacy, not the alleged morality record.

Film raters DO have the right to rate based on their own criteria and it is nobody else’s place to dictate what that criteria has to be.

I am opposed to a rubric. More precisely, I’m opposed to an interactive rubric. I don’t mind giving the film raters suggestions, or outlining a sort of guide for them to follow, but to specifically instruct them what to rate a film based on pre-written criteria seems sort of unappealing to me. It would also most likely eliminate my freedom to rate a film with more precise numbers; 7.5, 6.2, etc.

Telling a film-rater how to rate films is supremely patronizing. There are always instances in which unforseen details merit a tweaking in the rating. Though I am not opposed to a general standard or guideline for the film-rating process, raters must be given the respect of being able to use their judgment and free thought to assign ratings to a film.

Watson: Your last post is a wise one. You have voiced your complaints, and there’s no further reason to bicker about them. We know from experience Ladon is tough to outlast in that regard.

January 5, 2007 at 8:58 pm #250134
Avatar of Krick

I think there should be a sample rubric, but ratings should be given like they currently are, typing in the desired number.
Also, perhaps there could be a message at the top sort of like:
“This rubric is provided as a rough sample of the rating standards. Due to the nature of such a system, there are many situations in which such ratings would be inaccurate. Please use your best judgment in providing a number for the categories listed.”
Obviously that could be improved greatly, but something to that general effect.

January 5, 2007 at 10:40 pm #250167
Avatar of chosen1

Whether Watson is Mudslinging or showing a legitimate concern, I think this issue should be addressed as it hasn’t only showed it’s face in TCOTY. The abusing of film ratings is a problem and should be one of the first things to be fixed, in my opinion. Although some people have chosen to ignore this issue and just go along with the responses in their film thread, I feel that something officially linked to the name should be accurate no matter what the cost.

I do have a solution for this problem, and I hope you, Ladon, take it upon yourself to read and sincerely consider this suggestion.

My Solution is a pretty simple one, Moderation and Limits. Yes, these both seem Extreme but they are totally ration. The film directory is a place in which Officially accepts (or rejects) a film. If we did a better job at making sure the films that are accepted were good quality films then there would be no reason to rate a film to much lower than the average rating. Yes, there are some exceptions, and I am sure we could bend a little for those films. The Next move would be to Eliminate voter privacy.

Before I even explain the next step of my method, I would like to point of that some people do disagree already.


“saulgoode” wrote: I would be very disappointed if Ladon were to deny the rights of filmraters to rate a film however they wish. How would such a concept even be implemented? Hopefully it is not being suggest that rating submissions should be ignored because they deviate too far from the standard.

Film raters DO have the right to rate based on their own criteria and it is nobody else’s place to dictate what that criteria has to be. One has to be a Patron of Brickfilms in order to rate films and this means that each rater has a vested interested in the site.

“Ladon” wrote: I don’t want to take away people’s privacy by trying to install a ‘Who rated what?’ feature. People have the right to rate a film poorly without being chased down because of it.

[/spoiler]I am sure there are a few more but I am satisfied with those two examples.

My Solution would be to allow other users see who voted what. Why? Because by not allowing privacy it would discourage people who like to play jokes on Certain directors or even want to down their film out of anger or some other emotion. Beside each rating there would be a report option,(This is just a side idea: it could only appear if a person rates a film lower than average or above average) if a fellow member sees some one giving a film an unjust rating (e,i; all ratings of 3 and/or below) they can report this and allow a Mod or some other form of authority to check this out and make sure it is a just rating. To decide whether or not this is a just rating he would look at the average staff rating and/or User rating(I think most people can tell when some one blatantly rates something low). If it is considered to be “just” the person of Authority can click an option that no long allows this rating to be questioned, if it is unjust there should be some form of Discipline taking upon the rater in question, maybe a PM warning at first then something more serious if he/she persists.

Some argue that The raters should get privacy. I don’t think so. Why does it matter if some one knows that you do or do not like a film? They see it in the P&R forum all the time. If you don’t want some one to see your rating then don’t rate it in the first place. This suggestion does not control the individual’s Decision, it just warns them that if they do the wrong thing that they will get some form of discipline. What would the form of discipline be? I would assume PM them with a warning and then if it is still a problem remove the rights of voting, but that is not my decision.

