Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: Favorite Movies (Results), 1945 (Results), 1929 awards (Apr 4th), South Asia (Apr 25th), Doubling the Canon (Ratings Apr 30th)
Challenges: Doubling the Canon, Nordic, 1950s
Film of the Week: Valkoinen peura, May nominations (May 1st)
World Cup S4: Round 1 schedule, 1F: Brazil vs Greece vs Japan vs Poland (Apr 5th), 1G: Germany vs Pakistan vs Ukraine vs USA (Apr 22nd)

Perception de Ambiguity's 500<400 nominations

Should Perception de Ambiguity's 500<400 list be accepted for this official poll?

Poll ended at September 22nd, 2019, 6:56 pm

Yes
21
35%
No
27
45%
I don't care
12
20%
 
Total votes: 60

User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3716
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

Perception de Ambiguity's 500<400 nominations

#1

Post by Lammetje » September 15th, 2019, 6:56 pm

PdA's list currently consists of 6,658 titles, so this is not a list of his favorite movies with fewer than 400 checks. What's more, a lot of these titles are not eligible for the poll, either because they hit 400 checks (years ago in some cases) or they're not really movies. I think y'all know what I'm voting.

These are quotes from the nominations thread:

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
August 11th, 2019, 7:21 pm
Create an IMDb list or iCM list of your favorite films with fewer than 400 checks, and post it in this thread by the end of September 22.
joachimt wrote:
August 12th, 2019, 6:20 am
I know we said it tons of times and you never respond anyway, but I’m saying it anyway again:
This list is ridiculous, because it contains more than half of your IMDb ratings. Please submit your Anti-Canon. That would be much more worthwhile.
Ebbywebby wrote:
August 12th, 2019, 10:25 pm
:down:
matthewscott8 wrote:
August 16th, 2019, 9:29 am
Are lists with over 6,000 titles that haven't been updated since 2014, and contain many ineligible titles allowed? Not that I am thinking about any in particular teehee.
Ebbywebby wrote:
August 16th, 2019, 8:25 pm
joachimt wrote:
August 16th, 2019, 10:43 am
matthewscott8 wrote:
August 16th, 2019, 9:29 am
Are lists with over 6,000 titles that haven't been updated since 2014, and contain many ineligible titles allowed? Not that I am thinking about any in particular teehee.
If such a user compiles an anti-canon of 300 titles which is updated and only contains titles with less than 400 checks, I think we shouldn't allow a list of over 6000 titles. :whistling:
He seriously damages the value of the "Complete Poll Results" lists. I keep wondering if it would be more useful for polls to just document "All Films Receiving Two or More Votes" rather than the "Complete" vote. This would help get rid of inappropriate picks in general, such as short music videos, stand-up comedy, novelty animation shorts (curse you, David Firth!) and TV episodes.
J-Dog, Ebby, Matthew :cheers:
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

Image
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.
More memorable quotesShow
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.
OldAle1 wrote:stupid double post bullshit crap shit fuck
mightysparks wrote:ARGH. RARGH. RARGH. DIE.
Kowry wrote:Thanks, Art Garfunky.
Rich wrote:*runs*

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30954
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#2

Post by joachimt » September 16th, 2019, 9:09 am

I didn't expect "Yes" to do so well. :down:
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1753
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#3

Post by matthewscott8 » September 16th, 2019, 1:16 pm

I would imagine there are enough anarchists and right wingers here that you would get a lot of automatic "yes"s. I.e. anarchists wanting to avoid any coercion unless strictly necessary and right wingers "free speeching". If you go to the extremes you end up finding out that it's a political doughnut rather than a left right spectrum :)

Some might perceive this as targeting PdA, whereas it would be better to have some rules that apply for everyone, i.e. only lists constructed in 2019 accepted, maximum number of titles 500, lists not accepted if they contain multiple entries with more than 400 checks.

