Poll

What time should we have the presentation of the Filmspotting Top 30?

Monday,  Sept 1. 5pm PST
8 (50%)
Thursday, Sept 4, 2pm PST
1 (6.3%)
Thursday Sept 4, 5pm PST
4 (25%)
Friday Sept 5, 5pm PST
3 (18.8%)

Total Members Voted: 16

Author Topic: Filmspotter Top 100 2014-- Discussion  (Read 16697 times)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 25121
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Filmspotter Top 100 2014-- Discussion
« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2014, 12:49:44 PM »
I will say that your slightly less random amendment (when a film is picked a second time it moves up) is a bit complicated for me.

Do you mean more complicated in an implementation sense? Like actually working out the results in a spreadsheet?

Quote
My proposal is that we'd put all the names in the virtual hopper and then maybe pick 500 or 1000 of them at random (if we got 40 ballots, we'd have upwards of 4000 entries). Then they'd be ranked by frequency. Position tie-breakers within this group would be, of course, random draw.

I'm not opposed to this approach, but to me this two-stage process appears to be more complicated because the second stage ranking would require uniformity in formatting and spelling. Also, I'm a little unsure if the two stages introduce balance or contradiction. One stage is in the spirit of lottery, and the other in the spirit of consensus. Not that a consensus lottery is some kind of paradox, but I dunno...

I must admit though, I'm enamoured with the idea of pressing a button, seeing the result, and turning around and posting that result in chat. There's a real immediacy to it that's kind of thrilling. As opposed to the trickle of information distrubuted from a list which you already know is fixed. With the old method you could at first be hopeful that a film on the cusp might crack the top 100, but as you got down to the top 50 you just kind of knew it wasn't coming. And by the top ten you pretty well knew what was left, if not what order it would arrive. But a lottery perserves that sense of "it could happen" right to the last spot. In fact the excitement only builds as you get higher and higher, with the #1 selection being the climax of the process rather than the most predictable moment.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20802
Re: Filmspotter Top 100 2014-- Discussion
« Reply #41 on: May 24, 2014, 01:32:50 PM »
I'm not opposed to this approach, but to me this two-stage process appears to be more complicated because the second stage ranking would require uniformity in formatting and spelling.

There's gonna be a bit of this no matter what unless we want a single film to appear on the list multiple times. At some point human eyes will have to evaluate if a film is the same or different from others.

I'm not sure our variations were that far off and now I think I'm getting a slightly better idea of what you were going with (when I said complicated, it was less implementation and more knowing what I should actually be doing). So let me know if this is what you are going for. I'd run the randomizer for all the films. I'd go down the list until I get 100 unique films. Each time I hit a non-unique film, that film would be bumped to the top (it got luckier and thus is ranked higher). Those that appear twice before the full 100 is locked in are above those that appear once. Those that appear thrice are above those that appear twice and so forth. Since the first one up is higher than the second one up generally, I feel for consistency the first one to double up (King Me) would be ahead of the second one to double up. If this is basically what you had in mind, I think that is a perfectly fine way to do it.

Anyway, we'd just need to have a period for people to submit their lists and then the actual forming of the list would take...30 minutes? My job would be easy, the real task would be for 1SO and the presentation of images/quotes. I do like the idea of just the list being more a slice of the group's tastes than a definitive consensus. Though knowing my luck, I'd manage to place none of my 100 on the list.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 28155
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Filmspotter Top 100 2014-- Discussion
« Reply #42 on: May 24, 2014, 02:14:37 PM »
We've heard mostly positive things about this style. Anybody feel strongly the other way?
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 25121
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Filmspotter Top 100 2014-- Discussion
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2014, 03:33:16 PM »
I'm not opposed to this approach, but to me this two-stage process appears to be more complicated because the second stage ranking would require uniformity in formatting and spelling.

