AMV Content Rating System

[seasaltmemories]

The question boils down to this: "Give a 1-to-100 value between 'wholesome' and 'Satan' for this video." All the rest of the text is guidance/noise.

I'm going to be blunt, but as someone who creates amvs that deal with heavy content, asking me to describe a work in metaphorical or exaggerated language just obfuscates the process. As others have pointed out, topics such as violence, sex, or suicide are all regarded as being different levels of appropriate depending on the specific cultural attitudes of the user. I also think this muddies the water for talking about the difference between sexually explicit vids and vids that cover sensitive topics such as sexual violence. Is a pornographic vid of a couple having loving consensual sex more likely to make Satan blush than a non-explicit vid about a minor being sexually abused? As of now the different values stack upon each other, but what if a vid consists of one extreme element but not the other elements. For example, does a video that has completely sfw visuals but contains explicit lyrics only reach the 30-50 range bc the actual content is wholesome/comedic? Does a pornographic vid of a couple having loving consensual sex automatically hit the high 90s range bc of the explicitness? If so then how do you differentiate it from content that is just as sexually explicit but also contains extreme violence as well?

As an editor, I much rather simple state what the amv contains in clear, precise language rather than put together a number value. I believe it is easier to explain and properly warn people that way rather than try to intuit if what I see as a 60 is what other people think of when they see a 60.

[seasaltmemories]

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 accidentally skipped over a page so only now am I reading this reply, but if you want to be able to stream certain vids with no worry of inappropriate content, then what does a number system accomplish that a label of "For General Audiences" or "Kid Friendly" does not accomplish? If for your personal use you are not concerned about the divisions between a 12 and a 23, then why do we need that level of detail? If we establish that personal bias will come into play, then it is very easy for an amv with only a few ratings at the moment, or a particularly strong outlier rating to have a completely skewed average.

Overall this rating system seems easy to use for people who don't have much to warn for and for vids that contain as much sex, drugs, and violence as possible, but for everyone else in the middle it is an additional puzzle to solve.

[Phade]

There are reasons why most recommendation systems (see Youtube, Netflix, etc) have boiled things down to maybe 2 choices...

Yes, having fewer choices for a recommendation system does work. However, the focus here is not recommendation (meaning, "You should watch [this video] next because people who gave thumbs-up to the videos you gave thumbs-up to also gave thumbs-up to [this video] you haven't seen yet.") Nowhere does Netflix or YouTube (anymore) show you the thumbs-up/down ratio or give a generic "this video is 'good'" indication based on up-down votes. The focus there is instead "recommendation" between your up-down and other persons' up-down.

The focus for the content rating score proposed here is a level of confidence that the video will be considered wholesome (or not) and be used as a filter (or at least an early warning system).

I can't imagine that a wholesomeness score could be a binary system. "To me, an AMV is either 'kittens' or 'kittens in a blender'," said no sane person ever. A 10-point system (with or without a decimal) seems reasonable since it is just a condensed version of 100. We could bring that down to a 5-point system with a decimal, making it essentially a 50-point system.

We can try different front-end approaches that map to the same back-end values to see how things go.

[Phade]

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'.

Yes, people often think and conceptualize things differently. We can give users the option to present the system that best fits their expression comfort. This is why the original infographic shows multiple variations of expression that lead to a common result. Some may prefer to enter a digit 1-100, others a 0.1 - 10.0, others a slider scale with corresponding emoji or color, while others use a title-based or letter-based system. No matter how the expression is given, it will map to a common understanding of that expression.

[Phade]

I'm going to be blunt...

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said in this section.

As an editor, I much rather simple state what the amv contains in clear, precise language rather than put together a number value. I believe it is easier to explain and properly warn people that way rather than try to intuit if what I see as a 60 is what other people think of when they see a 60.

This level of differentiation, communication, and nuance will be available within the other parts of the system (tags, aspect warnings, specific warnings) in addition to the general score.

I accidentally skipped over a page so only now am I reading this reply, but if you want to be able to stream certain vids with no worry of inappropriate content, then what does a number system accomplish that a label of "For General Audiences" or "Kid Friendly" does not accomplish?

If the video creator does not provide labels themselves, it would be useful to have a hint as to the potential content impact. Having the audience provide one value that can be combined and aggregated into a single overall warning score is the easiest way to provide this hint.

Audience members can also provide their own tags, aspect warnings, and specific warnings, but those take more effort than a single-number feedback. People who give troll values (only "1" or "100" every time, or even just random numbers) can be easily detected mathematically and removed from the final score calculations.

If for your personal use you are not concerned about the divisions between a 12 and a 23, then why do we need that level of detail? If we establish that personal bias will come into play, then it is very easy for an amv with only a few ratings at the moment, or a particularly strong outlier rating to have a completely skewed average.

My initial thought was that if a value can be displayed, I should be able to provide that value. If the system was a 10-point scale with a decimal point, I should be able to provide a 1.2 or 2.3 score if I so choose. The level of detail is not required, but is available at the discretion of the submitter.

A score can only be relevant if a minimum number of responses are collected. Until then, the score won't be relevant or displayed. If a person only gives toll responses (only "1" or "100" every time, or even just random numbers), those can be mathematically detected and removed from the score calculation.

Overall this rating system seems easy to use for people who don't have much to warn for and for vids that contain as much sex, drugs, and violence as possible, but for everyone else in the middle it is an additional puzzle to solve.

Yes, low-scoring vids are less likely to have warning tags of any kind and only have a content rating score. Conversely, if a video creator gives a high content warning score but does not provide any warning tags, we could have the system say, "Hey creator, you've given your AMV a high score on the content warning system. It would be really great if you could be more specific and provide some tags, aspect warnings, or specific warnings about your vid." If the content rating score is high enough, the system could require further warnings before the video becomes available to the general public, but this would be a "phase 2" feature.

