Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: Iberian (Results), Musicals (Dec 15th), 1952 awards (Dec 21st), 2006 (Dec 23rd), Directors (Dec 31st)
Challenges: Forum Lists, Documentary, Canada
World Cup: Round 2 schedule, Match 2H (Dec 16th), R3 preparation (Dec 30th)
Film of the Week: Il pianeta azzurro

New Official List Discussion

Post Reply
mathiasa
Posts: 2044
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

Re: New Official List Discussion

#3721

Post by mathiasa » December 6th, 2018, 7:41 pm

(peaceful, I don't think your last two posts warrant a response.)

I've made my point that this decision violates the guidelines. In the last few days, no one corrected my understanding of the guidelines or showed how the decision is compatible with them. I leave it at that.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3722

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » December 6th, 2018, 8:09 pm

You've written a whole lot, can you point me to your understanding of the guidelines? Fundamentally our guidelines are we adopt a list if it has a good source and covers an area we feel enhances the site. We replace a list if a new list covers substantially the same ground as an existing list in a better way.

The new list doesn't explicitly focus on that time period like the old list does, but it de facto has a strong emphasis on it, which means it covers the same ground and reduces the value of explicitly focusing on it. When you have a restriction that doesn't restrict most films it becomes exclusionary rather than serving to highlight a particular niche. The replaced list still has value for it's notability as a list, I'm not saying it's a worthless list, but it's inferior to the new list for exploring Italian cinema and doesn't bring something special to the table to make it distinct. Its distinction is primarily the time restriction which we don't consider to be enough to really bring a different perspective. The only difference with previous replacements is that the replaced list is more notable than past replaced lists, but that just makes the bar for replacement higher it doesn't make a list unreplaceable.

Perhaps the reason you feel my last two posts don't demand a response is that I feel your last few posts have just been an attempt at recontextualizing everything I say into some sort of gotcha (whether it be because I'm not expressing myself well or because you're nitpicking or both I couldn't say), so my posts are not so much making an argument as trying to clarify my perspective.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2041
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#3723

Post by Onderhond » December 6th, 2018, 8:30 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 5:35 pm
Directed by Women lists.
Such a list is just a disaster waiting to happen, no? If you push minority groups, they might actually get the exposure they deserve, in turn eliminating the reason for making the list in the first place. Cue another shit storm when it needs to be scrapped again :p

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 12867
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#3724

Post by brokenface » December 6th, 2018, 8:58 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 4:37 pm
Thanks for explaining Darth. The American list was something that surprised me as well. I'm not sure if the BFI list is solely British, though. If I remember correctly from a previous list of theirs, while the institution is British they survey a wide range of people for their lists, including those from outside Britain.
The BFI Screen Guides are not based on polls or anything, they are a series of books commissioned by the BFI written by individual critics.

Funnily enough both the Road Movies and American Independent books are written by the same guy - a British critic called Jason Wood. Has to be said, if they'd been billed as 'Jason Wood' rather than 'BFI' I very much doubt they'd be in remote consideration for adoption...and they are also 10+ years old.

That being said, I think the lists are good and cover ground not covered elsewhere so I'm not against them or the other BFI Screen Guide lists. Just think people should be aware of their sourcing, they are not BFI polls (as opposed to some of the other BFI lists like the LGBT one which are based on big polls)

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3725

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » December 6th, 2018, 9:07 pm

brokenface wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 8:58 pm
Has to be said, if they'd been billed as Actual source and selection method rather than Big name and/or subject matter of interest I very much doubt they'd be in remote consideration for adoption.
I think that about covers most things in the poll.

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#3726

Post by Ebbywebby » December 6th, 2018, 11:00 pm

tommy_leazaq wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 1:34 pm
I guess one of the main reasons for the Italian list getting the axe is because of its name. "One hundred and one film. One Country" seems to give us the taste of the best of Italy. But when we realize its only for the 35 years or so period, it looks bad. Had the name be something more narrowed like " The Golden Age of Italian cinema" or "Italian New Wave" or something else, I guess it would have stayed through. Now its like French New Wave list is getting replaced by 100 greatest French films of all time.
Me, I can't figure out why no one ever added an "s" to "one hundred film."

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10797
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3727

Post by mjf314 » December 7th, 2018, 1:38 am

In the 100+1 list description, they explain why they excluded recent films. The list was made for young people, who often don't watch older films. Also one of their goals was to improve the availability of older films.

Let's not confuse the two issues. "Is it a good list?" and "Should it be official?" are two different questions. As Peaceful said earlier, we want to avoid having too many similar official lists, so we chose 2 of the 3 that we think are the best choices for official lists, a smaller introductory list and a larger list. It doesn't mean that the 100+1 list isn't good. If you like the list then continue working on it. It'll still be on iCM. We can adopt a 3rd Italian list if the focus is sufficiently different from the other two, for example a giallo list.

I think these Korean lists are a good analogy:
- A list published in 2006, which focuses on the period 1936-1996, created by a committee.
- A list published in 2014, the best Korean films of all time, voted by 62 experts.

They're from the same source, but the new list was NOT an update of the old list. We still replaced it, because we felt that the new list was a better representation of Korean cinema, and we thought 3 official Korean lists would be too many. The new list contains many films from the period 1936-1996, so we felt that 1936-1996 would still be well represented after the replacement.