“Ladon” wrote: People have the right to rate a film poorly without being chased down because of it.

If we Eliminated low-grade films there would be no need to rate films low. Then the only reason to rate film low is if you didn’t enjoy it so you rated the “Enjoyment” down. If a person DOES rate a film row for reasons of unfairness then yes, They do need to be “chased down”.

So, my solution is by eliminating the low-grade of films we Officially accept and by keeping check with who rates what, it would all be fixed. What about the films already reviewed? You should get some assistants and slowly fix this problem.

I think we could sacrifice that small amount of privacy for peace of mind that we won’t be cheated out of a fair film rating.

About the rubric system:

Even if you do not add a description to every number (1-10) in the rubric I suggest you have them all. There are times we need “In between” Numbers to Justly rate things, and by eliminating some of the numbers you are then controlling what could be a just rating.

I hope you read and consider my suggestions and comments.


January 5, 2007 at 11:36 pm #250179
Avatar of brianfast

I don’t like the idea of a rubric. I wouldn’t have paid 3 dollars to follow your guidelines. I will rate as I please. I do think the staff ratings being displayed is a good idea, however.

January 5, 2007 at 11:46 pm #250183
Avatar of chosen1

“brianfast” wrote: I don’t like the idea of a rubric. I wouldn’t have paid 3 dollars to follow your guidelines. I will rate as I please. I do think the staff ratings being displayed is a good idea, however.

The Rubric system is just a neutral guideline system, it would help members decide how to rate a film. Really, what is to dislike about the rubric system? Could some one please explain?


January 5, 2007 at 11:53 pm #250188
Avatar of Watson

I’m not in favor of that solution, Chosen1. Revealing everyone’s ratings could create some bad blood between members. Additionally, forcing moderators have to check ratings creates a whole bunch of work that will waste people’s time and provide only a minimal amount of benefit.

Something else that hasn’t been mentioned here is how we plan to enact all these changes. Are the candidates expecting Z to do all this work? People are making some pretty hefty suggestions that would require major changes to our current system. If not, do candidates plan to do the work themselves, or have other people do it? Have they considered that Z might not want other people messing around with all the hard work he’s done in the directory?

Right now, individual ratings aren’t kept. When someone adds a new rating, it just updates all of the values that are being stored in each category for a film. That means that If we want to start new systems where ratings are tracked, it could never be backwards compatible with all of the ratings that have been applied to the movies in the directory already.

Therefore, under Ladon’s proposed system, the staff would have to go back and re-rate all of the old films in order to populate the staff ratings section that he proposes with numbers. The result will be that the majority of films in the directory will likely never receive staff ratings, since it’s unlikely that the staff will be able to rate all 1000+ films that are in the directory now.

January 6, 2007 at 12:39 am #250202
Avatar of Cometgreen

I apologize to now finally go off topic and addressing more personal points, but I don’t feel it warrants another topic. If anyone wants to respond to anything relating to my own character, I’ll be making a free-for-all thread later today where you can bring it up.

“Ladon” wrote: I’m sure that if you had acted and nominated me for your our party none of these irrelevant discussions would be coming up. And so that leads be to believe that you are now being biased because of the individuals who nominated me.

I fail to find a better way to phrase this, so excuse me for the outburst, but screw you. I’ve made it clear that I get quite irked when someone claims to know my motives, especially when I have stayed far away from making them known. I also am amazed that you still see this all as some sort of an attack, instead of a legitimate question of your thoughts concerning rating abuse. I am not here to discredit you or make you look foolish; I thought Watson brought up a good point, and defended him. I also don’t know why you assume I actually care who nominated you.

“Ladon” wrote: I am not going to try and insult the people who have sunk to this level, because some of them are most likely going to be voting. Why would I try and rid myself of votes to try and get you to be quiet?

“Ladon” wrote: I must add that people do not want a Minister of Discussion who cannot make up his mind. I suggest you work on that before you begin your campaign.

