Hyomil wrote:Please add the ability to sort by these criteria. If looking for vids with good action sync, sorting by Stars is not as good because it includes data like Video, Audio, Effort, and Originality that may have little or no relevance to that. You've given raters the ability to distinguish between the merits of different aspects of vids; now give potential viewers the ability to make use of the extra effort of those reviewers in finding what they're looking for.
I'm not going to address any of your primary request for two very specific reasons:
1) I hate stars and I have since they were introduced.
2) I'm indifferent on your primary request. I'm not for it or against it. I search for videos based solely on anime series or on musical artist. Usually just based on the anime series. Given that many of these series have very few videos, I have to take what I can get. Your request is not relevant to me, which is why I'm not for it. I also recognise it could be useful for others, which I why I am not against it.
The being understood there is a lot I have issue with in your subsequent paragraphs.
Originality is totally dependent on how many vids the user has seen previously.
When the rateable areas were chosen, it was possible for most editors to have seen significant chunks of the entire total of AMVs. In 2001, it was more than possible, it was in fact likely
that anyone who was a regular here and in the overall AMV scene would be able to look at videos and judge their originality based on the overall landscape. If we assume that most users that leave worthy opinions are individuals with years of AMV experience, then I think that such opinions will have some accuracy in terms of claims about originality. The same unworthy opinions that skew originality will skew the numbers concerning sync or effects. Why? Because by your own logic, individuals with little AMV experience will be far more impressed than perhaps you (or me) might be, thus leading to a higher score. If you accept your argument for originality, you must accept it for the other very much subjective categories.
And "Effort" BTW is a strange criteria that seems like it would be covered by the other criteria. I'm imagining people rating videos highly for effort just because they like the anime or song or in order to be encouraging (and maybe just because the editor said in the description that they put a lot of time into it). "Its not good by any measurable criteria, but I feel bad about being so critical, so I'll give a high Effort rating as a consolation prize." Are there videos where the other criteria like Action Sync have low scores but Effort is high? If so, how come all that effort didn't result in a high score in Action Sync, Lip Sync, or Special Effects? That's essentially saying the editor must be bad. "Its evident you spent tons on time on this and yet it still turned out bad. Maybe editing is not for you."
There is so much here I disagree with I am not sure where to start. Effort is by far one of the most important factors in how I judge a video. If people are rating videos highly for anime/song choice, that is, of course, an issue. However, I strongly disagree with your portrayal of effort as encouragement, as if such encouragement was somehow terrible or even harmful. This is where the subjectivity of what are rightly called opinions comes into play. I personally think a video is "better" if the video clearly has effort (what I call the "heart" effect) versus a video which is quantifiably technically more proficient but which lacks effort/heart because the editor is simply that "good." Rating lower scores on technical parts of the video but placing a high score on effort says, "Hey, I see the work you put into this, it really touched me, maybe you could have done better on the aspect ratio/sync/encode quality/etc, but your vision really came through and I thoroughly enjoyed it." I cannot tell you how many videos I've seen made by AfterEffect gurus that left me cold and bored. It is possible to have high talent and low skill, and I think effort is a way of recognising the potential of someone who could go from being a really decent editor to a great editor (and probably very quickly) based on acquiring skill others just throw out with very little meaning or vision.
Worse, all the criteria of a video could be bad, but if the Effort rating were high, it might raise the overall rating enough to get viewers to try it, which is undesirable. The editor might care about recognition of effort, but not potential viewers.
Undesirable for you
, perhaps. Imagine if the only thing we rated on were quantifiable technical effects. Lots and lots of videos with heart would just be shuffled off into the ether. Don't speak for all potential viewers. Some of us believe recognition of effort is important to the creative process, especially the learning aspect of the creative process.
And if tons of effort went into the Action Sync and just a couple of simple Special Effects were thrown in, is the video's Effort rating and thus overall rating going to be knocked down just because of that? Video creators may just clutter up their vids with a bunch of pointless effects that don't add anything in order to get a high Effort rating.
I'm not following your slippery slope logic here. "Cluttering" (let me be honest here, your implication here is knowingly
) up a video with pointless effects in order to get a high effort score is in itself the exact opposite
of effort. The situation you describe here is someone attempting to game the system. You game the system so you can avoid exerting effort. That's refusal to put in the effort required for recognition of effort. It's absurd.
Another point is, many of the best parts of videos I've created were done just by random shuffling of clips using Animoto.com (which automatically creates action sync and some special effects. It can sometimes be made better if tweak it yourself afterwards, but its often great as is), often after I'd put much time into thinking about what would work best. No effort was required. So a viewer might assume that a lot of effort went into it when it actually didn't, making it a useless measurement. What matters is that the Action Sync and Special Effects are good or not.
I address this above. If you use animoto or something else, you should be very clear about that, because what matters to me is
effort level (at least in part). If I praise you for what I think is a great effort and I find out later you didn't edit it at all, a computer algorithm did, well then you not only don't deserve the score, you pretty much lied by accepting the score and keeping silent about its inapplicability. This doesn't make the measurement useless, and I simply cannot agree that "whether the Action Sync and Special Effects are good or not." If it were, I would have tossed out my favorite 1999 videos. Not only do I keep them, I regularly enjoy them because of the effort
involved in making them. That effort is what makes them special and important and wonderful.
Obviously something like creating lip sync always takes a lot of effort, but, again, wouldn't that effort be reflected in the Lip Sync score? How could there be a high LIp Sync rating and a low Effort rating? It doesn't make sense and shouldn't be allowed to happen.
Because some people are really, really, REALLY fast at it? I could see rating someone low on effort if just yesterday we talked about how they did the entire video in two hours and it's full of lip sync. Likewise, someone who spends weeks or months rotoscoping very, very slowly because they're still learning how to control pen tool and manages a fairly decent job of it should be rewarded at a higher rate of recognition for effort than the person who could do it in two hours. It does make sense, and as long as the scores are explained in detailed opinions, absolutely should be allowed to happen.