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 103
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#3728

Post by Darth Nevets » December 7th, 2018, 4:33 am

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 9:07 pm
brokenface wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 8:58 pm
Has to be said, if they'd been billed as Actual source and selection method rather than Big name and/or subject matter of interest I very much doubt they'd be in remote consideration for adoption.
I think that about covers most things in the poll.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

I've maybe never used a smilie but you've cracked me. I don't know what would be worse: that you believe this or that you don't care. Even still you responded but completely mooted the point with derision and deliberate misquoting. At least feel some shame.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3729

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » December 7th, 2018, 5:20 am

Darth Nevets wrote:
December 7th, 2018, 4:33 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 9:07 pm
brokenface wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 8:58 pm
Has to be said, if they'd been billed as Actual source and selection method rather than Big name and/or subject matter of interest I very much doubt they'd be in remote consideration for adoption.
I think that about covers most things in the poll.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

I've maybe never used a smilie but you've cracked me. I don't know what would be worse: that you believe this or that you don't care. Even still you responded but completely mooted the point with derision and deliberate misquoting. At least feel some shame.
That's not derision, it's agreement and acknowledgement that the problem is more widespread than just those lists. I bolded what I changed, it's not "deliberate misquoting."

I absolutely care. I am not happy about it. Those are the lists people want. I've argued against some of it both privately and publicly. When I see the Cannes second place list getting the most support it's clear that people care more about the fact it's Cannes than the fact that it's second place out of a small list of films pre-selected on reputation, chosen by an in-group committee. Those two lists got plenty of support too. At some point I have to accept, to some degree, that these are the things the userbase cares about. That doesn't mean ignore the source or anything goes, but it means my own opinion of what's notable needs to be readjusted, especially in the context of being a mod. At some point for some lists I accept that they're good enough in the context of the site and what users are interested in.

If you want a response to those specific lists, yeah they still would be adopted even if they weren't BFI tagged, if they were still billed as 100 Road Movies and 100 American Indies by film critic and film professor Jason Wood. Is Jason Wood any worse than the source for the Samurai list or the Comedy list or the Fantasy list? Maybe the popular demand wouldn't be there for those subgenres without the BFI tag and we wouldn't have prioritized those lists without it, but by our current criteria they'd still be considered adoptable and if the BFI tag makes them a priority because it makes people care about them, then so it goes.

Now if you want to argue that our current criteria are bad or biased then that's big long argument that I'm not currently up for but would be glad to have at a different time. I haven't read all your posts so I'm not fully clear on where you personally stand but I've written plenty about how I approach lists an adoptions over the years and if you're reading my posts just in the last few days and drawing conclusions from that you're probably missing quite a bit of context about both my approach as a mod and my own personal ideal preferences (which are not the same thing). Not that I don't stand by what I've written these last few days, but I feel you may not be giving me the benefit of the doubt and assuming a bunch of things based on your own perspective.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10797
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3730

Post by mjf314 » December 7th, 2018, 5:29 am

brokenface wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 8:58 pm
Just think people should be aware of their sourcing, they are not BFI polls (as opposed to some of the other BFI lists like the LGBT one which are based on big polls)
I think most people know which lists are from books. I put that information on the ballot.
Other book lists did well too, for example 100 Historical Film Masterpieces and 100 Gangster movies.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3731

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » December 7th, 2018, 5:30 am

Darth Nevets wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:03 pm
As diplomatically as possible its fair to say the opaqueness of the process (voting by ranking by unordered excel sheets, the nature of the minority ultra userbase willing to struggle through that skewing results, tabulations kept private, the nature of lists adopted, the possibly political tampering of votes, the "interpretation" of results in private) is bad in general.
This isn't diplomatic at all, by the way. If you want a response to any of this make your concerns explicit and I'll try to address them. I won't deny the process is imperfect, but your list there is a mix of valid concerns and ludicrous accusations and I don't know what kind of response you expect with a post like this. Also if you have explicit suggestions on how we should do a poll in the future I'd love to hear them (no sarcasm, I don't think any of us are happy with the process)

If you're wondering why I'm responding to this now, it's because I only skimmed over this post before, but in the context of that last reply I went back to see what you'd posted for context so I can understand where you're coming from.
Darth Nevets wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:03 pm
These are the questions that should be asked in order of importance, and would improve the site for the people outside us ultras.
1. Are people seeing movies on this list without encouragement, especially the non-checks.
2. Is the subject matter something that needs addressing (urgently) on ICM (Anime was a big yes, Road movies a no, does Luxembourg need a top 1000 list).
3. Does the list appropriately address the need, does it have too few or too many choices. (100 martial arts films is good, but not 100 action movies logically).
4. Is the source a great expert on this subject (I'm looking at you BFI lists of American films -- we don't have enough checks in the USA on icm yet)
5. If a list is a replacement for a bad list, ensure the new one is better. If the Livejournal Russian list needs to die, say so outright and don't worry about an immediate replacement (one will be ferreted out eventually).
We don't really do #1. I don't know that we should, at least in the way you consider appropriate (from reading your other post) but perhaps more than we currently do.
The rest though we absolutely do do in roughly that order. I think the blog posts for every adoption should make that clear. Perhaps we should communicate it better. But I suspect the real disagreement in those criteria isn't the criteria, it's the conclusions about what needs addressing, what is too few or too many, what is a good enough source and what merits replacement.