[KeiichiFace]

I want to return to the idea that a video with nudity, but no details around the nudity, could be given a high rating - in my example, female nudity. Who is going to monitor the ratings so that male nudity is upheld to the same [ridiculous] standard? With that in mind, what is stopping people from giving videos with LGBTQ+ themes a higher rating because "kids shouldn't be exposed to that"? What is stopping someone from rating a video with a song by a POC artist a higher rating because of internalized racism? If a Black artist says the n-word in a song/video with nothing else "wrong" with it, are you going to let it have a high rating because a bunch of white editors think that's "inappropriate"?

I think a proposed rating system about "wholesomeness" is low-key a big dogwhistle of internalized homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. All videos are just going to be voted 69 because that's the internet. More people are saying it's a bad idea than a good idea, so maybe bring it back to the drawing board and come back with revisions.

Remember when a bunch of kids saw some horrible videos on YouTube because they were marked to be for kids/had children's characters in them, and not because people had actually looked at the content? Just screen content you want to show kids, if that's your biggest worry.

[ComplicatedMuse]

ok. best of luck in the redesign!! I'm sure it'd be PERFECT for the 20 people who would love it for the "wholesomeness". And if that's what is wanted for the site, by all means.

For the rest of us, it's too complicated. I'll continue to use Youtube for both posting and viewing.

[Phade]

I want to return to the idea that a video with nudity, but no details around the nudity, could be given a high rating - in my example, female nudity. Who is going to monitor the ratings so that male nudity is upheld to the same [ridiculous] standard? With that in mind, what is stopping people from giving videos with LGBTQ+ themes a higher rating because "kids shouldn't be exposed to that"? What is stopping someone from rating a video with a song by a POC artist a higher rating because of internalized racism? If a Black artist says the n-word in a song/video with nothing else "wrong" with it, are you going to let it have a high rating because a bunch of white editors think that's "inappropriate"?

Given that the feedback is a number, it is impossible to know or infer the reasons why you picked that exact number. Did you pick the number because of nudity, language, tension, interactions, drugs, alcohol, demons, farts, blasphemy, gambling, violence, or because you don't like the color green? We, the audience and video creator, cannot know this from a number, absolutely impossible. Unless you use words publicly, you and only you will know the reason why you picked that exact number, forever.

Ultimately, the overall score is determined by a large group of people. If an individual gives an AMV a high score for [any reason] but everyone else thinks the score should be generally lower, the outlier value will have essentially no effect.

I think a proposed rating system about "wholesomeness" is low-key a big dogwhistle of internalized homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. All videos are just going to be voted 69 because that's the internet. More people are saying it's a bad idea than a good idea, so maybe bring it back to the drawing board and come back with revisions.

People who troll with numbers (all 1, all 100, all 69, random numbers, etc) can be mathematically detected and removed from calculations.

Remember when a bunch of kids saw some horrible videos on YouTube because they were marked to be for kids/had children's characters in them, and not because people had actually looked at the content? Just screen content you want to show kids, if that's your biggest worry.

This is not actually my biggest worry.

For me personally, my biggest worry is about showing AMVs in public to an open audience. I and other coordinators create AMV exhibition events at cons. Whenever I'm making a set and I want it to be "PG rated" (because that's how I'm advertising it), sometimes there are videos that I know are REALLY good that I am considering putting into the set, but they are on the edge of being PG vs PG13 for me personally. The exact reasons the AMV for me is on the edge are ultimately irrelevant. What is relevant is the consensus of the general population when it comes to this AMV. If the general population thinks I'm worrying too much and the AMV is actually just PG (my personal numeric value is greater than the average value), this is very good to know and will give me the confidence to include it in the set. If the general population thinks I'm probably being a little too permissive and the AMV is more of a PG13 video (my personal numeric value is less than the average value), this is also very good to know. The exact reasons why my numeric value is different from the average is entirely irrelevant to the general audience. However, knowing what an average general audience would think is extremely helpful.

[KeiichiFace]

For me personally, my biggest worry is about showing AMVs in public to an open audience. I and other coordinators create AMV exhibition events at cons. Whenever I'm making a set and I want it to be "PG rated" (because that's how I'm advertising it), sometimes there are videos that I know are REALLY good that I am considering putting into the set, but they are on the edge of being PG vs PG13 for me personally. The exact reasons the AMV for me is on the edge are ultimately irrelevant.

Ask your boss at the con. If someone has an issue with it, it doesn't matter what the consensus of a bunch of AMV editors is - it matters that your boss and the higher-ups will have your back on it.

[tayuyashoujo]

I'm here to echo what has already been said by others. To be frank, I would not willingly engage with this system, and if it were mandatory I think I and many others would not engage with it as hoped or intended. Despite assertions to the contrary, asking someone to assign a numerical value to the "appropriateness" of a video is a loaded question that requires thought and consideration, especially when factoring in the numerous criteria, as well as cultural and personal interpretations.

Most people want to watch and/or uploaded videos and move on. As small of an ask as it may seem, this extra step does create friction, as Vars mentioned earlier in the thread. My homepage on the org is a wall of videos that I downloaded for archival purposes and never rated. When I'm prompted to review one before downloading more, more often than not I'll give it a random rating based on vague recollection because I just want to get on with what I was doing. As such, the ratings I'm giving are not meaningful. I see the exact same thing happening with this system.

KeiichiFace said it better, but I also have my concerns about bigoted review bombing. Even if it's not the extremes of 1s or 100s, an otherwise "wholesome" romance video about a gay couple may get a higher rating than a hetero romance video.

I'm all in favour of the tagging and warning system. I just don't see anything good coming out of this numerical system.