Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 8 released June 27th)
Polls: 2010s (Results), 1974 (Results), 2019 awards (Jul 11th)
Challenges: Canada, Low Rated, Director
Film of the Week: Vinyan, August nominations (Jul 31st)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2E: Georgia vs Ukraine (Jul 16th)

What do numerical ratings mean?

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4268
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

What do numerical ratings mean?

#41

Post by Onderhond » April 15th, 2014, 11:07 pm

St. Gloede on Apr 15 2014, 11:01:49 AM wrote:That means that he couldn't find a single bit of quality in the entire film. There was not a single possible redeeming factor in any of it -or if just a harsh rater - quite close to the previous description. Really hard to swallow that someone could feel that way about pretty much everything respected made before the 80s.
That's two exaggerations right there. Just as I don't think my 5* films are absolutely perfect, I don't think my 0.5* films are completely trash. It does mean however that there wasn't a single thing that amused me/I found enjoying. Some things might've been mediocre (which is different from being painfully bad), but that doesn't earn a film any points with me.

And like I said before, it's not as if I rate anything before 1980 with 0.5* by default. Or anything recent gets a 2.5* by default. There's still a whole lot of grey there, but roughly speaking I definitely prefer modern cinema.
Last edited by Onderhond on April 15th, 2014, 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4268
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#42

Post by Onderhond » April 15th, 2014, 11:12 pm

bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 11:15:30 AM wrote:
Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.
There's nothing holding you back using only 2 - 5 - 8 ratings, no?

Personally I don't have any trouble rating films, or ranking them. Like others have said, you just have to find the right amount of buckets to sort them. I like the 1-10 system best, I could probably handle a 1-100 system but for now it doesn't feel all that necessary.

Edit: contrary to the Dutch system, in Belgium you can have 0/10. I miss that on IMDb.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30595
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#43

Post by mightysparks » April 16th, 2014, 1:09 am

jvv on Apr 15 2014, 12:51:46 PM wrote:My problem is more that my feelings towards a movie fluctuate.

Depending on my mood one day I prefer movie A over B and the next day I prefer movie B over A.

This makes making ranked lists very hard, since every time I look a them I want to change the order.
I do as well. My rankings are always very loose and I try to go over them every now and then just to make sure they reflect how I currently feel. And with ratings; f you saw my ratings for my ranked list of favourites, you'd wonder wtf was going on. Some 7s are ranked above 8s or 9s, or 9s ranked above 10s etc. Coz the rating doesn't necessarily reflect how much I love the film, but a mixture of things (still to do with me loving the film, but it's more how I love the film rather than just loving it) and it also only applies to the last viewing of the film I had. If I rated a film a 10 ten years ago but I don't associate any warm fuzzy feelings with it, I'm going to rank it lower now but not change the rating until I see it again. So, some 7s I actually like more than 9s, which is why I always say to not pay much attention to my ratings because you really won't get as much information from them as I do.

The biggest problem I have with ratings is comprehending other people's use of the numbers because what my numbers mean to me are just ingrained in my head. It's always an automatic gut feeling, not a calculation, but when other people will be like '6 is ok', but then really mean 'I didn't like this film' and then say 'it's the equivalent of mightysparks's 4/10' I'm just like wut.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11696
Joined: May 29, 2011
Contact:

#44

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi » April 16th, 2014, 1:24 am

Wasn't this thread in The Film Lounge? Why was it purged of posts apparently deemed superfluous and moved to this location?

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30595
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#45

Post by mightysparks » April 16th, 2014, 1:31 am

Coz we're trying to steer conversation into threads instead of lounges :P I dunno who moved this one, but since it's a topic that comes up all the time and generates discussion, it might as well have its own thread.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4362
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#46

Post by Dolwphin » April 16th, 2014, 1:40 am

Ratings are fluid for me and changes over time (mostly downward). Currently my numerical ratings mean:
Spoiler: click to toggleShow
10 - beyond words
9 - masterwork
8 - exceptional

7 - very good
6 - better
5 - good

4 - acceptable
3 - insufficient

2 - bad
1 - terrible
Most common ratings for me are 4,5,6.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24713
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#47

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 16th, 2014, 1:42 am

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Apr 15 2014, 07:24:12 PM wrote:Wasn't this thread in The Film Lounge? Why was it purged of posts apparently deemed superfluous and moved to this location?
In what way was it purged? I moved it so the discussion could continue in this thread while other discussions could continue in the lounge. Like mighty said, it's just about letting topics have their own thread rather than having everything stuffed in the lounge. There's no judgment implied on any posts.

