TwilightFest 2008 - Finalists and Round 2 Voting

Status
Not open for further replies.
blindbuzta said:
im assuming there are 7 finalists because 7 is 10% of 70...
Click to expand...


I would have thought so too but in the Timefest there were only 67 entries and they had a top 8. So I just wanted to know why the change? Also being this is only my second fest here i didn't know how many entries there have been in the past fests.
Pauly
 
There is no fixed number of finalists. The finalists are determined by an internal formula that takes into account the users' ratings during the first round's vote. In any given festival there could be any number of finalists, regardless of the number of entrants; there could be two, there could be six, there could be 10 (but statistically there'll probably usually be around 10% making it to the finalist position.)
 
It's more like a runoff of the highest scored films however many there are.

If there are 7 duking it out at the end of round 1 there will be 7. If there are 8 duking it out there will be 8.
 
Who waited to vote? I don't want names but it seems a lot of people voted in the first round. Does the system allow you to see how many people didn't vote? If everyone who could vote did so in the first round wouldn't it already be over? Are there really people who are waiting to vote in the second round and why?

Sorry I still think one round is enough.
 
I love this forum.
I love the DVXfests.
I loved this fest.
I watched 25 of the films because it was physically impossible for me to watch more.
It kills me that I never get through all the films.
There films made by friends that I haven' t seen yet.

That's someone who really wants to watch them all. Watching 70 films 3 times a year is not everyone's cup of tea no matter how good they are. That limits the size of the fest and it's overall exposure.

It's not people that "have waited to vote and why". It's people that have babies, day jobs, and yeah people with feature length screenplays with development deals that won't write themselves who had to take a corporate commercial gig to pay the rent during the middle of the fest and who moderate on a filmmaking forum :)

Really the question to be asking is how the heck do so many people manage to see and vote for so many of the films - I mean if you have to pay rent and have a career etc. I'm always jealous of those who get through all the films / admire whatever them for shuffling things around to the point where they could do it.

The 2nd round does (at least) 3 things
1) Gets people on User who almost never go into the DVXfest section to see at least some of the films.
2) Makes sure the top films get seen. I hadn't seen 2 of them and they both scored Very high for me.
3) ensures the largest possible sampling in a situation where a single hundredth of a point is often the difference between 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd and so on.
 
Your last point is what is very important Jack. #3. The people who take the time to watch, vote comment on the films probably have picked the top three by doing so, can be trumped by a few people who don't vote the first round. If a single hundredth of a point is all that the difference is then the film that was ranked number one in the first round by all the people who took the time to watch, vote, comment on the films could see their pick get bumped out of first place by a few "busy" people.
I think it is a valid point Jack. It the future the top three or seven should be voted on by all. If you can't watch all the films in the first round then why should your vote count more in the second round? And it does.

Jack Daniel Stanley said:
I love this forum.
I love the DVXfests.
I loved this fest.
I watched 25 of the films because it was physically impossible for me to watch more.
It kills me that I never get through all the films.

That's someone who really wants to watch them all. Watching 70 films 3 times a year is not everyone's cup of tea no matter how good they are. That limits the size of the fest and it's overall exposure.

It's not people that "have waited to vote and why". It's people that have babies, day jobs, and yeah people with feature length screenplays with development deals that won't write themselves who had to take a corporate commercial gig to pay the rent during the middle of the fest.

Really the question to be asking is how the hell do so many people manage to see and vote for so many of the films - I mean if you have to pay rent and have a career etc.

The 2nd round does (at least) 3 things
1) Gets people on User who almost never go into the DVXfest section to see at least some of the films.
2) Makes sure the top films get seen. I hadn't seen 2 of them and they both scored Very high for me.
3) ensures the largest possible sampling in a situation where a single hundredth of a point is often the difference between 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd and so on.
Click to expand...
 
Makes ZER0 sense. Votes count LESS in round 2 because there are MORE of them.