I thought you said you weren’t here to play politician?

Regardless, when did I ever say I still don’t support you? And even if you no longer had my vote (which you do as of this moment, as no one else has proposed anything yet), am I not allowed to change my mind when new candidates and ideas come forward?

“saul” wrote: It is hypocritical of you to complain that others are not respecting a part of Brickfilms that is important to you, while you are unwilling to respect the part they feel is important.

Watson is not running to be Grand Master of the Forums, and so it is not really comparable. Or to clarify, Watson is not asking Ladon to respect something important to Watson, but that Ladon respect something that he wishes to be in charge of.


To the current topic of discussion: I’m not sure how I feel about a rubric system. I think Krick brings up a good compromise, in which the rubric is displayed to clarify the ratings, but people can still input the exact numbers they think are correct.


January 6, 2007 at 3:00 am #250227
Avatar of Dragoon

I’m not sure how I feel about a rubric system. I think Krick brings up a good compromise, in which the rubric is displayed to clarify the ratings, but people can still input the exact numbers they think are correct.

Which would also eliminate need for a major redesign by Z.

January 6, 2007 at 3:12 am #250233
Avatar of Pierre Films
Pierre Films

I would personally like to see what the other candidates have in mind as a plan. Candidates criticizing another candidate without having yet laid out a plan of their own looks desperate and does look like mudslinging. Despite Watson’s concern, this does not need to go on for nearly 3 pages and is almost something that could have been solved privately instead of trying to make a scene which doesn’t look good for the attacking party either.

Ladon’s goals are not set in stone. They’re detailed laid out ideas with multiple examples showing one way to accomplish a revamp of the Film Ratings system which is much more than I can see from any other candidate.

Pierre Films

January 6, 2007 at 3:18 am #250236
Avatar of Mr. Less
Mr. Less

Last time I checked, the only other official candidate for Ministry of Film Ratings is Nightowl.

January 6, 2007 at 3:50 am #250245
Avatar of Cometgreen

And there are 24 days left. And these new positions were only announced three days ago.


January 6, 2007 at 6:04 am #250291
Avatar of Ladon

To me there is too much uncertainty in the current ratings system. Every person has decided what is average for themselves, which is creating unfair ratings. Yes, the rubric does restrict what you can rate a film, but it is for the better. With a rubric, you have a description of what you actually felt about the film. No, it isn’t telling you what to feel, it’s helping you to better understand and appreciate the quality of the film you just watched. Perhaps there was fine work that you overlooked, like crisp and exciting sound design. Simply putting in a number doesn’t requite thought, because suddenly you become aware that other people may have given it a different number. Suddenly you’re trying to boost the rating to give the film what you think it deserves, therefore ruining the balance of the ratings across the directory.

I see more approval for the Staff Rating than the rubric, which is understandable, because not many of you have had a chance to use a rubric before to help you understand what marks you are giving. I credit the genesis of the idea of the Staff Rating to Cometgreen, who mentioned it while I was having a discussion with him in chat. I saw it was a good idea, and I decided to do some more research into it.

The Staff Rating would be a new feature. It wouldn’t be expected for staff members to go back and re-rate all of the films in the directory, just as it has never been expected of reviewers to go back and eliminate the poorer films when the standards are raised. It will simply be something that is included from this point onwards. If they please they can go back and give it a rating, if they think it’s an older film that gets enough attention or if they just enjoy it, or for whatever reason they come up with.

What I want to change about the ratings is the feeling put into it. It shouldn’t be about emotionless numbers, but being able to properly scale the score you’re giving a film without thinking about the final result. This is why I chose the rubric, as this is exactly what it allows. For those who do not support the use of a rubric, perhaps I can change your mind. If not, I really don’t mind.

To those who say that I’m not caring enough about the ratings system, I’m not sure what you base this on, but from this point on I will interpret it as mudslinging, as the evidence of my dedication is still clearly presented on the first page of this thread.