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11696
Joined: May 29, 2011
Contact:

#48

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi » April 16th, 2014, 1:45 am

PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 15 2014, 07:42:03 PM wrote:
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Apr 15 2014, 07:24:12 PM wrote:Wasn't this thread in The Film Lounge? Why was it purged of posts apparently deemed superfluous and moved to this location?
In what way was it purged? I moved it so the discussion could continue in this thread while other discussions could continue in the lounge. Like mighty said, it's just about letting topics have their own thread rather than having everything stuffed in the lounge. There's no judgment implied on any posts.
The posts about chakra and orange that Knalds and I were exchanging are gone. In this case, I don't care at all as the posts were totally silly and throwaway in nature, but I was just noticing that they were dumped and that raised my brows a little. Glad to know it wasn't intentional.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24713
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#49

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 16th, 2014, 1:48 am

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Apr 15 2014, 07:45:42 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 15 2014, 07:42:03 PM wrote:
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Apr 15 2014, 07:24:12 PM wrote:Wasn't this thread in The Film Lounge? Why was it purged of posts apparently deemed superfluous and moved to this location?
In what way was it purged? I moved it so the discussion could continue in this thread while other discussions could continue in the lounge. Like mighty said, it's just about letting topics have their own thread rather than having everything stuffed in the lounge. There's no judgment implied on any posts.
The posts about chakra and orange that Knalds and I were exchanging are gone. In this case, I don't care at all as the posts were totally silly and throwaway in nature, but I was just noticing that they were dumped and that raised my brows a little. Glad to know it wasn't intentional.
Oh, they're still in the lounge then. Moving posts is a bit of a tedious manual affair and I had forgotten they were related to this conversation when I moved stuff.

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11696
Joined: May 29, 2011
Contact:

#50

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi » April 16th, 2014, 1:51 am

PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 15 2014, 07:48:06 PM wrote:
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Apr 15 2014, 07:45:42 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 15 2014, 07:42:03 PM wrote:In what way was it purged? I moved it so the discussion could continue in this thread while other discussions could continue in the lounge. Like mighty said, it's just about letting topics have their own thread rather than having everything stuffed in the lounge. There's no judgment implied on any posts.
The posts about chakra and orange that Knalds and I were exchanging are gone. In this case, I don't care at all as the posts were totally silly and throwaway in nature, but I was just noticing that they were dumped and that raised my brows a little. Glad to know it wasn't intentional.
Oh, they're still in the lounge then. Moving posts is a bit of a tedious manual affair and I had forgotten they were related to this conversation when I moved stuff.
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
I scanned the Film Lounge and didn't see it -- and those wacky pictures are hard to miss! I see it there now, but even now when I search the word "chakra" in all posts it doesn't come up. :wacko:

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30595
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#51

Post by mightysparks » April 16th, 2014, 2:05 am

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Apr 15 2014, 07:51:41 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 15 2014, 07:48:06 PM wrote:
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Apr 15 2014, 07:45:42 PM wrote:The posts about chakra and orange that Knalds and I were exchanging are gone. In this case, I don't care at all as the posts were totally silly and throwaway in nature, but I was just noticing that they were dumped and that raised my brows a little. Glad to know it wasn't intentional.
Oh, they're still in the lounge then. Moving posts is a bit of a tedious manual affair and I had forgotten they were related to this conversation when I moved stuff.
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
I scanned the Film Lounge and didn't see it -- and those wacky pictures are hard to miss! I see it there now, but even now when I search the word "chakra" in all posts it doesn't come up. :wacko:
Search is useless. I saw the pictures when I was catching up with threads earlier, so they must still be in The Film Lounge somewhere.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11696
Joined: May 29, 2011
Contact:

#52

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi » April 16th, 2014, 2:21 am

mightysparks on Apr 15 2014, 08:05:49 PM wrote:Search is useless.
I guess so. I've relied on it for my "proof" in the past and been burned. Got to learn not to trust it anymore. :huh:

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4268
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#53

Post by Onderhond » April 16th, 2014, 6:23 am

For me rating all starts with ranking and ranking is actually pretty ease to do. Just use the "alone on an island" or "last film in the world" methods. Can't compare a drama with a gorefest? No worries, just imagine these two films are the last in the world and one has to be destroyed. Then again, I've always been quite good with choices, though you have to accept that there will be a minor difference between doing it today and doing it tomorrow. I've noticed that the difference isn't actually as big as you'd think once you start doing this once a year.

