Post your ICM ranking

[joachimt]

Maybe rankings should count official minutes.

[xianjiro]

have always wondered about that as well, but really, shorts are only 11.92% of the total of official checks.

1935 (https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all+ ... plists&asc)
16235 (https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/?pa ... altoplists)

So while a change to minutes might have an effect on some lower ranked users who've "short loaded" their checks, that only accounts for 1649 checks (subtracted out https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/offi ... /joachimt/). That only gets you to page 120 of the rankings (#2990). But we all know there are some features most everyone has seen (that's not a number I can estimate), but I'm guessing between those and shorts, we're only talking top 2500 or top 2000 tops.

At least our current system is simple and doesn't require any reprogramming.

[dirty_score]

But that's actually an interesting idea that could shake things up a little. It would make a huge difference in those Lumière shorts, for instance.

[jal90]

Why should shorts be removed when in theory you can just check every movie in official lists with zero effort? It's not like the platform asks you to prove that you watched something.

Also, watching Lumière and etc. shorts is actually good for the soul (™). They contain a lot of knowledge and experience on the first steps of cinema and are pretty good as well as anthropological curiosities. If anything, everybody should check them at least once and increase their official checks that way.

[Hunziker]

Finally broke the 500 mark :'')

[Hunziker]

Also, watching Lumière and etc. shorts is actually good for the soul (™).

This. I want this tattoed on my body.

[cinephage]

Why? I understand that opportunistic short-checking just to get ahead in ICM rankings can be seen as irritating (and odd), but I see no reason to discriminate shorts in the formation of overall rankings. Shortfilms are an important part of cinema, and counting them out just because of their short length would be strange.

I didn't say counting them out. They have their importance that's why they would still be counted in the ranks of the lists they're in but shouldn't be counted in the OVERALL ranking because of what you just said. "Shorts are your friends" means check-whoring. If that's someone thing, that's fine, but also shows that they're in for the gamification aspect of the site.

So, if you're a "gamer", you would like challenges. Taking away some of your official checks in the overall ranking would provide a great challenge, no?

I feel the 1 short=1 check is an incentive for people to explore shorts they might overlook in other circumstances. It certainly pushed me in that direction in the past.

Short films are important, they are a key to cinema as an art form, modern and old, and I'm certain their worth and importance vastly overtakes their length in minutes. Their being part of the overall rankings certainly makes sense.

[Onderhond]

As someone who is currently going through the official shorts, I wouldn't mind if they didn't count towards one's official check total. I understand they're important and there's certainly worth in checking them out, but them being part of official lists covers that already.

It's hard to take shorts very serious though, especially since the only official ones are either classic or experimental short films. Apparently virtually nothing else exists that's worthy of official status.

[cinephage]

It's hard to take shorts very serious though, especially since the only official ones are either classic or experimental short films. Apparently virtually nothing else exists that's worthy of official status.

Something more modern could be done, for the most modern short films, and I wouldn't mind a good short list for the current times (or the last 30 years).
But at least the milestones and the classic, as part of cinema history, need to be referenced...

Edit : something like this : https://medium.com/@miniflixTV/the-20-b ... 1b55a04256

[dirty_score]

Shorts have their importance, I never disagreed with that. About the Lumière shorts, for instance, what I was saying is, checking 10 "one minute" shorts of them, gets you 10 new "checks" and you can go up in the ranks like 10 to 20 positions BUT it would be very different if, for instance, minutes were counted. Checking those 10 shorts and adding 10 minutes to your overall ranking could be not enough to move up so easily in the ranks.

Nevertheless, it could be a nice feature to implement to know how much time we've spent watching things.

[Onderhond]

But at least the milestones and the classic, as part of cinema history, need to be referenced...

Absolutely. But that's what the official lists are for.

It's close to the discussion we recently had in the challenges thread though (i.e. how to fairly assign points). But if you take that route, I'd probably prefer a minute-based list of all checks, rather than just official checks. Conforming to other people's taste isn't something to be particularly proud of.

[Kublai Khan]

Shorts have their importance, I never disagreed with that. About the Lumière shorts, for instance, what I was saying is, checking 10 "one minute" shorts of them, gets you 10 new "checks" and you can go up in the ranks like 10 to 20 positions BUT it would be very different if, for instance, minutes were counted. Checking those 10 shorts and adding 10 minutes to your overall ranking could be not enough to move up so easily in the ranks.

