Criticker.com

livelove wrote:Thanks, but I don't get it. 69 and 71 are so close, yet in your description world's apart. How does this make sense?

i dunno. maybe think it like

69 - little disappointed in myself for having watched it
70 - maybe some reservations, but recommendable
71 - pleased to have watched it

that prolly doesn't help

@paulofilmo: My point was that your numbers are much closer than the verbal descriptions. Based on the latter, I would expect the numbers to be separated by at least 10 to 20 points: like 30-45-60 or if 50 is your lowest acceptable score then 50-60-70 ... (but not 69-70-71 at any rate). I think on a 0-100 scale, you cannot verbally distinguish steps of 1. Although this discussion might be more on topic here: How granular are your ratings?

I think for me there is just quite a thin line between something worth watching and something not.

And, for me, it seems to work. the psis are right most of the time. they correspond to 71st percentile, 62nd percentile, and 53rd percentile. i won't pretend to understand, but that seems quite spread out.

Although this discussion might be more on topic here: How granular are your ratings?

probably. but i'm maybe not so great at putting things in their rightful places

69-71
...

heh, similar situation...as most of my scores are 81 82 83... and i dont know how i ended up like that .-.

livelove wrote:There is 1 thing I have been dreaming of for a very long time:
guidelines that help me decide how to vote

Something that would help me decide what number to put on a movie […] would be unequivocal guidelines.
In other words: Defining what the numbers mean.
But by imposing requirements that are as specific as possible (as opposed to a nondescript "not that hot").

I often could puzzle my head about the exact number I should give a movie, […]
So my hope was to come up with specific requirements for the rest of my ranking scale.
However I never quite managed to find unambiguous criteria (i.e. that could help distinguish 30 from 35 for example).

ok, all your responses motivated me to face this challenge and I thought very hard about this during the past 2 weeks and here are my results:



truncated cells:

The way it works is:

1. First I note how I would have voted based on gut feeling alone (without the spreadsheet) so that I can compare my gut feeling to the maths.
2. Then I mark all applicable cells row by row.
3. Then I count (vertically) how many marked cells are in each column (i.e. for each score).
4. At the end I compare which column has the highest score.
5. If 2 columns share the highest score, I look which neighbouring column(s) has the higher score.
6. If 3 columns share the highest score, I take the middle one.

This works surprisingly well. Most of the time I'm either dead on target or just off by 5 compared to my prior vote based on gut feeling alone.

This has turned out to be quite helpful when I have to decide on movies which are particularly difficult to score.

questions welcome

This is a problem I've tried to deal with for years, have created and tried various methods, and still not come up with anything truly satisfactory for many of the reasons you fine folk have already stated. This is further complicated by transitioning from one method of rating on one site to another on another site as I join new ratings communities over time. As a result, everything is pretty much a mess. I've come to a degree of acceptance about it and make corrections as I go now - movie by movie - but no longer suffering the anxiety of trying to get it all 'right'.

I know that in the past, I've tended to rate high, so as I re-watch things or if a movie comes up for some reason, I'll revisit my ratings for it and adjust if necessary.

All my ratings started on IMDB, so I'm pretty much loaded with 10 point intervals here, though I've started making some in between tweaks here and there when I felt they were called for, but I doubt I'll ever progress past 5 point intervals.

Something else I did was to adopt the quips that Trakt uses to label their ratings. They work well on a 10 point scale, for the most part. Good, great, fair, meh, etc... I like the plain talk aspect of it.

As for vastly different movies having the same rating, I have two conditions about context for sure. I try to rate movies against other movies similar in era as well rating movies against other movies in their genre or type. While I try to be objective, I did give myself a place for subjective enjoyment - nothing gets a 9 or a 10 out of me if it's not something I enjoyed immensely and/or touched me in some way personally. Don't give two damns if it's a masterpiece of cinema; if it's not the kind of flick I can (and do) watch repeatedly, it's not getting top billing. I used to actually feel this was wrong, somehow. Meh... not so much anymore.

There's my overly long, not-very-helpful two cents worth. I was just happy to see I wasn't alone. The struggle is real...

swiss cheese made me chuckle. these sorts of tables are teeming with erotic energy.

i'll try wthe film i wtchd last night


1. 70



i think you've captured, more or less, the same sort of considerations when rating. for me, the (somewhat) pleased, stimulated, strong words encompass the breadth of the other factors. ugh. i don't know how to speak about this sort of thing

I happy to see someone trying.
some comments:

1.
To have any chance of the method working, you first have to adapt the ranges to your taste!
Just because for me "boring" is in the 0-20 range, obviously doesn't mean it's in the same range for you. So you might have to stretch "boring" up to 55, relocate "neutral" to 55-60 and shorten "enjoyable" somewhat ... just to give you an idea.

So basically, you need to redefine ALL the numeric ranges (i.e. stretch/shorten/relocate them accordingly).
You can obviously rename the parameters as well.

2.
Once you have adjusted the scores to your liking, you can mark the applicable cells (as you have done).

By default (normally) entire ranges should be marked. This should be used most of the time. Like this:


But if you have a very precise idea where the marking should be within a broader range, you can also mark only parts of a broader range, like this:

(The disadvantage is, that if you mark, say, only a cell in the 65 column, the neighbouring columns don't get an upvote).

If your feelings are right "between" two cells, or if the film has ups and downs, you can mark two bordering cells like this:


If you are unsure or torn between two adjacent ranges, or the film has huge ups and downs, you can mark two adjacent ranges like this:


3.
When you are ready, it's time to count.
I have done this with the example you provided in your screenshot. The result is this:



In this case "65" is the clear winner.
So according to MY voting taste, your film would get a 65.
As already mentioned, you first need to adapt the ranges so that you would get the appropriate score according to your voting style (what the numbers mean to you). Then the final number should come out about right.

Asking myself these questions also helps me realize how much I really like the film (or don't).

This is particular helpful if you are a fan of a certain franchise, genre or series and you like the movie more by extension of what the previous movies (in the same franchise) brought you, because it helps you test what THIS particular movie brings to the table (or doesn't).

But I think by far the biggest benefit is that your scores stay consistent throughout time, because they always have the same numerical references (e.g. fixed scores for "boring" or "entertaining"). This safes me from scoring an "entertaining" film 30 on one day and "50" 6 months later when I have somewhat forgotten, how I used to rate "entertaining". As an additional benefit, this also helps to avoid the rock/paper/scissors problem.

(Another solution to solve this problem is to compare movies against each other, but as explained here, the problem is that these are not fixed but inherently variable points of reference and subject to change.)