Is re-viewability *really* all that important?

[Rorschach]

I was just thinking about this the other day while responding to an opinion on my video: aren't some videos meant to be viewed only a few times? What brought the question to mind is that the opinion was on a six minute AMV. Sure, I'd love it if you saw it yourself and then showed it to your friends or something, but I wouldn't want you to watch it again and again--that would suggest you're some kind of obssessive-compulsive psycho.

Wouldn't putting any AMV, however good, on a constant loop on our computers be a good torture method? For that matter, I can't think of any AMV, however good, that I watch *every* time I watch AMVs. Indeed, a good AMV is like a good joke: the more you repeat it, the less entertaining it is. Likewise, playing Star Wars--which left everyone gaping amazement when it first came out--again and again has made it into Hollywood's meat now. Isn't a classic more fun to watch if you only view it on special occasions?

Maybe the scale should be revised. Instead of 10 meaning "It's on a constant loop on my computer," It should mean "I'm still not tired of seeing it a week later." What do you think, people?

[paizuri]

Why do you have to give it a 10? A "10" rating from me would mean that if that video happened to be playing at any time in my vicinity, I would drop what I was doing and go watch it. If the video was not as compelling as that, I won't give it a 10.

[Esrhan]

Can an AMV be good and at the same time un-reviewable? I think looping a video constantly on and on goes a little overboard when rating it.

[Zarxrax]

I've given a 10 for reviewable once. Over 100 opinions i think, and the only vid I've ever given it to was Odorinkuru or whatever its called. I watched that video nonstop like 50 times over a couple days. Aside from that, I end up even giving the best videos a 7 or 8 :\

[Paul Kievits]

Point taken, I actually don't even consider reviewability when I judge the end score of the video. Compare it to lord of the rings (ROTK), I watched it once and absolutley love it, the second time I went I was bored, it was just too long, but it doesn't change my opinion that it's a good movie in general.

[Arigatomina]

I can't think of any AMV, however good, that I watch *every* time I watch AMVs.

I agree. As someone who doesn't keep a single playlist, I never watch the same vids 'every' time I watch amvs. I decide to watch some and pick my faves according to mood and genre (if I want happy I'll put up happy vids, if I want comedy, I'll put up comedy vids, etc). I don't have time to watch all my favorite vids every time I watch vids. So, that scoring system does not apply to me.

Instead, I think - if I had the time to watch as many vids as I want every time I watch vids, would I include this one in that hypothetical playlist. That works for the easy-to-view vids. But it's not a reflection of how good an amv is. I agree that comedy vids and angsty vids tend to be ones I watch only once every so often, rarely. I may like them a lot, but that doesn't mean I'll watch them as often as something easy to view. Which means some of my favorite vids may get a 6 on reviewability while others I think are enjoyable enough to watch every time (If I could watch that many vids), may get 8s or even the occassional 9. The only time I give a 10 is if I've had a vid for more than a week and I put it up every time I open my media player. This has happened a few times, maybe 4. And if I suddenly start rewatching a vid (even if it's just on loop for a day), I"ll go back and raise the reviewability score by a point. If I do it often enough, the vid will eventually hit a 9 or 10 and stay there - even if I end up never watching the vid again.

As it is, the reviewability system doesn't apply to my viewing habits, so I don't use it correctly - I twist it so it fits me as well as possible. If I took it literally my reviewability average would be 3 or less. I just don't rewatch vids that often, and never have I *ever* rewatched the same *set* of vids every time I watch vids. I like more variety than that, and don't have the time for such a long playlist.

I'd definitely support an edit on this section of the reviews - but it would need to be modeled to fit those people who can't watch 80 vids every time they watch vids - something that ranks highly rewatchable vids high, but incorporates more than just how often you watch it.

I have no idea what would work in the place of the current system. The main idea of it is to have the vids people put on constant loop (the ones people are obsessed with) ranking higher than the others. Changing the score meanings would ruin that.

[jrodegheri]

You video makers think too much of technical aspects of a video. We video watchers just care if we're gonna enjoy ourselves watching it or not. I think this is what "re-viewability" should mean: not if we'll actually watch it again, but if it wouldn't be a torture if we did.

That means, in other words, simply the old question "Did you enjoy it?" or "Ok, the technical aspects are perfect: The quality of the picture is crystal clear, the sound is dolby-surround - wonderful, the lip sync looks just like the natural thing etc etc.. but DID YOU ENJOY IT? Would you mind if you had to watch it again??"

Even "originality" doesn't count so much as "enjoyability", cause someone may have an idea which nobody else has ever thought of, but still make out of it an AMV which is a drag!

In my opinion, as a viewer, not a maker, there should be more subjective items such as "re-viewability" to make the "overall" score something closer to what a GOOD AMV is (just like a good book, not something well printed and with no grammar mistakes at all, but something we enjoy a lot).

Hurray for re-viewability!

[AbsoluteDestiny]

When I spoke to Phade about this issue he basically said this in defense:


Reviewability is there in order to give credit to the videos that you just cant help watching - even if they arent the most artistic technical or whatever.

Now what I'd like to add to it is that Overall contains that too. If something is reviewable it is going to have a good overall and a good reviewability score. Now, the way it's calculated mean that you have got 66% of the final score right there.


Whether it is right or not is very much up to debate, however I think it's a bit too unfair on emotional videos. I can imagine a video that was so sad and dramatic that I thought it was incredible but because it was so sad I dont want to watch again. That harms a video's ranking.

I don't think it's a black or white issue but I do think its something that should be looked at as a balancing issue. Reviewablility has the lowest average score of all the options on the org, so it plays a very significant part in the final scores imo.

[jrodegheri]

It depends on what you make of this word - re-viewability.

I don't mind watching a good sad film again. And as I said before, I would even like it if there were more "subjective" topics like this to be reckoned.

But maybe this topic could be taken away and replaced by another better word, like "WATCHABILITY", or "ENJOYABILITY", or "RECOMMENDABILITY" (i.e. with what emphasis you'd recommend this AMV to somebody) etc

[SarahtheBoring]

Personally, what governs whether I watch a vid often or not is usually the song choice, which has absolutely nothing to do with the editing. The best editing in the world *cough COUGH cough* can't compel me to watch an AMV more than once or twice if the song bores me.

So~o, sometimes it's out of your hands entirely.