Once the ranking is done you need to find the cut-offs for ratings and distribute your films over the different buckets. Easy peasy.
Last edited by Onderhond on April 16th, 2014, 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31741
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#54

Post by joachimt » April 16th, 2014, 7:25 am

Onderhond on Apr 16 2014, 12:23:20 AM wrote:For me rating all starts with ranking and ranking is actually pretty ease to do. Just use the "alone on an island" or "last film in the world" methods. Can't compare a drama with a gorefest? No worries, just imagine these two films are the last in the world and one has to be destroyed. Then again, I've always been quite good with choices, though you have to accept that there will be a minor difference between doing it today and doing it tomorrow. I've noticed that the difference isn't actually as big as you'd think once you start doing this once a year.

Once the ranking is done you need to find the cut-offs for ratings and distribute your films over the different buckets. Easy peasy.
So you suggest I rank all my 8k+ checks before rating them? That's even more difficult. :(
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4268
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#55

Post by Onderhond » April 16th, 2014, 7:29 am

Well, if you started doing it at the beginning ... :whistling:

Edit: not that I have my near-5k checks all ranked, I do have a yearly top 500 though. Apart from that, after 10 years of rating, the buckets are pretty familiar to me. You have to learn to choose though, that's really the hardest part.
Last edited by Onderhond on April 16th, 2014, 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3776
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

#56

Post by Lammetje » April 16th, 2014, 12:39 pm

Dolwphin on Apr 15 2014, 07:40:53 PM wrote:Ratings are fluid for me and changes over time (mostly downward). Currently my numerical ratings mean:
Spoiler: click to toggleShow
10 - beyond words
9 - masterwork
8 - exceptional

7 - very good
6 - better
5 - good

4 - acceptable
3 - insufficient

2 - bad
1 - terrible
Most common ratings for me are 4,5,6.
So that's why your average rating is so high! This is how I rate movies:
Spoiler: click to toggleShow
10 - divine
9 - mythical
8 - magnificent
7 - superb
6 - brilliant
5 - outstanding
4 - great
3 - excellent
2 - good
1 - bad
tehe
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

Image
OldAle1 wrote:stupid double post bullshit crap shit fuck
More memorable quotesShow
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:Active topics is the devil. Please use the forums and subforums as intended and peruse all the topics nicely sorted by topic, not just the currently popular ones displayed in a jumbled mess.
maxwelldeux wrote:If you asked me to kill my wife and pets OR watch Minions, I'd check the runtime and inquire about sobriety requirements before providing an answer.
flaiky wrote::o :satstunned: :guns: :down: :facepalm: :yucky: :mw_confused: :pinch: :ph43r: :ermm: :sweat: :folded: tehe :cowbow: :think: :finger: :rip:
monty wrote:If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. iCM ain't for sissies.
mightysparks wrote:ARGH. RARGH. RARGH. DIE.
Kowry wrote:Thanks, Art Garfunky.
Rich wrote:*runs*

Noirville
Posts: 648
Joined: Mar 29, 2014
Contact:

#57

Post by Noirville » April 16th, 2014, 8:34 pm

Picking one film over another is child's play when you deem one film significantly better than the other... no matter if the two are completely different in style. Putting a 10/10 rating on a favorite dramatic picture and a 1/10 rating on Grown Ups 2 is easy enough, I suppose.

When it gets to comparing favorites however... I'm sure most will agree that this process of putting one film on top of another in a ranked list gets increasingly difficult as you watch more films. I've reached the point where I can no longer do this... having seen so many wonderful films. All while I'm quite certain most other users here have seen at least 3x to even 10x the staple of films that I have seen! How some people are able to 'accurately' rank films with numbers, or handing in their Top X lists to various polls is beyond me.

I do like browsing through certain lists, but making a list myself is a thing of the past. Just can't do it anymore. An unranked list of favorites is the most I could do, but even that wouldn't be completely satisfactory. With a favorite being 'two thumbs up'.