Nevertheless, it could be a nice feature to implement to know how much time we've spent watching things.

I mean, there's nothing to stop people from also checking 10 1-minute shorts to negate the "advantage" of other people climbing ranks.

If we do it by minutes, then there will be complaints about people racing ahead by watching Shoah or Satantango.

[cinephage]

I don't see the point in trying to fix something that isn't broken. Most of these very short films are easily available, so it's pretty much anyone's call...

[Onderhond]

If we do it by minutes, then there will be complaints about people racing ahead by watching Shoah or Satantango.

But that shows actual commitment. Nobody is going "alright, let's try and game the system and watch Satantango"

[dirty_score]

If we do it by minutes, then there will be complaints about people racing ahead by watching Shoah or Satantango.

No they won't be because like Onderhond said, it takes comitment to see those and others like that! I'm one of those that haven't seen them and I know a lot of people who haven't seen them as well because they get put off by their lenght.

So it's easy to watch several shorts rather than a 3+ hour stuff. Heck, if we did by minutes, those Bolllywood mafia movies would be the next great thing!!

[dirty_score]

I don't see the point in trying to fix something that isn't broken. Most of these very short films are easily available, so it's pretty much anyone's call...

Never said it was broken, but it's also stale. I was just giving an idea to maybe shake things a little bit. Another year went by, what's new?

[Kublai Khan]

If we do it by minutes, then there will be complaints about people racing ahead by watching Shoah or Satantango.

But that shows actual commitment. Nobody is going "alright, let's try and game the system and watch Satantango"

I don't know.. Once you add in all the time spent searching, finding, queueing up, and logging each individual short, the person just sitting there and watching Satantango is starting to look like a clever bastard cheating the minute system.

Also, ecouraging the watching of Bollywood movies? Why?

[Onderhond]

I don't know.. Once you add in all the time spent searching, finding, queueing up, and logging each individual short

Well, spoiler alert, but there's an "all official shorts on ICM" list and almost every entry there has a link in the comments to where you can watch it online.

The effort is quite minimal

[joachimt]

I don't know.. Once you add in all the time spent searching, finding, queueing up, and logging each individual short

Well, spoiler alert, but there's an "all official shorts on ICM" list and almost every entry there has a link in the comments to where you can watch it online.

The effort is quite minimal

Do you have any idea how much time I've spent going through loads of compilations of shorts figuring out which is which, creating summaries of the file, logging everything, etc....?
But indeed, the lazy ones can just check the youtube-link with timestamp and just watch that one minute, check it and forget about it pretty soon.

[Onderhond]

Do you have any idea how much time I've spent going through loads of compilations of shorts figuring out which is which, creating summaries of the file, logging everything, etc....?

Thanks man!

It's thanks to you the effort is now minimal.

[xianjiro]

I don't see the point in trying to fix something that isn't broken. Most of these very short films are easily available, so it's pretty much anyone's call...

Never said it was broken, but it's also stale. I was just giving an idea to maybe shake things a little bit. Another year went by, what's new?

It's good to discuss things, especially ideas that could improve the site. It's also a bit rough to share something and then have everyone take pot shots at it. Would be nice if we could try and find some positivity. I'm not sure that Marijn reads this thread (very often, if at all), so it's hard to know how much our suggested changes might cost in his time. That makes these discussions more difficult for me.

Let me ask this: if we didn't count shorts or if we counted minutes instead of all movies being one check regardless of length, would this change your movie viewing? In what way(s)?

[xianjiro]

If we do it by minutes, then there will be complaints about people racing ahead by watching Shoah or Satantango.

But that shows actual commitment. Nobody is going "alright, let's try and game the system and watch Satantango"

I don't know.. Once you add in all the time spent searching, finding, queueing up, and logging each individual short, the person just sitting there and watching Satantango is starting to look like a clever bastard cheating the minute system.

Also, ecouraging the watching of Bollywood movies? Why?

[Onderhond]

Let me ask this: if we didn't count shorts or if we counted minutes instead of all movies being one check regardless of length, would this change your movie viewing? In what way(s)?

I think that question was already answered in the "challenge" thread. With more shorts minutes needed per point, some were feeling less inclined to watch shorts.

