TwilightFest 2008 - Finalists and Round 2 Voting
- Thread starter Larry Rutledge
- Start date
- Status
John I know there will always be debate, the rating vs. voting vocabulary change, which I was saying is a cause for mods to to take up, will just help clarify.
Nothing is ever perfect. But right now. After 3 years we feel this is the best way. I gave a host of reasons before. But mostly we want the films that you guys / we chose as the best to be seen. Sure that includes the O2 type hype machine finalists but even more so the sleepers. It will be more fair in the sense that a a larger sample is more fair, but more than anything it makes sure ALL the films that we picked as good get seen by as many folks as possible. Again it's hard to move the ratings for a given film very far in one direction or another after the first round. This is especially true for the more popular / buzzed / hyped films because they already have more rating samples.
So more than anything it's about holding up ALL the films that we the members scored very high and getting them seen. 7, 8, or 12, rather than just 3.
Nothing is ever perfect. But right now. After 3 years we feel this is the best way. I gave a host of reasons before. But mostly we want the films that you guys / we chose as the best to be seen. Sure that includes the O2 type hype machine finalists but even more so the sleepers. It will be more fair in the sense that a a larger sample is more fair, but more than anything it makes sure ALL the films that we picked as good get seen by as many folks as possible. Again it's hard to move the ratings for a given film very far in one direction or another after the first round. This is especially true for the more popular / buzzed / hyped films because they already have more rating samples.
So more than anything it's about holding up ALL the films that we the members scored very high and getting them seen. 7, 8, or 12, rather than just 3.
Tim Joy
Veteran
Mike Manning
Well-known member
Sebastian (The lead in "A Work Of Art") actually just directed a short starring The Hoff. He plays himself in it and it's hysterical. After he makes the rounds on the Festival Circuit, I'm sure it'll find it's way onto the net. It's called "To Live and Dine in LA." It a very cool - very clever piece.
ilauzirika
Boring Senior Member
congrats to all the finalists (this is the first time my choices were between finalist)!!!!
(and also congrats to all the people that took their time and submited a film!
(and also congrats to all the people that took their time and submited a film!
Darkline
Veteran
I have only been in one fest before and if I remember correctly there were categories for each section of film-making to vote on, there was no final total.
I remembered my entry 'halfway' had no music and a few people said 'im going to have to give you a zero (or low mark) for music because you had none!' - which i guess was a fair statement at the time. But I have to say that the way the current fest works is a ton better than the system 2 years ago.
I think the system sounds pretty good, and having the two rounds does give people a change to see the sleeper hits and that means they get a better average once that has happened. Last fest I did not have time to watch all the entries (me bad) but I did and watch the finalists once they were up. Not a bad idea in my book.
I remembered my entry 'halfway' had no music and a few people said 'im going to have to give you a zero (or low mark) for music because you had none!' - which i guess was a fair statement at the time. But I have to say that the way the current fest works is a ton better than the system 2 years ago.
I think the system sounds pretty good, and having the two rounds does give people a change to see the sleeper hits and that means they get a better average once that has happened. Last fest I did not have time to watch all the entries (me bad) but I did and watch the finalists once they were up. Not a bad idea in my book.
pauly_the_hitman
Veteran
I am just wondering why so few votes are cast is it just a time issue or is it publicity? I am sure that since I watched every single movie and still had time to take care of my kids on fall break and not miss any work that it is possible. Out of sure respect for all the other film makers, but it was a lot on me. I not only watched them all but voted on every single one and mind you commented on every one too... I did not think that my movie was better then the finalists just making a few observations, however I did think there were a couple of movies that weren't in the top that should have been. Once again just my personal opinion. I hope more people take the time to actually vote in the first round next fest as to get a better cross section of votes. I was very surprised at the low amount of votes cast in the first round, is that typical? I was thinking that maybe everyone wanted to save their votes until it mattered but that is stupid because then maybe your favorite movie is out because you didn't bother to vote on it. I don't know what ever. I guess I just have to make 4 better movies next time.
Pauly
Pauly
Last edited:
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Dude... we all had our personal favorites... there are two I wish would have made the top 7... and a few I wouldn't have had there... but that's just life dude... deal The majority rules....