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 103
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#3732

Post by Darth Nevets » December 7th, 2018, 7:33 am

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 7th, 2018, 5:20 am
Darth Nevets wrote:
December 7th, 2018, 4:33 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 9:07 pm
I think that about covers most things in the poll.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

I've maybe never used a smilie but you've cracked me. I don't know what would be worse: that you believe this or that you don't care. Even still you responded but completely mooted the point with derision and deliberate misquoting. At least feel some shame.
That's not derision, it's agreement and acknowledgement that the problem is more widespread than just those lists. I bolded what I changed, it's not "deliberate misquoting."

I absolutely care. I am not happy about it. Those are the lists people want. I've argued against some of it both privately and publicly. When I see the Cannes second place list getting the most support it's clear that people care more about the fact it's Cannes than the fact that it's second place out of a small list of films pre-selected on reputation, chosen by an in-group committee. Those two lists got plenty of support too. At some point I have to accept, to some degree, that these are the things the userbase cares about. That doesn't mean ignore the source or anything goes, but it means my own opinion of what's notable needs to be readjusted, especially in the context of being a mod. At some point for some lists I accept that they're good enough in the context of the site and what users are interested in.

If you want a response to those specific lists, yeah they still would be adopted even if they weren't BFI tagged, if they were still billed as 100 Road Movies and 100 American Indies by film critic and film professor Jason Wood. Is Jason Wood any worse than the source for the Samurai list or the Comedy list or the Fantasy list? Maybe the popular demand wouldn't be there for those subgenres without the BFI tag and we wouldn't have prioritized those lists without it, but by our current criteria they'd still be considered adoptable and if the BFI tag makes them a priority because it makes people care about them, then so it goes.

Now if you want to argue that our current criteria are bad or biased then that's big long argument that I'm not currently up for but would be glad to have at a different time. I haven't read all your posts so I'm not fully clear on where you personally stand but I've written plenty about how I approach lists an adoptions over the years and if you're reading my posts just in the last few days and drawing conclusions from that you're probably missing quite a bit of context about both my approach as a mod and my own personal ideal preferences (which are not the same thing). Not that I don't stand by what I've written these last few days, but I feel you may not be giving me the benefit of the doubt and assuming a bunch of things based on your own perspective.
Okay I'll start with the Cannes GP and how it differentiates from these "BFI lists." The Cannes Film festival only awards films submitted in competition, that screen at the festival. The organizers appoint a jury, often slanted towards star power, that then distributes awards with often a disavowance of sense (awarding performers for best picture even). This award can seem like a huge deal until you realize its an also-run, second place trophy. These are all arguments one might have against the list's adoption.

However people generally know this stuff, and they feel the importance anyhow. They feel when voting that these movies are important, and the process is more than adequate. Many of these films are classics, or hidden gems that an inexperienced, but rich in talent, group selected. There can be no argument that the film's are the definite recipient of accolades from the festivals' judges.

Now to the BFI issue. In these parts (a heavilly European skewed both culturally and geographically market) the BFI is a source of sainthood. Given the multilingual nature of the continent, and the decline of French as the language of international diplomacy, what we have is a source of hegemony in my estimation. I first noted the problem when the mods broached the subject of an anime list some time back. As a nerd on the subject I had to fight against their list which was unbelievably poor, and probably only got dropped due to the list being largely based on tv series. At the time I chalked it up to ignorance (how many mods watched the borderline plotless rapesploitation series Violence Jack?) but it got worse the next round.

At that point and time the horribly sourced but very competent IMDB forum Western List was up for replacement. It was blissfully apparent the BFI authors (I later learned it was one person just picking their faves only increasing my objection) had a narrow and selective view of the genre. It completely ignored the western revival of the late 80s/early 90s in favor of four classics that no one could argue against (and were probably the only one's the author watched). The new western phase (including Australia with the Proposition and now throughout Scandinavia and Asia) gets one nod. The nostalgia piece Open Range gets the only spot of the millennium. I joked that certain years (roughly 1/4 of the pictures are from a five year span) the author watched more movies than others due to the insane distribution. Noting not one movie from 1940-45 made the list I made a jab suggesting nothing could have been happening in Britain that affected cinema viewing in those years. It was to no avail.

Now I do feel that solely due to the lists being labeled BFI they got their votes. Around these parts it can get ridiculous. I've heard grumblings about the 4 AFI genre lists, and I can see why that might bother some people, but then nothing but praise for the BBC's Greatest American Films. Lets be real, the BFI is far more respected to the point of madness. If we replaced the B with an A people would be rioting against these lists, if we noted they were just one author's cashgrab book with a classy branding it would fall off a cliff. Timeout's teen list as I have mentioned completely fulfilled my five criteria (okay number 5 doesn't qualify) and effectively would solidly cover the subgenre for the foreseeable future. Nothing needs to cover road movies for instance, because thats barely a thing. Experts didn't whittle down a list and debate the meaning of this genre, by the end the author ran out of oxygen to his brain and threw down anything on paper to call it a day. Wages of Fear, sure they drive through mud. Journey to Italy, well travelogues count now apparently. Raising Arizona, well there was a car chase and a guy traveling by motorcycle intermittently. Mad Max 2, right in the subtitle why not. Lost in America, well the prequel might've been a road movie. Wizard of Oz, Wild Strawberries well those are great lets call it a day.

