VCDQuality Forums - Staff Only voting (delete this if it's been brought up too much, sorry)

Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 22 posts from this thread on one page

VCDQuality Forums (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/index.php)
- Site News and Discussion (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=3)
-- Staff Only voting (delete this if it's been brought up too much, sorry) (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=14087)

Posted by FreneticAmnesic on 01-24-2003 02:53 AM:

Staff Only voting (delete this if it's been brought up too much, sorry)

as i said, i don't know if this as been brought up ten million times, i tried searching to no avail...

but anyway, I think that staff only voting would be a good idea, it'd eliminate the all 10's all 0's problem and I think we'd get more accurate averages, and it'd eliminate usless comments like "i havent got this movie yet, but i want to!" there could still be a different place for people to do that and share their thoughts on the movie, but i think it'd be nice to have the links to the comments on the main page linked to comments made by the staff only. just a thought. again, sorry if this has been mentioned a lot, don't flame me too hard, im still new here.

blah..delete this thread anyway, its probably useless, sorry.

Posted by KayDawg on 01-24-2003 03:38 AM:

That would lead to 1 of 2 things

1-There would be hardly any votes
2-The staff would have to download like every single release..in order for there to be votes.

Posted by FreneticAmnesic on 01-24-2003 03:50 AM:

we'll i would rather have quality over quality as far as votes go, but #2 is a very vaild point

how about letting people have the ability to delete their own threads
or can you do that already...

Posted by KiloByte on 01-24-2003 05:14 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KayDawg

2-The staff would have to download like every single release..in order for there to be votes.

Ever heard of samples? I suggest that since its less important, VCDQUALiTY could leave the rating of the movie itself up to the general masses and restrict the audio/video to staff. Or, why not elect a special "team" whos only job is to rate releases?

__________________

quote:
Originally posted by Dawgy
Server/Hosting : $60/mo
Bandwidth cost: $300ish/mo
VBB : $50(?)
Useless threads : Worthless

<Redesc> sorry i'm new to this underground stuff
<Redesc> whats X69

--StOnEd--

Posted by pHo on 01-24-2003 05:39 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KiloByte

Ever heard of samples? I suggest that since its less important, VCDQUALiTY could leave the rating of the movie itself up to the general masses and restrict the audio/video to staff. Or, why not elect a special "team" whos only job is to rate releases?

man, i've been thinkin of "a way" for a while, and yeah most of them have been based around people who can be trusted to vote rather than any idiot.

as for the sample thing, not good enough im afraid.. sample wont tell u if theres missing part, out of sync bits, ie anything that can occur in a certain segment, or if the release is over/undersized for example. a sample can give you a glimpse, but it can't tell u the whole story.

__________________
563-773-1880

<Dwaggy> i caught you a delicious Bass
<The404> This is because you are an idiot

Posted by KayDawg on 01-26-2003 08:37 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KiloByte

Or, why not elect a special "team" whos only job is to rate releases?

What Pho said...that'd require you actually sit and watch every release..and the problem is...since mlost of us download off newsgroups, you gotta rate them FAST! or they are gone. it's just too much work to do, when there's no motivation to do a good job

Posted by KiloByte on 01-27-2003 06:15 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KayDawg

What Pho said...that'd require you actually sit and watch every release..and the problem is...since mlost of us download off newsgroups, you gotta rate them FAST! or they are gone. it's just too much work to do, when there's no motivation to do a good job

Yeah I agree with pHo, but not your newsgroups statement.

P.S. This group doesn't have to be that small now that I think about it, start with 50-200 people and just add/delete those who deserve it. I say it all depends on how motivated the staff is to haveing an unbiast, clean, rating system. Rember, Quality Over Quantity, would you like to wait just a little bit longer for good votes or get possibly untrustworthy votes as soon as possible?

__________________

quote:
Originally posted by Dawgy
Server/Hosting : $60/mo
Bandwidth cost: $300ish/mo
VBB : $50(?)
Useless threads : Worthless

<Redesc> sorry i'm new to this underground stuff
<Redesc> whats X69

--StOnEd--

Posted by KayDawg on 01-27-2003 06:36 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KiloByte
would you like to wait just a little bit longer for good votes or get possibly untrustworthy votes as soon as possible?

ok sorry that i siad most people use newsgroups..but for those of us that do

waiting isn't an option.

