• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot. More details on our policies, especially our Own the Source rule are available here. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Favorite Edit of the Year (FEOTY) 2021 polls are here for all 11 categories.

Swimming in a Sea of Perfect 10’s

addiesin

Well-known member
Messages
5,163
Reaction score
567
Trophy Points
163
I think the solution is to accept that it is inherently flawed (I would not say this if it was inherently blatantly unfair, but that's not the same thing). I've said this recently but will repeat here, adding mandatory restrictions, even with good intentions, will simply cause fewer people to review, and lowering quantity is not equal to increasing the quality per review.

Also, changing the system is frustrating because of the lost context of the reviews made before the change. Better be very sure of the replacement system or else it'll get replaced again over and over. While flawed, the current system has consistency going for it.
 

Stromboli Bones

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
189
Reaction score
236
Trophy Points
63
I think the solution is to accept that it is inherently flawed (I would not say this if it was inherently blatantly unfair, but that's not the same thing). I've said this recently but will repeat here, adding mandatory restrictions, even with good intentions, will simply cause fewer people to review, and lowering quantity is not equal to increasing the quality per review.

Also, changing the system is frustrating because of the lost context of the reviews made before the change. Better be very sure of the replacement system or else it'll get replaced again over and over. While flawed, the current system has consistency going for it.
I like your suggestion @Murikamir but ultimately I think I have to agree with addiesin; just because the system is "flawed" at its core, that doesn't make it worthless or in need of change. The differences between 7s and 8s, 9s and 10s, are all going to be the result of some extreme subjectivity that is dependent on what each individual viewer is expecting to get out of the experience, and that's perfectly fine. The bottom line is: there is no such thing as a "Perfect" piece of art for everyone.

The way each edit is rated overall is a culmination of very different, very subjective reviews. Just because an edit has 10 reviews and has a perfect 10/10 doesn't mean you're going to watch it and agree what it's the absolute best edit you've ever seen, but I think after most people peruse through the edit page, find one that seems interesting, see the score, and read the changes log, they're going to be able to make a fairly accurate judgment call about whether they're going to enjoy the project.

One way or another you're going to have some people give you 10s, some people give you 7s and some people give you 4s. And while sure, it sucks to see something you made get a lower score than you feel it deserves, but in the end if you made something worthy of being watched and appreciated, I think that will be reflected in the numbers. Everyone and everything in the world of Art is subjective, but the rating system we have in place here gives people a quantifiable way to get a rough estimate of the quality they should expect when they decide to give an edit a watch. And in my opinion, that's all we could really ask for out of a rating system.
 

Wraith

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
1,127
Trophy Points
133
The system was changed once before, when the categories were expanded; the old reviews still hold.

Redefining one category and merging two very similar categories is not a revolution, but maybe evolution.

I'm not dissatisfied with the system, heck no! I do think it could be improved, and it clear many think the same though we will differ on how that might be achieved.

I'm not advocating its broke, but the structure does also favor inherently good films to do better than improved poorer films...and I balance that with DUNE as the exception.

I'm out of ideas for now but given the thread opening was not suggesting any fix other than this may...
...." lead to floating in a pool of mediocrity as the reviews might not have meaning anymore.
(which I do not agree with)
I felt a suggestion or two could be constructive.

There are plenty of outstanding edits in that seas of 10s (for now)...

Any other ideas out there?
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
3,605
Reaction score
1,093
Trophy Points
148
If this is going to end up cheifly as another discussion about the rating system and changing it, I'm inclined to merge it with this thread, posted very recently. It feels like old ground is being trodden.

Alternatively, if this is in fact intended to be about something different, maybe we can steer it back on topic?
 

ArtisDead

Well-known member
Cover Artist
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
863
Trophy Points
138
It seems the same. All of these type threads do. I must be getting old...
 

Wraith

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
1,127
Trophy Points
133
That’s why I tried to steer back re the “sea of 10s”…
Fine it’s an observation, but if you look at the top rated edits in the IFDB list… say the first 6/7 pages, I challenge anyone to demonstrate that those 9.4-10s ( not many 10s I should note)… that they are a sea of mediocrity…

It’s a tremendous smorgasbord of talent, creative effort and technical prowess.

Seems that on average, it kinda lands where it should.

Time to close down.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom