AMV Content Rating System

[Phade]

But what does the score actually tell you that the tags don't?

Is this likely a wholesome video? Low score = yes; high score = no.

Being told something is a 78...that doesn't tell me the content of a video.

Low score = I can hit "play" without much worry. High score = I should review other warnings (tags, etc) before viewing.

An Adolescence of Utena video could get a high score for the tasteful nudity at the end, despite being tasteful and not really showing anything.

Correct. A high score should warn you that you should read the tags instead of just ignoring them and then decide whether to watch the AMV or not.

Again, low score = lazily watch the AMV; high score = pay attention before watching.

[KeiichiFace]

I'm not trying to be rude but the example you gave is watching Pokemon videos with your nephew and knowing what was safe versus unsafe...but Pokemon is a kid's show at the end of the day. If you're that worried about the potential content wouldn't you just want to screen it beforehand?

With that example, everyone thinks differently about what is "appropriate" for kids. What might be an easy 16 for me might be a 30 for someone else depending on parenting styles. Is that then a disservice to the video?

What would you rate that Totoro AMV from Anime Boston forever ago? The horror one (I think it has something to do with "Something Wicked This Way Comes" but I don't remember). I remember thinking it was funny, and I was a kid. My mom was horrified (lol)

[KeiichiFace]

I think ultimately everyone disagrees on the concept of what is "appropriate content" so this kind of falls apart there

[Phade]

Can you explain why you need 100 levels of nuance?
What situation would a video at 0 - 10 be okay but 11 - 25 wouldn't?

A 100-value score is the same as a 10-value score with a decimal. 7.8 in 10-value (one decimal) is the same as 78 in 100-vaule (no decimal)

If it's less confusing to people, we can easily make it a 10-value score with a decimal.

I can understand the desire to look for family-friendly videos, but I cannot think of a situation where 1 - 25 would need to be more than one category.
If I was so concerned about the presence of ANY type of potentially objectionable content, I would not be trusting the number, I would be pre-screening all videos for my panel or whatever I was using it for to make sure they were safe.

This came from having to fill in some kind of differentiator as I broke down the sale from 1 to 100, then (1, 25, 50, 75, 100), then seeing other established existing scales with age ranges attached to them, all until I came up with the levels you see here. Originally it was just to give a 1-100 score, but I knew someone would ask, "Well, what does that mean?" and I needed something to show as guidance.

What situations would a video at 50 - 70 be okay but not 70 - 90?

The answer would be in the other feedback like the aspect warnings, tags, and specific warnings of that video.

When you think "I am in a very specific mood and do not want to watch anything that might offend me," do you not generally have some thought about what things offend you more than others?
Even in porn-friendly spaces, some types are okay but others aren't. What exactly makes a 100? Maybe I'm ok with scat and diapers but I don't want a snuff film. How do I know where that falls by looking at the number?

The purpose is the opposite: I want to lazily stream AMVs that have a content rating of 27 or lower so I don't have to think or read tags or worry in general.

A high score means, "Read the #$%! warnings." That's all the number will tell you.

I think the colors and "age ratings" have _some_ merit, but I fail to see how such a large scale is helpful.
Even you yourself say large swaths of the numbers are functionally useless until they are averaged out.

Take the scale, divide by 10 and add a decimal place; it's the same number as a 1-10 scale.

Averages are your friend. An Amazon product with a 5-star rating but only 3 ratings has much worse reliability than a 4.6-star rating with 1,273 ratings.

What does that mean, exactly? That everyone watching the video is told to also rate the scale 1 - 100?
Is this not an extra level of fiction?
At that point, why not assign number values to tag groups and have the score automatically applied based on the amount and types of tags added?
We could leave the user out of it completely and have no pain points at all.

Everyone will have the opportunity to give the AMV a one-number wholesomeness rating. Everyone will also have the opportunity to give detailed aspect warning values. Everyone will have the opportunity to give specific warnings and tags.

Me personally, I will give AMVs my value of the content rating score. If the AMV content rating score is high for me, I might give detailed aspect warning value. If the content rating score is very high, I will likely give specific warnings and tags.

However, the vast majority of the feedback I plan to give is the content rating number.

If you use a 1-10 scale and allow one decimal place (ex., 7.8), it is exactly the same as a 100-point scale, meaning a value of 7.8 on a 10-point scale is the same as a 78 on a 100-point scale with no decimal.

So why not just use 1 - 10?

They are the same. If members prefer a 1-10 with a decimal, that's super easy to do and it does not change the outcome.

[Phade]

I'm not trying to be rude but the example you gave is watching Pokemon videos with your nephew and knowing what was safe versus unsafe...but Pokemon is a kid's show at the end of the day. If you're that worried about the potential content wouldn't you just want to screen it beforehand?