Are you assigning some intrinsic value for round 1 votes or saying they have more of a right to be counted because some people voted for every film in round 1?

Well. Not everyone voted for every film in Round 1. Should the people who arbitrarily only watched their friends's films, or the ones that caught their eye, or the ones with the biggest threads, or the one's with the prettiest girls have their votes thrown out because they did not vote for all 70?

And it's not a contest for "best voter". I'll give you pat on the back for watching all the films, but I'm not taking my "8" away from Teacher's Pet, a film which I hadn't even seen before round one closed.

When you're voting for the President you don't get extra vote points for watching all the debates. OR for voting early or absentee. Everyone's vote counts the same. The totals carry over from round 1 to 2. We care about getting the films seen by as many people as possible and having the largest vote sample to draw from.

Why would anyone not want the largest sample possible for the films with the most to gain or lose, especially when margins can be small?

If film 1 is 10 points ahead of 2 and so on, sure lets call it at round one. But saying a smaller margin negates the usefulness of round 2 is inverse logic. "Boy this is a tight race with a limited sample of votes. The fairest thing to do would be call it here" ???? :huh:
 
Zim said:
Your last point is what is very important Jack. #3. The people who take the time to watch, vote comment on the films probably have picked the top three by doing so, can be trumped by a few people who don't vote the first round. If a single hundredth of a point is all that the difference is then the film that was ranked number one in the first round by all the people who took the time to watch, vote, comment on the films could see their pick get bumped out of first place by a few "busy" people.
I think it is a valid point Jack. It the future the top three or seven should be voted on by all. If you can't watch all the films in the first round then why should your vote count more in the second round? And it does.
Click to expand...

Incorrect ... a couple people cannot trump the will of the people.

We have very carefully designed our rating system such that it would require a massive drive to alter the overall position a film finds itself in. If 125 people give a film between 5 and 7 stars, and then 5 additional people come along and give it 1 star each, the overal average would remain in the same range.

The only way to significantly alter the outcome would be for someone to convince at least 100 people to all vote 10 or 1 ... but I personally check every vote and trends like that are very easy to see and we simply remove them, if they occur.

The primary purpose of the second round is to give the dvxuser membership a chance to view and cast a vote on the finalists. There are many who can't make the time to view 60+ films, but they can make the time to view 6 - 10 films. And some of them even go make comments in the threads.

Remember the fests are about making films. The reason the fests ever began was to encourage all of us to stop talking about making films and to get out there actually making them. And what reason do you make a film other than to have people watch.

So we send out mass e-mailings to the dvxuser membership letting them know that these films are available for viewing and for their input (as they are also filmmakers just like the handful of us who spend the bulk of our lives here in the festival section).

Where the hundreths of a point comment comes into play, is not some random person stumbling through the festival and causing the 3rd place entry to drop to 5th. The more people who vote the more precise the sampling becomes and the greater the precision of the average. And in the event two films are battling for position, then they will have been battling all along, if they are that close in percentage then they will be switching place over and over throughout the voting.

Having a second round doesn't cause an entry to lose their place ... it causes the precision to be such that the winning entry is clearly the winner, more so than just chance as to which was on top when the voting closed.


And, to be clear ... I literally look at every individual vote that comes in and watch very closely for trends. You might be surprised how easy it is at times to see when people try to sway the vote ... and even more surprised to see how difficult it is for 1 person to drastically alter the outcome all by themself.


edited: Jack answered the same time I did :)
 
Larry R said:
...
The primary purpose of the second round is to give the dvxuser membership a chance to view and cast a vote on the finalists. There are many who can't make the time to view 60+ films, but they can make the time to view 6 - 10 films. And some of them even go make comments in the threads.
Click to expand...
And we broke a record for viewership using this system for Timefest, and no not just because of 02 :)

Larry R said:
... Remember the fests are about making films. The reason the fests ever began was to encourage all of us to stop talking about making films and to get out there actually making them.
Click to expand...
exactly!

