Multiple scores

[Spriggan]

Ok, since everyone has been posting about it elsewhere I'm going to ask people to please post here about it so we have one thread about it instead of lots.

I'll start off with my gripe about it, which is what's the point of having a scoring system for the site if everyone is going to want to use a different one.  Seriously, I can understand if our movie reviewers don't like the 6 score system but I didn't when I first joined, I've always preferred the 10 system.  So now that they're doing it does it mean I can create my own as well?  What about SE, what if he wants to start his own?   This site has always used 6 clocks and I see no reason to change it because one person doesn't like it, I also see no reason to allow them to add their own on top of ours if it doesn't add to the clock system.

[The Jade Knight]

I agree with Sprigganbaum.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Also I fail to see why according to the submission guidelines that the clock system doesnt work...

I saw the mention of originality by Mr. Gibbs in the other post, but it isnt the sole criteria we ask for even with the clock system. Yes we ask if the movie has a fresh take,... and we should, this year there is a rehash of the Producers for instance... if it were just a scene by scene remake, why watch it over the original? Do they do anything fresh? Do the actors try different takes on the same characters? These are not only valid questions but important ones.

But lets take the example of Aeon Flux for a moment... sure it had a different idea and it was more original than most.... but did it do it well, and allow for suspension of disbelief? Those questions are also in the critera. It doesnt matter how original a movie is if it sucks... in fact its originality can become a liability and make the movie that much worse... If the actors dont understand the concept how can they carry it off and so on. So as a reviewer you start with a set number of stars...  

The way I see it.
The issue comes in when people think that every movie has to be a 5 or a 6 to be good.
after all 4.5 or 5 clocks is defined as Great....  while 5.5 to 6 is incredibly exceptional... There might be one film every 3-5 years like this. The original Producers for example.

In many ways its better to see our six clock system as a kind of Spinal Tap Gradeing system... yeah it goes up to 6 (or 11) but really its a 4 star system with 2 extra levels.... (3 if you count zero)

Most people seem to get that 4 is a pretty good flick though....

[Entsuropi]

The issue comes in when people think that every movie has to be a 5 or a 6 to be good.
after all 4.5 or 5 clocks is defined as Great....  while 5.5 to 6 is incredibly exceptional... There might be one film every 3-5 years like this. The original Producers for example.

Notably, the brothers like to give out 5.5 and 6 scores quite often, and maybe they want to be able to give out 'top marks' without treading on the current scoring...

But even so, I simply feel that if there is two scores then that is two numbers I'm not paying much attention to. The number should sum up the text, not stand in it's place, and from that perspective changing to a 4 star system is fairly pointless.

[Fellfrosch]

The primary reason for this two-score experiment is that virtually every movie reviewer we've ever had has hated and misused the clock system. The way we think of it, and the way Jeffe described it, is great for games and theoretically great for movies, yet none of our movie reviewers have ever liked it or felt comfortable with it. Rather than lose another one (we go through movie reviewers like candy), I've decided to try this two-score system to see what happens.

[Spriggan]

then why bother with the 6 clock system if it's to hard to use?  Honestly having two different scoring systems on one article is incredibly stupid that's why no one uses it.  It's confusing, contradictory, and defeats the purpose of having scores.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Ive never seen it as hard to use... ever...
I just see it as someone wanting it to be done their way rather than working with our system... No offense meant to anyone who doesnt like the 6 clocks system but whats so difficult about it? And whats to hate? The only thing I can infer is that you didnt read all the guidelines. I mean our six clock system is just like any 4 star system with two more levels... (or 3 if you count the never ever been used Zero.
It just moves the mid level run of the mill just ok film to 3 or 3.5 rather than putting it at 2 or 2.5. And gives the reviewer a better middle spread to boot. Sort of an It was pretty good, good enough to go see in the theater but not good enough to go opening week kind of review.


Having said that...

I could see applying the 6 clock system to more variables...

Like 3 clocks for dialog 3 for costuming 6 for cgi and 2 for weak bladder penalty (the 3 hour + factor)

[Spriggan]

I could see applying the 6 clock system to more variables...

Ie 3 clocks for dialog 3 for costuming 6 for cgi and 2 for weak bladder penalty (the 3 hour + factor)

I use to do this with video games and some anime I reviewed way back when, we also use it for webcomics and books sometimes.  I think that's a great way to explain your score more if you want to use it.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I could deal with that...
I just dont get how decreasing the range makes it better.

If someone really has a good reason I wouldnt mind hearing it...

I guess what Im saying to the people who want to change the system is convince us that your way is better...

[Entsuropi]

Hrm. We lost kid kilowatt because he didn't like negative feedback to his reviews. We lost michael somethingorother because, uh, he left? Who else did we lose, because I wasn't aware we lost any of them due to the clock system

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Skar doesnt seem to mind the clock system.

Do ya Skar?

[Spriggan]

Kid left more because of Fell disagreed with his score and changed it (made it better) of the second matrix movie.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

well and because people like me antagonized him over his RPG reviews...

But anyone who gets mad over what Fell does is a big baby....

[Spriggan]

Well, in that case he had a right to get upset since it was his review and no one had the right to change his score without talking to him.  But that's a discussion for another place and time.

[Skar]

Skar doesnt seem to mind the clock system.

Do ya Skar?

The problem as I see it is this:  Real 6 clock movies (11s in spinal tap world), as someone pointed out, come along a few every 3-5 years.  They are so rare as to be almost outside the regular movie continuum.  By that I mean most four star movies in the regular reviewer's universe are not a 6 clocker in ours.  

The sixth clock should be a rare and "better than top marks" score.  The answer would seem simple.  Give 5 clocks to the movies you'd regularly give 4 stars and adjust the scale accordingly.  The problem arises with that final empty and fishwhite sixth clock stuck there on the end in every case.  You give a movie top marks, 5 clocks-4 stars, but it still looks to the casual observer, because of that empty clock, like it fell short of the mark.

My suggestion is to make 5 clocks all that show up.  So a five clock score looks full and maximized.  Then when the three to five year wonder comes along, throw on the extra clock.  This would probably require some coding to take place and thus will probably have to wait until the new site occurs.

Did that make any sense?