There are absolutely objectionable Pokémon AMVs out there (I've seen a fair share). But yes, the scenario is just an example. A more realistic scenario is, "I want to lazily stream Pokémon AMVs that are unlikely to be objectionable; system, generate me a list..."

With that example, everyone thinks differently about what is "appropriate" for kids. What might be an easy 16 for me might be a 30 for someone else depending on parenting styles. Is that then a disservice to the video?

Averages will eventually find the value that most people would agree upon.

What would you rate that Totoro AMV from Anime Boston forever ago? The horror one (I think it has something to do with "Something Wicked This Way Comes" but I don't remember). I remember thinking it was funny, and I was a kid. My mom was horrified (lol)

Yeah, that one was awesome! Going back to my nephew scenario, having that AMV pop up with a higher than usual score for a Totoro video should help me go, "I remember that video being awesome. Why is the score high? Oh, wait, that was the scary one! Skip..." Crisis averted!!

Again, the score is not to tell you what objectionable material is in the video, but to alert you that you should probably pay attention to the tags if the score is high. On the flip side, a low score should be ok to play without paying much attention depending on how young the audience is.

Me, I'm probably not going to bother reading the tags if the score is 60 or less.

[Falconone]

I still think not many will rate the videos and you will have problems with it, because some people see evil in a "witch" character and they say it is blasphemy and rate it then very highly, even if it is a children's anime. Then you have the trolls that mess around, and then if you force people to rate, they will just pick a random number. As we saw in the past with the star ratings on amvs. Oh, and then you have other people who say video x is ok and rate it with a lower number just because its not different from what they see on tv at a specific time, but in a different country it would be normally be seen as a late night show.
BUT I think this system is at this stage of the redesign not important. The site should get the redesign and then move on with new features. If it is build modular and expandable then it should be possible to bring new features like that into the site.

[Phade]

I think ultimately everyone disagrees on the concept of what is "appropriate content" so this kind of falls apart there

Looking at it the other way around, a low score means people likely agree it is not inappropriate. To me, this perspective is good information to have, easy to collect, and easy to filter.

The opposite perspective is also good to know: I think this is fine, but a whole bunch of people think not. I should pay attention.

[Phade]

I still think not many will rate the videos and you will have problems with it

We shall see. Asking for a one-number feedback is simple to implement, calculate, and use.

...because some people see evil in a "witch" character and they say it is blasphemy and rate it then very highly, even if it is a children's anime.

Yes, and the more people that do it, the score will be slightly higher than expected, which should alert people that something is "off" with this AMV and that they should pay attention to the tags. The system works as designed.

Then you have the trolls that mess around, and then if you force people to rate, they will just pick a random number. As we saw in the past with the star ratings on amvs.

Mathematical statistics easily recognize these people and their scores are dropped from the system.

Oh, and then you have other people who say video x is ok and rate it with a lower number just because its not different from what they see on tv at a specific time, but in a different country it would be normally be seen as a late night show.

Yes, and this is where refinement can occur. We can aggregate scores based on geographic regions and adjust as needed. If we have enough values, we can create different scores for France vs. Germany, for example.

BUT I think this system is at this stage of the redesign not important. The site should get the redesign and then move on with new features. If it is build modular and expandable then it should be possible to bring new features like that into the site.

Yes, implementing a one-number feedback system is simple to implement, calculate, and use. Build it, see how it works, and move on.

[Zarxrax]

There are reasons why most recommendation systems (see Youtube, Netflix, etc) have boiled things down to maybe 2 choices: People don't want to spend time thinking about things, and people also try to compensate for other people's views. So a recommendation engine might start with a 5 star rating scale, but everyone just uses 1 or 5, so everything in between is meaningless.

Trying to use a numerical scale for something like content appropriateness seems even more meaningless to me. No one wants to think about a number or try to figure out what a certain number might even mean. Even if all you have to do is pick a number, the act of picking a number is complex because no one knows what each individual number actually means.

I would be in favor of a VERY SIMPLE system, maybe have 3 categories like: General Audiences, Parental Guidance, and Explicit. Then maybe a tagging system if people want to add specifics.

Just my thoughts.

[CrackTheSky]

Basically what Zarxrax said.

But if needing a numerical rating system of some kind is absolutely necessary in your mind as a kind of at-a-glance indicator of how "wholesome" a video is (itself an ambiguous, subjective term) then I'd strongly recommend keeping it to at most a 1-to-10 scale, that is only scorable in whole numbers (so a user should not be able to rate something a 7.3, for example, and would need to choose between a 7 or an 8). There's a psychological component that should be obvious from the comments here that 1-100 is way too daunting a scale for the average user to consider and think through. If the math from averaging out multiple ratings on a single entry results in a decimal, that's fine I guess, but do not put the burden on the users of trying to discern the difference between a 56 and a 61 and a 64 rating that they need to assign to their videos, or others'.