A lot of input should come from whoever is collating the results, if they're happy to do all PdA's <400 filtering for him, and double the number of titles they have to tally then there's less of a case.

As some context PdA has had a very prankish past, often his voting would be designed to reflect flaws in the structure of the polls. In some year polls he just used to do enter 1 title, i.e. didn't want to give any of the competing titles any points. So many polls now say minimum of 10 entries. I think the best outcome would just be that we had some firmer rules in place about how we accept ballots.

Would be nice to hear from PdA himself but he usually steers clear of these discussions.

blocho
Donator
Posts: 2877
Joined: Jul 20, 2014
Contact:

#4

Post by blocho » September 16th, 2019, 1:37 pm

I think it makes more sense to change the rules for next time. Why don't we do a cap of 1,000 movies?

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1541
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#5

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 16th, 2019, 1:46 pm

I'd be in favour of stressing that this is about favourites. Are all 6,000 of those really favourites? I don't know...

Speaking of that, I need to put together a list myself. I think I might limit myself to 500 favourites this time around.
That's all, folks!

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1753
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#6

Post by matthewscott8 » September 16th, 2019, 2:54 pm

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 1:46 pm
I'd be in favour of stressing that this is about favourites. Are all 6,000 of those really favourites? I don't know...

Speaking of that, I need to put together a list myself. I think I might limit myself to 500 favourites this time around.
Ok but even if they somehow are all favourites, what's the point. Is anyone else going to read through PdA's list for recommendations, down to 6000? Are the titles at the bottom really going to impact the results given the half life of the scoring system? It's hard to argue that the excessive amount of titles here offer anything other than nuisance value.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1541
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#7

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 16th, 2019, 3:00 pm

matthewscott8 wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 2:54 pm
RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 1:46 pm
I'd be in favour of stressing that this is about favourites. Are all 6,000 of those really favourites? I don't know...

Speaking of that, I need to put together a list myself. I think I might limit myself to 500 favourites this time around.
Ok but even if they somehow are all favourites, what's the point. Is anyone else going to read through PdA's list for recommendations, down to 6000? Are the titles at the bottom really going to impact the results given the half life of the scoring system? It's hard to argue that the excessive amount of titles here offer anything other than nuisance value.
Well, I certainly amn't! I would tend to agree with you. A couple of years ago, I remember that my list was well over a thousand. I've come to the conclusion that such a list is too large and full of films that have absolutely no chance of ever making the 500<400 list. I think I'm going to cut out most shorts and obscure features and instead assemble a list of relatively well-known titles that have a realistic chance of making the list one day.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3568
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#8

Post by Onderhond » September 16th, 2019, 3:06 pm

I agree that stricter rules would be nice, hard numbers on the other hand could be problematic. A 1000 favorites sounds like a lot, but it's not that much a stretch when you have 10.000+ votes.

In this case, when no effort has been made to deliver a list that fits the current rules, I'd just ditch it. Others do put in the effort.

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6832
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#9

Post by albajos » September 16th, 2019, 3:13 pm

I have 10 000 votes. 500 of those are 8+ and less than 400 checks

User avatar
cinephage
Donator
Posts: 3931
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Contact:

#10

Post by cinephage » September 16th, 2019, 3:19 pm

I feel there is some intent from Pda here, since he equally gives a list of lesser known favorites of his in a specific dedicated topic...
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4475&view=unread#unread

So he does accomplish this work of narrowing a list to fewer titles...

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30954
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#11

Post by joachimt » September 16th, 2019, 4:11 pm

cinephage wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 3:19 pm
I feel there is some intent from Pda here, since he equally gives a list of lesser known favorites of his in a specific dedicated topic...
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4475&view=unread#unread

So he does accomplish this work of narrowing a list to fewer titles...
And every year I wonder and ask why he doesn't submit that list instead of his monster list.

