Before Euphoria, the #1 video was...

CaTaClYsM · Post by **CaTaClYsM** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:30 am

I've said it once before but it bears repeating. The scoring system needs to have the range widened from what it is now (bad to good) to (wosrte one has hever seen to best one has ever seen.) adding a 0 and 11 at the begining and and or upping the range from 1 to 20 instead of 1 to 10. And havign the range set like that will actually make people stop and think before they give each score. Making the process more objective than arbitrary.

And changing the examples given would also help. Lets compare originality.

10 = Waaa Pow!!
1 = Waaa??

I couldn't make this more abiguous if I tried. I figure the defenitions given should at least survive the transition out of context so people at least KNOW WHAT THEY FUCK IT'S TALKING ABOUT.

And making a new required viewing list considering how dated Phade's is.

downwithpants · Post by **downwithpants** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:20 pm

i have a simple demonstration of the bayesian average.

let's assume the average score across all videos is 8 (i donno what it exactly is, but we'll just say 8 for now). under the bayesian average scoring you can think of every video out there starting out with 7 opinions each with a rating of 8. The first "real opinion" counts as the 8th opinion to get factored into the score. so you get 7 opinions with a score of 8, and 1 real opinion of whatever score the reviewer gave you. The second "real opinion" counts as the 9th opinion, and so on.

It's like in some classes the teacher tells you that you're starting with a "100" and you have to do well on tests and homework to keep that high average. well, in this case you start with an 8, and move from there depending on your real scores.

the purpose of the bayesian average is purely statistical. pushing more weight on to the real scores of videos with more real opinions. it's similar to how we reason. if someone told you all of the cats in her town were white, you'd be skeptical if you saw one or two white cats, but more convinced if you saw 100 white cats. similarly, if someone told you a video was good, you'd be skeptical if it had one or two ratings of 10, but more convinced if it had 100 ratings of 10.

and cataclysm, the rating system is ambiguous, but there's no clear way to rate videos objectively. and even if there were, there'd be no reason for a rating system - you'd only need one person to rate it, and since it'd an objective rating, there'd be no other way to rate it.

i think we should delete all the rating standards (like the "waaa?/waaa pow!" [ambiguous] and the "i watch this video every week" [should be relative, not absolute]) but keep the rating guidelines

)v(ajin Koji · Post by **)v(ajin Koji** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:08 pm

Get a room guys

Voices_Of_Ryan · Post by **Voices_Of_Ryan** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:09 pm

)v(ajin Koji wrote:Get a room guys

Smoochy

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:10 pm

This has to be one of the most interesting threads I've seen in a long time.

Voices_Of_Ryan · Post by **Voices_Of_Ryan** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:11 pm

Kalium wrote:This has to be one of the most interesting threads I've seen in a long time.

I hope thats sarcasem.. this same kinda thread has been floating around since euphoria got at the top =\/.

SnhKnives · Post by **SnhKnives** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:22 pm

when threads become to the point where very post is like 2 paragraphs......and i wasnt in the conversation from the beginning, or i didnt piss someone off....

I tend not to read them. So i will take your word on it. lol

Voices_Of_Ryan · Post by **Voices_Of_Ryan** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:29 pm

SnhKnives wrote:when threads become to the point where very post is like 2 paragraphs......and i wasnt in the conversation from the beginning, or i didnt piss someone off....

I tend not to read them. So i will take your word on it. lol

=\/ <----- Too much.

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:12 pm

CaTaClYsM wrote:And making a new required viewing list considering how dated Phade's is.

You know, I had been thinking something similar. Except that we wouldn't put Phade's name on the new list (unless he does in fact have a new list he feels like contributing).

How long has it been since it was last changed anyhow?

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:13 pm

Scintilla wrote:
CaTaClYsM wrote:And making a new required viewing list considering how dated Phade's is.
You know, I had been thinking something similar. Except that we wouldn't put Phade's name on the new list (unless he does in fact have a new list he feels like contributing).

How long has it been since it was last changed anyhow?

That list was there when I joined....