Posted by fateswarm on 01-28-2003 08:52 AM:

What fascistic logic produced such ideas? People are to vote and if they can't vote wisely they suck. That doesn't make them less important as voters.

Who are _YOU_ to decide who is the right person to vote and who is not?

Take a look at vote statistics of imdb, you'll see 999999999998 votes on famous movies and you'll notice some "1"s, some "10"s, on movies you may think "I'll never give 1 or 10" on that or that. But still, if you take a look at the average, most of the times it's quite aqurate, or close.

Posted by KiloByte on 01-28-2003 08:23 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by fateswarm
What fascistic logic produced such ideas? People are to vote and if they can't vote wisely they suck. That doesn't make them less important as voters.

Who are _YOU_ to decide who is the right person to vote and who is not?

Take a look at vote statistics of imdb, you'll see 999999999998 votes on famous movies and you'll notice some "1"s, some "10"s, on movies you may think "I'll never give 1 or 10" on that or that. But still, if you take a look at the average, most of the times it's quite aqurate, or close.

Its very simple. Lamers who vote on here will vote very good for releases done by their own group, and very low for other groups. Check out someones voting history the next time you see them voiting 10/10/10 or 1/1/1 generally they will have voted for 2 groups who released the same movie. So lets say an FTF member votes 10/10/10 for their "telesync" release of Narc then theres a much better release of it done by Centropy or TCF (just for arguments sake) they will usually go vote 1/1/1 anyway disreagarding quality but rather voting based on the group which released it.

You may have a point however, generally there are more people who vote normally and the numbers work out to pretty much what their supposed to be, its still damn annoying to see such biast voting though.

__________________

quote:
Originally posted by Dawgy
Server/Hosting : $60/mo
Bandwidth cost: $300ish/mo
VBB : $50(?)
Useless threads : Worthless

<Redesc> sorry i'm new to this underground stuff
<Redesc> whats X69

--StOnEd--

Posted by fateswarm on 01-29-2003 05:25 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KiloByte

Its very simple. Lamers who vote on here will vote very good for releases done by their own group, and very low for other groups. Check out someones voting history the next time you see them voiting 10/10/10 or 1/1/1 generally they will have voted for 2 groups who released the same movie. So lets say an FTF member votes 10/10/10 for their "telesync" release of Narc then theres a much better release of it done by Centropy or TCF (just for arguments sake) they will usually go vote 1/1/1 anyway disreagarding quality but rather voting based on the group which released it.

You may have a point however, generally there are more people who vote normally and the numbers work out to pretty much what their supposed to be, its still damn annoying to see such biast voting though.

no no no no no...

there is no "normal" vote. you may consider yourself a "normal" voter but everyone sees things adjectively.

for example, you'll see a movie that reminds you of your ex-girlfriend and how bitch she was etc etc and you'll hate it. it'll be difficult to give more that 8 on that, even if it was for 10 you'd never give ten.

at the same time you'll believe that it was not for 10 because "you feel like it", and people when feel something they believe it's the "right thing".

so, people always judge art adjectively, there's no objective way to judge art, and when some people try to convince they judge objectively they just make fool of themselves.

picasso was once hit on an "art critic" who happened to "describe" a painting of him. the critic was saying all kinds of crap of how this painting symbolizes the inner self of the artist and rest nonsense, when picasso interrupted him "no, it's just a girl on a horse". (don't remember the details and names of the story, but has happened).

you see, art can not be judged adjectively, only objectively, and what you see on a vote overall, is not YOUR opinion, nor MY opinion, it's an overall of MINE and YOURS.

and I'll say that again, take a look at the overalls of imdb.com you'll notice some 10s and some 1s on movies, the total though seems to get a nice value.

the paradox is, when you see an overall and say "hey, that's a good overall", you'll notice that NOT most votes were on the exact overall value.

for example people voted lotr2, most of the people wanted to give it a 10. almost nothing deserves a 10 but of course they have every right it todo it. most votes were on 10.
but at the same time some people said "hey, what the hell, that sucked" or "hey what the hell, so many bastards vote 10", so they gave a 1. or 2. just for the sake of it.

and eventually, the overalls are not perfects, but never wrong and never too far from individual opinions.