As for more rules, that might be a solution. I just want to believe in a world in which people care about the things they participate in and make an effort to have a meaningful input. Rules shouldn't be necessary. If people make an effort to create a list of movies they recommend within the criteria, whether it's 10 titles or 1000, I'm happy. That's all I'm asking. Take this project or any other poll seriously. If you don't, just stay away. PdA clearly doesn't give a shit about 500<400, so just ditch his list.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
72aicm
Donator
Posts: 3163
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#12

Post by 72aicm » September 16th, 2019, 4:38 pm

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 1:46 pm
I'd be in favour of stressing that this is about favourites. Are all 6,000 of those really favourites? I don't know...
Of course not. The list even contains movies he have not seen.

Whatever. Voted I don’t care.

User avatar
hurluberlu
Donator
Posts: 1658
Joined: Jan 04, 2017
Contact:

#13

Post by hurluberlu » September 16th, 2019, 6:05 pm

He doesn't break any rule, I dont get what the annoyance is (genuinely). The full list would still be of a few thousands without his noms, what to do with it anyway ?
I'd like to think we can resolve this type of issues without a callout thread.
Last edited by hurluberlu on September 16th, 2019, 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#JeSuisCharlie Liberté, Liberté chérie !

Image
ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Cocoa
Donator
Posts: 1721
Joined: Jul 17, 2013
Location: Chicago, USA
Contact:

#14

Post by Cocoa » September 16th, 2019, 7:06 pm

It's annoying to me that there are films on his list that reached 400 checks several years ago. It's easy to import an IMDB list to icm, then export the icm file and sort by checks, followed by removing the films that are over 400 checks. Besides that, I don't actually have a problem with his list.

His long list is annoying if you want a master list of all the films submitted to the 500<400. But a master list would still be long without him, just not as long.

His list is annoying if you don't want music videos (and some other miscellaneous things) to be included...but that's more of an issue that should be about changing the 500<400 rules to not include music videos instead of directly calling for PdA's list to be discounted. I would be fine with more rules about what type of material should be ineligible, but this seems like a callout thread and not an actual thread about discussing new rules.

His long list is good if you go to it and sort by your ratings and realize you forgot a film (that you love/like) is eligible and then you put that film on your own list. Although, that personally haven't happened to me, but it could happen to others. However, it brings me back to my first point that I find it annoying that his list has films that reached 400 checks years ago because for a few seconds I might think those films are eligible.

User avatar
Lilarcor
Donator
Posts: 2838
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
Contact:

#15

Post by Lilarcor » September 16th, 2019, 8:38 pm

hurluberlu wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 6:05 pm
He doesn't break any rule, I dont get what the annoyance is (genuinely). The full list would still be of a few thousands without his noms, what to do with it anyway ?
I'd like to think we can resolve this type of issues without a callout thread.
Fully agree with this, and the callout/outing of a poster is not cool, let's behave like adults...

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3568
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#16

Post by Onderhond » September 16th, 2019, 8:41 pm

Addressing a problem as you see it is "behaving like an adult".

User avatar
Lilarcor
Donator
Posts: 2838
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
Contact:

#17

Post by Lilarcor » September 16th, 2019, 8:52 pm

Onderhond wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 8:41 pm
Addressing a problem as you see it is "behaving like an adult".
There are more constructive ways to address the problem, such as asking if there should be stricter rules for nomination (e.g. length of list, "age" of list). The OP with it's month old quotes is passive aggressive bs and this thread as a result gives one person's list far too much attention.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3568
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#18

Post by Onderhond » September 16th, 2019, 10:00 pm

Lilarcor wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 8:52 pm
There are more constructive ways to address the problem
True, but they've been tried many times before. It would be a meme by now if this board was more meme-prone.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11048
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#19

Post by mjf314 » September 16th, 2019, 10:05 pm

The list should be accepted.

It doesn't matter if there are 6000 films on the list. Anything outside the top 500 barely gets any points, so it won't have a significant effect on the results.

It would take a lot of time for PdA to remove the ineligible films from his IMDb list. Participating in polls should be easy, so we shouldn't be making it harder.