The book question is a tough one, damn that comedy list needs some work but frankly the genre is too wide for such a narrow list, but if it is written by an uberfan it is entirely possible they know enough to give a sufficient overview. In that case the user, now that the source is unknown, would have only the list itself to judge.

Now on to the point of the process that's much tougher, because right now its clearly too narrow with little participation. We need a process that gets people involved, instead of getting what the involved people want in a sense. People on here openly want five lists per country, okay maybe just one, but on the actual website virtually all of the "hardest" lists on Maxwelldeux's posts are country lists and its not because there are overwhelming numbers or lost films, but because most people don't care.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2041
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#3733

Post by Onderhond » December 7th, 2018, 8:08 am

Darth Nevets wrote:
December 7th, 2018, 7:33 am
I first noted the problem when the mods broached the subject of an anime list some time back. As a nerd on the subject I had to fight against their list which was unbelievably poor, and probably only got dropped due to the list being largely based on tv series. At the time I chalked it up to ignorance (how many mods watched the borderline plotless rapesploitation series Violence Jack?) but it got worse the next round.
I guess this is a remark in favor of the current adoption process though? The one that got adopted (Paste anime list) is one of the most quality lists on anime I've ever seen.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10797
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3734

Post by mjf314 » December 7th, 2018, 8:57 am

We always knew that the BFI anime list wasn't very good. Before the Paste list was published, I suggested adopting the MAL list (with non-standalone films removed), because it had better average quality, but people didn't like the idea of modifying the original list. When the Paste list was published, we were happy with both the quality and the source, so it was adopted quickly. I've seen Violence Jack. It's not the worst anime movie that I've seen, but it's probably in the bottom 20%. I think part 2 was my favorite of the 3.

There was a discussion about which western list to adopt. I posted comparisons and decade breakdowns of 3 lists (BFI, 100 Western Masterpieces, and Paste) on the forum. Not many people commented, but the few people who did comment seemed to think BFI was the best choice of the 3.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3735

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » December 7th, 2018, 9:03 am

Darth Nevets wrote:
December 7th, 2018, 7:33 am
Okay I'll start with the Cannes GP and how it differentiates from these "BFI lists." The Cannes Film festival only awards films submitted in competition, that screen at the festival. The organizers appoint a jury, often slanted towards star power, that then distributes awards with often a disavowance of sense (awarding performers for best picture even). This award can seem like a huge deal until you realize its an also-run, second place trophy. These are all arguments one might have against the list's adoption.

However people generally know this stuff, and they feel the importance anyhow. They feel when voting that these movies are important, and the process is more than adequate. Many of these films are classics, or hidden gems that an inexperienced, but rich in talent, group selected. There can be no argument that the film's are the definite recipient of accolades from the festivals' judges.

Now to the BFI issue. In these parts (a heavilly European skewed both culturally and geographically market) the BFI is a source of sainthood. Given the multilingual nature of the continent, and the decline of French as the language of international diplomacy, what we have is a source of hegemony in my estimation. I first noted the problem when the mods broached the subject of an anime list some time back. As a nerd on the subject I had to fight against their list which was unbelievably poor, and probably only got dropped due to the list being largely based on tv series. At the time I chalked it up to ignorance (how many mods watched the borderline plotless rapesploitation series Violence Jack?) but it got worse the next round.

At that point and time the horribly sourced but very competent IMDB forum Western List was up for replacement. It was blissfully apparent the BFI authors (I later learned it was one person just picking their faves only increasing my objection) had a narrow and selective view of the genre. It completely ignored the western revival of the late 80s/early 90s in favor of four classics that no one could argue against (and were probably the only one's the author watched). The new western phase (including Australia with the Proposition and now throughout Scandinavia and Asia) gets one nod. The nostalgia piece Open Range gets the only spot of the millennium. I joked that certain years (roughly 1/4 of the pictures are from a five year span) the author watched more movies than others due to the insane distribution. Noting not one movie from 1940-45 made the list I made a jab suggesting nothing could have been happening in Britain that affected cinema viewing in those years. It was to no avail.

Now I do feel that solely due to the lists being labeled BFI they got their votes. Around these parts it can get ridiculous. I've heard grumblings about the 4 AFI genre lists, and I can see why that might bother some people, but then nothing but praise for the BBC's Greatest American Films. Lets be real, the BFI is far more respected to the point of madness. If we replaced the B with an A people would be rioting against these lists, if we noted they were just one author's cashgrab book with a classy branding it would fall off a cliff. Timeout's teen list as I have mentioned completely fulfilled my five criteria (okay number 5 doesn't qualify) and effectively would solidly cover the subgenre for the foreseeable future. Nothing needs to cover road movies for instance, because thats barely a thing. Experts didn't whittle down a list and debate the meaning of this genre, by the end the author ran out of oxygen to his brain and threw down anything on paper to call it a day. Wages of Fear, sure they drive through mud. Journey to Italy, well travelogues count now apparently. Raising Arizona, well there was a car chase and a guy traveling by motorcycle intermittently. Mad Max 2, right in the subtitle why not. Lost in America, well the prequel might've been a road movie. Wizard of Oz, Wild Strawberries well those are great lets call it a day.

The book question is a tough one, damn that comedy list needs some work but frankly the genre is too wide for such a narrow list, but if it is written by an uberfan it is entirely possible they know enough to give a sufficient overview. In that case the user, now that the source is unknown, would have only the list itself to judge.

