TimeFest Rankings & Ratings

Jason Ramsey

Jason Ramsey

Admin
These are rankings and ratings of the top 8 after the 2nd round of voting closed rounded to the nearest hundredth of a point (the system actually averaged to 4 decimal places):

O2 - 8.63 (round 1 - 8.8)
R.P.D.M - 8.1 (round 1 - 8.36)
The Small Multiple - 7.6 (round 1 - 7.66)
Ad Infinitum - 6.92 (round 1 - 7.19)
Aetas - 6.83 (round 1 - 7.0)
John Abbot Mitchell - 6.76 (round 1 - 7.25)
Survival - 6.57 (round 1 - 6.84)
The Watchman - 6.44 (round 1 - 6.67)

We recieved a record (almost 3x) amount of votes over any previous fest, and I feel very confident in saying that the changes to the voting system for this fest were very successful.

Other films rounding out the creme that didn't quite make the cut:

Push
Red Shoes
The Five Worst Days of Bartholomew Saxton
The Walk Back
Unzeit


Who won what prizes and the door prize from the screening will hopefully be announced tomorrow as will (hopefully) the rules for twilight fest as we close out timefest tomorrow.

Anyone else who would like to know where they stood in the rankings and what their films rating was can feel free to pm myself or Larry R and we will be glad to provide you with that information.

Later,
Jason
 
What's the deal with JAM? That seems like a BIG discrepancy between rounds... it was high up there in my books... why the drop? It seems it's the ONLY ONE that changed.
 
I never changed my ratings from round one to round two (and yes, all the finalists that made it through were my top rated films). I didn't see why my opinion should change based on what the final films were? Perhaps there were quite a few people who ONLY voted in the second round... is there anyway to check that out?
 
That's very interesting -- all the rating dropping on the second round. If I had to take a guess, Id' say that it's because the first round had a lot of people who either participating in the fest or very closely tied to it. So they take the time to watch all the films and weigh them against each other, giving them more relative ratings.

Along comes the second group in Round 2. Perhaps many of them wandered in without having much background in the fest. They're given a fresh viewpoint -- not necessarily comparing these films to each other, but rather rating them on their own individual merits. Or, at least, giving them a tougher rating because the competition was more fierce in Round 2.

Personally, I'm pleased to see that the top 3 had a significant lead!
 
All of the round two ratings were fresh right? All round one ratings were used. No one could go back and change. Or could they?
 
Mark Harris said:
All of the round two ratings were fresh right? All round one ratings were used. No one could go back and change. Or could they?
Click to expand...

I believe you could change your rankings on the second round. Mine were left the way they were as I assume most everyone else did. I am assuming most of the change in the second round was the fresh votes from people that had NOT voted in round one.

Theoretically though, if someone did not like how the top eight turned out, they could have changed thier votes on those to a lower score but that would be petty.
 
Barry_Green said:
It looks like every film was more harshly critiqued in the second round.
Click to expand...

I hesitantly stick my foot into this pool. And I know this is a fairly futile conversation (cause frankly, 4th to 6th, not that big of a deal, but imagine if this was 1st to 3rd?), but I'd like to make a few observations.

1. JAM received the roughest blow in the second round. All other films had an average dip of .204 points. JAM went down .49, 150% more than any other film.

2. The first and second round of voting produced IDENTICAL rankings (which i pretty much thought was going to happen), other than our film going from 4th to 6th.

I could speculate on a wide variety of things that could have caused this, but unfortunately, it would be all correlation based, nobody, even the mods, can give me a cause, because we're not in the voters' brains.

Knowing A. if people could change their vote for the second round and B. the # of voters in round 1 vs. round 2 would add fuel to the conspiracy theories, but again, a cause probably wouldn't come from that either. I simply ask the festival gurus to take note of what happened here. Like I said before ... I'm sure this would have created an asston of controversy if it was a drop from 1st to 3rd.

Or ... maybe I should just wait to tell people what i really thought of their film until after voting ends ... :evil:

Regards,
Ben
[sarcasm]*blindly takes his 4th place trophy :) [/sarcasm]
 
no changed votes factored into the second round. Only new votes had impact on the 2nd round. The gui allowed people to change their rating, only b/c the code wasn't in place to show a visual lock out. BUT, let me re-emphasize again... only original round one votes counted in the round two results. Already existing round one votes were locked in the database, and changed votes did not get factored in. New votes created an increased sample. New votes (freaking obviously)caused the change in the ratings.

All films went down in the 2nd round... But, that happened from the first votes coming in practically. The more votes you get, the more accurate sample you get. We're still only talking about tenths of a point here. John Abbot did go down more for some reason...

I'll remember next time not to let you guys have so much information if you'll just think something shady is going on b/c ratings changed from round one to round two. Of course they did. We increased the size of the sample and things thinned out a bit.

But, again... Anyone who changed their votes in round one had absolutely zero impact as we ultimately carried all round one votes over to round two and locked them in the table. The change in averages is purely a result of new votes and an increased sample.

I watched the voting extremely closely and watched individual votes extremely closely.

It's also worth noting that the panel picked the same 1,2,3 as you did.

Please don't look at a couple of decimal points and think that some **** is going on....

If you looked at and followed all of the data from the around 20,000 total ratings that were cast across all the films like I did, and Larry did, and Barry Green did, then maybe you'd actually know how things shook down.

Next time I won't tell you anything. The voting was fair, and more representative to the whole 'user voice in this fest than it has ever been.

If we'd stopped the voting after the 2nd day, created a round two, then stopped it two days later, etc, etc, etc you would see almost every film dropping in their rating after each round. Of course you would! Think about it.

The first and primary goal of a 2nd round of voting was to equalize the amount of votes across the films (which wasn't that great amongst the top 8to begin with) b/c that is fair that The Small Multiple get the same exposure as O2. ANd, then to increase the size of the sample for more accurate results.

Later,
Jason
 
Last edited:
That's what I thought about round two, all new votes.

Jason, you said we had a great turnout. Can you tell us the percentage of roud two votes to round one? Like another 50%, or half as many people voted, etc.

Also, for your own analysis, it might be worth writing a little script that compares userIds in the second round with userIds commonly found in the fest threads. Like to see how many people not associated with the fests are taking notice and comingto check them out.
 
I sent out an email to everyone with over 50 posts a couple of days before round two voting ended. Just those last two days as a result of the email resulted in *about* 10-15% increase in voters.

I don't remember exactly how many new voters we got in round two. I'd have to look in the database... but I'm not really in the mood of divulging information right now :) I think it was around 25%'ish or so, maybe a bit more in brand new voters (people who didn't vote at all in round one).

Later,
Jason
 
Thanks for the post Jason, I like how quick people are to call foul. Kind of humorous. I am glad to hear so many new votes came in which (to me) says that this system has done its job - become much more accurate than previous systems. I liked it if only for the ease of use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top