General Discussion : I'm in the twighlight zone here!

[CMonster]

Well if I understood correctly - it seems to me that the "Tier" system only makes it worse.
Here's an extreme example - if someone gives a bad rating to most movies he watched; let's say, 50 and downwards.
A movie I gave an 8 to, and a movie he gave a 4 or 3 to, become the same?
If this is the case - Criticker twists everything.

Thats under the assumption that everybody views how they rate the same as you. Like Shogun said earlier, for somebody like him a rating of 70 is very good, but for somebody else it may be completely average or even bad. Think of it this way, when you both have something in your Tier 10 films that means you both agree that the film in question is in the top 10% of films you've ever seen. I rate so that anything over 50 I would recommend watching and anything under should be avoid, but since I generally like movies more have ended up above 50 than below making it so movies ranked in the 50's to be a Tier 4 or worse than 60% of the films I've seen. But if you have similar tastes to me, whether or not you judge films harsher or kinder than I do, you could rightfully say that a film you look at in my tier 4 would less preferable to 60% of other films. Do this for a few hundred films and you can get a pretty decent idea of what films are worth watching the most according to your taste.

[ShogunRua]

Well, to be fair to MrAccident, if you only rank movies that you thought were really good, then a film that you thought was "great" and gave a rating of 80 to might still be something like a T4 (higher than 30% of your rankings), which for most people would be the tier range for "mediocre/worse than average".

This is why Criticker works best when you have rated a bunch of movies that you consider both good, bad, and in-between.

[MrAccident]

Rationalization of an existing tradition, is a very common thing.
In the risk of becoming the - I'm still gonna expose the "Tier" as the bullshit it is.
It can be easily proven, logically:
Jack thinks that (OK, I'm not going to be imaginative here, at all) The Terminator is amazing, T2 is great, T3 is good, and T4 is crap (this kid is OK BTW).
So he gives T1 - 100, T2 - 90, T3 - 70, T4 - 30.
Bill (also known as billy), thinks the same exact way, about those movies. But he doesn't like to be bothered with the bad ones; so he rated only the first three. So in Criticker, T2 becomes less good; and T3 becomes a bad movie.
If it actually went by the rating; even if a little bit different - for instance, Bill would give 60 to T3 - there would be much less difference.
There also is no logical connection between the different people's interpretations of the scores, and that the "Tier" fixes it somehow. At least, it wasn't given by anyone, yet.

What fascinates me, is who and how in the world, did anyone came-up with the idea for this? Did someone just got-up in the middle of a boring meeting, and went "hey, I have a great idea - lets make something completely redundant, in the site!)?
And how the rest of the people, excepted it?!!
I guess, there's always has to be something like that.

My problem may actually be, because of that. But I don't know.
The only thing this rule can do, is not to get too much in the way of the actual scores.

Really nothing against you, CMonster; I'm only against the injustice in the world... and the bullshit rule.

[ShogunRua]

Rationalization of an existing tradition, is a very common thing.
In the risk of becoming the - I'm still gonna expose the "Tier" as the bullshit it is.
It can be easily proven, logically:
Jack thinks that (OK, I'm not going to be imaginative here, at all) The Terminator is amazing, T2 is great, T3 is good, and T4 is crap (this kid is OK BTW).
So he gives T1 - 100, T2 - 90, T3 - 70, T4 - 30.

Again, this is simply not how it works. Tiers are assigned automatically assigned by the site. YOU don't decide.

And all T1 means is that you gave a score to a movie that is lower than 90% of the other movies you have rated. In fact, it's impossible for someone to have a score of 100 that is their T1. Even if they ranked every single film a 100 on their profile, that would still make 100 a T6. (Tier 6).

Also, a higher tier automatically means a higher score for the same person. Thus, T2 being a lower score than T1 is nonsensical, is nonsensical. You're essentially saying a score that is higher than 0-10% of your rankings is higher than a score that is higher than 10-20% of your rankings. Before firing off another post accusing the site of "bullshit", I would actually go back and carefully read what others have written.

You claim to understand everything, but clearly, you don't.

[SirStuckey]

Jack thinks that (OK, I'm not going to be imaginative here, at all) The Terminator is amazing, T2 is great, T3 is good, and T4 is crap (this kid is OK BTW).
So he gives T1 - 100, T2 - 90, T3 - 70, T4 - 30.
Bill (also known as billy), thinks the same exact way, about those movies. But he doesn't like to be bothered with the bad ones; so he rated only the first three.