The same applies to other forms of art... especially music. I couldn't put a number on a song, except maybe when I recognize a 4/4 beat. :turned:

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4362
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#58

Post by Dolwphin » April 17th, 2014, 3:13 am

Lammetje on Apr 16 2014, 06:39:36 AM wrote:
Dolwphin on Apr 15 2014, 07:40:53 PM wrote:Ratings are fluid for me and changes over time (mostly downward). Currently my numerical ratings mean:
Spoiler: click to toggleShow
10 - beyond words
9 - masterwork
8 - exceptional

7 - very good
6 - better
5 - good

4 - acceptable
3 - insufficient

2 - bad
1 - terrible
Most common ratings for me are 4,5,6.
So that's why your average rating is so high! This is how I rate movies:
Spoiler: click to toggleShow
10 - divine
9 - mythical
8 - magnificent
7 - superb
6 - brilliant
5 - outstanding
4 - great
3 - excellent
2 - good
1 - bad
tehe
I guess so. :o
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
serri
Posts: 2311
Joined: May 30, 2011
Contact:

#59

Post by serri » April 17th, 2014, 3:47 am

10 - excellent
9 - great
X - walk-out
1 - was held captive throughout

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7611
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#60

Post by xianjiro » May 4th, 2017, 10:24 pm

So today I had the distinct :angry: of watching V/H/S and then had to rate it. Thought it an excellent example to use in our ongoing discussions about rating films (for those who do). Giving it a :down: on iCM was a no brainer. I really disliked this film.

Assigning a number on IMDb has proven more difficult. As mentioned before, I start with 7 and move up or down depending on what I see to be a movie's flaws and strengths. Any other movie and there'd be no issue - constant shaky camera and video glitches/artifacts - bam, there goes a star. Two hours worth of this crap, make that two. Annoying characters I want to see brutally killed - take another star. Dumb concept - ooops! here's the rub!

That's the entire point of V/H/S - well, that and the horror stuff. So for rating on IMDb I try to avoid just my gut reaction (what'dya mean there are no negatives :verymad: ) and ask questions like: How was the acting? Did the camerawork support the goal of the film? How was set design? Do the filmmakers 'reach' their intended audience? etc.

When I approach it in this fashion, it seems pretty clear V/H/S isn't a 2 or 3 star flick just because I didn't enjoy the experience. Given what it is, it seemed decently crafted. Sure, some of the acting was over the top - could that have been the point? Don't even expect the actors had to learn lines - seemed pretty improved to me. Again, that seems to be the idea behind the movie - to make it 'feel' like we're watching someone else's home movies and something really horrible happens.

So it's a bit of struggle between 5 and 6 stars for me. While I normally don't mention my decimals, as another has said, it's about rounding. So really I'm asking is this film more of 5 or 6. If I go with 5.5, that rounds up to 6 so I ask myself which I'm more comfortable with. I hate giving it 6 stars but don't really feel it was that poorly executed to deserve 5.

And no, I don't really compare V/H/S with Citizen Kane when I'm thinking about ratings. I've watched/rated way too much to say 'Hmmm, I think this falls right between White Comanche and The Hitcher.' (just two titles I pulled off my spreadsheet that I also gave 5 and 6 stars respectively)

The one thing though that always gives me pause is the year thing. Don't have a great example of it yet, but let's take a great silent like M and compare it to Magnolia - both films I've assigned 9 stars. And yet, I'd have no trouble saying Magnolia is a better piece of work. Now some of that might be explained away with 'M is really an 8.51 and Magnolia is a 9.whatever', but I don't actually record decimals in my spreadsheet, so I've no idea what I really thought about each film way back when. Instead my effort is to 'grade' each film independently; I don't seek to rank them (at least not until I compiled my list of favourites).

Is it even fair to compare a modern film with something released a century ago? Probably not since it's quite clear they didn't have all the technology we have, especially today, let alone in the next decade. But does it make any sense to give the best actuality ever made - and don't ask me what that might be, I've no idea - 10 stars? Probably not. And while an actuality from 1900 can't be judged on story, camerawork, and acting the same way we might critique M, I have no trouble asking questions like: Was it interesting? How was it framed? Did something happen? I'd be pretty hard pressed to give an actuality anything over 7 stars for just this reason. For example Hindenburg Disaster Newsreel Footage got 7 stars. Yes, the immediacy of the footage pulls me towards an 8, but there just isn't anything else to support that and two things actively work against the film: the closing narration is vapid, especially given the march of time, and the footage lacks the actual explosion. Memorable? Quite, but not really a complete, resounding success.

So for the binary and ternary raters, yeah, it might seem tortured, but it's the system I've worked with for well over a decade. And no, it doesn't bother me that someone else is using the "10s for films I like, 1s for those I don't" system. It all works out in the math in the end.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4268
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#61

Post by Onderhond » May 4th, 2017, 11:29 pm

I'm a horror fan and I hated it, so it didn't reach its audience :p

User avatar
nimimerkillinen
Posts: 2315
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

#62

Post by nimimerkillinen » May 5th, 2017, 7:16 am

for me

10 Near perfect or Perfect
9 Awesome
8 Great
7 Really Good
6 Good
5 Pretty Good
4 Decent!
3 There is enough something
2 There is something (kind of enough)
1 Not enough anything
Last edited by nimimerkillinen on May 5th, 2017, 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 4023
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#63

Post by Fergenaprido » May 5th, 2017, 8:42 am

xianjiro on May 4 2017, 04:24:26 PM wrote:So today I had the distinct :angry: of watching V/H/S and then had to rate it. Thought it an excellent example to use in our ongoing discussions about rating films (for those who do). Giving it a :down: on iCM was a no brainer. I really disliked this film.