My views have come under question as well, which I consider to be an attempt to distract users from what I actually want to accomplish. I will state them once more for the people who insist on picking apart my words in order to better their own egos. I do not condone the abuse of the ratings system. This is exactly why I am pushing to make these changes, so instead of a few numbers, the raters will feel more responsible when they’re asked for their opinion. I will not condemn my fellow brickfilmers for letting their emotions get the best of them. You are forgetting that these people are just like everyone else. In fact, they most likely are everyone else. If I were to begin accusing people of foul play, and insisting that they be hunted down and banned, who would be left? You obviously have no idea how many people have been tempted to punish others for their forum behavior by tampering with the ratings.

I realize that people have abused the system. From my very first post I have indicated that I wish to change the system to be less open to that sort of abuse. How is it that you have overlooked that in order to create an argument?

January 6, 2007 at 6:08 am #250293
Avatar of Ladon

“brianfast” wrote: I don’t like the idea of a rubric. I wouldn’t have paid 3 dollars to follow your guidelines. I will rate as I please. I do think the staff ratings being displayed is a good idea, however.

Sir, rating ‘as you please’ is the exact problem here. Because ‘as you please’ isn’t the same as ‘as someone else pleases’, which means that the films aren’t getting the rating that they deserve. If everyone decides for themselves what an average film is, then the ratings are never going to be accurate, and an accurate rating is what the director deserves.

January 6, 2007 at 7:04 am #250296
Avatar of Ladon

I’ve realised my error now, and I apologise to all involved.

I do recognize that tampering with ratings is wrong, I just don’t wish to use the word ‘condemn’, because of the negative connotations that are too easily placed with it. Because of my lack of explanation on that subject, there was ensuing confusion. I apologise for not being more clear.

I hope we can now resume discussion about the changes I wish to make if I’m elected as Minister of Film Rating.


January 6, 2007 at 8:01 am #250307
Avatar of eventide

Just something to think about…

The trouble with ratings scales, as has been noted, is that those with extreme opinions, dishonest or not, have a greater affect on the final number than those with more measured opinions, and there is no way to coax everyone to the same level of zeal or moderation in rating. The proposed rubric system is one solution to this, but it demands a certain time commitment from the film reviewer that may be ok for a dedicated ratings group but is, I fear, too large of a barrier for casual reviwers.

The ratings scale problem is similar to that encountered in ratings voting systems: if you want your candidate to win, you’re best off lying and rating that candidate a ten and everyone else a zero. One solution to this is Approval Voting, which does away with the scale and has only “yes” or “no”, eliminating the advantage of those with extreme opinions by forcing everyone to use the extreme. I don’t see how this system would be of much use to brickfilm ratings however.

Another interesting voting system is Ranked Pairs. The voter ranks the candidates from most favored to least favored. This also does away with explicit ratings, reducing the problem of voters gaming the system by rating in the extreme in contradiction to their true ratings. To find the best candidate, Ranked Pairs takes each pair of candidates in turn, A and B, and looks to see if more ballots ranked A above B than B above A; if so, A is better than B. Since any reviewer is unlikely to have seen all films, rather than think in terms of a complete ballot with all candidates or films ranked, it is better to think in terms of preferences such as A above B. A preference of A above B is only added to the ballot box if a reviewer has watched and ranked both A and B.

From an interface usability perspective, the “review a film” part of the film page need ask but a single question to add to the ratings information: it could choose a film from those the reviewer has already watched and simply ask “is this new film better or worse than this old film you’ve already seen?. A more complex version might list some or all of the reviewer’s past rankings and ask for a click setting position the new film in the list. The “rubric” is merely comparing films to one another and requires, I believe, less effort than trying to follow a scoring sheet. It’s certainly not as accurate as a careful and honestly done ratings system; the advantages are simplicity and greater robustness to dishonesty. Of course, implementation would be quite different from what is in place now and possibly not worth the effort.

Then again, this only works for an “overall” or “enjoyment” type category; trying to remember the quality of sound effects in some film you saw 15 months ago to compare to those in the new film might be a bit of a stretch. Of course, relying on memory is also a problem with a fine grained ratings system. “These sound effects deserve a 6 or 7, but they are a little better than that other film which I gave a 6.2 … or was it 6.5?”

other comments on ratings systems vs. rank only

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 94 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.