Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 11:21am
Post 1 of 26
Would anyone object to me kinda keeping an eye on Cinema voting so we can eradicate or at least reduce the amount of "hookey" votes on our films in the top ten.
Last edited Wed, 19th Aug 2009, 11:52pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 12:39pm
Post 2 of 26
I'll make myself unpopular with another evil overlord suggestion before I drown these kittens...how about we abuse human rights and make a vote cost 10 fxperience points? That way somebody who's been around and contributed over time has more chances to vote? Or maybe some other similar scheme? I have no vested interests, I've nothing in the cinema and never vote
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 12:49pm
Post 3 of 26
pdrg - precious few people vote as it is, we don't want to start essentially penalising people for doing so. Seems to be the wrong way around - you don't take points away from legitimate voters in order to try to stop dodgy voters.
There's a few ways of looking at it, but the bottom line is that every film gets treated equally and is open to the same voting system and its inherent flaws. What this means is that, generally, everything works out. A dodgy low vote from someone isn't going to matter if you've got twenty 5* ratings, and if most of your ratings are around the 3* mark, then getting a 1* rating isn't too unexpected.
It's also important to remember that only Gold users' votes count in the charts.
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 12:53pm
Post 4 of 26
"how about we abuse human rights and make a vote cost 10 fxperience points? That way somebody who's been around and contributed over time has more chances to vote? Or maybe some other similar scheme? I have no vested interests, I've nothing in the cinema and never vote "
Now there's a thought....not too sure about the kittens cos I love moggies..
Maybe we can stop all wars boot out politicians and put the FXhome crew and genuine members in charge of the world were the biggest battle we'll have is sorting out the voting...
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 3:38pm
Post 5 of 26
Yeah just an idea, just for discussion...
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 4:00pm
Post 6 of 26
I liked the old idea someone came up with, that when you vote you have to give the reason, even it's it "Loved it" or "Hate poser, looks so unreal" then at least you'll know why your film was rated that way.
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 4:04pm
Post 7 of 26
The actual result of forcing people to explain their votes wouldn't be more explanations, though; it'd just be less voting overall.
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 4:23pm
Post 8 of 26
If you only forced *low* votes to provide a reason, then it might prevent baseless low voting. On the other hand, that might also result in poor movies getting higher up the charts, on account of people not wishing to give their reasons for giving the rating they deserve!
Conversely if you forced *high* voting reasons, it might dissuade some kid's little buddies from rating a crap movies highly for no reason. But then again, that might also result in excellent movies not getting the ratings they deserve on account of abstention.
In general i'd say its impossible to properly balance a rating system.
(One idea I did have for another site, is the idea of each new rating pushing out an old rating (first in, last out). This keep ratings 'fresh', but also means sensible votes can be muscled out by newer less sensible ones, which in turn have to be overruled by yet more users voting. In a site such as fxhome, with a finite or infrequent number of users voting, this makes sensible average ratings even less likely!)
Last edited Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 4:32pm; edited 2 times in total.
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 4:26pm
Post 9 of 26
Xcession wrote:If you only forced *low* votes to provide a reason, then it might prevent baseless low voting. On the other hand, that might also result in poor movies getting higher up the charts, on account of people not wishing to give their reasons for giving the rating they deserve!
Yeah, I've always quite liked that idea, aside from the obvious flaw that you mention.
Unfortunately right now we don't have the resources to implement major new systems into the cinema, but it's well worth throwing ideas around for when we do.
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 4:42pm
Post 10 of 26
Tarn makes a valid point about all this...there are not enough members voting anyway so it's very important that nothing hinders the enthusiasm of the few that do put in the effort.
Last edited Wed, 19th Aug 2009, 11:54pm; edited 2 times in total.
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 4:49pm
Post 11 of 26
Just a thought, and from looking at the cinema page for a movie...
I wondered whether having the voting options in a seperate widget on the right hand side might be an issue, it could be something someone could overlook, especially if they don't take much time to look there and simply head straight for the movie.
Maybe adding the voting options directly underneath the poster would help?
Anyway like I say just a thought.
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 8:43pm
Post 12 of 26
Just an idea,
forget the votes for a minute.
The cinema is ... just that a cinema.
If you look at your local cinema the films are not voted on to be in the cinema.
