[spoiler]
djross wrote:MTR wrote:But quite obviously, it
should be 0 ![Exclamation :!:](./images/smilies/icon_exclaim.gif)
This is not obvious at all since it assumes that what matters is the numerical score rather than the overall distribution: if a user's lowest score is 75, then that's the worst movie they've ranked. If instead of 26 movies they ranked 2600 movies, the situation would still be the same, so if it's just that they haven't ranked any of the bad movies they've seen yet, then the best solution is to rank more movies. The system's fine.
You haven't understood my post one a bit.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
PrestoBix wrote:Yeah this totally isn't an issue at all.
Thank you for your "input".
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
amazedemon wrote:MTR wrote:TCI of
user A and
user B is
over 38
Surely your assumption would mean the TCI is ~28, not 38 (or 37) as the 26 films that are rated identically contribute 26 zeros to the average.
You either didn't understood my post one a bit or you simply don't understand TCI one a bit.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/spoiler]
Anyway something that might interested livelove I guess. I made two simple examples and will post them in image form.
Example 1 (similar to my opening post)
https://i.imgur.com/DB89dPA.pngExample 2 (showing that rating bad titles makes your TCI much worse than it should be with someone who only rates good titles)
https://i.imgur.com/MKXF4bn.pngExample 3 (the best one yet, user A and user B have very similar tastes, but user A watches a lot of good movies that user B doesn't and user B watches a lot of bad movies, that user A doesn't)
https://i.imgur.com/LYhMKF9.png