Official lists updates

[Knaldskalle]

The last version of the S&S poll had a profound impact on the TSPDT. I hope this new one will have less of an impact - not that I dislike the S&S poll (not at all), but the TSPDT list that came out right after bore such a resemblance to the S&S poll that it was a bit silly. I have nothing against the S&S poll being a big influence, but it was a bit too much last time, I thought. Hopefully the extra decade has given the TSPDT some extra quality polls that will help balance things out a bit.

[Tasselfoot]

There's no reason that 1 person should have to tackle all of this themselves... if that 1 person sets up formatting they want in a Google Doc, then all of us can pitch in and help out, get it done much faster.

edit: quick spreadsheet work tells me there were 2118 combined voters. With 1638 critics and 480 directors

[Fergenaprido]

There's no reason that 1 person should have to tackle all of this themselves... if that 1 person sets up formatting they want in a Google Doc, then all of us can pitch in and help out, get it done much faster.

It's up to PA how he wants to do it. He did it last time, so maybe he's got a straightforward process with his scripts that gathers all the info for him.

If I end up doing it, I will indeed do it via a Google Doc like I've done other vote compilations, and I will indeed ask for help in putting all the ballots in the doc.

[Knaldskalle]

PA has a detailed spreadsheet when it comes to updating the TSPDT list, so maybe he has the same for S&S? I trust PA to have things under control.

[Tim2460]

I do see ways to automate the process ... for exemple if we can extract via a web crawler all the individual ballot as HTML file.

[Tim2460]

Ouch the HTML is veryyyyyy long/complicated and the info badly burried in the middle.

If we get lucky one of our Java programmers can extract all the right HTML Tags Easilly.

Could be not that complicated to extract the info between the Voted for and the Footer part with Java... With Excel as well maybe too.
Interesting project anyway ,)

[Tim2460]

People favoriting lost Pré 1910 shorts really start to piss me off.

[ChrisReynolds]

Cross-posted from the Sight and Sound thread:

This morning I wrote a Python program to scrape all the Sight and Sound poll data and put it into a single Excel table. Here's the data from the first 10 voters.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxsrun72kyo6a ... .xlsx?dl=0

Is that a format that works? The full dataset will take another hour to scrape.

[Tasselfoot]

People favoriting lost Pré 1910 shorts really start to piss me off.

ban them.

[Ebbywebby]

That Pre-1910s list is more trouble than it's worth.

[AdamH]

That's the first lost short to enter the list and the list is very stable now other than the odd new entry. The problem could be very easily solved. Block people from checking lost films. I can't understand why it hasn't been done already.

[kongs_speech]

That's the first lost short to enter the list and the list is very stable now other than the odd new entry. The problem could be very easily solved. Block people from checking lost films. I can't understand why it hasn't been done already.

I completely agree. There are lost films in the 1910s list too.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

PA has a detailed spreadsheet when it comes to updating the TSPDT list, so maybe he has the same for S&S? I trust PA to have things under control.

I have a nice source list for TSPDT because it comes up every year and Bill gives a reasonably consistent format for the results. S&S is once a decade and they change everything all the time. I have no special insight or resources for S&S compared to others. Looks like chris and mjf have already done the hard work of parsing the website, so I'll mostly just be sorting and double checking.

[Panunzio]

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/ ... gems-issue

Would this be consider an update to the S&S 'Hidden Gems' list?

[Torgo]

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/ ... gems-issue

Would this be consider an update to the S&S 'Hidden Gems' list?

Oh Good idea, good catch!

It's not completely the same though - our list of 75 (instead of 101) was done for their birthday, while the new one somehow seems to be a bonus to their new top list. For example, Wanda obviously won't be included now anymore (sigh).
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/sigh ... dden+gems/

I'd like to see a comparison of both and vote for "Adopt!" anyhow.

[Fergenaprido]

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/ ... gems-issue

Would this be consider an update to the S&S 'Hidden Gems' list?

Hmm, good question. Despite the same title, the two lists appear to have been curated/curated differently. The existing list is specifically about Hidden Gems. "We asked 75 critics from across the world each to nominate one film they thought was unduly obscure and worthy of greater eminence." It was published in 2007 to coincide with the 75th anniversary of S&S (hence why 75 titles), outside of the regular decade poll. The new poll appears to be more of a "Nobody's Blues" style, culling from the latest poll: "Each of these films is one of the greatest according to just one voter in our recent Greatest Films of All Time poll".