Assigning a number on IMDb has proven more difficult. As mentioned before, I start with 7 and move up or down depending on what I see to be a movie's flaws and strengths. Any other movie and there'd be no issue - constant shaky camera and video glitches/artifacts - bam, there goes a star. Two hours worth of this crap, make that two. Annoying characters I want to see brutally killed - take another star. Dumb concept - ooops! here's the rub!

That's the entire point of V/H/S - well, that and the horror stuff. So for rating on IMDb I try to avoid just my gut reaction (what'dya mean there are no negatives :verymad: ) and ask questions like: How was the acting? Did the camerawork support the goal of the film? How was set design? Do the filmmakers 'reach' their intended audience? etc.

When I approach it in this fashion, it seems pretty clear V/H/S isn't a 2 or 3 star flick just because I didn't enjoy the experience. Given what it is, it seemed decently crafted. Sure, some of the acting was over the top - could that have been the point? Don't even expect the actors had to learn lines - seemed pretty improved to me. Again, that seems to be the idea behind the movie - to make it 'feel' like we're watching someone else's home movies and something really horrible happens.

So it's a bit of struggle between 5 and 6 stars for me. While I normally don't mention my decimals, as another has said, it's about rounding. So really I'm asking is this film more of 5 or 6. If I go with 5.5, that rounds up to 6 so I ask myself which I'm more comfortable with. I hate giving it 6 stars but don't really feel it was that poorly executed to deserve 5.
Try thinking it this way: You're aware of what the film was intending to do, with the intentional bad acting, shaky cam, etc. If the purpose was "to make it 'feel' like we're watching someone else's home movies and something really horrible happens" then you can evaluate did you actually feel like that. When I rate films, I do it less of "how good was the camera work" and more of "how effective was the camera work used so that I enjoyed the film". If a film was technically great (for example, for me, 2001: A Space Odyssey), but it failed to connect with me or I didn't enjoy it, I won't rate it high just because it was well executed. Likewise if a film is technically terrible but you still enjoyed it (I think this is why people like The Room?), then you wouldn't rate it low just because it was low budget as well (i.e. so bad it was good).

I hope that makes sense/helps.
My rating systemShow
Basic version (I use decimals and rate 5 different aspects of a film and take the average)
10 = perfect
9 = excellent
8 = great
7 = good
6 = average
5 = acceptable
4 = flawed
3 = boring
2 = terrible
1 = horrid

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7611
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#64

Post by xianjiro » May 5th, 2017, 9:38 am

it does.

And I was trying to offer an alternative view to the simpler "I liked it" or "I didn't like it".

Connecting with the film is still important and an absolute requirement to get that 10th star. It seems pretty clear that most raters are in touch with the personal connect/disconnect part, but some might also think about the technical aspects rather than giving 2001 2 stars because "it just sucked".

But since IMDb doesn't offer guidance on assigning stars, your system, his system, her system, my system - they're all valid in my book though I might appreciate one more than another.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7611
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#65

Post by xianjiro » June 21st, 2020, 6:06 pm

So, totally unrelated ostensibly BUT if we want to talk about ratings it's interesting to see what happens elsewhere and clearly not only movies are rated. Forbes (of all outlets) is running a story ‘The Last Of Us Part 2’ Is Getting Predictably User Score Bombed On Metacritic
The Last of Us Part 2 has only been out for a few hours, and yet there’s already a war raging over on Metacritic. The game is the newest battleground for user score bombing of a major release, where it has a 3.4/10 score as opposed to its 9.5/10 critical consensus which puts it as one of the top reviewed games of the generation.

...

For some context, The Last of Us Part 2 has been out for exactly seven and a half hours in the US. In some regions like Australia, it debuted late yesterday. But it’s a 25-30 hour game, so unless people are doing blitzing speed runs and then immediately going to Metacritic to post angry 0/10 reviews, these scores are made up of people who are either only a few hours into the game, or more than likely, have not purchased or played the game at all yet.
Hmmm, where else have we seen this play out? IMDb anyone? TV show (not episode) ratings?