[jal90]

Let me ask this: if we didn't count shorts or if we counted minutes instead of all movies being one check regardless of length, would this change your movie viewing? In what way(s)?

I think that question was already answered in the "challenge" thread. With more shorts minutes needed per point, some were feeling less inclined to watch shorts.

...for the challenges. In order to measure how much it truly changes the watching habits, we should be measuring everything people watch each month, and not just what is apparent in the forums. More shorts needed also means people will get less points, and therefore will post less in the thread, if they watch the same amount of shorts as before.

Anyway my whole issue with this idea of removing shorts from the ranks, or counting minutes is not the idea itself, but how hypocritical it looks to sustain some accusation (you know, not an actual accusation, but this is me being dramatic) of cheating or being overly competitive when this decision is made from a purely competitive mindset. We can definitely have that, but using a reason like "so people won't advance in the ranking so easily" sounds quite lacking in self-awareness.

[Onderhond]

More shorts needed also means people will get less points, and therefore will post less in the thread, if they watch the same amount of shorts as before.

Possibly. To be honest, I still have a hard time grasping how people approach these challenges. There's nothing to actually win, apart from getting first place clout. Which is virtually impossible to get anyway, except for a very select group who can watch 100+ films from a single niche within a month.

I don't see why logging a short that doesn't give you any points (yet) would be problematic, then again I'm only there for the (albeit minimal) social aspect.

but how hypocritical it looks to sustain some accusation (you know, not an actual accusation, but this is me being dramatic) of cheating or being overly competitive when this decision is made from a purely competitive mindset.

You think fairness in games is hypocritical?

I think people look at the ranking to compare themselves/see where they stand within the community. If you have checked 1000 feature films and you're standing right behind a guy who has checked 1001 Lumiere films, that simply won't add up for most people. That's all there is to it really.

[jal90]

More shorts needed also means people will get less points, and therefore will post less in the thread, if they watch the same amount of shorts as before.

Possibly. To be honest, I still have a hard time grasping how people approach these challenges. There's nothing to actually win, apart from getting first place clout. Which is virtually impossible to get anyway, except for a very select group who can watch 100+ films from a single niche within a month.

I don't see why logging a short that doesn't give you any points (yet) would be problematic, then again I'm only there for the (albeit minimal) social aspect.

but how hypocritical it looks to sustain some accusation (you know, not an actual accusation, but this is me being dramatic) of cheating or being overly competitive when this decision is made from a purely competitive mindset.

You think fairness in games is hypocritical?

I think people look at the ranking to compare themselves/see where they stand within the community. If you have checked 1000 feature films and you're standing right behind a guy who has checked 1001 Lumiere films, that simply won't add up for most people. That's all there is to it really.

Everybody can watch the same short films. That's fairness in the game. It's not even a matter of different opportunities or backgrounds because everyone can catch up. I started watching movies seriously in 2009 or so, should I disallow official votes from 2008 and before because they are unfair to my starting point?

And I'm not even against a runtime based or a feature only ranking. But we can't pretend it's cheating or bending or taking advantage from the rules, and I find it hypocritical to base this on an unfounded accusation that people want to jump up the rankings fastly all while enhancing the competitive aspect of the website. This feels like adjusting the rules to oneself rather than removing "unfair" advantages.

On the challenges, I think some people here take them very seriously, but there are few very dedicated ones. Perhaps those few are easy to monitorize but it would be exhausting and uncalled for anyways, so who knows.

[xianjiro]

And I'm not even against a runtime based or a feature only ranking. But we can't pretend it's cheating or bending or taking advantage from the rules, and I find it hypocritical to base this on an unfounded accusation that people want to jump up the rankings fastly all while enhancing the competitive aspect of the website. This feels like adjusting the rules to oneself rather than removing "unfair" advantages.

Do you see unfair advantages now?

[Onderhond]

But we can't pretend it's cheating or bending or taking advantage from the rules

It's not cheating, nor bending the rules, but it is taking advantage of the way the rules work.

You can't organize a marathon and then allow for a 100m shortcut to the finish. Even when it's equal opportunity for all participants. It's not particularly fun for the people who came there to compete in a marathon. It's also not hypocritical for them to complain about such rule.