So while it's not a direct successor to the previous poll, they do reference it in the opening write-up: "When, nearly 16 years ago, we asked contributors to pluck out films 'unduly obscure and worth of greater eminence', Amy Taubin selected Barbara Loden's Wanda (1970) - since then, with the help of a 2010 restoration by UCLA Film & Television Archive, it has made it into the poll's top 50." It does seem intentional that they're using the same name.

So, whether this new list should replace the older list as the "official" S&S Hidden Gem list on icm is a separate question in my mind.

Also, it's not clear to me why these specific 101 films were chosen (they can't be the only one-vote wonders in the entire poll edit: I see now from mjf's spreadsheet that there are 2706 one-vote films).

[Apu]

News from Bill/TSPDT:

Paused…
March 3, 2023
I have today commenced assembling the 2,000+ Sight & Sound ballots in readiness for the next update of the 1,000 Greatest Films (and, down the track, the 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films). This, as you can imagine, is going to be quite time-consuming. Therefore, I have decided to put on hold adding new director pages, and making any further noir updates for now. These will resume after I have published the new editions of both the Greatest Films and 21st Century projects. I'm sure you've all grown accustomed to the static nature of TSPDT over the years, especially in 2022 when I was down and out with my illness. This little breather will be child's play for you!

[xianjiro]

That's the first lost short to enter the list and the list is very stable now other than the odd new entry. The problem could be very easily solved. Block people from checking lost films. I can't understand why it hasn't been done already.

Wish folks would be more specific about what they are talking about rather than just assuming everyone knows... is Bataille de boules de neige to offending film? If yes, then it does seem likely that it's confused with the Lumiere version. While the most dedicated users will check dates and directors, I don't think we should fault 'average' users for making such mistakes. I have difficulty making sure I've got the correct film.

Again, this is where one of the Mods should post OFFICIAL notes on both films and mods should contact those who've checked the wrong film with a form letter like post mentioning the likely error. My guess is most users will really appreciate this little act of kindness and remedy the situation.

Also, again, having a tag in the iCM system for a lost film (only to be set by mods) would go a long way to solving/preventing these pernicious problems/complaints.

[Tasselfoot]

News from Bill/TSPDT:

Paused…
March 3, 2023
I have today commenced assembling the 2,000+ Sight & Sound ballots in readiness for the next update of the 1,000 Greatest Films (and, down the track, the 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films). This, as you can imagine, is going to be quite time-consuming. Therefore, I have decided to put on hold adding new director pages, and making any further noir updates for now. These will resume after I have published the new editions of both the Greatest Films and 21st Century projects. I'm sure you've all grown accustomed to the static nature of TSPDT over the years, especially in 2022 when I was down and out with my illness. This little breather will be child's play for you!

Can we share Chris's data with Bill? Would save him the time-consuming assembling.

[Angel Glez]

News from Bill/TSPDT:

Paused…
March 3, 2023
I have today commenced assembling the 2,000+ Sight & Sound ballots in readiness for the next update of the 1,000 Greatest Films (and, down the track, the 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films). This, as you can imagine, is going to be quite time-consuming. Therefore, I have decided to put on hold adding new director pages, and making any further noir updates for now. These will resume after I have published the new editions of both the Greatest Films and 21st Century projects. I'm sure you've all grown accustomed to the static nature of TSPDT over the years, especially in 2022 when I was down and out with my illness. This little breather will be child's play for you!

Can we share Chris's data with Bill? Would save him the time-consuming assembling.

He is aware of it.

[AdamH]

That's the first lost short to enter the list and the list is very stable now other than the odd new entry. The problem could be very easily solved. Block people from checking lost films. I can't understand why it hasn't been done already.

Wish folks would be more specific about what they are talking about rather than just assuming everyone knows... is Bataille de boules de neige to offending film? If yes, then it does seem likely that it's confused with the Lumiere version. While the most dedicated users will check dates and directors, I don't think we should fault 'average' users for making such mistakes. I have difficulty making sure I've got the correct film.

Again, this is where one of the Mods should post OFFICIAL notes on both films and mods should contact those who've checked the wrong film with a form letter like post mentioning the likely error. My guess is most users will really appreciate this little act of kindness and remedy the situation.

Also, again, having a tag in the iCM system for a lost film (only to be set by mods) would go a long way to solving/preventing these pernicious problems/complaints.

I'm not trying to be vague. I already posted about Bataille on another thread. Was simply responding to the user who mentioned it earlier. We don't know that it I lost for certain unlike some films. It is hard to find much info about it.