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 11870
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#66

Post by Armoreska » June 21st, 2020, 6:11 pm

It's fine to rate TV shows without watching them whole
Image
currently working towards a vegan/low waste world + thru such film lists (besides TV): 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Luis Bunuel, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4268
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#67

Post by Onderhond » June 21st, 2020, 6:47 pm

It's silly behavior, on the other hand those ridiculous critics ratings really play into it too.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1633
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#68

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » June 21st, 2020, 7:09 pm

My approach:

10 - A film to cherish
09 - Exceptional
08 - Very good
07 - Good
06 - Fair to middling
05 - Average
04 - Unmemorable to poor
03 - Poor
02 - Awful
01 - The pits
That's all, folks!

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4528
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#69

Post by OldAle1 » June 21st, 2020, 7:18 pm

horseshit

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7611
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#70

Post by xianjiro » June 21st, 2020, 7:21 pm

Onderhond wrote:
June 21st, 2020, 6:47 pm
It's silly behavior, on the other hand those ridiculous critics ratings really play into it too.
Guess the one thing I 'don't get' is why these sites that are algorithmically based don't do something to add bombing protection to their algorithm. For instance, embargo ratings for a period of time or ignore single-rating users. Certainly these would be my approaches on IMDb - I have never used Metacritic (though I've viewed pages on their site on occasion) but it would seem to be similar though I believe IMDb has made it slightly more difficult to sign up for a new account than the article lead me to believe Metacritic is doing.

Onderhund, do you have any other ideas - seems like this is more up your alley? (computers, algorithms, etc - not necessarily the game or Metacritic)

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7611
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#71

Post by xianjiro » June 21st, 2020, 7:22 pm

OldAle1 wrote:
June 21st, 2020, 7:18 pm
horseshit
some context would be helpful - I don't believe this was posted in regards to Roger's rating system, but then again ...

:cheers:

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4528
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#72

Post by OldAle1 » June 21st, 2020, 8:21 pm

xianjiro wrote:
June 21st, 2020, 7:22 pm
OldAle1 wrote:
June 21st, 2020, 7:18 pm
horseshit
some context would be helpful - I don't believe this was posted in regards to Roger's rating system, but then again ...

:cheers:
No, Roger's explanations are as good as anybody's, and not far from my own. I just feel more and more all the time that they are a useless metric - that, in fact, metrics of any kind are useless in discussing art, which cannot be measured. Sure, I rate things myself, because I got used to it on IMDb - before I started using that site in 2005 I did keep track of what I saw but only assigned ratings to the very best and very worst things, weird maybe but that was it. And I didn't take it that seriously, and still don't - my favorites list doesn't hold all the films I've rated 10, has quite a few I rated 9, several 8s, a 7 or two, and a couple of 1s. The value of ratings really to me is a mental shorthand - if I"m looking at a list of a bunch of films noir for example with very similar titles, and I really can't remember offhand which ones I thought were really good, then the rating might help. Or all those Ozu films with similar titles. That kind of thing. But I don't really value other peoples' ratings at all, apart from those of a very, very few critics or individuals with whom my taste jibes often - Rosenbaum, maybe a couple of people on this site. Most of the other critics I like don't use, or at least don't publish ratings. Certainly I find RT and Metacritic virtually worthless; is it likely that a 90% score is probably something I"ll like more than a 10? Sure, but it means no more than what I can usually glean from a description, one or two short reviews, a trailer, or even sometimes the fucking poster or title of the film. And "professional" ratings are so often skewed by marketing-advertising concerns these days - so often shills, or deliberate contrarians - and ratings on sites like IMDb are often heavily trolled; the effort it takes to parse any of this with any level of accuracy is much more than the effort to look up what some human being I trust might've said about the film in question (if possible).

I think we'd all be better off if ratings never had been invented, and we all had to use words, though even those are fairly useless when all you're getting is "it was awesome" or "it was crap". Very short answer: my own numbers meet a very little bit to me, other peoples' numbers mean practically nothing.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4268
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#73

Post by Onderhond » June 21st, 2020, 8:30 pm

xianjiro wrote:
June 21st, 2020, 7:21 pm
Guess the one thing I 'don't get' is why these sites that are algorithmically based don't do something to add bombing protection to their algorithm. For instance, embargo ratings for a period of time or ignore single-rating users. Certainly these would be my approaches on IMDb - I have never used Metacritic (though I've viewed pages on their site on occasion) but it would seem to be similar though I believe IMDb has made it slightly more difficult to sign up for a new account than the article lead me to believe Metacritic is doing.