To be clear, I'm not so invested in the discussion in that I really want to see it changed, but I don't think it's weird that when people take the competitive aspect of the site seriously, they have a problem with the way the main ranking is counted.

[kongs_speech]

Let me ask this: if we didn't count shorts or if we counted minutes instead of all movies being one check regardless of length, would this change your movie viewing? In what way(s)?

I'd likely cease using the main ICM site entirely. If it becomes a complicated formula or some films are deemed unequal because of their length, you've murdered the fun of the site in order to satisfy a few folks like dirty_score who apparently need to prove they're more hardcore than everyone else. Not only is the system not broken, it works exactly how it should. If we no longer are to count each official film as one official check, the notion of official checks existing entirely becomes worthless and the purpose of the site falls apart.

[kongs_speech]

Everybody can watch the same short films. That's fairness in the game. It's not even a matter of different opportunities or backgrounds because everyone can catch up. I started watching movies seriously in 2009 or so, should I disallow official votes from 2008 and before because they are unfair to my starting point?

Excellent points. There's nothing to stop anyone from watching those shorts, at least the ones that have been located. If you want the checks for the shorts and don't want other people to have an advantage, watch the bloody shorts. By their dubious logic, I could claim that people who check the "films" on the IMDb Miniseries list have an unfair advantage because they're checking things that many of us are not interested in.

[Onderhond]

If we no longer are to count each official film as one official check, the notion of official checks existing entirely becomes worthless and the purpose of the site falls apart.

I'd argue the main point of the site is to track and complete lists. Nothing at all would change there.

The overall ranking is what we're talking about, and that's a sideshow (but an important one for people who care about the gamification aspect of the site). One that already has several sort option mind, of which "# official checks" is the default now. You can already change that to "# checks" for example and generate a different ranking.

The only thing that's being proposed is to add extra options and maybe change the default. How that could render the entire site useless is beyond me.

[kongs_speech]

Extra options? Okay, sure, I don't see the harm, other than it would possibly be a pain to code. Changing the default, however, would be a fundamental betrayal of the site and of film appreciation in general. If you reduce films to nothing but statistics based on their length, then you're not actually in it to experience great films -- you're just addicted to having a high number.

[Onderhond]

other than it would possibly be a pain to code.

where runtime > 44

There's the addition to the current database query

would be a fundamental betrayal of the site and of film appreciation in general.

Honestly, the gamification aspect itself is probably a fundamental betrayal of film appreciation. Watching films for stats is not what films are about.

Neither are "official" checks by the way. From my own toplist:
Unofficial films: 412/650 (63.38%)

[kongs_speech]

Honestly, the gamification aspect itself is probably a fundamental betrayal of film appreciation. Watching films for stats is not what films are about.

Neither are "official" checks by the way. From my own toplist:
Unofficial films: 412/650 (63.38%)

The competitive rankings are certainly fun, but for me, the real value in official checks is that they are generally considered among the best films of their specific type. Though I know you hate most of the classics, you're likely alone there. Getting a check is a fun motivator to prioritize seeing certain films sooner, and it's also the motivation to seek out wonderful short films that we would never hear about otherwise. No one would have likely ever bothered to discover a copy of Kirsa Nicholina without the motive of ICM nerds gaining an official check. At the very least, it would not have turned up anywhere that I could have seen it. But I did get to see it, and it's my second favorite short of all time. You take away the equal check status of shorts and you leave people a lot less encouraged to find the ~300 shorts that don't seem to have surfaced online yet.

[Onderhond]

Again, that's what list completion and awards are for, not so much the overall rankings.

Though I know you hate most of the classics, you're likely alone there.

It may seem that way because ICM is so focused on classics (as a result of list adoption focus/rules), but I'm certainly not alone there. In other film-communities I encounter plenty of people who don't care much for classic cinema, for them a place like ICM just isn't that appealing. But that's beside the point I think, and it has little to do with why more than half my favorites aren't official checks.

No one would have likely ever bothered to discover a copy of Kirsa Nicholina without the motive of ICM nerds gaining an official check.

True, but then it becomes pure speculation. Maybe you could've found an even greater film, but missed it because you were so focused on getting official checks. I mean, making up all kinds of scenarios is easy, it's not really relevant to the overall ranking.