In this case, many of the recent checks are unlikely to be from people mistaking the film for something else. The Lumiere version will already have been checked by them as it is in the list and there are multiple comments from people saying they cant find it. I'm not sure why people continue to check it. I remember messaging about the lost version of Danse Serpentine. Messaged someone who had faved it. They read the message and kept it faved. Hard to understand why.

Personally, I think people shouldn't be able to check lost films at all. Messaging only goes so far. A tag might help but it won't stop all. The Bataille one is a tough one as it isn't explicitly lost like some but seems to be a case of mistaken identity and so far impossible to find.

[AdamH]

Bataille now shows up as having 0 favourites despite having 2. Is that a bug or deliberate?

[xianjiro]

I'm not trying to be vague. I already posted about Bataille on another thread. Was simply responding to the user who mentioned it earlier. We don't know that it I lost for certain unlike some films. It is hard to find much info about it.

No idea which other thread. I get that you were responding to someone else (who also didn't mention the film). Maybe you two forgot the discussion jumped threads. However, it's still hard for others to follow the train of thought. I did read the comments for both films but haven't done much research on the probably lost one.

In this case, many of the recent checks are unlikely to be from people mistaking the film for something else.

Depends. If the search by title, it would be easy to get the wrong film. And now that a probably lost film is official, many will be checking it. I don't believe there is any requirement to read comments before checking.

Personally, I think people shouldn't be able to check lost films at all. Messaging only goes so far. A tag might help but it won't stop all. The Bataille one is a tough one as it isn't explicitly lost like some but seems to be a case of mistaken identity and so far impossible to find.

Agreed. Maybe I should rephrase and say lost field, not tag. I forget that "tag" has been used differently on iCM. I mean a yes/no check box in the database that mods could 'tag' when they have more than a reasonable doubt that a film is lost. Behind the scenes, Marijn could set things up to make those films not checkable or to not allow favoriting, etc.

[Tasselfoot]

While we're on that discussion... make lost films not count for official lists :p Not that we haven't had that debate 100 times already

Also, the Pre 1910s list still hasn't had its name updated so it appears at the start of the lists instead of the end. I gave 3 different suggestions on how to re-name it so that it aligns properly.

[xianjiro]

While we're on that discussion... make lost films not count for official lists :p Not that we haven't had that debate 100 times already

Also, the Pre 1910s list still hasn't had its name updated so it appears at the start of the lists instead of the end. I gave 3 different suggestions on how to re-name it so that it aligns properly.

You've got my support on both counts. Isn't this the first time that it's been possible for a film to made official by the masses? Yes, technically a film could make iCM's Most Checked and Most Favorited lists ... if they could get over 54,000 checks or 1955 favorites.

[AdamH]

Xian, I'm on a train and typing and it is hard to type the name of the snowball fight short let alone remember how to spell it. It is nothing intentional, I was simply replying to someone who didn't mention the name. I'm not sure what the issue is to be honest.

You would need to ask the people who are checking it (most of whom will already have checked the Lumiere short) what it is that they are watching to check it. I always instantly go to the comments for shorts because they normally include links. Not everyone will do same as me, of course.

Agreed on films not being checkable. I think the issue in cases like this is that none of us know if the film is lost but we can say with some certainty that people have checked the film without seeing it. I tried messaging people who have checked it but I've got over 1000 messages in my inbox now from trying to import films from IMDb (part of the bug when importing). Any way to delete all messages otherwise it will take me a long time to be able to send messages again.

[Tim2460]

For my part I have disliked the obvious lost films (from an joachimt list if I remember well). This way I don't collect /check them anymore when my scripts seems to find an new version of lost films on YouTube....

[AdamH]

Also worth noting that the Eiffel Tower short has 50+ new checks already and the snowball one has hardly any so I think people are, for the most part, looking at the comments section.

[Fergenaprido]

I'm not trying to be vague. I already posted about Bataille on another thread. Was simply responding to the user who mentioned it earlier. We don't know that it I lost for certain unlike some films. It is hard to find much info about it.

No idea which other thread. I get that you were responding to someone else (who also didn't mention the film). Maybe you two forgot the discussion jumped threads. However, it's still hard for others to follow the train of thought. I did read the comments for both films but haven't done much research on the probably lost one.

You weren't the only one who had no idea which film Adam was talking about. And I even read the thread he mentioned but had already forgotten about it.

[xianjiro]

There are three films with very similar names, two of which are now (but not for long) official:

Bataille de boules de neige (1900) - official, Alice Guy
Bataille de neige (1897) - official, Louis Lumière
Bataille de neige (1900) - not official, director unknown, Pathé Frères

that final movie has been checked by Hunziker, a respected community member. I can only assume he did it by accident.