Posted by exorcist on 01-29-2003 05:32 PM:

why not limit it so only say people with 200+ posts on the forum can vote, that's still quite a few people, albeit some will still be idiots, but you'll still get a much more accurate voting system.

__________________

Loving God.... Vengeful God...

Posted by KayDawg on 01-29-2003 10:31 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by exorcist
why not limit it so only say people with 200+ posts on the forum can vote, that's still quite a few people, albeit some will still be idiots, but you'll still get a much more accurate voting system.

and when people find out you need 200 votes, they'll spam the place to hell.

I think that people are overreacting about the voting system. if it's that important to you just read the comments and listen to ones from guys you respect..you can usually tell who is serious and who isn't.

Posted by fateswarm on 01-29-2003 11:10 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by exorcist
why not limit it so only say people with 200+ posts on the forum can vote, that's still quite a few people, albeit some will still be idiots, but you'll still get a much more accurate voting system.

I'll say once more, there is by no god, no philosophy no freaking sense ever existed on earth an "accurate" vote.

And about that "don't vote all 10s or 1s" shit, it sucks. I have every right to believe something sucks or something rules, if you restrict me on that, well, goodbye, I don't want a Hitler on my screen and browser.

Posted by KiloByte on 01-30-2003 12:26 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by fateswarm

no no no no no...

there is no "normal" vote. you may consider yourself a "normal" voter but everyone sees things adjectively.

for example, you'll see a movie that reminds you of your ex-girlfriend and how bitch she was etc etc and you'll hate it. it'll be difficult to give more that 8 on that, even if it was for 10 you'd never give ten.

at the same time you'll believe that it was not for 10 because "you feel like it", and people when feel something they believe it's the "right thing".

so, people always judge art adjectively, there's no objective way to judge art, and when some people try to convince they judge objectively they just make fool of themselves.

picasso was once hit on an "art critic" who happened to "describe" a painting of him. the critic was saying all kinds of crap of how this painting symbolizes the inner self of the artist and rest nonsense, when picasso interrupted him "no, it's just a girl on a horse". (don't remember the details and names of the story, but has happened).

you see, art can not be judged adjectively, only objectively, and what you see on a vote overall, is not YOUR opinion, nor MY opinion, it's an overall of MINE and YOURS.

and I'll say that again, take a look at the overalls of imdb.com you'll notice some 10s and some 1s on movies, the total though seems to get a nice value.

the paradox is, when you see an overall and say "hey, that's a good overall", you'll notice that NOT most votes were on the exact overall value.

for example people voted lotr2, most of the people wanted to give it a 10. almost nothing deserves a 10 but of course they have every right it todo it. most votes were on 10.
but at the same time some people said "hey, what the hell, that sucked" or "hey what the hell, so many bastards vote 10", so they gave a 1. or 2. just for the sake of it.

and eventually, the overalls are not perfects, but never wrong and never too far from individual opinions.

I don't know where the hell that came from but you seem to have missed my point completely.

Once again, were not talking about the rating of the movie itself (Note: I even suggested that we leave the movie rating up to the general masses) its the groupie lamers who vote not based on the movie at all, but rather on which group released it. So no matter how good the movie is (even if the lamer likes the release) they will still rate it based on the group that released it. Once again the same example applies: an FTF member votes 10/10/10 on a mislabeled telesync and then goes and rates TCF's non mislabeled, very good in quality, telesync 1/1/1. Don't you understand? Their voting just to make their group look good and other groups look bad REGARDLESS OF QUALITY. Which is my whole point in suggesting an UNBIAST group of voters who will in fact vote based on actual movie quality (Oh yeah, this also applies to people who vote on VIDEO and AUDIO based on the .jpegs posted, nothing more).