Now on to the point of the process that's much tougher, because right now its clearly too narrow with little participation. We need a process that gets people involved, instead of getting what the involved people want in a sense. People on here openly want five lists per country, okay maybe just one, but on the actual website virtually all of the "hardest" lists on Maxwelldeux's posts are country lists and its not because there are overwhelming numbers or lost films, but because most people don't care.
I think you overstate some things and understate some others, but in broad strokes I don't disagree with you. The BFI lists have flaws and their reputation is overinflated by the BFI branding. I don't think we, as mods, have the kind of reverence towards the BFI that you're talking about, but certainly the branding plays a role in pushing the lists over the tipping point for users and as a consequence for us. I agree it's not the same thing as Cannes, they are different issues with different contexts, but the underlying reality that reputation has a big influence on how people perceive lists is true. Before the poll I would not have agreed to adopt any of them. Not because they're bad, they pass our baseline for what is acceptable for an official list, but because without the name attached they aren't that special (in Cannes case) or a particularly urgent niche to be filled (the BFI lists). But the branding is there and the branding means something to users and that pushes acceptable but otherwise not so remarkable lists to the forefront. There's only so much we can do to push back against that before we become the ivory tower self centered gatekeepers some accuse us of being.

That said, there's a reason I wrote "Big name and/or subject matter of interest" in that edited post above. "If we replaced the B with an A people would be rioting against these lists, if we noted they were just one author's cashgrab book with a classy branding it would fall off a cliff." I don't think that's true. People voted for names, yes, but they also voted for subject matter. People are aware of "Road Movies" and US Indie films. They know these are genres/styles/movements they are interested in, and if there's a list in the poll that covers them then hey sure that's cool. The BFI branding is an extra boost but it isn't the sole reason people voted for them. I think if you put up a sourceless best X list it'd get a fair number of votes just by virtue of X being something the user is interested in. People like seeing things they recognize, and that recognition can take many forms. It's a bit tough for me to be fully fair to this because on the one hand some of the consequences of this annoy me and I personally disagree with some of the outcomes, but at the same time the fundamental principle underlying what makes canon (popular/academic/enthusiast/whatever) is reputation and perceived authority and the reality is that the differences are not of kind, they're of balance. Cannes does have value, BFI branding does have value, finding a list, however imperfect, to cover an underserved area does have value. I may disagree with how the positive value is balanced against the flaws in specific cases, but I do understand the value people are placing on these things and I don't think they're wrong to do so.


Process is always tough because a lot of people do not get involved. We've done different variations of the poll each time. I think the process of voting in this poll (and the last poll) is too cumbersome and not as transparent as it could be. That said, while the specifics (like, even if it requires some coding time from someone, a voting web form rather than email/posting ballots is necessary for next time) can be tweaked, the fundamental issues are much harder to deal with.
We need to get people to nominate stuff.
We need to filter out the bad lists (whether bad because of what they are or bad because they're not of interest) to get a final ballot of manageable size
We need to provide information for voters to make their decisions.

The above process can either be top down, which people will consider draconian, or open (as it has been) which makes it a cumbersome and messy and tiring process by necessity. We can try to find a balance and make some executive decisions to streamline a few things, but fundamentally it comes down to most people don't care enough to get involved. If the process is simple and clear people won't get involved if the kind of lists they want aren't included. If the process is open people won't get involved because it's cumbersome. I have small ideas for tweaks in process to try to find the optimal balance between openness and accessibility and clarity and ease of use, but honestly I don't think I have the kind of solution to really get broad input on the site. We take the feedback we do get and use it as best as we can with the understanding of its flaws, but the ideal is of course to not have those flaws in the first place.

Re: country lists. We do value country lists more than the userbase in general. They do serve to diversify the content and if the source is good, as it is for most of them, then their quality overcomes their lesser popularity. In our discussions we definitely take this into consideration, and have taken a step back in terms of which and how many we adopt.

User avatar
cinephage
Donator
Posts: 3373
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Contact:

#3736

Post by cinephage » December 7th, 2018, 12:36 pm

When I read that depiction of such a wide discrepancy between your personal conceptions of what lists should be official, and what the users actually want, and how you seem to perceive that, I can't help but feel this is a very awkward situation, where a few moderators seem to be in complete disagreement with what the users expect, and only reluctantly, and partially, offer it to them. You seem to be following a purpose here that completely eludes me.

I really don't understand why you should actually be working on making this site unpopular...

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7026
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#3737

Post by Gershwin » December 7th, 2018, 1:32 pm

cinephage wrote:
December 7th, 2018, 12:36 pm
When I read that depiction of such a wide discrepancy between your personal conceptions of what lists should be official, and what the users actually want, and how you seem to perceive that, I can't help but feel this is a very awkward situation, where a few moderators seem to be in complete disagreement with what the users expect, and only reluctantly, and partially, offer it to them. You seem to be following a purpose here that completely eludes me.

I really don't understand why you should actually be working on making this site unpopular...
Is there a huge discrepancy? As far as I can see he’s just somewhat more hesitant to adopt most lists, but doesn’t do anything that’s completely against his ideas.

What would you suggest as an alternative?
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3738

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » December 7th, 2018, 3:42 pm

cinephage wrote:
December 7th, 2018, 12:36 pm
When I read that depiction of such a wide discrepancy between your personal conceptions of what lists should be official, and what the users actually want, and how you seem to perceive that, I can't help but feel this is a very awkward situation, where a few moderators seem to be in complete disagreement with what the users expect, and only reluctantly, and partially, offer it to them. You seem to be following a purpose here that completely eludes me.

