Averages

[JaddziaDax]

However if all you are exposed to are the top, the creme of the crop the higher your standards go...

If you have higher standards, you should be less willing to give out high scores, and be more critical of any flaws you see. Logically, being exposed mostly to the best videos should mean your bell curve shifts to the LEFT, not the right. The problem is like InsaneWaya said - the bad videos aren't getting properly oped.

That was pretty much the point I was attempting to make. Something I see as better than average (around a 8-9 range) other people will see as lower than average (5-6 range) because they haven't been exposed to the "actual average" like I have (I've seen more videos than I can count and the average amv isn't exactly U4EA). I was pretty much just talking about the people who give out low scores (or lower scores than I would).

As for the people who spew out high scores all over the place they are either the fanatical fanboy/girl that lurves the combination of my favorite anime + my favorite music, or they are inexperienced and easily amazed by what some of us consider to be "simple effects" (I used to be there at one point).

A lot of people won't watch a video unless its recommended, pimped somewhere or everyone is all over it in an announcement thread. So because crappier videos don't get watched, and therefore of course they don't get ops.

and as for the op exchange - I do it so I can have three ops on each of my videos and the average will show up on the profiles, and then watchers can decide weather or not they want to download it based on that if they like... not everyone is a donator and can see the star ratings (cept on the 1st and the 15th - they still doing that?) so I like to have the average scores show up there..

[Corran]

As for the people who spew out high scores all over the place they are either the fanatical fanboy/girl that lurves the combination of my favorite anime + my favorite music, or they are inexperienced and easily amazed by what some of us consider to be "simple effects" (I used to be there at one point).

...or they simply have a different idea of what is "good", inexperienced or not.

[JaddziaDax]

Most of those people who just have a different opinion of "good" don't SPEW HIGH SCORES ALL OVER THE PLACE... o.O

I'm not saying that all people who in the past have given high scores to a video are inexperienced, I'm just saying that usually its inexperienced people who will give high scores to EVERYTHING they see usually cause they believe what they see is better than their videos or they are easily impressed because it's something they can't or don't know how to do (yet).

You also have the people who can't stand being mean to other people so they tend to give high scores weather they liked it or not, but likewise you will have people who love being jerks who will never give a video a high score not even if their life depended on it.

There are all kinds of people in this world, I was just pointing out a few...


And, yea what I "like" or what I think of as "good" is usually the main factor into how I score something.

[EvaFan]

idc about the numbers or "scores"...

What people actually have to say about the video is worth more then numbers ever will be.

[BasharOfTheAges]

As for the people who spew out high scores all over the place they are either the fanatical fanboy/girl that lurves the combination of my favorite anime + my favorite music, or they are inexperienced and easily amazed by what some of us consider to be "simple effects" (I used to be there at one point).

...or they simply have a different idea of what is "good", inexperienced or not.

That's a total logical cop-out. Not everyone is a qualified critic, but good critics in food, wine, cinema, etc. have more educated and refined opinions that are objectively more valid by those very qualifications. By the same token, you have to become jaded by AMVs to compare them fairly in any system. Someone who applies their opinion without reasoned analysis and basis for comparison is producing a less qualified datum than one who does. Would you take any random person off the street and ask them to give you critical feedback on an AMV you made and legitimately take their "it's good" response with the same weight you would a trusted beta-er? Would you ask your butcher what he thought you should do to improve your home's equity? People that have honed their skill set to a given field are far better judges within that field. You'll get a few hopelessly inept editors, and you'll get a few noob-savants, but at the end of the day, the group that knows what the fuck they're talking about is pretty damned clear.

[Corran]

That's a total logical cop-out. Not everyone is a qualified critic, but good critics in food, wine, cinema, etc. have more educated and refined opinions that are objectively more valid by those very qualifications. By the same token, you have to become jaded by AMVs to compare them fairly in any system. Someone who applies their opinion without reasoned analysis and basis for comparison is producing a less qualified datum than one who does. Would you take any random person off the street and ask them to give you critical feedback on an AMV you made and legitimately take their "it's good" response with the same weight you would a trusted beta-er? Would you ask your butcher what he thought you should do to improve your home's equity? People that have honed their skill set to a given field are far better judges within that field. You'll get a few hopelessly inept editors, and you'll get a few noob-savants, but at the end of the day, the group that knows what the fuck they're talking about is pretty damned clear.

