But they were most likely downloadable at some point. Are you saying that a new video that is not downloadable should easily get onto the list?mckeed wrote:Well, for one, not everyone puts their videos up on local. So that thorws your star scale out the window for people who don't put up their videos for local. Not everyone on the current top 10% has their video's up for local download. Most of them do, but not all. I even found one that isn't availiable for download at all.
Nearly 40% of the videos listed in the catalog are locally downloadable. Of the video entries that are not, most of them are bogus entries. The rest of them are old entries of creators who don't come around anymore or just haven't bothered to put them up yet (usually due to "it was encoded in 1998 and a new encode would be much better, but I haven't done it yet")mckeed wrote:Using a method to identify videos that automatically throws videos out cause they aren't local isn't a very fair system.
If a video gains momentum slowly, there must be a reson for it. Generally that reason is because the video is only mildy above average in quality. A video that is very good quality will have no trouble getting recognized because people will generally talk about that vid more. Unless the new video creator likes to spend lots of money on video hosting, they are very likely to put the video onto the local storage server so that people can get to it easily.mckeed wrote:Second, Weekly is just weekly and also relies on a local video. What if something slowly gains momentum over a period of months? The normal star scale isn't enough.
This is not likely to succeed. Videos that are rated high will get more downloads. As it gets more downloads, the average will reflect a more true value. This is the case in the 10% list as well as the star lists.mckeed wrote:For one its not really detailed enough to give any real worth of a video. The same "stacking" that could take place with the old scale can and would take place here. Since now they can't stack to get on the top 10%, i would imagine people will start doing it here as well.
This already happens. The top and bottom 10% scores are removed before calculating the average on the Top 10% list. For the star scale, people who give the same scores all the time (1's, 2's, 3's, 4's and 5's) are removed from the calculation.mckeed wrote:You could argue this gets rid of opinions that just try to give all 10's. That might be true.
Yes, much much harder now than it was before.mckeed wrote:Or people will just realize they just need more people to get on the top 15% list. So they go on the internet or local DBZ board and find 16-30 people willing to do this for them. Harder? Yes, but still doable.
So what is the best way to accomplish this?mckeed wrote:Thirdly, a system that relies on opinions encorages people to get opinions to someday make the number of opinions that gets them on the top 10%. The star method is an indirect method at best. If were going to change a system, why not address some issues for why some people liked the old system. It mainly was just exposure. I know my only video started very low on the list and as people saw it, i started getting more opinions on it, which caused it to slowly move up the list. So why not create a supplementary system to the top 10% that accomplishes just that. You argue that the star scales do this. I don't agree that it is the best way of acomplishing this.
If you can come up with something, show how to do it, and show that it is mathamatically sound, the system will be considereder.mckeed wrote:I'm not saying the current system is bad. I think its very accurate. I just think there should be a better way of spotlighting videos. That is all.
Phade.
.
. 