I really don't understand why you should actually be working on making this site unpopular...
It's not complete disagreement. If I had to boil it down it's that most users only look at the positives while as mods we have to look at the negatives as well (unless it's a decision they don't like where the roles get reversed). The purpose we're following is trying to make everyone reasonably satisfied because, while we can talk all day about "what the users expect," the users as a whole expect different and contradictory things. For every list there were a meaningful portion of negative votes, not to mention the vast majority of the userbase that didn't vote. Those people are users too that we have to take into account.

Also, if I'm reaponding to a post about the negatives of the process and its imperfections then of course it's going to have negatives. I do believe in the adoptions we've made and think they're good additions, but I also think they're flawed lists and am willing to acknowledge that. The tone in that post doesn't reflect my tone in general, it reflects my skeptical side, and my fruatration is more that the ideal lists don't exist than with users wanting the best that's available, flaws and all.

User avatar
Cocoa
Donator
Posts: 1092
Joined: Jul 17, 2013
Location: Chicago, USA
Contact:

#3739

Post by Cocoa » December 7th, 2018, 6:27 pm

mjf314 wrote:
December 7th, 2018, 1:38 am
I think these Korean lists are a good analogy:
- A list published in 2006, which focuses on the period 1936-1996, created by a committee.
- A list published in 2014, the best Korean films of all time, voted by 62 experts.

They're from the same source, but the new list was NOT an update of the old list. We still replaced it, because we felt that the new list was a better representation of Korean cinema, and we thought 3 official Korean lists would be too many. The new list contains many films from the period 1936-1996, so we felt that 1936-1996 would still be well represented after the replacement.
I preferred before it was replaced :( But I'm not going to start an argument about it. I also dislike the Italian list being replaced. From what I've gathered from posts in this thread, I feel like whatever is said won't change the decision, so it is another thing I won't argue about.
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 4:11 pm
Edit: Since everyone is so fond of dumb analogies: The vast majority of great films are directed by men. Would there be any point in having a list of "The best films directed by men"? The criteria is legitimate and they did direct most of the best films. But why exclude the films that aren't directed by men? It feels petty and insecure to make a list that just further emphasizes an emphasis that will already come out naturally. It's a restriction that adds little insight and only leads to loss.
It really depends on how someone describes and names a list. If someone were to name the list "Best Manliest Films" which would mostly consist of action and war films, barely anyone would notice a list was restricted to best films directed by men. Then again, you could troll someone by having a list called "Best Manliest Films" and have all the films be directed by only women with a male-centric plot.

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 103
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#3740

Post by Darth Nevets » Yesterday, 6:31 am

Onderhond wrote:
December 7th, 2018, 8:08 am
Darth Nevets wrote:
December 7th, 2018, 7:33 am
I first noted the problem when the mods broached the subject of an anime list some time back. As a nerd on the subject I had to fight against their list which was unbelievably poor, and probably only got dropped due to the list being largely based on tv series. At the time I chalked it up to ignorance (how many mods watched the borderline plotless rapesploitation series Violence Jack?) but it got worse the next round.
I guess this is a remark in favor of the current adoption process though? The one that got adopted (Paste anime list) is one of the most quality lists on anime I've ever seen.
I'm going to keep this short, and refrain from multiquoting as to not post more walls of words. In this case I would say the process was effective, we argued over the lists for the subject most worthy of praise and picked a good one (not perfect, it certainly was more of a most important rather than best list).

To mfj: Your original bar graphs and charts were in a response to me, in point of fact, and yes virtually everyone else here did agree with you. I was not on the same page to put it mildly, but that's in the past at this point.

On list by female directors: Still a great idea, but may only highlight how few opportunities women have. Also its hard to make such a list, I believe the LWL struck me as a borderline satire it did such a poor job recognizing women's contribution to cinema (although my memory is hazy). The other was at least okay, we'll see what Mark Cousins is doing.

To all mods but especially PA: We've both spoken our piece and have come to a much greater understanding of our positions and philosophy. I'll never be able to think more lists are bad, there are limits of great films to explore and this website is the best way to find them, bar none to me. To try and be constructive I'll throw out some random suggestions, that you all should freely discard but I think would be interesting to try.

1. Need rules out. If a country has a list, or especially two, it gets a vacation from consideration. Chile (my favorite country list) is a small country in recognition, and I've only seen three of the list's movies, adding a list for them will add more to the site inherently than a second Polish list.
2. One you won't like: the ends justify the means. If a list is excellent its source doesn't mean that much.
3. Fidelity. Not every action movie on the action list is a flawless film, but every pick is easily considered by everyone a part of the genre. The American indy list picks great films but many made by major studios negating the purpose of examining the movement.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3741

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » Yesterday, 7:06 am

Darth Nevets wrote:
Yesterday, 6:31 am
2. One you won't like: the ends justify the means. If a list is excellent its source doesn't mean that much.
You're right I don't agree (although a list with source issues is unlikely to be excellent, but it could certainly be good). But I'm actually not as opposed to it on a personal level as I am on a mod level, I don't mind working on a flawed list if it's interesting enough and the best there is, and I don't mind throwing it away once it's outlived its purpose. From a mod perspective, though I'd be much more amenable to it if I didn't feel that the result would be a) a bunch of complaints about the list's quality followed by b) a bunch of complaints about it getting removed if/when something better comes along. Take as an example the anime list. What if the guys had adopted the BFI list years earlier and then we replaced it with the Paste list. Waiting was the right move, the alternative would have been not replacing it and keeping an inferior list instead of the new better list, keeping the BFI list alongside it, or replacing it and getting complaints about how it's an ok source and its flaws make it unique and why not keep both. Perhaps fear of backlash shouldn't keep us from doing things, and certainly we're willing to make tough choices that we know won't please everyone, but sometimes the path of least resistance is appealing especially when there's no urgency and the hope that the issue disappears exists and has borne fruit in the past.

