2006 Top Ten Lists - Time to Throw Down! - Page 7

rich_d · 05-20-2007, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer

rich,
He's used the same logic EVERY year on making the overall rankings. Read the thread from the start and it'll be explained in detail. Makes sense to me. He tallies up the top #1 vote getter as well (which he explained).

That someone used the same logic EVERY year is meaningless. It just means the same process was followed, saying nothing of its MERIT.

Look, I'm not here to dump on Adam's summary, but when he translates that to RANKINGS it goes too far.

I show up to work tomorrow and come up with a ranking system that gives the same weighting for the number 10 project as I do for the number 1 project; I'd be laughed out of the room.

Yes, he looks at the number 1 films but stops there and these don't change the rankings anyway. And I don't blame him, counting everybody's votes AND the ranked position of each vote is a lot of work versus just counting total instances of being mentioned on the top ten lists.

Let's not get too carried away by what we learn from this. For example, 4 people selected Casino Royale as the number one film of the year. They are welcomed to their opinion but that doesn't mean it's meaningful to me or others.

What we learn from this is the films that people saw. For example, many people shy away from foreign films with subtitles, so what do we learn from their list other than what they've seen?

The Lives of Others isn't even on the top 30 by votes. What did we learn other than many people didn't see the film?

Bottom line, is that films on thousands of screens and the people that see them make this a more middle-of-the-road summary. If you're a middle-of-the-road kinda guy (Lord knows there aren't too many women here), this summary probably works for you.

Chuck Mayer · 05-20-2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rich_d

That someone used the same logic EVERY year is meaningless. It just means the same process was followed, saying nothing of its MERIT.

Look, I'm not here to dump on Adam's summary, but when he translates that to RANKINGS it goes too far.

I show up to work tomorrow and come up with a ranking system that gives the same weighting for the number 10 project as I do for the number 1 project; I'd be laughed out of the room.

That's not how he does it. A #1 ranking gives 10 times the points a #10 does. Read his rationale. It does make sense. It has every year.

rich_d · 05-20-2007, 03:38 PM

Maybe this year he didn't post a rationale. Hell if I can find it. Sure not at the beginning of this thread. Sure not posted with the scores.

So, where is this rationale? Admittedly, a 10 point to 1 system is better than I thought was in play.

Adam_S · 05-20-2007, 07:24 PM

you know Rich is right, I don't think I explained how it is I come up with the HTF list.

I use excel, columns are HTFers names, rows are movies, I take an ordered list and assign 10 points to #1, 9 points to #2 etc, down to 1 point for #10.

I then use excel to add up the total score for each film, and I use other formulas to figure the average vote, the number of votes per film, standard deviation, and various other stats like number of number one votes. The final list is ordered only by total score, but the other stats are also provided. So you can see that Departed has a total score around 60.5 points higher than Children of Men, but that Children of Men is clearly the winner in the number of times it was the number one choice (11 times). The stat that shows how many list mentions each film had which would explain why Departed is still winning (43 of 53 list mentions, versus COMs 30 of 53 list mentions), although the standard deviation would be lower for COM (2.1 vs 2.4) and naturally the average vote is higher for COM (8.1 vs 7.1) . I provide the additional stats so people can see how films did against each other in relation to one another.

I'm not dedicated enough to do what Dana Filhart used to do, which was import everyone's 'seen' list from the 2006 film list and give extra weight to people who had seen the most 2006 films. And it's also impossible because virtually no one uses the old fashioned 2006 film list thread, because they track ALL film viewings in the 'track the films you watch thread' and I really don't feel like wading through those lists looking for the 2006 films to see how many people had seen that year, or sending 50 pms asking for a stat like that (and only getting six replies, and that's a generous estimate).

I'll post an updated list& stats tuesday or wednesday.

edit:
for reference here are the stats from february 19th, which I think was the last update I posted with 53 lists total:

Greg Layton · 05-20-2007, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam_S

you know Rich is right, I don't think I explained how it is I come up with the HTF list.

I use excel, columns are HTFers names, rows are movies, I take an ordered list and assign 10 points to #1, 9 points to #2 etc, down to 1 point for #10.

I then use excel to add up the total score for each film, and I use other formulas to figure the average vote, the number of votes per film, standard deviation, and various other stats like number of number one votes. The final list is ordered only by total score, but the other stats are also provided. So you can see that Departed has a total score around 60.5 points higher than Children of Men, but that Children of Men is clearly the winner in the number of times it was the number one choice (11 times). The stat that shows how many list mentions each film had which would explain why Departed is still winning (43 of 53 list mentions, versus COMs 30 of 53 list mentions), although the standard deviation would be lower for COM (2.1 vs 2.4) and naturally the average vote is higher for COM (8.1 vs 7.1) . I provide the additional stats so people can see how films did against each other in relation to one another.