On top of that, I still disagree because people hunting for awards and list completion would certainly have found the short.

[dirty_score]

I'd likely cease using the main ICM site entirely. If it becomes a complicated formula or some films are deemed unequal because of their length, you've murdered the fun of the site in order to satisfy a few folks like dirty_score who apparently need to prove they're more hardcore than everyone else. Not only is the system not broken, it works exactly how it should. If we no longer are to count each official film as one official check, the notion of official checks existing entirely becomes worthless and the purpose of the site falls apart.

First of all, I don't know what you're on but I don't need to prove any goddamn thing to anyone. I don't care about the rankings otherwise I would obsessively watch every official short. Heck, I would be one of the piranhas that went right in to those newly available UNESCO shorts 3 months ago. I simply gave a suggestion that could shake things a little and could be fun for "gamers" of this website which you clearly seem to be and that's fine. I get it, once you get rich, you don't want to go to being poor, you only want to get richer.

Any decision that might go to the pocket of someone in here, it's always an outrage. As a member of the community I can only suggest things to try and improve the website. Nothing has to change if the responsible people for it don't want to.

Just let me remind you that this started as a project of 3 dutch friends that only wanted to track which films they saw from the ImdB top250. A project that can go the way of myspace or Hi5 in the next decade.

[xianjiro]

You can already change that to "# checks" for example and generate a different ranking.

have also wondered at times how changing to something like 3 points for official checks 1 point for non-official checks would change things (or 4:1 or π:2^5 or whatever). The only issue I'd have with something like that would be TV episodes since that's a horse of a different area code. At least if we give 1 point for all non-official checks (exclude TV episodes) we are not offering any disincentive for watching non-official checks; it's just official checks would weight more heavily. So that's another way to structure the rules of the game.

And the thing about TV episodes is another grey area we'd be happy to argue over. Would I feel any different if someone went to the trouble the check every episode of Abdication Avenue, Lays of Our Wives, Wheal of Miss Fortune, or This is NOT Fake News Tonight than people who check things that they couldn't possibly have seen, or have seen in their language? Probably not.

It all comes down to what definition of the game one wants to have. It's yet another social construct after all, so it can be whatever the society wants it to be. We could give 10 points for movies with X or Z in the title ... the possibilities are almost infinitely endless!

[xianjiro]

Just let me remind you that this started as a project of 3 dutch friends that only wanted to track which films they saw from the ImdB top250. A project that can go the way of myspace or Hi5 in the next decade.

yeah, that's even more an issue now that the three friends are down to one

[kongs_speech]

I'd likely cease using the main ICM site entirely. If it becomes a complicated formula or some films are deemed unequal because of their length, you've murdered the fun of the site in order to satisfy a few folks like dirty_score who apparently need to prove they're more hardcore than everyone else. Not only is the system not broken, it works exactly how it should. If we no longer are to count each official film as one official check, the notion of official checks existing entirely becomes worthless and the purpose of the site falls apart.

First of all, I don't know what you're on but I don't need to prove any goddamn thing to anyone. I don't care about the rankings otherwise I would obsessively watch every official short. Heck, I would be one of the piranhas that went right in to those newly available UNESCO shorts 3 months ago. I simply gave a suggestion that could shake things a little and could be fun for "gamers" of this website which you clearly seem to be and that's fine. I get it, once you get rich, you don't want to go to being poor, you only want to get richer.

Any decision that might go to the pocket of someone in here, it's always an outrage. As a member of the community I can only suggest things to try and improve the website. Nothing has to change if the responsible people for it don't want to.

Just let me remind you that this started as a project of 3 dutch friends that only wanted to track which films they saw from the ImdB top250. A project that can go the way of myspace or Hi5 in the next decade.

Well, I've clearly struck a nerve. That was some rant. I do agree wholeheartedly that preserving iCM is of the utmost importance. I just don't see how dramatically changing the way it works in a way that would be off-putting to most people is the best method for keeping it alive.

[Armoreska]

back to watching movies now after over 5 years doing other stuff
ended up at #61 (no pic for backsliding)
lost 900 official checks on Joachim
and 300 checks on top 50
dont expect to be back any time soon unless 100 lists become official, as im gonna just continue doing my thing watching lists regardless of status

can somebody TLDR me on what the fictional hell is going on in this thread?