End of discussion
That's what we hope for EVERYONE. :beer:
The majority rules.... End of discussion
That's what we hope for EVERYONE. :beer:
Larry Rutledge
Fest Master
Of course we'd like for everyone to watch/rate/comment on every single entry, and ideally we'd like everyone on this site to do that. But the reality is only a portion of the membership have more than a passing interest in the fests, and of those not everyone has an opportunity to squeeze in nearly 7 hours of viewing time, plus nearly the same amount again to give feedback.
I am so busy running the fests that if it weren't for the need to pre-screen the films I would miss a lot of them. Plus I have a day job outside of user (I know it may not seem like it since I'm on here most of the day, but that's a perk of my job) and I have family and church responsibilities, among other things.
This time I actually had not seen one of the finalists and when we announced the finalists I took that as an opportunity to watch and vote. But had I watched and voted on it during the first round it would not have changed the outcome.
Yes, we'd love to have many more people vote ... that's why we introduce the second round of the finalists ... so we can draw in people who can't come up with 7+ hours to watch/rate/comment, but can probably find an hour to watch/rate/comment on 6 - 10 finalist entries.
Even if we could figure out some way to draw those same people in to vote in the first round ... it would only solidify the positions with finer grained averaged, but it would not significantly alter the positioning of the films.
I say "not significantly alter" because in the event of a close race between two films (again this would be two positions next to each other, not place #7 and place #38) the larger sample can cause them to flip.
But after watching two fests now, both with 2 rounds, as well as two script fests and two photo contests, each with 1 round, I can tell you that the positions are relatively static once we get past about 20 votes per film.
And the reason for this, as I've stated many times (not just in this thread), is that the final result is based on the average vote.
Hope that helps clarify things
Larry
I am so busy running the fests that if it weren't for the need to pre-screen the films I would miss a lot of them. Plus I have a day job outside of user (I know it may not seem like it since I'm on here most of the day, but that's a perk of my job) and I have family and church responsibilities, among other things.
This time I actually had not seen one of the finalists and when we announced the finalists I took that as an opportunity to watch and vote. But had I watched and voted on it during the first round it would not have changed the outcome.
Yes, we'd love to have many more people vote ... that's why we introduce the second round of the finalists ... so we can draw in people who can't come up with 7+ hours to watch/rate/comment, but can probably find an hour to watch/rate/comment on 6 - 10 finalist entries.
Even if we could figure out some way to draw those same people in to vote in the first round ... it would only solidify the positions with finer grained averaged, but it would not significantly alter the positioning of the films.
I say "not significantly alter" because in the event of a close race between two films (again this would be two positions next to each other, not place #7 and place #38) the larger sample can cause them to flip.
But after watching two fests now, both with 2 rounds, as well as two script fests and two photo contests, each with 1 round, I can tell you that the positions are relatively static once we get past about 20 votes per film.
And the reason for this, as I've stated many times (not just in this thread), is that the final result is based on the average vote.
Hope that helps clarify things
Larry
A) who says "so few" votes were cast?
B) It's not publicity. You guys are hardcore that see all 70 movies and hats off to you sir for making what is it 4? And still having time to see the rest and support the community so well.
We used to send the mass email at the beginning of the contest. "hey busy people, come see 70 films".
We got about the same viewership then for the single round fests as we do for round 1 now.
And before I get started here
Thanks for wondering/asking about this rather than proclaiming it wrong - that's what gets us volunteers frustrated. Not "why" or "I wonder" but. "this sucks"Again. I commend you for this.
But there is no on more invested in this fest or this site than me and I can tell you it was just not possible for me.
Also. And since this debate goes on I'm forced to be blunt here. I think it's somewhat naive to think that strangers or anyone but you, your girlfiend, and otherguys involved in the same fest want to sit through 70 of our films. I think that is a LOT to ask anyone.
Yes it's cool that the filmmakers in this fest make up a significant portion of the audience - but we don't want it to be JUST the filmmakers. Did you watch all 70 movies in Time Fest? If not Why not? You guys are very interested and invested in each others work so you are motivated to at least try and watch all 70 movies.