My point was that everyone that gives out high ratings all the time isn't necessarily in one of the two categories of viewers that Jaddziadax listed. I tend to mentally note generalizations and keep to myself however this time it was not the case for some reason. I'm not arguing that an inexperienced opinion carries the same weight as an experienced one.

But since you mentioned it, sometimes it is a good idea to get a fresh perspective from inexperienced viewers. That might not mean randomly asking someone off the street, but instead asking family and friends that don't watch anime or AMVs. They might be biased and not have experience critiquing music videos, but their opinion and observations are still valuable to you at some level and possibly, depending on the situation, more so than an established critic. If a video is generally popular within the anime or amv fandoms but the "qualified critics" summarily tear it apart and dislike it, does that mean either party is wrong to think what they do?

[BasharOfTheAges]

No - being unqualified isn't wrong in a moral sense. They don't know any better. Valuing unqualified analysis as anything more than "how unqualified people will judge it" is wrong. It's very useful for entertaining/pandering/whateveryouwanttocallit specifically because of the high correlation between unqualified people and general audiences.

I run the AMV panels I'm on at cons with this in mind - with the express intent of making groups of people more aware of critical watching skills and teaching them to spot what makes something good or bad.

[8bit_samurai]

I think you can't use the word average accurately on a singular scale of 1-10 (considering the average is 5.5, which is rounded to 5 usually) without defining which meaning of average you're using. On most ratings on scales 1-10, 1 is usually never, worst, none, etc. and 10 is usually all the time, best, etc. 5 is usually not that bad yet not that good, every now and then, mediocre, etc. etc. Though those scales seem to be used mostly in surveys, tests and other stuff like that, and the person answering the questions usually tend to answer more truthfully for more accurate results.

When submitting an opinion, it says 5 = average, which I think average isn't a very accurate term to use, considering it's mathematical implications, though there isn't very many terms that can describe something that isn't good nor bad. The only other terms I can think of are neutral and mediocre, which aren't very accurate terms either.

[8bit_samurai]

When submitting an opinion, it says 5 = average, which I think average isn't a very accurate term to use, considering it's mathematical implications, though there isn't very many terms that can describe something that isn't good nor bad. The only other terms I can think of are neutral and mediocre, which aren't very accurate terms either.

Well, this is assuming that the Org's definition of average in the opinion system is not that good yet not that bad. I'm not exactly sure which definition it is.

[InsaneWaya]

When submitting an opinion, it says 5 = average, which I think average isn't a very accurate term to use, considering it's mathematical implications, though there isn't very many terms that can describe something that isn't good nor bad. The only other terms I can think of are neutral and mediocre, which aren't very accurate terms either.

Well, this is assuming that the Org's definition of average in the opinion system is not that good yet not that bad. I'm not exactly sure which definition it is.

Is there more than one way to describe average? Because only times its been used for me it always has meant in the middle, or like you said, not good and not bad, or in a AMV sense not horrible but needs work. Either way thats what I was using to define it when i started the topic, since average(If given equially to both bad and good AMVs) should technically be around 5.5.

As you can see via Utoob, the average video on the org isn't really average, why do ppl keep insisting that the videos that lack vision you might find on <a href="http://www.animemusicvideos.org/forum/v ... ochsack</a> simply don't exist? THEY are average.

Videos on youtube shouldn't be throw in when your giving an op on the org unless it's on both sites, the org should have its own set of standards because its a whole different site, if people gaves ops based on what you would reguarly see on utube as "average" then it would be no wonder the "average" on the org is so high. Thats like judging a paper written by a teacher and one by the student on the same level. Coming from 2 different people or in this case sites, its obvious what would be better, you cant give the both sites the same standards. Because i believe the average here would obviously be higher. But thats just what i think.(Sorry if i didn't explain my thoughts here well, im a little tired at the moment)