What if every film released has a slot in the cinema for let's say 2 weeks.
There's 10 slots, there is no number 1 and no number 10, just 10 films, on each day they are random places, (no number 1) but moved around the cinema.
today'S Films (there for 2 weeks)
davlin - tarn - fred - batman - fred 2 - stargate -etc.
tomorrow films: (unless one of the above is due to be removed as they have been there for 2 weeks already) would be:
Stargate = batman - tarn - fred 2 - fred
This way no 1 person will be higher than another.
Now to votes, each film once clicked on will show the votes, so unless someone wants to watch or find out what votes it got then it won't effect the "cinema"
You can use the votes for archive films, but leave the cinema as a "cinema" show casing films that have recently been uploaded with no vote rigging etc.
Even if someone makes 9 crappy films to upload at the same time, the other films that are due to go there will be holding until there is a space.
I think it's a win, win.
what do you think?
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 9:18pm
Post 13 of 26
Hmmm... Personally, I think the problem is somewhere else. What you are suggesting is expensive precision surgery on an already deaceased patient imo.
The votes are entirely meaningless and it's completely, utterly unimportant what anyone votes except to either A boost the ego or B boost the views on your films.
Other then that, I sometimes get seriously confused by how the cinema voting is treated as an exact science or if it has any actual meaning in the real world outside of fxhome.
I get how it's nice if someone votes a 5 on your film and how it can be depressing if someone votes a 3, 2 or even 1 on it. At the end of the day though, as filmmakers, you'll have to learn with the simple fact that an online audience is made of people who love your film, people who hate and people who just don't care and poo on it - that's the way on every film, everywhere. That's not even taking into account that most films on here are not even comparable by any standards.
I don't see what correcting a few "bogus" votes would change, apart from making more work for Tarn and make the mathematical average of your work go up or down .0004 points or so.
I mean seriously... Does that really matter? :s
If anything, it's the comments that are worth something as they at least give you the chance of seeing into the minds of your audience and learn something as a filmmaker off that. If it was up to me, I would get rid of the votes entirely and just do comments.
On that note, I'm way more fond of b4uasks cinema suggestion as that goes after a much better goal imo: Showcasing userfilms in a better way and trying to get more feedback. Allthough 2 weeks is way too short a time.
But correcting votes by a few points behind the comma seems like a waste of resources to me really. Because it makes way more sense to be after exposure and the problem is, that films that are online longer then a month hardly get watched anymore and just get lost in oblivion eg in the masses of random videos unless they're voted high. So exposure and high votes are unfortunately connected with the current system.
Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009, 10:30pm
Post 14 of 26
i agree that there is something in b4's and Marco's ideas.. perhaps when the time comes for overhaul they can be explored.
Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009, 2:20am
Post 15 of 26
I disagree with the whole showcasing films other than the highest rated films. Why? Because, to be honest, so many crappy films get uploaded by younger users these days that it's more helpful to instantly see what, 90% of the time, is an ace film in the top slot in the cinema.
Yes, there are issues. My film Exodus was eclipsed by my brother's film when he released it, so it would have had less attention bad I not been so vigilant about promoting it. Likewise, Mr. Pike was eclipsed by Exodus when it was out - and personally I would have liked to have seen it in the top spot so more people would see it. Just like now, The Wild is out so it is bringing down Family Values and Campsite, and fans of it my innately voting the competition lower. This happens. It happens when my films are up against others by Nightfall and the like and it has happened to me when Nightcast was up.
But it's not common. And since I was 13 I have gained insight and entertainment from viewing the top films here. The main suggestion would be to allow the top ten to - in addition to being on the main cinema page - be displayed each with a full poster and blurb on a separate 'top' page, as they used to be.
Also, require all three graphics be submitted with a film. There's instant marketing right there.
Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009, 3:37am
Post 16 of 26
I think forcing explanations for votes would result in less voting...but it would also filter out those who won't explain their vote, obviously. Therefore, though there would be less voting, the votes you did get would actually be worth getting, because they would be explained. More votes aren't really the objective, but quality voting. So you know the people who did vote thought about it instead of randomly sticking in a 0 or 5.
Maybe my train of logic is difficult to follow--this wouldn't be the first time--but I hope you get what I mean.
Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009, 8:40am
Post 17 of 26
I'm with b4 and Marco on this. No real-life cinema (that i'm aware of) presents the list of films available to view, based on their rating by the viewing public. I think we can all agree that would be disastrous.
That doesn't mean ratings are useless though. Ignore for a second the fact that its called the "cinema": its basically just an archive of films submitted to the site. As an archive, people require archives to be searchable and order-able. If you're browsing the archive and want to see something good, it would make sense if some kind of rating existed to help provide this order. I say "help", because we've established it isn't foolproof. Everyone knows that 'good' is subjective though, so the rating would just be a guideline.
I think the mistake is the top 10 being synonymous with "whats new". I appreciate this wouldn't be quick to code, but what you basically need is a system where submitted films all get shown on the homepage for a set period of time, with equal weight. When you submit your movie, the system checks how many other films have been submitted, finds the next available date for showing the film on the homepage, then tells you when that is. If you want to manually link your film to people in the meantime thats fine, but you'll be guaranteed a shot on the homepage.
People will still rate your film, but it'll count for less, except to people needing a rough order to find films.
I suppose the problem for FXhome with this, is that while it would ensure everyone gets time on the homepage, there are bound to be films that FXhome don't want to be on the homepage! The number of good films that accurately and favorable depict FXhome's software, are far outweighed by the number of poor ones.
The bottom line is that the cinema is no more than a glorified "demos" section for a software manufacturer: its understandably in their interests to show their software in the best light, so it makes sense to emphasise films that are broadly judged to be good, and how better to do that, than to rely on the user-generated content of a ratings system?
Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009, 9:04am
Post 18 of 26
Xcession wrote:I'm with b4 and Marco on this. No real-life cinema (that i'm aware of) presents the list of films available to view, based on their rating by the viewing public. I think we can all agree that would be disastrous.
No, but they're marketed and billed in a cinema by virtue of critical success, which is fed by the amount of moviegoers that buy tickets for the movie. If public consensus is bad, a movie gets less viewership. If viewership low, then the movie doesn't show in the theater anymore. At all. End of story.
So yeah, movies are
sort of billed/listed/exhibited in a theater by what's most successful. And while success doesn't always = good movie, it's a reasonable enough determinant. The top 10 may not be varying enough to be synonymous
with 'new movies', but considering we don't often get more than 10+ movies at a time in here (less, most of the time it seems) it works instead synonymously with 'new movies that are generally worth it to watch'. As mentioned, there are many that - from my point of view at least - aren't.
Also, as you mentioned, it's attractive to potential purchasers of the products - hell, I didn't care about FXhome's forums or products until I'd been watching movies on here for well over a year! Art of the Saber led me here, and I mainly used it as a portal to see the stuff Cobra Productions was making, because I was able to download short films and save them on my computer to watch later. Eventually, I was convinced enough by the films I had seen that this place was legitimate and that the software and community were both worth investing in.
I suppose because the cinema here was the main draw for me when I first visited, I would absolutely hate to see a system where even knowingly bad films are forced up onto the main page in the spirit of fairness. It's not like people only watch the top film! My films were #2 and #3 in the cinema for a few years, and even then they got a higher viewership than 70% of the films on the entire site!
Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009, 2:24pm
Post 19 of 26
I wonder how many people liked my idea are people that haven't put into the cinema?
The ones that produce films maybe shout the loudest, no offence but davlin started this off as he has a film in the cinema, I remember 6 years I posted the same sort of thing and it goes on.
So the bottom line is film makers want credit for their work, which is fine.
I like the cinema as it is, it works and a lot of thought has gone into it and I think everyone agrees.
Maybe the answer is as davlin said, a group of select people with time on their hands (no film makers) that can spot the fake votes.
This wouldn't require a new interface.
This wouldn't require new coding.
Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009, 4:39pm
Post 20 of 26
I'd listen to the notable filmmakers first, b4- aren't they the ones producing the worthy content? And, really isn't davlin himself one of them? You take away a system that creates a general hierarchy to viewing movies in order and I'm sorry but you've lost my films here. For all the advertising I like to do, I wouldn't bother if I knew a movie with 1/100000th of the time put into it as mine was as accessible and had more views and comments in the interest of 'fairness', you know?