Imagine a TV channel that says you have to watch ALL of its programming. Why should you have to? To us that are in the festival there's the support reason. But what about the other thousands of DVXusers that didn't enter the festival.
So you guys have to step back and not have such an infront of your nose, your perspective only view of this.
If we can't get the guy that mostly posts in the cafe, or has never been to the DVXfest film section to watch 70 films but we CAN get him to watch 70? Why shoudn't we? Why shouldn't we get those films that we can get him to watch more exposure.
Again this doesn't take anythig from anyone. It only gives something to the fest itself and the finalists.
NUMBERS FOR ROUND ONE are abou the SAME as they have been every fest before the TWO ROUND process was introduceds.
So we're not driving people away or making them wait. The hardcore folks are stil hardcore and see as many as we can.
The only difference is we've found a way to cull more viewers for the fest/the finalists than ever before with round 2.
So round 1 about the same or even more based on last two fests.
Round two adds a HUGE bump to the viewer ship.
Takes nothing away.
Adds something.
Again, it's mainly making sure the films that we picked as best get seen. It also helps make sure that for those contested places we have the highest sampling.
Not to be harsh it's just a fact - if a movie is not in the top 7 or the top wherever the cut off is it is just not in the running to be in the top. Not based on whether it is actually good or not, but based on the average ratings it has.
If a film is not in the finalists at the end of round one, there is just no way it is going to get a top three position. No way it's not that the films below a certain rank are so bad. It's that a certain number of films stand out in the ratings, and that's where we draw the cuttoff point.
What's the point of staying open for rating for all films for another week when it is becomes certain at some point that these 7-12 or so have a shot at placing and these 50 - 60 absolutely do not.
This takes away NOTHING from places 8-68. WE SWEAR.
But it GIVES something to the films our votes chose as the standouts - especially the sleeper films.
The alternative is we stop at round 1 and THREE films get the lime light.
You guys are asking us to take the limelight AWAY from the 3 or 4 sleeper films that might have a shot in order to QUIBBLE over maybe moving up from 9th place to 8th place or 25th place to 24th place.
Do you guys really want to take that away from those films so you can maybe, though very unlikely, somehow move up a place that's not even a place?
You're out of the running if you are not in the finalists at the end of round 1. There is no statistical way for place 8 to come from behind and take 3rd. Because again we choose the standout rated films. We end the finalist list right before the first drop off in ratings.
So places 8-68 have nothing to gain by extending a week. That's the math.
Places 4-7 DO have something to gain by having the second round. Both in the contest - though again a significant move in place is unlikely - but more importantly by having their film seen. Should we deny them, and growing the reputation and presence of the fest as a whole so some people can feel like they were really really really a legitimate 36th place instead of a 35th place, or a legitimate 9th place vs. a 10th place.
pauly_the_hitman
Veteran
A) who says "so few" votes were cast?
B) It's not publicity. You guys are hardcore that see all 70 movies and hats off to you sir for making what is it 4? And still having time to see the rest and support the community so well.
We used to send the mass email at the beginning of the contest. "hey busy people, come see 70 films".
We got about the same viewership then for the single round fests as we do for round 1 now.
And before I get started here
Again. I commend you for this.
But there is no on more invested in this fest or this site than me and I can tell you it was just not possible for me.
Also. And since this debate goes on I'm forced to be blunt here. I think it's somewhat naive to think that strangers or anyone but you, your girlfiend, and otherguys involved in the same fest want to sit through 70 of our films. I think that is a LOT to ask anyone.
Yes it's cool that the filmmakers in this fest make up a significant portion of the audience - but we don't want it to be JUST the filmmakers. Did you watch all 70 movies in Time Fest? If not Why not? You guys are very interested and invested in each others work so you are motivated to at least try and watch all 70 movies.
Imagine a TV channel that says you have to watch ALL of its programming. Why should you have to? To us that are in the festival there's the support reason. But what about the other thousands of DVXusers that didn't enter the festival.
So you guys have to step back and not have such an infront of your nose, your perspective only view of this.