I don't think it damages the value of the "complete poll results". Anyone can download the results spreadsheet and filter it however they want.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30262
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#20

Post by mightysparks » September 17th, 2019, 12:07 am

I don’t think we should put restrictions on anyone’s list (how many, what constitutes a favourite etc). But I do think a rule about updating our lists every year - at least to remove ineligible films - should be implemented. I know the list is long but it shows a bit of disrespect towards the final list and the effort other people make for it. And probably makes things just that little bit harder for the listmaker too. I remember having to constantly filter out video games from his horror list when doing the horror poll and when I used them for TSZDT and it was a bit frustrating.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11048
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#21

Post by mjf314 » September 17th, 2019, 12:31 am

mightysparks wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 12:07 am
I know the list is long but it shows a bit of disrespect towards the final list and the effort other people make for it.
I don't know exactly how Peaceful removes the films, but I imagine he has some way to automate it or semi-automate it.

When I used to run the 500<400 poll, I calculated the results, and used the results to make a list of all ineligible films. The program does the rest, so it doesn't matter how many lists need to be modified.

User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3716
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

#22

Post by Lammetje » September 17th, 2019, 6:54 am

Lilarcor wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 8:52 pm
Onderhond wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 8:41 pm
Addressing a problem as you see it is "behaving like an adult".
There are more constructive ways to address the problem, such as asking if there should be stricter rules for nomination (e.g. length of list, "age" of list). The OP with it's month old quotes is passive aggressive bs and this thread as a result gives one person's list far too much attention.
I know the quotes are old, but it was only a few days ago when I read them for the first time.
Onderhond wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 10:00 pm
Lilarcor wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 8:52 pm
There are more constructive ways to address the problem
True, but they've been tried many times before. It would be a meme by now if this board was more meme-prone.
Exactly. The subject has been brought up over and over again, but PdA ignores it every time and just keeps dumping this list in nomination threads. I'm pretty sure I am not the only one who feels trolled. Although I don't watch that many movies anymore, the 500<400 project still means something to me. I feel like PdA's list is a stain on the project.
mjf314 wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 10:05 pm
It would take a lot of time for PdA to remove the ineligible films from his IMDb list. Participating in polls should be easy, so we shouldn't be making it harder.
I don't agree with this. A few extra ballots is not worth the drop in quality of the final list.
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

Image
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.
More memorable quotesShow
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.
OldAle1 wrote:stupid double post bullshit crap shit fuck
mightysparks wrote:ARGH. RARGH. RARGH. DIE.
Kowry wrote:Thanks, Art Garfunky.
Rich wrote:*runs*

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6832
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#23

Post by albajos » September 17th, 2019, 7:08 am

It's lazy, and disrespectful to both those spend their valuable time making the final list and to all us who take time to make a clean list

We could all just post our vote history since it is so "easy" to remove ineligiblity, and we would end up with a completely pointless final list of 50 000, that is the difference between one doing it and everyone doing it.

User avatar
Eve-Lang-El-Coup
Posts: 432
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Aussieland
Contact:

#24

Post by Eve-Lang-El-Coup » September 17th, 2019, 11:52 am

You should use PdA's Anti-Canon list for this as it is true to the ethos of the poll.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1753
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#25

Post by matthewscott8 » September 17th, 2019, 2:14 pm

Eve-Lang-El-Coup wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 11:52 am
You should use PdA's Anti-Canon list for this as it is true to the ethos of the poll.
I think you would need his permission to do this though.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1753
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#26

Post by matthewscott8 » September 17th, 2019, 2:16 pm

Who would be unhappy if we proposed a new rule of a maximum number of 1000 titles, and list has to have been updated in the last 12 months?