I agree with 1 and 3 other than maybe my breaking point being different from yours in both cases (and different mods have different breaking points and they may be stricter in some areas and less in others). Those are both certainly important considerations in our discussions and always have been.

72allinncallme
Donator
Posts: 1828
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#3742

Post by 72allinncallme » Yesterday, 12:06 pm

Can any of the moderators give me a good reason why USA deserves to have six official lists on the site when Italy can’t have three? You obviously felt the need to add more American lists to the site and at the same time remove Italian checks...

And why have the moderators chose to ignore responding the five-six times several of us have asked you to do a poll on the mather. Afraid of the results? This is the seventh time someone asks you to do this. Feel free too ignore this one as well. With multi quoting that’s an easy thing to do :)

What is Marijn stance on the whole mather? Do he thinks it’s okey that his moderators deliberately and unnecessarily does the opposite of what a good portion of his paying customers think is right? To the point that several of us now thinks that the site is not worth paying for anymore. Does he even know? Is he happy about it?
Last edited by 72allinncallme on December 8th, 2018, 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7026
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#3743

Post by Gershwin » Yesterday, 12:43 pm

Do you also think the ‘old’ list is better than the new one, or are you simply against removing the old one? Those two are different matters, and I think a poll should reflect that as well, if the mods decide to do a poll.

But you could also simply start your own poll of course ...
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

72allinncallme
Donator
Posts: 1828
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#3744

Post by 72allinncallme » Yesterday, 12:58 pm

Gershwin wrote:
Yesterday, 12:43 pm
Do you also think the ‘old’ list is better than the new one, or are you simply against removing the old one? Those two are different matters, and I think a poll should reflect that as well, if the mods decide to do a poll.
I think the old list is more interesting. On it’s own, but it also makes for a way more interesting Italian section together with the Il Grande Cinema Italiano list.

I agree, a poll should reflect that. A poll is not going to happen though. I just want it to be adressed at least.
But you could also simply start your own poll of course ...
Not on icheckmovies.com

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7026
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#3745

Post by Gershwin » Yesterday, 1:27 pm

To be honest I don't expect many people will be very interested. I think only we on this forum, myself included, are so obsessed with lists we can discuss any issue concerning lists for weeks. Most users couldn't care less, as long as we don't take away their IMDb top 250, their Academy lists and their box office lists. But of course I might be wrong. You can start a poll on the official forum though, can't you?
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 26895
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#3746

Post by joachimt » Yesterday, 3:20 pm

Gershwin wrote:
Yesterday, 1:27 pm
To be honest I don't expect many people will be very interested. I think only we on this forum, myself included, are so obsessed with lists we can discuss any issue concerning lists for weeks. Most users couldn't care less, as long as we don't take away their IMDb top 250, their Academy lists and their box office lists. But of course I might be wrong. You can start a poll on the official forum though, can't you?
I think this is the truth. Almost all of the movies losing official status from the Italian list have less than 100 checks. The only ones above 100 checks are shorts. Most people on iCM don't pay attention to that list. I'm not afraid of the results of such a poll. I think it's pointless to do so. If a good cross-section of iCM decides to vote in such a poll, the winning answer will be "I don't care either way". If only hardcore listfreaks vote, the poll is not representative for the community. So in the end it will still be a matter of how we read those results and we still have to decide for ourselves. So there won't be a poll on the matter.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 26895
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#3747

Post by joachimt » Yesterday, 3:21 pm

72allinncallme wrote:
Yesterday, 12:06 pm
What is Marijn stance on the whole mather?
I know his opinion, but I'm not going to speak for him.

72allinncallme
Donator
Posts: 1828
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#3748

Post by 72allinncallme » Yesterday, 4:03 pm

joachimt wrote:
Yesterday, 3:20 pm
Gershwin wrote:
Yesterday, 1:27 pm
To be honest I don't expect many people will be very interested. I think only we on this forum, myself included, are so obsessed with lists we can discuss any issue concerning lists for weeks. Most users couldn't care less, as long as we don't take away their IMDb top 250, their Academy lists and their box office lists. But of course I might be wrong. You can start a poll on the official forum though, can't you?
I think this is the truth. Almost all of the movies losing official status from the Italian list have less than 100 checks. The only ones above 100 checks are shorts. Most people on iCM don't pay attention to that list. I'm not afraid of the results of such a poll. I think it's pointless to do so. If a good cross-section of iCM decides to vote in such a poll, the winning answer will be "I don't care either way". If only hardcore listfreaks vote, the poll is not representative for the community. So in the end it will still be a matter of how we read those results and we still have to decide for ourselves. So there won't be a poll on the matter.
Fair answer and thanks for at least adressing it. Like you and Gershwin, I believe that most users will ‘tick that box’, but you will have a good amount of voters caring one way or another too. And that’s where you’ll find the answer if the decission you guys made on behalf of the community was right or not.
I know his opinion, but I'm not going to speak for him.
Good, you shouldn’t. I wouldn’t mind if he made his two cents here or at the other place though. Does he still have a user here after we left the old forum?
Last edited by 72allinncallme on December 8th, 2018, 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3749

