“Ladon” wrote: I’m going to be away for a week, so I thought I might post an updated version of what I think the ratings section on the film page should look like.

There’s no image for ‘Enjoyment’, and I’m not sure ‘Interest Rating’ is the right title for the top category, but hopefully you’ll all get the idea of what I want to do. The division of technical ratings and interest ratings I think will help to identify what films are really worth watching. Still, this isn’t a final version, so if there’s anything that stands out as being wrong, just mention it helpfully instead of confusing it with the final product

I’ll answer any more qestions and confusion when I get back, or if I’m not too busy perhaps I’ll find some sort of wireless hotspot to tap into.

-Ladon

I don’t know how the ratings system was coded, but I think for that to become reality ratings would need to be reset.

“brianfast” wrote: [quote="Ladon"]I’m going to be away for a week, so I thought I might post an updated version of what I think the ratings section on the film page should look like.

There’s no image for ‘Enjoyment’, and I’m not sure ‘Interest Rating’ is the right title for the top category, but hopefully you’ll all get the idea of what I want to do. The division of technical ratings and interest ratings I think will help to identify what films are really worth watching. Still, this isn’t a final version, so if there’s anything that stands out as being wrong, just mention it helpfully instead of confusing it with the final product

I’ll answer any more questions and confusion when I get back, or if I’m not too busy perhaps I’ll find some sort of wireless hotspot to tap into.

-Ladon

I don’t know how the ratings system was coded, but I think for that to become reality ratings would need to be reset.[/quote]

Well, seeing as I’m not adding any more categories, I don’t see why the ratings would have to be reset. If I were completely revamping the final ratings output I would understand your concern, but with what I’ve been deomonstrating it really won’t be a problem.

“Matthew Buick” wrote: Don’t you think a catergory for ”sets” could be added ?

As I said above, I’m very much avoiding making a new category. I know that sets can be an important part of a film (dodgy sets are no good at all), but for ratings purposes they aren’t as important. ‘Good Sets’ is more of a word of mouth or awards based rating, as opposed to something that can be scaled against other films.

I’m back from my trip, so expect a few updated demonstrations, and keep your questions flowing!

Sounds good. I hope people take the time to rate things carefully. I’m even for a complete rerating of all films.

The only thing I have a problem with it the ”quantity” choice of the ”special effects section”, must a film be packed with special effects to be entertaining? What’s wrong with achieving that effect practically? I think using practicals exhibits greater skill and initiative, the only time that would work in the filmaker’s favour would be if the entire film was colour corrected.

I think the point is the opposite Matthew Buick. The quantity is there so if you see a really low effects rating you know it’s not because the effects are bad.

“brianfast” wrote: [quote="Ladon"]Time for a nice little bump as we approach the elections!

This is the latest mock-up for the ratings rubric, and as you can see, there have been a number of changes!

I want to separate Animation into two separate ratings that will be combined when viewed in the directory, Quality and Quantity. This is how I want to separate films that have awesome minimalist animation, and films that have a large amount of terrible animation. I also applied this to Effects.

There is now a ‘halfway’ point between the ratings, for those who are a bit indecisive. If you want a bit of both, you can just select the one in the middle.

I also simplified and clarified the wording for each rating, and stuck the entire thing into a mock-up of what it may end up looking like (if I’m elected, that is).

Any questions or complaints? You don’t have long to get them answered!

So It is now impossible for a film to get a perfect 10? And your latest mockup lets reviewers deciede what criteria a film needs to get any even numbered result. Personally I think thats worse then what allready in place.[/quote]

Brianfast, show me a film that deserves a perfect 10. It has never been possible for a film to get a perfect 10.

My mock-up has nothing to do with reviewers, can you clarify what you’re talking about?

“strange little people” wrote: It appears to me as if the special effects quality ratings seem to assume that CGI is the only type of special effect that exists. There’s also in camera effects that can be effective, like the cotton balls as clouds of dust in Return of the King by the Leftfielders.

In-camera effects are actually classed as animation. If you use a cotton ball to create dust, then that’s quite original animation. Effects applies to anything that was added in post-production, hence why it is paired with sound.

Yes, that mock-up is huge. I don’t have time today to go in there and slim it down, but if I do actually get elected I’ll take a more in-depth crack at it.

“brianfast” wrote: All you are doing is changing the scale from .1-10 to 1-9. 9 just becomes the new 10 exept old films can have higher scores then new ones.

Am I? Where did I write that, because I honestly don’t remember ever deciding on a final numerical scale.

What I’m currently considering is in fact 0-10. 5 key points between 0 and 10 with a minor half in between them.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from, but I certainly never said anything about a 1-9 scale.

“Ladon” wrote: [quote="brianfast"]All you are doing is changing the scale from .1-10 to 1-9. 9 just becomes the new 10 exept old films can have higher scores then new ones.

Am I? Where did I write that, because I honestly don’t remember ever deciding on a final numerical scale.

What I’m currently considering is in fact 0-10. 5 key points between 0 and 10 with a minor half in between them.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from, but I certainly never said anything about a 1-9 scale.[/quote]
Your latest rubric has 9 options. Unless you are counting by decimals one would assume your scale is either 0-8 or 1-9. And in another of your replys you justified removing the 10 option because no films deserve it.

I personally wouldn’t vote for a guy who hasn’t finalized what he will be doing, but maybe thats just me. :wink