Onderhund, do you have any other ideas - seems like this is more up your alley? (computers, algorithms, etc - not necessarily the game or Metacritic)
You can't become a big voting platform if you don't take "silent votes" into account, or require an X number of votes to be counted. These sites care more about user counts then they do about situations like these I think. While some measures can be taken, it's actually quite difficult to filter out bad actors I think.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7611
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#74

Post by xianjiro » June 22nd, 2020, 12:04 am

ratings seem like a shorthand to me - I wonder if we've just been trained to use them over so many years or if it's a desire that comes 'naturally'. Clearly a lot of people have more trouble writing more than a couple sentences for comments let alone a full-blown (if concise) review. Not sure about things like World Cup, but I've been a bit disappointed how little discussion happens on FotW. So if you make it easier - ratings (whichever format), thumbs up/down, etc - then people participate on some level.

The one thing I'd change on Roger's ratings:

06 - Fair to middling
05 - Average :down:

seems backwards to me

06 - Average
05 - Fair to middling :thumbsup:

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30595
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#75

Post by mightysparks » June 22nd, 2020, 12:10 am

I like ratings to keep track of things quantitatively, but I've found since I started writing short 'reviews' on film it's much easier for me to remember them and share them with others. I think ratings are useful, but reviews and comments are more useful. That takes a lot more time and effort though, it can take me 30 minutes to write 100 words :/ so I don't blame people for relying on ratings.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1589
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#76

Post by cinewest » June 22nd, 2020, 5:59 am

Noirville wrote:
April 15th, 2014, 4:37 pm
Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
Excellent, though admittedly I continue to use ratings, if only to keep track of what i have seen, and roughly how much l liked what I saw, which makes referencing them easier.

A 7 is something I quite like, whereas a 6 has some detracting elements, and a 5 is that balance point between "thumbs up and thumbs down."

I give very few 10''s (essential masterpieces, only, so the 8's and 9's are what usually feature among n my year end bests, whereas the 7's might be considered "honorable mentions."

The 9's and 10's I often call top 5's, meaning that they would be among the best movies I might see in any year.

Most of what I see (as a discriminating viewer to begin with) falls in the 7 range (or 6.5 - 8 range), and deciding whether to give them a 6, 7, or 8 isn't always easy, as most films usually fall somewhere between one degree of success and another, and my sense of them could change upon reflection as well as repeat viewings, which is another reason why responding with actual language rather than numbers makes a whole lot more sense, particularly as the filmmakers themselves aren't expressing themselves in numerical terms.

One thing I find very strange is that people seem to feel some god given right to "rate" things (especially someone elses its artistic efforts), but then get indignant when someone challenges their assessment of something. Astounding egocentricity, actually to rate a film like The Godfather a 1, and then become righteously upset when someone challenges a score of somebody else's professional work, as if the right to one's opinion is more sacred than anything, even if it is an ignorant one.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30595
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#77

Post by mightysparks » June 22nd, 2020, 6:37 am

cinewest wrote:
June 22nd, 2020, 5:59 am
One thing I find very strange is that people seem to feel some god given right to "rate" things (especially someone elses its artistic efforts), but then get indignant when someone challenges their assessment of something. Astounding egocentricity, actually to rate a film like The Godfather a 1, and then become righteously upset when someone challenges a score of somebody else's professional work, as if the right to one's opinion is more sacred than anything, even if it is an ignorant one.
I think it's anyone's 'right' to do assess art or anything else however they like, but I think the main reason people get 'upset' is because people are usually only challenged when they dislike something (that is critically acclaimed or otherwise popular) and usually comes with a snidey judgment of the viewer. Giving a 10 to The Godfather? Well, you clearly understand art because this is a definitive masterpiece so I won't even ask you what you got out of it. Giving a 1 to The Godfather? Well, you're clearly scum and should go back to your Michael Bay films and now I want a 2000 word essay on exactly why you think it's acceptable to give this film a 1.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4268
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#78

Post by Onderhond » June 22nd, 2020, 7:17 am

mightysparks wrote:
June 22nd, 2020, 6:37 am
but I think the main reason people get 'upset' is because people are usually only challenged when they dislike something (that is critically acclaimed or otherwise popular) and usually comes with a snidey judgment of the viewer. Giving a 10 to The Godfather? Well, you clearly understand art because this is a definitive masterpiece so I won't even ask you what you got out of it. Giving a 1 to The Godfather? Well, you're clearly scum and should go back to your Michael Bay films and now I want a 2000 word essay on exactly why you think it's acceptable to give this film a 1.
Haha, this times 200.