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » Yesterday, 4:13 pm

72allinncallme wrote:
Yesterday, 4:03 pm
I know his opinion, but I'm not going to speak for him.
Good, you shouldn’t. I wouldn’t mind if he made his two cents here or at the other place though. Does he still have a user here after we left the old forum?
He is still a user here and he has read at least some of this discussion so is aware of it.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10797
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3750

Post by mjf314 » Yesterday, 11:38 pm

72allinncallme wrote:
Yesterday, 12:06 pm
Can any of the moderators give me a good reason why USA deserves to have six official lists on the site when Italy can’t have three? You obviously felt the need to add more American lists to the site and at the same time remove Italian checks...
The American Independent list has a very different focus compared to the other American lists. It only has a 2 film overlap with AFI, and a 2 film overlap with Scorsese.

I don't like the AFI lists, but they're well known outside iCM, and help attract people to iCM, so basically we're stuck with the AFI lists. I don't think AFI does a good job of representing American cinema, so I think it needed the additional list.

I think it's unfortunate that USA can't be represented by the best American list (BBC), but if we adopt BBC, people will complain that we're adopting yet another American list, and if we replace AFI with BBC, even more people will complain.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 11161
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#3751

Post by Cippenham » Today, 6:10 am

I would ten times prefer more good English and American films to be on lists than lists from small non English speaking countries. I know many good English films are not on lists while films from many countries are on lists I would never work on but I understand you try to represent all countries. If I work on lists that contain foreign films it has to be a general list of a lost containing a type of film. I have of course seen and like many non English films including favourites.

User avatar
Angel Glez
Posts: 1848
Joined: Apr 02, 2012
Location: Spain
Contact:

#3752

Post by Angel Glez » Today, 11:39 am

mjf314 wrote:
Yesterday, 11:38 pm
I don't like the AFI lists, but they're well known outside iCM, and help attract people to iCM, so basically we're stuck with the AFI lists. I don't think AFI does a good job of representing American cinema, so I think it needed the additional list.

I think it's unfortunate that USA can't be represented by the best American list (BBC), but if we adopt BBC, people will complain that we're adopting yet another American list, and if we replace AFI with BBC, even more people will complain.
I don't agree with that. AFI lists are as bad as any other. Unfortunately, AFI top 100 is just a selection of the most popular titles (all of them already in several official lists) among the AFI top 400, the list that should be official. And a top 100 for American cinema is just ridiculous when top 100s from small countries are officialized.

I know you think it's too old to be official, but the 1977 poll is far more valuable than AFI and BBC together. :P

User avatar
ChrisReynolds
Donator
Posts: 2172
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#3753

Post by ChrisReynolds » Today, 12:24 pm

Cippenham wrote:
Today, 6:10 am
I would ten times prefer more good English and American films to be on lists than lists from small non English speaking countries. I know many good English films are not on lists while films from many countries are on lists I would never work on but I understand you try to represent all countries. If I work on lists that contain foreign films it has to be a general list of a lost containing a type of film. I have of course seen and like many non English films including favourites.
This is in large part due to both lists of British films only being 100 films long and covering much of the same ground. There was the list of all BAFTA nominations in the poll, but it seemed like a messy remedy to the situation.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10797
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3754

Post by mjf314 » Today, 12:36 pm

I think asking voters to choose from a list of 400 is one of the AFI list's problems. They asked voters to choose 100 of 400, too high a percentage, so they probably voted for a lot of non-favorites.
They asked voters to consider several criteria, some of which have nothing to do with how much they like the film, for example "major award winner" and "popularity over time". I think that promotes laziness and results in an outdated list, because people vote for what they think is popular, which is likely to be based on older polls.

It looks like the ballots are available for the Time Out British poll, so maybe someone can make a bigger version of the list (but I didn't click all of the links so I don't know if all of them work).
https://web.archive.org/web/20110211201 ... tors-index
https://web.archive.org/web/20130305050 ... ntributors

User avatar
Angel Glez
Posts: 1848
Joined: Apr 02, 2012
Location: Spain
Contact:

#3755

Post by Angel Glez » Today, 3:21 pm

mjf314 wrote:
Today, 12:36 pm
I think asking voters to choose from a list of 400 is one of the AFI list's problems. They asked voters to choose 100 of 400, too high a percentage, so they probably voted for a lot of non-favorites.
They asked voters to consider several criteria, some of which have nothing to do with how much they like the film, for example "major award winner" and "popularity over time". I think that promotes laziness and results in an outdated list, because people vote for what they think is popular, which is likely to be based on older polls.
Not exactly. They asked jurors to vote for up to 100 movies and write-in candidates were allowed. In fact, the list of nominated films in 2007 was not only an update of the 1997 list, the most voted films were (allegedly) added and the least voted were removed. Of course, those titles never have a chance to make the final top 100. The list of 400 nominated films has some value, the top 100 does not (unless you are 10 years old and you have just started watching movies).
It's not that I'm promoting AFI's long lists or something, but there are worse things.

Post Reply