I'm not dedicated enough to do what Dana Filhart used to do, which was import everyone's 'seen' list from the 2006 film list and give extra weight to people who had seen the most 2006 films. And it's also impossible because virtually no one uses the old fashioned 2006 film list thread, because they track ALL film viewings in the 'track the films you watch thread' and I really don't feel like wading through those lists looking for the 2006 films to see how many people had seen that year, or sending 50 pms asking for a stat like that (and only getting six replies, and that's a generous estimate).

I'll post an updated list& stats tuesday or wednesday.

edit:
for reference here are the stats from february 19th, which I think was the last update I posted with 53 lists total:

Thanks for all the work you do Adam... I appreciate it.

Holadem · 05-20-2007, 10:46 PM

Ditto.

I still can't figure out a top 10... I've seen The Last King of Scotland (

), Miami Vice (

), The Lady in the Water (

) and The Prestige (

) and Thank You for Smoking (

) in recent days.

--
H

Seth Paxton · 05-24-2007, 01:10 PM

Adam, don't debate with Rich on this, is a pointless effort.

It's a freaking FUN effort to put some sort of context on everyone's lists. Your complilation methods are used over and over (because Dana and I both did similar stats on the lists) because they are considered pretty standard. There are a variety of commonly accepted ranking systems for use in NCAA football, voting (and there are about 10 ways to count up votes, typically with "yes/no" as the worst, ie the one we use in US elections), and every other place people are asked to vote/rank.

Saying that using any of those "goes too far" is childishly melodramatic. "Not in my town mister, that's pushing it too far when you count votes that way, people's lives are on the line here and I won't let you throw them away on a hack formula." Sheesh.

Not only that but you were very clear in the post he quoted and then ranted about. You said "list mentions" vs "overall ranking" and that CoM would have to get a bunch of #1s just to get enough points to catch Departed. It was not ambigious, just a hair trigger on a misunderstanding that wasn't your fault.

I never got where people flipped out about the idea of ranking them (they refuse on principle) or that anyone might want to count those lists in any way. Cripes, don't even use HTF to discuss films because next year I'll just do a top 10 listing based on how often posters MENTION a film in any of the forums. OMG, the end of the universe, someone might actually read my list and take it too seriously and that will alter where the money goes and what kinds of films are made.

The rankings are just a best effort, the sane among us realize this and are comfortable with that. Group compilations/votes are the reminder that not everyone thinks like you, and that's one of the main reasons I started this tradition. The "Time to Throw Down" stems from that and the idea of making people stand up for what they like rather than just trashing other people's opinions from the sidelines.

And for reasons you mention Adam (and others) I HATE that the "this year only" film lists are abandoned in favor of "hey, I watched Buffy Season 2 last night, put it on my list". I'm fine that a viewing log exists, but that's not the same concept at all as just talking about the current crop of theatrical views. It's too bad more people don't just log with both, cut and paste the year-specific posts to that current year thread. Oh well.

Seth Paxton · 05-24-2007, 01:16 PM

Relevent to this thread I saw Marie Antoinette and it didn't make it into the top 10 (top 20 though) and I have Blood Diamond and Volver in the house waiting for a spin.

I did just rewatch Miami Vice and I'm probably going to bump it into the top 10, as well as moving Flushed Away down a few slots.

Holadem · 05-24-2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Paxton

And for reasons you mention Adam (and others) I HATE that the "this year only" film lists are abandoned in favor of "hey, I watched Buffy Season 2 last night, put it on my list". I'm fine that a viewing log exists, but that's not the same concept at all as just talking about the current crop of theatrical views. It's too bad more people don't just log with both, cut and paste the year-specific posts to that current year thread. Oh well.

Ditto. I still keep up with the yearly film list thread, I should bump it up with each update I guess. Unfortunateluy I've not gone to the theater much this year, but my 07 count will shoot up when they start showing up on DVD. Still catching up with 06

.

--
H

Seth Paxton · 05-24-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holadem

Ditto. I still keep up with the yearly film list thread, I should bump it up with each update I guess. Unfortunateluy I've not gone to the theater much this year, but my 07 count will shoot up when they start showing up on DVD. Still catching up with 06

.

--
H

Yeah, me too. Sucks. I just haven't had the time really. But I also got out of the habit a little as well. Trying to work my way back into it and trying to ramp back up my time here at HTF as well. For a guy that loves film I've been pretty negligent the last year.