None of those new words help to clarify this, though.jrodegheri wrote: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
- Watchability: What is watchable, and in what context? The editing methods used factor largely into this. As a trivial example: I do not find VicBond007's "Charcoal Sketched Dreams" tolerable on a 60" projection in a dark room -- my eyes simply cannot tolerate the epileptic flashing sequence in the middle of the video. It's fine on a laptop LCD in a brightly lit room, though.
There's TONS of other things to consider. A few: Do you find AMVs that make extensive use of grayscale to be watchable, or do you fall asleep? Do you enjoy fast cuts or slow cuts? Does the cutting seem to follow the pace of the audio? Do you think the creator intended the cuts to follow the pace of the audio? Does the audio quality factor into the watchability of the video? How about the audio content?
Many of these questions have technical and artistic components to them -- you can't separate them so rigidly. The question relating to grayscale footage is a pretty good example.
- Enjoyability: What do you enjoy? I thought Pi was a pretty good movie, but many other people I've talked to hated it. Many open questions here.
- Recommendability: Who will you recommend this video to? Why? I fail to see how you could summarize "recommendability" in a single number. Again, many unanswered questions.
As you've stated, it depends on what you make of the word. That's the problem -- I don't think it's possible to sharpen up the definition of "reviewability", as there's just too much that can differ from person to person.
I think that, with the introduction of the Star Scale, that "reviewability" is a redundant piece of data and should be stricken from the database. Both have become a measure of a video's popularity amongst the .org population, but the former is updated much more often than the latter, and there's a much more useful view on the former dataset anyway.
I also think the more subjective ratings such as action, originality, effects, reviewability, etc. are loads of crap. (At least with Capture and Audio, there is some semblance of order -- for example I find it hard to imagine somebody finding a 29x14 Cinepak-encoded clip stretched to full-screen on a 1400x1050 viewport to look better than a DVD stretched in the same way, or someone finding a 8 KHz 8 bit sample of "Let it Be" to sound better than a copy of the same song ripped from CD.)
Of course, these are just my opinions, which aren't the subject at hand.