The Alice Guy short now has no favorites - did someone mention that above? - so it will drop off the list. Wow! It jumped from #206 on iCheckMovies's Pre 1910s Top 250 (25 Feb 23) to #100. I'm guessing the small number of checks coupled with only 7 favorites needed is why it landed on the official list.

edit: Maybe the formula for this (and other?) of these new favorite lists needs a tweak? Say, a minimum number of checks before it can qualify for the official list?

[xianjiro]

I tried messaging people who have checked it but I've got over 1000 messages in my inbox now from trying to import films from IMDb (part of the bug when importing). Any way to delete all messages otherwise it will take me a long time to be able to send messages again.

If you mean in iCM, there is a checkbox which will mark all messages and then you can delete them. Or do you mean here?

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Bataille now shows up as having 0 favourites despite having 2. Is that a bug or deliberate?

It's a bug, the same bug that makes check counts not match up. The db doesn't count up checks/favs/dislikes, it adds 1 to a counter when checked/fav/disliked and removes 1 from the counter if a check/fav/dislike is removed. This can get buggy for several reasons: If an account is deleted the counter sometimes doesn't update, importing from imdb sometimes messes things up, if the site is having db issues sometimes one part of the check/fav/dislike is processed but not the related counter changes, probably other things I don't know.

[xianjiro]

For my part I have disliked the obvious lost films (from an joachimt list if I remember well). This way I don't collect /check them anymore when my scripts seems to find an new version of lost films on YouTube....

makes sense, but it also adds you to that group of despised people who check/favorite/dislike/etc films they haven't even seen. Again, we need to build a case and ask Marijn how difficult a toggle field for "believed lost" would be to implement. Granted, that won't help with only available on the third Tuesday of a harvest moon at the Eastman House and such, but those are still valid checks. BTW, checking a truly lost film is a clear violation of iCM's ToU.

[xianjiro]

Bataille now shows up as having 0 favourites despite having 2. Is that a bug or deliberate?

It's a bug, the same bug that makes check counts not match up. The db doesn't count up checks/favs/dislikes, it adds 1 to a counter when checked/fav/disliked and removes 1 from the counter if a check/fav/dislike is removed. This can get buggy for several reasons: If an account is deleted the counter sometimes doesn't update, importing from imdb sometimes messes things up, if the site is having db issues sometimes one part of the check/fav/dislike is processed but not the related counter changes, probably other things I don't know.

one favorite is over a year old, the other over five -- so I stand by my earlier guess they checked it meaning to check the other one. I've certainly seen that elsewhere on the site. One of the two users is still active the other has been inactive for three months (and is in Russia maybe?)

[xianjiro]

And the problem with posting a comment asking people who've checked/seen a 'lost' film to post a link is they'll probably never see the comment. I certainly don't troll movies I watched years ago to see if anyone has left a comment asking me where I saw it.

[AdamH]

I get that but there's multiple comments that will stop others checking it as seen by the very small number of new checks for it compared to the Eiffel one. As mentioned, I tried to message people but I have a huge number of messages in my inbox and it will take a long, long time to remove them.

[xianjiro]

I get that but there's multiple comments that will stop others checking it as seen by the very small number of new checks for it compared to the Eiffel one. As mentioned, I tried to message people but I have a huge number of messages in my inbox and it will take a long, long time to remove them.

Again, you make assumptions about user behavior. If I go to iCM's search page (https://www.icheckmovies.com/search/) and type "Bataille de neige" I and hit the Search button, I get a list of lots of possible films -- all checkable, favoritable, etc right there on the search results page. I never have to open the film's individual page, so I'm not going to know there are comments, or no checks, or whatever.

[Tasselfoot]

I think an awful lot of folks look at the comments for new, short shorts to get a youtube (or other) link to the film as opposed to trying to hunt it down themselves. There are a handful of amazing folks who do a lot of heavy lifting to post all those URLs in the comments, and people DO use them. I know I do. I also try to post links if I watch something off of YT that doesn't already have a link posted.

[xianjiro]

BTW, Bataille de boules de neige (1900) - Alice Guy must be pre-code or a noir since Walter's checked it! Where'd ya see it Walter? Huh? Huh? It's picked up 13 checks in the last two months. Rich checked it as well. So either a copy has been found or they checked the wrong movie. Walter will shed some light, I'm certain.

[AdamH]

Pre-being official they do what you said, Xian.
Post-being official most will do what i described hence the lack of new checks compared to the Eiffel Tower short. No-one would search for it on iCM like that if working on the pre 1910s list after it became official. People not working on that list would do that, yes.