Larry R said:
.. ..And what reason do you make a film other than to have people watch.
Click to expand...

PERFECTLY STATED.
 
We've tried it many ways. We've got a lot of experience with this. This is the most fair, most satisfactory way that we've discovered to do it.

We take the voting and the prizes very seriously.
 
It is kind of like voting in the primary and then not getting to vote in the national election

Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Makes ZER0 sense. Votes count LESS in round 2 because there are MORE of them.

Are you assigning some intrinsic value for round 1 votes or saying they have more of a right to be counted because some people voted for every film in round 1?

Well. Not everyone voted for every film in Round 1. Should the people who arbitrarily only watched their friends's films, or the ones that caught their eye, or the ones with the biggest threads, or the one's with the prettiest girls have their votes thrown out because they did not vote for all 70?

And it's not a contest for "best voter". I'll give you pat on the back for watching all the films, but I'm not taking my "8" away from Teacher's Pet, a film which I hadn't even seen before round one closed.

When you're voting for the President you don't get extra vote points for watching all the debates. OR for voting early or absentee. Everyone's vote counts the same. The totals carry over from round 1 to 2. We care about getting the films seen by as many people as possible and having the largest vote sample to draw from.

Why would anyone not want the largest sample possible for the films with the most to gain or lose, especially when margins can be small?

If film 1 is 10 points ahead of 2 and so on, sure lets call it at round one. But saying a smaller margin negates the usefulness of round 2 is inverse logic. "Boy this is a tight race with a limited sample of votes. The fairest thing to do would be call it here" ???? :huh:
Click to expand...
 
Zim said:
It is kind of like voting in the primary and then not getting to vote in the national election
Click to expand...

First, this is not a presidential election ... it is a film festival. And it's a film festival of our designing.

On top of that, you enter any other film festival out there and you will not be allowed to vote at all. They have an internal panel of judges that do the voting.

We are unique in the respect that we make this fest for the membership. You enter and you vote.


Zim said:
well it seems better just to give everyone a extra week and just have one round. imho
Click to expand...

Wait ... you are going to drop in here and accuse of doing things wrong because you think it should be a different way?

Believe me we have now spent years on improving the system, determining the best ways to accomplish the various aspects of the festival, making sure the user experience is the best it can be, and ensuring the votes are tabulated in the fairest way possible.

We debated the voting system for a long time, we then did extensive testing on the system we have now employed. Once deployed we watched it very carefully through Time Fest and found it to be extremely accurate and fair. And, at the end of the day that's what is important ... accurate and fair.


To your point above, why does it matter if we allow 3 weeks of 1 round rather than 2 weeks of 1 round and a third week of a finalist round? What difference does it make?

Not to mention, during TimeFest we had an extended round 1 because we were setting up the screening event and wanted everything to coincide with that. Everyone complained that the extra time was pointless and just get on with it already (until they found out why).


If I give an extra week for round 1, we will not get more than a small trifling of extra votes because the bulk of the membership are not always able to watch all 60+ entries. By establishing finalists we are able to increase the viewership ... this is a perk for those entries who were the cream of the crop.



And, besides all that, we have decided that we are going to have finalists. If you have finalists, then somebody has to vote on those finalists.


Trust us, there are many eyes watching this system and ensuring it's the best it can be. It's not just me in a dark room with a computer making up systems and toying with the members.
 
I know you do Barry and it is a great fest. But if a random person stumbling through the fest can drop a film from 3rd to 5th then that kind of effects the people who really took a lot of time watching and making comments on all 69 films. I know that no system is perfect but it might be something to look at.

One round should be enough. If another week or two is needed to get more people the time to vote then that should be done.

Hey I was #47.....maybe I could have been #46.
Looking forward to the next fest


Barry_Green said:
We've tried it many ways. We've got a lot of experience with this. This is the most fair, most satisfactory way that we've discovered to do it.