There's gonna be a bit of this no matter what unless we want a single film to appear on the list multiple times. At some point human eyes will have to evaluate if a film is the same or different from others.


That's sort of what I had in mind was a "human eyes" approach.

This demo spreadsheet shows the basic mechanics of the idea.

Rather then establishing the list before the chat began, it would be generated in real time. For each slot in the top 100 you would sort B, and see the result, and announce it in chat. And the random numbers get re-generated automatically after each sorting, so subsequent sorts will yield different results.

The process of sorting takes just a few clicks, and wouldn't not cause any foreseeable delays in the chat. A few clicks between each announcement, then copy/paste the results from the result cell.

As you see, the spelling and formatting of the film in Column A is not uniform, but it won't really matter because you know what it means. You can just reformat the results on the fly.

As for how to handle duplicates in the moment, that's a significant difficulty. Because now you are bumping films and it's hard for people in chat to keep track of placement, and it's probably too chaotic. So either you just do a straight lottery and duplicate draws are ignored, or you predetermine the list ahead of time and sort out all the duplication stuff.

I like the duplication advancement variable, but I also like the idea of real-time list creation on the night. I don't know why... I'm being silly about that I guess. There's no practical difference if the list is predetermined, but somehow it feels different. It would be more exciting for you, the drawer, if you were basically finding out the results right along side us. :) Obviously though this would eliminate the ability to make a postable list ahead of time that could be published in the forum in realtime along with pictures and quotes. So maybe a predetermined list is the best way to go.

Anyways the demo spreadsheet sort of shows the drawing process midway through completion, with duplicate advancement in effect.

Quote
Though knowing my luck, I'd manage to place none of my 100 on the list.

You can't win either way. If any of your top 100 makes the list will say it's rigged! Especially if it's #1. :))

Oh and I tend to agree that first duplicate gets the worm, so to speak.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2014, 03:35:09 PM by smirnoff »

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 18439
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Filmspotter Top 100 2014-- Discussion
« Reply #44 on: May 24, 2014, 08:26:37 PM »
We've heard mostly positive things about this style. Anybody feel strongly the other way?

I don't feel strongly, but I am on the fence, leaning toward the traditional approach.

While 'Noff's Lottery has the element of surprise, it also lessens meaning.  The list won't represent the community.

Also, it means that the films that we feel most strongly about won't receive a greater vote than our #100.  The only thing that counts is the vote, and no matter how much we feel about our number one, it doesn't get any extra push unless someone else also happens to have it on their top 100.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Verite

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4439
  • Stay gold.
Re: Filmspotter Top 100 2014-- Discussion
« Reply #45 on: May 24, 2014, 08:42:15 PM »
Other ways to add the element of surprise:

-Voters may only share their ballot after the unveiling of the final results
-Each ballot contains the person's top 200 films (ranked in order of preference)
-Any film that appeared in any of the past final compiled (i.e. community) lists is excluded

I'm participating regardless of which ranking method is chosen.



"When in doubt, seduce."
                   -Elaine May

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 25121
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Filmspotter Top 100 2014-- Discussion
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2014, 04:02:30 PM »
I guess the poll settled it. Onward and upward?

pixote

  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 33021
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Filmspotter Top 100 2014-- Discussion
« Reply #47 on: June 11, 2014, 04:34:53 PM »
I guess the poll settled it. Onward and upward?

Weighted-lottery-of-mega-fun is still a genius idea.

pixote
I think I'd love how awkward it'd be, or how awkward it should be.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 18439
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Filmspotter Top 100 2014-- Discussion
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2014, 12:32:15 PM »
It is.  I wanted to see if there'd be more votes for it.  But we'll stick with the usual.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20802
Re: Filmspotter Top 100 2014-- Discussion
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2014, 12:54:52 PM »
I hope you all realize that you'll be getting a weighted-lottery-of-mega-fun list whether you like it or not.  8)

It is so easy to generate that I figure I might as well put it out there alongside the official one.