avgcrtckr

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
djross
Posts: 1212
5318 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:56 am

Re: avgcrtckr

Post by djross »

Having now ranked over 2000 movies (still only 774 in common with me, though), "user" avgcrtckr is now only my 15th nearest in terms of TCI (at 1.7946).

The additional "red" films are the following:

Werckmeister Harmonies
42 Up
The Deer Hunter
L.A. Confidential


For comparison:

IMDb-byvotes
TCI: 2.1884
Films in Common: 1837
Your 287th Best TCI

imdb
TCI: 2.5655
Films in Common: 2380
Not in Your Top 1000 TCIs

I guess the difference between the IMDb "users", on the one hand, and avgcrtckr, on the other hand, amounts to the degree to which the average Criticker user has better taste than the average IMDb user (from my perspective).

As an aside, there would be no benefit in allowing users to artificially engineer which movies fall in what tier.

djross
Posts: 1212
5318 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:56 am

Re: avgcrtckr

Post by djross »

mwgerb wrote:
djross wrote:
movieboy wrote:He should be ranking 7.75 as 8 instead of 78. All films should be ranked as 1, 2, 3 .... 10. So the film will automatically fall into the right tier.


Surely that will still not be "automatic" but on the contrary depend on the distribution of scores. The way to get it to work out "right" would be to control the distribution to match the average tier, i.e., for user avgcrtckr to rank the same number of films for each unit difference of average tier. But this would most likely not be possible for any large number of rankings, unless films with very few rankings are used, because there just are not enough films with a tier 10 average ranking.


The only way to do it would be to rank all of the "Very Obscure" films as either 100 or 0, and even then it probably wouldn't be worthwhile. Even though The Godfather averages around a tier 8.8, it's in more user's tier 10s than almost any other movie. I don't think avgcrtckr should artificially make it into a rounded tier 9 film.


I don't understand this: as I already mentioned in the paragraph to which you are responding, in order for user avgcrtckr to have actual tiers that conform to the average tiers that are the basis of the ranking, it would probably be necessary to use a controlled number of films with very few rankings to be able to fill the extremes with the necessary number of films. Why that should mean that movies need to be ranked as 0 or 100 is unclear to me, and would obviously mean that the rankings are incorrect and unreliable.

MmzHrrdb
Your TCI: na

Re: avgcrtckr

Post by MmzHrrdb »

ShogunRua wrote:
Ununnilium wrote:Yeah, I'd really love just being able to define which of my ratings fall into which tier.


That would essentially destroy TCLs, PSIs, and the main point and functionality of this site...


yeah exactly. the way it is now is perfectly fine unless you like giving everything really high scores

mwgerb
Posts: 299
2074 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:18 am

Re: avgcrtckr

Post by mwgerb »

Now that avgcrtckr's ranked more movies, they've gone down to a TCI of 1.1696, my 10th best overall.

Okkervil
Posts: 115
3626 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:19 pm

Re: avgcrtckr

Post by Okkervil »

TCI: 1.7785
Films in Common: 1386
Your 443rd Best TCI

edkrak
Posts: 704
3745 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:49 am

Re: avgcrtckr

Post by edkrak »

I just checked "Your films in common" with avgcrtckr and few things surprised me:
Shaolin Soccer T4
original Nightmare on Elm Street T4
Revenge of the Nerds T3
Species T1 WTF?!!? (Well maybe I'm biased because that was one of my favourites as a child and when rewatching apart from having fun I have this nostalgic feeling)

I know that none of those films are cinematic masterpieces that will change the way we look at the world, but cmon all of them are loads of fun. Yet one of the most pathetic borefests I've ever seen:
Mother and Son T8

Obviously I have much more in red with avgcrtckr, but while I can understand why people loved Jules & Jim or hated AVP, those few mentioned above got me eyes rolling.

MmzHrrdb
Your TCI: na

Re: avgcrtckr

Post by MmzHrrdb »

TCI: 1.1499
Films in Common: 767
Your 2nd Best TCI

I guess I'm average...

adrian
Posts: 45
937 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:46 am

Re: avgcrtckr

Post by adrian »

If anyone knows any other "artificial" users besides the ones mentioned in this thread, please let me know. I'd like to ignore them, no offense avgcrtckr.

I also know about theyshootpic and related accounts.

MmzHrrdb
Your TCI: na

Re: avgcrtckr

Post by MmzHrrdb »

TCI: 1.5089
Films in Common: 953
My 15th Best TCI

Dorkovsky
Posts: 339
41943 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:15 am

Re: avgcrtckr

Post by Dorkovsky »

adrian wrote:If anyone knows any other "artificial" users besides the ones mentioned in this thread, please let me know. I'd like to ignore them, no offense avgcrtckr.

I also know about theyshootpic and related accounts.


I know of a Metacritic and at least one RottenTomatoes account, then probably the silliest, RNG, or random number generator.

Post Reply