We take the voting and the prizes very seriously.
Click to expand...
 
Jack was the one who brought up voting for President. I just made a point.

See my last post Larry.
 
Yeah I brought up a different point about it, one that made sense. In the NATIONAL election all votes are counted the same. The early one's don't get more value.

Zim said:
It is kind of like voting in the primary and then not getting to vote in the national election
Click to expand...
No. That doesn't hold up for one second.

1) Because these are not votes. They're ratings.
2) there are no new contestants entered in round two like their is in the national election.

So if you voted a film a 7 in round 1 it should be a 7 in round 2. You're supposed to give your honest evaluation of the film in round 1, not say where you think it should place. You can have three films rated as 10 for example.

So if Broadcast was a 9 for you in round 1, and Cold Calls was a 5, there's no reason for you to change those ratings or "rate again". We have your ratings down and noted.

In a primary maybe your candidate doesn't win so maybe you decide to back your 2nd choice in the National Election and I think that's what your point is, now you don't get to back your 2nd choice candidate.

BUT, that's not the way it works with RATINGS. Ratings don't change vs. who is in the running. If your first choice film did not make it to the finals and your second choice was Broadcast with a 9, then you should not, and are not allowed to go change your RATING on broadcast to a 10. Because you already gave your honest opinion about it.

It's really ONE ROUND OF VOTING WITH TWO STAGES.
 
Zim said:
I know you do Barry and it is a great fest. But if a random person stumbling through the fest can drop a film from 3rd to 5th then that kind of effects the people who really took a lot of time watching and making comments on all 69 films. I know that no system is perfect but it might be something to look at.
Click to expand...

A random person stumbling through CAN NOT drop a film from 3rd to 5th. 100 people can, but 1 person cannot. But if 100 people give a vote that causes the position to drop, then that is the true representation of all who voted.

But again, we look at every vote ... if 5 people vote your film an 8 and 100 people vote it a 1, then we are going to look and see why.

One round should be enough. If another week or two is needed to get more people the time to vote then that should be done.
Click to expand...
You've made your opinion known.

We have decided to use a finalists system.
 
Zim said:
I know you do Barry and it is a great fest. But if a random person stumbling through the fest can drop a film from 3rd to 5th then that kind of effects the people who really took a lot of time watching and making comments on all 69 films. I know that no system is perfect but it might be something to look at.
Click to expand...
As Larry already stated TWICE: THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE :shocked:

Say we have 100 votes for round one (this is a random round number that has nothing to do with the actual number.)

Now we add 100 more. (again random) NOW WE HAVE 200 VOTES.

Do you really think we're not "looking at this?" That's all 10 or so of has have been doing for the last THREE YEARS.

We doubled viewership with this system.

AND ... It cannnot be swayed by one or two people IN EITHER ROUND.

Zim said:
One round should be enough. If another week or two is needed to get more people the time to vote then that should be done.

Hey I was #47.....maybe I could have been #46.
Looking forward to the next fest
Click to expand...
Maybe you could have been 40th if that's the case. But you wouldn't have been in the top 7.

And here's the other thing you don't know with all the assumptions your making.

THE REASON there is no set number of top 7 or 8 or whatever is to ACCOUNT for that VERY thing.

Say you were #8, could have been #7. Well there's no could have been because guess what - if 7 or 8 are close we move 8 to the final round also? If 5-12 are close we move ALL of those to the final round.

When there's a precipitous drop off - more points that could be made up in a final round for example, that's where we cut the deck.
 
this makes me laugh :)

I've been here since sci-fest (I believe the second ever DVXfest) and this is by FAR the BEST voting system we've had... not perfect, but nearly so...

Get over it people...

Yeah, I said it.
 
By the way Jack I gave you a 9 in stage one of round one.. It was a great film. Larry you are doing a fine job. Just a point that bothers me is all.

Well I need to get my camera's ready for a interview I'm doing today.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top