December 17, 2007 at 9:20 am #353992
I am more than willing to answer any questions anyone might have about my plans for the Ratings system. But for this moment, I will answer the provided questions that are required of all candidates. I hope you don’t find them too boring!
What experience do I have relating to my desired ministry?
I have been serving as Minister of Film Ratings since the original creation of the title.
How much time would I be able to spend performing my duties as Minister of Film Ratings?
As much time as it takes to keep it running smoothly and improving frequently. If I find myself not being able to keep up, I will find someone suitable to take over the job.
What are my ideas to expand or improve the Ministry?
I would like to continue implementing my ideas and the ideas of others into the ratings system.
What unique character qualities would I be able to contribute to the Ministry?
I refuse to take no as an answer, I simply ask for another way to do it. I also have a very good understanding of the collection of statistics, and comprehend the structures that have to be put in place for accurate statistics to be gathered.
What is my motivation for running for Minister of Film Ratings?
I am confident that I am the best person for the role. I see no reason to not apply myself to something I know I can do, and so I apply myself.
Is there anything I would change to improve my performance as Minister of ______ upon re-election?
I would very much like to get over the fact that Schlaeps is now the boss, so I can start giving him irritating instructions again
Is there anything that I did during my last term, that I would not repeat?
I will not leave so much time between improvements to the system, and I will be sure to place one or two people in charge of watching the ratings for sabotage. I admit I have not been able to keep up with them, and would like to find someone who has a few minutes every day to do it. I believe I found the person before and forgot to get them implemented, but I will have a chat before doing so.
Now then, I am more than open for questions, suggestions! I am sorry if you were expecting a wonderful PM to tell you to vote for me, but I have faith that everyone is intelligent enough to vote on their own without such a reminder.
My intent for this term, if I am re-elected, is to continue as I have been to this point. The rubric questions need refinement, the format of the rubric needs refinement. All of the basic elements are in place for a fantastic ratings system, it just needs more work. I know exactly what needs to be done, and I will do it if I’m re-elected. I would like to put a person in charge of monitoring the individual ratings, to keep them accurate
I remember there was talk of a Staff Rating, but what one has to remember is that this ratings system is supposed to be accurate. It isn’t meant to be composed of opinions, but tell someone exactly what to expect in the film. If you want opinions, look at the review. A reviewer is meant to be able to express their opinion, and the reviewers on this site are usually quite good at their jobs. A rating has nothing to do with an opinion, and so the ratings of the general patron community and a staff member should not differ by much more than .2 of a rating. Such a small variation is not important enough to try and implement an entirely new ratings system alongside of the previously established database of ratings.
I also understand that there has been quite a bit of complaint from a small number of people about having to use a rubric to rate films. The rubric is the simplest way to ensure that all ratings are based on the same criteria.
When you receive a census form, it is not a piece of paper that you write whatever you want on. When you fill out any other form, you still do not just write whatever you want. You are given multiple choices, and your choices are limited to give a more precise collection of data. The rubric aims to do the same. If someone believes themselves to have a better idea of how to collect accurate information from the community, then I would very much like to read of it. However if someone simply says that the rubric is not a decent method of statistic retrieval without suggesting an alternative method, then that isn’t exactly constructive, is it?
-LadonDecember 17, 2007 at 10:08 am #353999
An Old OreMember
Q: How will you promote more ratings by community members? (More ratings per film = greater accuracy.)
Q: How will you resolve the “old films” issue? (Whereby new films are rated under the new rubric but thousand-odd films already in the directory are rated under the old system.)December 17, 2007 at 10:39 am #354000
To your first question, I gave quite a lot of thought. I’ve found that people like showing off that they have more than someone else. They like to celebrate milestones on post counts, on length of membership, on reviews (reviewers are sometimes very competitive, I have found). Inside the control panel, there is a small table that shows the top 5 raters. Those people have the most ratings on the site, with Count Orlock topping the chart with an impressive and amazing 645 ratings. I believe if this chart was a little longer, and perhaps individual rating counts were optionally included in the profile, then there would be more incentive to rate as many films as possible.
I have not yet given too much thought to the old films issue, but as I was writing that I believe I may have answered both questions with the one response. If people find themselves wanting to get their ratings count higher, they will not want to wait for more films to be added to the directory. Instead, they will work their way back through the older films to get their ratings. Hopefully, this will get most of the older films at least a slightly more accurate rating.
This is based on an assumption that most community members enjoy a bit of competition, but I’m sure it will have at least some effect on both the ratings volume and the ratings of the older films.
I hope these answers are informative enough
-LadonDecember 19, 2007 at 8:19 am #354558
Any more questions? I think it was about this silent last time, but I want to make sure everyone has a chance to get their facts straight
-LadonDecember 19, 2007 at 11:10 am #354577
“SUMMER ’07”, aye?
Is it summer down under?
-TrillDecember 19, 2007 at 11:31 am #354583
It is so hot here that I would have felt wrong even considering calling it ‘Winter’
Although I suppose I could change the year to 08 seeing as that’s the term I’m running for.
There we go!
Vote Me!December 19, 2007 at 11:23 pm #354818
:offtopic: Regarding title: See, this was why I initially just left my title as 2008. Someone modified it to include “Winter”.December 20, 2007 at 8:57 am #354941
“Lechnology” wrote: :offtopic: Regarding title: See, this was why I initially just left my title as 2008. Someone modified it to include “Winter”.
Not I. Honestly there was a typo and they were all supposed to say ’07-’08 Winter or something like that.
I don’t remember what I had originally.December 20, 2007 at 6:20 pm #355036
I think the issue with the ratings right now is that only a small group of people can rate, and while the group is small, paying a small fee doesn’t make someone a responsible rater. I’ve seen my films’ ratings plunge multiple times because one person gave unreasonably low ratings in some categories, likely in order to bring it down to where they feel it should be. I like the idea of having a separate set of ratings for the review panel, because I feel that the current ratings on many films provide little to no indication.
example: Bane of the Sith is below this in effects rating. Many of the older films don’t really match up with newer stuff in a similar manner. The film had great effects for its time, but it’s not really on the same level as many of the other films at the top of the list, at least in terms of realism. I suppose you could view it as a cgi brickfilm supplemented by some stop-motion. But I’m not sure about the reasoning for really high effects ratings for CGI films. The Inventor is on page 5 of the effects ratings, below several films that have little more than lightsaber effects or some masking. I think effects are a hard category to rate consistently, because if effects are very good then many people will mistake them for being in-camera (not saying this is the case in my own, largely CGI films of course.)
-SmeagolDecember 20, 2007 at 9:30 pm #355102
This was always going to be an issue, these older films were rated with absolutely no method of comparison from one to the next.
The problem with adding a second ratings system is that there would be even fewer people able to rate with it. It would only really apply to a select few films, which really doesn’t justify adding it.
That being said, if enough people say they would really like a second fresh ratings system that can only be used by Review Panel members, I’m sure something can be done.
This has given me an idea that I will think about today. A form of equalisation that would bring the older films back down to earth to give them a more realistic rating. This could be interesting, although it may not work. More on this later!
The topic ‘SUMMER '08 – Ladon for Minister of Film Ratings’ is closed to new replies.