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1753
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#27

Post by matthewscott8 » September 17th, 2019, 2:31 pm

Lilarcor wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 8:52 pm
Onderhond wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 8:41 pm
Addressing a problem as you see it is "behaving like an adult".
There are more constructive ways to address the problem, such as asking if there should be stricter rules for nomination (e.g. length of list, "age" of list). The OP with it's month old quotes is passive aggressive bs and this thread as a result gives one person's list far too much attention.
I guess this is how misunderstandings occur. For you this is passive aggressive bs, but for me the passive aggressive bs is pda dumping his list in the thread and then not responding to the reaction. He's not dumb and as someone who has been on forums with him for over a decade he has plenty of "form" for this stuff. I remember the days when he used to post pictures of trans women on forums and ask people how hot they thought the women were, and then do a big reveal at the end that they were transsexual women. His activity also included posting lists of films he'd never seen, and also posting award lists, pretending they were his favourites and asking for comments. He also was involved (as was I in full frankness) in writing fake reviews on IMDb for the movie Almost Human by Frank Urson, which at the time had turned into a participation sport. Everyone here has discussed this calmly and no-one has called him names. The solution to me is just to change the rules.

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 1200
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#28

Post by Ivan0716 » September 17th, 2019, 3:45 pm

matthewscott8 wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 2:16 pm
Who would be unhappy if we proposed a new rule of a maximum number of 1000 titles, and list has to have been updated in the last 12 months?
I would.

If the problem is with PdA's list then do something about it directly, why place restrictions on everyone else?

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1753
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#29

Post by matthewscott8 » September 17th, 2019, 4:14 pm

Ivan0716 wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 3:45 pm
matthewscott8 wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 2:16 pm
Who would be unhappy if we proposed a new rule of a maximum number of 1000 titles, and list has to have been updated in the last 12 months?
I would.

If the problem is with PdA's list then do something about it directly, why place restrictions on everyone else?
The problem isn't PdA's list, not in my mind anyway. If anyone had posted a similarly out-of-date or cumbersome list I would have commented. The reasons I have asked for those two things is to aid in producing a coherent result and an engaged result, respectively.

User avatar
hurluberlu
Donator
Posts: 1658
Joined: Jan 04, 2017
Contact:

#30

Post by hurluberlu » September 17th, 2019, 6:54 pm

matthewscott8 wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 2:31 pm
Lilarcor wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 8:52 pm
Onderhond wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 8:41 pm
Addressing a problem as you see it is "behaving like an adult".
There are more constructive ways to address the problem, such as asking if there should be stricter rules for nomination (e.g. length of list, "age" of list). The OP with it's month old quotes is passive aggressive bs and this thread as a result gives one person's list far too much attention.
I guess this is how misunderstandings occur. For you this is passive aggressive bs, but for me the passive aggressive bs is pda dumping his list in the thread and then not responding to the reaction. He's not dumb and as someone who has been on forums with him for over a decade he has plenty of "form" for this stuff. I remember the days when he used to post pictures of trans women on forums and ask people how hot they thought the women were, and then do a big reveal at the end that they were transsexual women. His activity also included posting lists of films he'd never seen, and also posting award lists, pretending they were his favourites and asking for comments. He also was involved (as was I in full frankness) in writing fake reviews on IMDb for the movie Almost Human by Frank Urson, which at the time had turned into a participation sport. Everyone here has discussed this calmly and no-one has called him names. The solution to me is just to change the rules.
:lol: Did he steal candies from the grocery store too ?

I dont think this thread is taking the right direction, it should be locked and some poll started to decide whether we change rules or not.
#JeSuisCharlie Liberté, Liberté chérie !

Image
ImageImageImageImage

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1753
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#31

Post by matthewscott8 » September 17th, 2019, 7:13 pm

hurluberlu wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 6:54 pm
matthewscott8 wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 2:31 pm
Lilarcor wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 8:52 pm
There are more constructive ways to address the problem, such as asking if there should be stricter rules for nomination (e.g. length of list, "age" of list). The OP with it's month old quotes is passive aggressive bs and this thread as a result gives one person's list far too much attention.
I guess this is how misunderstandings occur. For you this is passive aggressive bs, but for me the passive aggressive bs is pda dumping his list in the thread and then not responding to the reaction. He's not dumb and as someone who has been on forums with him for over a decade he has plenty of "form" for this stuff. I remember the days when he used to post pictures of trans women on forums and ask people how hot they thought the women were, and then do a big reveal at the end that they were transsexual women. His activity also included posting lists of films he'd never seen, and also posting award lists, pretending they were his favourites and asking for comments. He also was involved (as was I in full frankness) in writing fake reviews on IMDb for the movie Almost Human by Frank Urson, which at the time had turned into a participation sport. Everyone here has discussed this calmly and no-one has called him names. The solution to me is just to change the rules.
:lol: Did he steal candies from the grocery store too ?

I dont think this thread is taking the right direction, it should be locked and some poll started to decide whether we change rules or not.
Please don't misunderstand me, I have no problem with those past activities and derived a lot of enjoyment from them. I actually agree with you that the correct solution is to hold a poll on the rules.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11048
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#32

Post by mjf314 » September 17th, 2019, 11:10 pm

Lammetje wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 6:54 am
mjf314 wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 10:05 pm
It would take a lot of time for PdA to remove the ineligible films from his IMDb list. Participating in polls should be easy, so we shouldn't be making it harder.
I don't agree with this. A few extra ballots is not worth the drop in quality of the final list.
I don't agree that PdA's list worsens the quality of the final list. Any film outside his top 500 will receive less than 0.1 points, and any film outside his top 1000 will receive less than 0.0001 points. Like I said earlier, it's insignificant.
albajos wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 7:08 am
We could all just post our vote history since it is so "easy" to remove ineligiblity, and we would end up with a completely pointless final list of 50 000, that is the difference between one doing it and everyone doing it.
As long as the top portion of your list is sorted, I think it's fine. PdA's list does seem to be sorted near the top (but I don't know exactly how much is sorted). When you move further away from the top of the list, the ordering is less important, so sorting by rating out of 10 is good enough.

If you think 5000 is a better list size than 50000, then just ignore everything after #5000. It's a ranked list.
Eve-Lang-El-Coup wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 11:52 am
You should use PdA's Anti-Canon list for this as it is true to the ethos of the poll.
PdA didn't use the same threshold for the two lists. For example, "Please Vote for Me" is on his <400 list, but it's too mainstream for his anti-canon list.

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 1200
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#33

Post by Ivan0716 » September 18th, 2019, 1:57 am

matthewscott8 wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 4:14 pm
The problem isn't PdA's list, not in my mind anyway.
I guess I was thrown off by the poll title. ;)
matthewscott8 wrote:
September 17th, 2019, 4:14 pm
If anyone had posted a similarly out-of-date or cumbersome list I would have commented. The reasons I have asked for those two things is to aid in producing a coherent result and an engaged result, respectively.
Yeah, shorter lists means more points for individual films and that might help shake things up a bit, but I fail to see how the odd long submissions have any direct negative impact. Let people vote how they want; If someone is happy to submit long-ass lists that won't have much(if any) bearing on the result, let them. Yeah we'll get a bunch of solo votes at the bottom, but I'll never work that far down the list for it to bother me, maybe I'm just not as hardcore as some of you.

I'm not sure how a list can be "outdated" though. The only way for a once-eligible film to become ineligible is once they've exceed 399 votes, and since they are removed during compilation(effortlessly I presume), it makes no difference to the process/result. I suppose if I were to submit a list that I hadn't updated in 3 years, it would be outdated in the sense that it'd be missing the films that I had seen during those 3 years, but no one else should be bothered by that, and it doesn't make that list any less legit.

