Is re-viewability *really* all that important?

CaTaClYsM · Post by **CaTaClYsM** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 6:16 pm

I agree. I'd rather not have to watch a video till I'm sick of it to find out it's reviewability. I've got a list of videos neck high that are stunning master-pieces that have low reviewability. It's the same with movies, there are movies that are masterpieces but arent made to be watched over and over again. Should we hold that against them?

Tash · Post by **Tash** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 7:08 pm

Like beo said...just put it with other categories, and all those videos not meant for rewatching can have a chance. I wish

Cyanna · Post by **Cyanna** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 7:22 pm

I think it's pretty important.

Most of the catagories have to do with technicalities: quality of sound, capture, synch and so on. But it is possible to see an AMV with poor quality technical wise, even the synch, and yet something in it would strike a chord with you and you would still like the vid despite the technical flaws. "Re-view" is really the only catagory in which you can score based on how the vid made you feel rather then the straight technical view, which does not allow for your personal opinion to be present as much.

Corran · Post by **Corran** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 8:04 pm

Cyanna wrote: "Re-view" is really the only catagory in which you can score based on how the vid made you feel rather then the straight technical view, which does not allow for your personal opinion to be present as much.

Err... Overall fits that well.

I agree with Beo. There are parody videos that are supposed to make you laugh the first time you see them. They typically get low re-viewability scores due to the fact that people now know the jokes and they lose their original appeal. These videos tend not to be relatively high on the top % lists as compared to action vids for example. Same goes with drama vids... People won't be able to watch a vid that makes them cry on a loop unless they like torturing themselves.

hyperchica11 · Post by **hyperchica11** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:50 pm

Reviewability is what, in my humble opinion, separates a classic from a fad. There are some videos which are meant for the moment, and some which are meant for a lifetime. Ok, maybe that's too deep. But really, it's like that song that you LOVED that they played on the radio too much, and you got sick of. Or it's like Britanny Spears: mass produced and meant for a cheap thrill, while a classic video is like The Beatles or Led Zeppelin. I could STILL listen to them all day.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that i think reviewabilty is arguably the most important factor in an amv, because it's what makes it last as time goes on.

(I'm very proud of myself. I didn't mention any videos. And i wasn't alluding to any either.)

If i can find my notes for the speech I did on classics, I'll probably post them. Or maybe I won't, because that might be going a little too off topic.

Ok. that's my two cents.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:49 pm

hyperchica11 wrote:Reviewability is what, in my humble opinion, separates a classic from a fad. There are some videos which are meant for the moment, and some which are meant for a lifetime. Ok, maybe that's too deep. But really, it's like that song that you LOVED that they played on the radio too much, and you got sick of. Or it's like Britanny Spears: mass produced and meant for a cheap thrill, while a classic video is like The Beatles or Led Zeppelin. I could STILL listen to them all day.

If that is the case, do you wait 40 years before judging a video?

The point I'm trying to make is that you, and everyone who feels the same way in this thread are beging hypocritical by saying that you want a special catagory and then not judging that catagory the way you say it should be judged.

If your worried about fad videos outshining classic videos to the point were you feel the need for an inherintly flawed catagory to "set them apart" then I think thats ridiculous as well. Classic videos don't need any help outshining the fads because they are classics. It doesn't matter if you can pinpoint the reason why they are more appealing, but the bottom line is that they are. They will rise to the top just like they should.

Fad videos fade. Thats what they do. Look at Pogs. Look at Chia Pets. Look at JINCO jeans with the 50 inch openings at the bottom. Look at pastel colored anything. If you were to go back in time and ask the people who played pogs if they would continue to do so indefinitly, all of them would give you a resounding "yes".

We as the AMV public, and you as the AMV viewer do not have the wisdom to judge an AMV's cultural achievement within the first 1 year of its existence. I say that as an estimate because our little thingy we have here has only been very popular for about 5 years.

No one is going to wait a year to judge a video. I don't know the exact figures, but I'd be willing to say at least 75% of the reviews on this website are given less than 2 weeks after the videos debut. How much wisdom do we as a mass have then? How much wisdom do you as a viewer have then?

None and None.

Machine · Post by **Machine** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:38 pm

I may be wrong about this, but I remember way back in 2001 that there never was a Reviewability in the actual opinion process.

Personally, I say do away with the whole caregory. It's usually a random number I give out anyways...

I usually burn all the AMVs on my HD to CDs to clear out space....but I'll bring them out to watch again whenever friends are over or we are all bored at CONs and want to watch AMVs

I tend to keep every video I download anyways

dbzrkyyh · Post by **dbzrkyyh** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:09 pm

i dont like the effort section

Leanan · Post by **Leanan** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 12:25 am

Like someone else mentioned, what about sad videos? I know I don't want to watch a really sad video over and over, but maybe I thought it really moved me or had an effect on me. Why should that hurt the videos score while maybe a video that isn't as powerful (but is highly enjoyable to watch again and again) get a higher score? I kind of wish the reviewability score didn't carry as much weight. I actually just wish we could do away with scores altogether and just have constructive criticism and feedback only for opinions.

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:25 am

Leanan wrote:I actually just wish we could do away with scores altogether and just have constructive criticism and feedback only for opinions.

One thing for the scores is that they give reviewers specific areas to pay attention to when *providing* constructive feedback. It may not make much difference to those who leave 5 word reviews, but I'm sure there are some who would say "It's good" or "It's bad" without ever thinking of specific areas of the video to 'judge' when leaving a review. If nothing else, having the score broken into sections *denotes* sections to look at and take as a whole when deciding if it's 'good' or 'bad.' I'd wager getting rid of the sections would reduce the amount of constructie feedback received in reviews. Without those sections, people will write about anything or nothing - and there will be no way to rank the videos (unless you think the top 'favorite' vids is a good judge in the absence of the top 10).

I like the sections myself because they give me areas to pay attention to when writing a review. They encourage organized feedback. But we could always get rid of them, take down the top 10 list, and just go by the star scale and random 'just wanted you to know I liked/hated it' reviews.

AnimeMusicVideos.org

Is re-viewability really all that important?