1) No apology necessary; keep up the enthusiasm
2) I won't get into the details of my opinion since I don't think it's necessary at this time, and I'm also not actively advocating for TSZDT to be unadopted.
3) There are some free options out there - even just a bunch of google spreadsheets that are publicly accessible is better than nothing.
I'm not familiar with good-faith arguments, and not sure what implication you have in mind here. My main point was that if the information wasn't public, then people are left to draw their own conclusions, which is where the perception of a personal bias could come in. It wasn't clear to me that you were going to make the data and methodology public, so that's one less concern I have now.It's difficult to take the implication of "heavy personal bias" as a good-faith argument. I won't lie, I don't much care for that. Rest assured, I was always planning to make 100% of my data publicly accessible to everyone. There is no bias whatsoever.
No, I never thought your goal was getting your name on something.However, if you think my goal here is to get my name on something, for the clout or whatever, you know neither me nor the aim of my project.
In your opinion. I haven't read the King book, so I don't know if the list of films is simply those mentioned anywhere, only in the index/checklist, or otherwise - but you also haven't read the book, and without the context of why those films are included (and why others are excluded), I don't think one can state whether or not the list accurately represents the genre. This reminds me of when the Fantasy list was adopted, and people questions why Basic Instinct was included. Turns out it was because the writer (or whoever) felt that the film represented a male fantasy about women (or something to that extent - this is the time when I wish we had an easy Lammetje button that could find a specific post in any thread without having to spend half an hour searching the forum for it ). Out of context, it seems like a very strange film to include in a fantasy genre book, but given the context, I actually think it makes sense.The entire reasoning behind building a better comedy resource is because the King list does not accurately represent the genre.
Also, if the list is just every film mentioned in the book, but the book actually has specific chapters for each film, or a comprehensive list somewhere, then perhaps the King list simply needs to be edited to accurately reflect the book - we've done this for other lists in the past (and we're currently looking into fixing the Vogel list), so if someone gets a copy of the book (just checked, it's not at my library), we can do some cross-reference (unless that info is already on the forum somewhere... the list was adopted a long time ago, perhaps before the forum existed).
No, I didn't ignore that part of your post. The fact that you want this list to be "definitive" was the reason I brought up concerns about your methodology.I think I made my intentions pretty clear in this excerpt from my post, which you have actively ignored: "Much like horror, comedy is frowned upon by film snobs despite being a genre with some our most timeless and beloved classics. This list is meant to function as a definitive, diverse ranking of the top 1000 comedies of all time, encompassing everything from Chaplin to Broken Lizard to foreign obscurities."
I think we're on the same page? But again, to be clear, I have no issue with this project at all. The only reason I mentioned my objection in the first place was because I didn't want you to do all of this work thinking that it would be adopted as official and then be devastated if it possibly didn't get adopted. I feel it would be very dastardly of me to stay silent during this whole time and then only speak my disagreement about it's officialness at the very end. Plus, I'm only speaking for myself, not on behalf of any of the other site moderators who are involved in adoption discussions.