Introducing those rules is something that will affect everyone, and suggesting them on the back of a dispute over one person's submission seems a bit excessive.

blocho
Donator
Posts: 2877
Joined: Jul 20, 2014
Contact:

#34

Post by blocho » September 18th, 2019, 2:57 pm

Some quick questions:
- Does a ridiculously long list like PdA's lead to more work for the actual 500<400 listmaker?
- Does a ridiculously long list like PdA's skew the results in an important way?
- Is anyone harmed when the complete results of the 500<400 poll runs to 15,000 entries rather than 10,000 entries?

If the answers to the three questions above are no, then I'm not sure what's the harm of PdA's list. I think people are annoyed that PdA does not edit and manage his list as carefully as many of us do. And I get that. But it's only a problem if it does any of the three things above. If the answer to any of the questions is yes, then let's make a rule limiting lists to 1,000 entries.

User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3716
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

#35

Post by Lammetje » September 18th, 2019, 5:48 pm

blocho wrote:
September 18th, 2019, 2:57 pm
Some quick questions:
- Does a ridiculously long list like PdA's lead to more work for the actual 500<400 listmaker?
- Does a ridiculously long list like PdA's skew the results in an important way?
- Is anyone harmed when the complete results of the 500<400 poll runs to 15,000 entries rather than 10,000 entries?

If the answers to the three questions above are no, then I'm not sure what's the harm of PdA's list. I think people are annoyed that PdA does not edit and manage his list as carefully as many of us do. And I get that. But it's only a problem if it does any of the three things above. If the answer to any of the questions is yes, then let's make a rule limiting lists to 1,000 entries.
  • If I remember correctly Peacy once posted that it takes him only a few seconds longer. So that would be a 'no'.
  • It depends on how one defines 'important', but obviously the long list (just like any other list) can cause movies to drop off the 500<400 or 1000<400 while these movies would have made the final list otherwise, and vice versa.
  • Not really, if you look purely at the amount of entries.
But while these considerations are important, I'd like to point out one more thing. PdA's list goes against the very spirit of 500<400. The idea of this poll is to have people submit a list of their favorite movies with less than 400 checks. PdA's list does not meet that criterion.
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

Image
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.
More memorable quotesShow
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.
OldAle1 wrote:stupid double post bullshit crap shit fuck
mightysparks wrote:ARGH. RARGH. RARGH. DIE.
Kowry wrote:Thanks, Art Garfunky.
Rich wrote:*runs*

User avatar
GruesomeTwosome
Donator
Posts: 2977
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Industrial Wasteland, USA
Contact:

#36

Post by GruesomeTwosome » September 18th, 2019, 7:55 pm

let it be, baby
I’m to remember every man I've seen fall into a plate of spaghetti???

My IMDB profile
ICM
Letterboxd

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3568
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#37

Post by Onderhond » September 18th, 2019, 9:09 pm

So there's basically no real reason to bother with the criteria? If so, that is good to know. Sure could save me some time in the future.

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 2903
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#38

Post by Ebbywebby » September 18th, 2019, 10:55 pm

mjf314 wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 10:05 pm
I don't think it damages the value of the "complete poll results". Anyone can download the results spreadsheet and filter it however they want.
I don't WANT to download results into a spreadsheet and then labor to filter it. I want to bookmark an ICM list, periodically note my progress and be done with it.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11048
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#39

Post by mjf314 » September 18th, 2019, 11:12 pm

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 18th, 2019, 10:55 pm
mjf314 wrote:
September 16th, 2019, 10:05 pm
I don't think it damages the value of the "complete poll results". Anyone can download the results spreadsheet and filter it however they want.
I don't WANT to download results into a spreadsheet and then labor to filter it. I want to bookmark an ICM list, periodically note my progress and be done with it.
Then make your own iCM list and bookmark it. Anyone can create an iCM list.

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 2903
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#40

Post by Ebbywebby » September 19th, 2019, 2:22 am

Great idea. So instead of one functional list of the poll results, we can have a bloated mess PLUS a glut of individual, overlapping lists from people who'd like to make use of the poll data. Strikingly efficient. And heaven knows it's FUN to input hundreds of titles into a list!

Post Reply