Tarn and Sollthar have it the best- there are flaws to the current system, yeah, but they're negligible enough to dust off; and, for the most part, votes have a way of evening themselves out in an overall consensus.
And then let's not forget objectivity. In the interest of it, quality isn't always better than quantity, because in the end all of it is just varied opinion, isn't it? You deduce what you want from it all. I also really liked how you used to be able to see how many people and who all had your movie listed in their all-time top ten. That was cool.
One thing would like to see is an aesthetic change in the cinema and archive. No real reason, a new look just feels in order, and the previous revamps always impressed me.
Posted: Tue, 1st Sep 2009, 2:24am
Post 21 of 26
No ACORN here, no hanging, dimpled, pregnant or otherwise bulging chads here, the voters intent is clear(to rate the film), the guidelines they use to determine this are their own and should be. Simply requring the voter to be a "MEMBER" and making their vote public is enough. You will never stop people trying to manipulate the system to their favor or someone else's disfavor but they can't secretly. That is good enough. Any attempt to improve will create more unintended(and unwanted)consequences than benefits. IMHO
Posted: Thu, 3rd Sep 2009, 2:04pm
Post 22 of 26
Why not just combine ratings and comments? All the other (proper, not like youtube) online cinemas I know of have a certain rule: Whoever votes, comments eg whoever comments, has a vote.
There are no votes without a comment, as that's simply impossible. You can't vote without commenting. You can comment without voting however.
That way, "hookey" votes could be reduced as 99% of all cases, odd votes go without a comment.
I disagree that this would discourage anyone from voting or commenting. It will leave us with lesser votes, yes. But just having " a lot of votes " is not a postive thing per se. And frankly, personally, I can do without unexplained votes everyday, be those 5's or 0's.
Having proper votes and comments corresponding with them, that is and should be the main goal for the cinema imo.
Posted: Thu, 3rd Sep 2009, 3:01pm
Post 23 of 26
No, I dunno if I like that. To me, it's up to the user to contact the person who voted if they give it a low mark. If it's a high or medium mark, sometimes those votes go without saying, and repeating accolades isn't necessary.
Sometimes if I watch a film here I'll rate it right away to 'freeze in place' what I thought of it when I saw it, which helps me to remember my feelings about it when I do go back and comment. Granted, 90% of the time I comment before rating (if I rate at all), just saying.
Posted: Thu, 3rd Sep 2009, 10:11pm
Post 24 of 26
The one problem I think tying comments to votes would produce is that many comments might be like, "Good." Unless you added a minimum-of-1000-characters rule or some such.
Posted: Fri, 4th Sep 2009, 9:02am
Post 25 of 26
Having thought about this a bit more I think the solution to this whole rogue-voting problem would be to hugely increase
the number of votes on each movie.
Whats really the problem here? Its not that a 5-star movie gets rated 1-star by some kid or that those kids get their buddies to vote up their 1-star pile-of-crap films unnecessarily....the problem is that with so few votes in general
their ratings constitute a significant percentage of the total ratings.
To make things more fair, all we have to do is dilute their influence. If efforts were made to make more people vote on the movies, the 'wisdom of masses' would inevitably result in more sane average ratings. Giving 1* on a 5* film would become immaterial in the face of hundreds of other more reasonable votes. Look at the voting for Art Of The Saber
, for instance, some people even voted it a 0 which is totally unjustified! (*coughdanfxcamcough*) but it has utterly no impact when there are 800+ other votes to the contrary.
Average Rating systems should only be implemented in situations where the volume of ratings can be relied upon to balance out irregularities. The problem is that FXhome have added a rating system in a place where the volume of ratings is too low to avoid being affected by idiots.
Posted: Fri, 4th Sep 2009, 1:48pm
Post 26 of 26
I totally agree with you "XCESSION" this is a definite weakness in the system.
Is there any information on how the Cinema is currently run....I'm not sure how the system works....eg. what points are used to place movies, apart from the obvious,because the voting is such a blunt tool it can look like a bit of pick& mix.
Perhaps some more informed member could guide me and others through the processes of selection etc. and who knows it might help to get more feedback.
This is not a moan at the management in any shape or form but purely to
possibly help when/if the cinema is revamped.