__________________

quote:
Originally posted by Dawgy
Server/Hosting : $60/mo
Bandwidth cost: $300ish/mo
VBB : $50(?)
Useless threads : Worthless

<Redesc> sorry i'm new to this underground stuff
<Redesc> whats X69

--StOnEd--

Posted by KiloByte on 01-30-2003 12:30 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by fateswarm

I'll say once more, there is by no god, no philosophy no freaking sense ever existed on earth an "accurate" vote.

And about that "don't vote all 10s or 1s" shit, it sucks. I have every right to believe something sucks or something rules, if you restrict me on that, well, goodbye, I don't want a Hitler on my screen and browser.

Well the point is, in the begining people could vote 10/10/10s or 1/1/1s but this was abused for reasons covered in my previous reply. These are the new rules and IMO if you don't agree with it, thank the groupie lamers for the new standards and leave.

__________________

quote:
Originally posted by Dawgy
Server/Hosting : $60/mo
Bandwidth cost: $300ish/mo
VBB : $50(?)
Useless threads : Worthless

<Redesc> sorry i'm new to this underground stuff
<Redesc> whats X69

--StOnEd--

Posted by horizonstar on 01-30-2003 01:12 AM:

my votes are always unbiased, "correct", and "accurate", so everyone listen to me!

seriously, though, I've always thought that the best way to judge reviews is indeed to read the comments. you can browse through the list of votes in one window and look at the comments in another window and ignore votes by people who haven't written lucid comments. I for one never vote on a movie without explaining my vote.

yeah, a good thing about IMDb is the weighted voting. that's one of the reasons why the ratings "work out well" there. it would be hard to do that here, given the number of people who register a nick, vote for stuff, flame some people, get flamed back, and never use the nick again.

also, VCDq listings don't have nearly the number of votes that IMDb listings do, so that's another statistical difficulty.

it would be great if we had a crack team of reviewers who could watch everything. I pretty much get every release on the scene, but I only have time to watch 15% of them. and I get physically ill watching CAMs and TSs otherwise I'd graciously offer my services ...

Posted by exorcist on 01-30-2003 01:21 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KayDawg

and when people find out you need 200 votes, they'll spam the place to hell.

I think that people are overreacting about the voting system. if it's that important to you just read the comments and listen to ones from guys you respect..you can usually tell who is serious and who isn't.

lmao you think people would put that much effort into it? It's possible, but i wouldn't

__________________

Loving God.... Vengeful God...

Posted by KayDawg on 01-30-2003 08:38 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by exorcist

lmao you think people would put that much effort into it? It's possible, but i wouldn't

I don't expect them to make 200 posts in one day...but yes, people would post spam just to eventually reach X number of posts.

Posted by fateswarm on 01-30-2003 04:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KiloByte

I don't know where the hell that came from but you seem to have missed my point completely.

Once again, were not talking about the rating of the movie itself (Note: I even suggested that we leave the movie rating up to the general masses) its the groupie lamers who vote not based on the movie at all, but rather on which group released it. So no matter how good the movie is (even if the lamer likes the release) they will still rate it based on the group that released it. Once again the same example applies: an FTF member votes 10/10/10 on a mislabeled telesync and then goes and rates TCF's non mislabeled, very good in quality, telesync 1/1/1. Don't you understand? Their voting just to make their group look good and other groups look bad REGARDLESS OF QUALITY. Which is my whole point in suggesting an UNBIAST group of voters who will in fact vote based on actual movie quality (Oh yeah, this also applies to people who vote on VIDEO and AUDIO based on the .jpegs posted, nothing more).

sorry, had to add on what I wrote that most comments were not for you personally but the overall view I had on the subject. sorry again for not clarifying that.

as for groups voting all 10s on theirs and all 1s on other groups, well two points here:

a) these groups wont worth shit since they are such arogant bastards. I believe arogance will eventually show on their releases too.

b) people may get ungry on seeing 9 on a shitty release and start voting 1 just for the sake of reducing the overall, such attidute is great for me and eventually on voting systems where there are thousants and some times tens of thousands of votes like on imdb.com, the result will be fair or near fair.

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:09 AM.

Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 22 posts from this thread on one page