Bill (also known as Billy) can be bothered to actually watch Terminator: Salvation but not to type a "30" in a little box?

[MrAccident]

You kinda missed the point, did you?
I expected that; but I'll still try one more time - the "Tier", being part of the system - can distort the actual people's opinions; while not contributing a thing, to the system.
I think that is the simplest way of putting that. I wonder, if there will still be misunderstandings.

[Zarkon]

Rationalization of an existing tradition, is a very common thing.
In the risk of becoming the - I'm still gonna expose the "Tier" as the bullshit it is.
It can be easily proven, logically:
Jack thinks that (OK, I'm not going to be imaginative here, at all) The Terminator is amazing, T2 is great, T3 is good, and T4 is crap (this kid is OK BTW).
So he gives T1 - 100, T2 - 90, T3 - 70, T4 - 30.

Again, this is simply not how it works. Tiers are assigned automatically assigned by the site. YOU don't decide.

Before firing off another post accusing the site of "bullshit", I would actually go back and carefully read what others have written.

Ironically, you didn't read MrAccident's post, since "T1-T4" refers to the Terminator titles, not tiers.

You kinda missed the point, did you?
I expected that; but I'll still try one more time - the "Tier", being part of the system - can distort the actual people's opinions; while not contributing a thing, to the system.
I think that is the simplest way of putting that. I wonder, if there will still be misunderstandings.

You haven't proved this (tiers "not contributing a thing") in your previous post. You've shown a single set of cases where the absolute rating fares better than the tiered conversion in computing compatibility. You need to show that people have similar enough rating schemes (that is, while what they consider good or bad may differ, what score they assign to the good and bad are similar) that using absolute ratings to compute compatibility in every instance of two users, not just your constructed example, is going to fare better, statistically, than the tiered system.

To actually "prove" this rigorously isn't practical since you need to compute compatibility between you and all users under your system, but what you'd do is (1) compute the most compatible users under your alternative (2) pick a set of movies, and compute the probable score based on your most compatible users, (3) find the difference between your actual rating and the predicted score, (4) determine whether this is statistically better than the tiered system. Then (5) show that it's statistically better for any user looking for compatible users, not just yourself.

As previous posts have mentioned (some using examples similar to yours), the tiered model requires some additional assumptions in the userbase's rankings for it to work well, such as a sizable and varied set of ratings to seed the tiers and so that users have enough films in common. But these are readily met by enough of the Criticker users.

[MrAccident]

This is just becoming comical. Are we playing "how dumb can you go"?
I'm really trying to be polite here; but I also have a limit.
How ridiculous this discussion can still become?
I'm really new here; yet I already saw that when the score is 50 - it says "Not Good" besides it.
40 says "Bad".
60 - Alright.
70 - Decent.
80 - Great.
90 - Awesome.
100 - Awesome.
What are you trying to say - that someone is going to put a good movie, in the alright section; or an awesome movie in the "Not Good" section?
I wouldn't want to get any advice from that guy, anyway.

I also just had an ominous thought - I probably will never get to a level, that will give me good recommendations. Since my goal (as strange as it might sound) is to watch only good movies!
And unfortunately, I'm also pretty good at it. I'm pretty good at spotting movies that I will like, from trailers, and other places. And realizing that I won't like the movie, very quickly, when I'm watching it; and than just stop watching it.
You can see already, that the number of movies I've given 40 to, is the smallest. The 50s are also few. I also had some additional reasons to watch some of the bad ones; and today, I'm really good at not getting the bad ones. That's what I came here for, for crying out loud! To only get movies I'll like. So with time, I'll have more and more good movies; and less of the whole, will have a bad score.
So unless someone misunderstood how the system works - I'm screwed.

[ShogunRua]

Ironically, you didn't read MrAccident's post, since "T1-T4" refers to the Terminator titles, not tiers.

Ah, so it does. Very confusing, considering that for the past 3 pages of this topic, we have been referring to Tx purely as tiers for film rankings.

Anyways, MrAccident is highlighting the same thing that I mentioned here. Once again, the way to get around this is to rate a large number of movies that you find good, bad, and in-between. Every system will have limitations, but I think using tiers is vastly preferable to treating a "50" from me the same way you would treat a "50" for someone like Luna6ix. (To use an example of a user with really high average ratings)

[Zarkon]

So unless someone misunderstood how the system works - I'm screwed.

Perhaps. But the assumption that we're working with and which you're writing off is that enough of the users aren't going to run into that problem because they've watched and rated some bad movies. That's far from a system being "bullshit."