While I always rate + review, not everyone feels confident enough to put their thoughts and feelings about a film into words. It can be because they aren't native speakers, or simply because they don't feel comfortable writing, or maybe just because they prefer to watch films rather than talk about them. One big problem with film criticism (and discussions in general) is that people are often judged on their debating skills rather than on their actual opinions. Not being able to write well or not being able to properly explain your critique doesn't invalidate it, nor does it invalidate how you feel about a film, but such nuances are often lost as many see debates and discussions as a challenge/game that needs to be won, rather than an exchange of ideas and impressions.

As for the "right to rate", I don't see the problem with commercial art. It may be a bit different if someone wrote a song for his dying wife and a video of that made its way onto YouTube by accident, but the "art" we're talking about has been commercialized by its creator (often by giving the rights to it away to some publisher), so it feels appropriate to judge it accordingly. While I prefer to read impressions rather than see ratings too, I don't see the problem with people rating films, music, games or whatever.
xianjiro wrote:
June 22nd, 2020, 12:04 am
Not sure about things like World Cup, but I've been a bit disappointed how little discussion happens on FotW.
It happens in the challenges too. Maybe it's due to the nature of ICM, maybe it's because few people are watching the same things, but discussion is rather rare.

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1589
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#79

Post by cinewest » June 22nd, 2020, 7:34 am

mightysparks wrote:
June 22nd, 2020, 6:37 am
cinewest wrote:
June 22nd, 2020, 5:59 am
One thing I find very strange is that people seem to feel some god given right to "rate" things (especially someone elses its artistic efforts), but then get indignant when someone challenges their assessment of something. Astounding egocentricity, actually to rate a film like The Godfather a 1, and then become righteously upset when someone challenges a score of somebody else's professional work, as if the right to one's opinion is more sacred than anything, even if it is an ignorant one.
I think it's anyone's 'right' to do assess art or anything else however they like, but I think the main reason people get 'upset' is because people are usually only challenged when they dislike something (that is critically acclaimed or otherwise popular) and usually comes with a snidey judgment of the viewer. Giving a 10 to The Godfather? Well, you clearly understand art because this is a definitive masterpiece so I won't even ask you what you got out of it. Giving a 1 to The Godfather? Well, you're clearly scum and should go back to your Michael Bay films and now I want a 2000 word essay on exactly why you think it's acceptable to give this film a 1.
Actually, people’s ratings are pretty much meaningless to me, unless they are supported by interesting commentary on the film in question.

Once again, engaging an artwork is more than assigning it a number, and a host of ignorant opinions are what beget a President Trump.
Last edited by cinewest on June 22nd, 2020, 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30595
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#80

Post by mightysparks » June 22nd, 2020, 7:53 am

Onderhond wrote:
June 22nd, 2020, 7:17 am
mightysparks wrote:
June 22nd, 2020, 6:37 am
but I think the main reason people get 'upset' is because people are usually only challenged when they dislike something (that is critically acclaimed or otherwise popular) and usually comes with a snidey judgment of the viewer. Giving a 10 to The Godfather? Well, you clearly understand art because this is a definitive masterpiece so I won't even ask you what you got out of it. Giving a 1 to The Godfather? Well, you're clearly scum and should go back to your Michael Bay films and now I want a 2000 word essay on exactly why you think it's acceptable to give this film a 1.
Haha, this times 200.

While I always rate + review, not everyone feels confident enough to put their thoughts and feelings about a film into words. It can be because they aren't native speakers, or simply because they don't feel comfortable writing, or maybe just because they prefer to watch films rather than talk about them. One big problem with film criticism (and discussions in general) is that people are often judged on their debating skills rather than on their actual opinions. Not being able to write well or not being able to properly explain your critique doesn't invalidate it, nor does it invalidate how you feel about a film, but such nuances are often lost as many see debates and discussions as a challenge/game that needs to be won, rather than an exchange of ideas and impressions.
Yeah, I don't feel very confident in my writing skills (which is why I'm doing a Masters in Writing lol), and I find it very difficult to put my feelings into words. I take notes when I watch stuff and then I just write them up into sentences and that gets me by for now but I do wish I could expand a little and engage more in discussion. And I completely agree with the 'problem' with film criticism. I think opinions do become more meaningful when we can explain them (at least to some degree) but I often find film writing to just be people using a lot of fancy words and language and come away from their criticism thinking 'so what? I learnt nothing about you and your experience with this film', which is why I don't really pay attention to film critics and reviews.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

Post Reply