If we can't get the guy that mostly posts in the cafe, or has never been to the DVXfest film section to watch 70 films but we CAN get him to watch 7? Why shoudn't we? Why shouldn't we get those films that we can get him to watch more exposure.
Again this doesn't take anythig from anyone. It only gives something to the fest itself and the finalists.
NUMBERS FOR ROUND ONE are abou the SAME as they have been every fest before the TWO ROUND process was introduceds.
So we're not driving people away or making them wait. The hardcore folks are stil hardcore and see as many as we can.
The only difference is we've found a way to cull more viewers for the fest/the finalists than ever before with round 2.
So round 1 about the same or even more based on last two fests.
Round two adds a HUGE bump to the viewer ship.
Takes nothing away.
Adds something.
Again, it's mainly making sure the films that we picked as best get seen. It also helps make sure that for those contested places we have the highest sampling.
Not to be harsh it's just a fact - if a movie is not in the top 7 or the top wherever the cut off is it is just not in the running to be in the top. Not based on whether it is actually good or not, but based on the average ratings it has.
If a film is not in the finalists at the end of round one, there is just no way it is going to get a top three position. No way it's not that the films below a certain rank are so bad. It's that a certain number of films stand out in the ratings, and that's where we draw the cuttoff point.
What's the point of staying open for rating for all films for another week when it is becomes certain at some point that these 7-12 or so have a shot at placing and these 50 - 60 absolutely do not.
This takes away NOTHING from places 8-68. WE SWEAR.
But it GIVES something to the films our votes chose as the standouts - especially the sleeper films.
The alternative is we stop at round 1 and THREE films get the lime light.
You guys are asking us to take the limelight AWAY from the 3 or 4 sleeper films that might have a shot in order to QUIBBLE over maybe moving up from 9th place to 8th place or 25th place to 24th place.
Do you guys really want to take that away from those films so you can maybe, though very unlikely, somehow move up a place that's not even a place?
You're out of the running if you are not in the finalists at the end of round 1. There is no statistical way for place 8 to come from behind and take 3rd. Because again we choose the standout rated films. We end the finalist list right before the first drop off in ratings.
So places 8-68 have nothing to gain by extending a week. That's the math.
Places 4-7 DO have something to gain by having the second round. Both in the contest - though again a significant move in place is unlikely - but more importantly by having their film seen. Should we deny them, and growing the reputation and presence of the fest as a whole so some people can feel like they were really really really a legitimate 36th place instead of a 35th place, or a legitimate 9th place vs. a 10th place.
Thanks for that explanation and I did watch all 67 films from Timefest and commented on them as well. And just for the record I read every scriptfest II entry as well. So I guess being a noob has its advantages due to never having to see a flawed voting system. So this makes much more sense to me now. It was mere curiosity not a blast to you guys, cause trust me I wouldn't have time to do anything else if I did as much as you all do, and try and make a movie or two. Jack I don't know how you were able to do that. I just played with my friends and made some cool movies. But having to deal with all the stuff you guys do no thanks. So thanks again for the in depth explanation and I will keep making movies and hopefully win some cool stuff next time around.
Pauly
BTW I meant so few as far as my film was concerned after I PM'd Larry and he let me know my standings it seemed like a small number, maybe not representative of the overall fest but just a small amount of votes cast. I did agree with the results as it seemed to reflect about were I expected it to be.
Last edited:
hey pauly, responding via cellphone / thumbs so must be brief
you are a great addition to DVXuser
:beer:
you are a great addition to DVXuser
:beer:
Tim Joy
Veteran
Not to change the subject, but I thought that the screening Fat Monster put on last fest was really cool, even just watching the streaming feed, and I was a little sad to see there wouldn't be one this time... especially since I made the finals . But, it wouldn't make much sense, as the finalists are all over the world this time. Who would go?!!
It got me thinking though... A VIRTUAL online screening might be kinda cool. A couple mods could stream some video and announce winners while we all sat home eating popcorn and beer typing our butts off. Just an idea, and you guys might have too much to do without this kind of thing, but it might be a nice grand finnish to all the months of hard work.
. But, it wouldn't make much sense, as the finalists are all over the world this time. Who would go?!! It got me thinking though... A VIRTUAL online screening might be kinda cool. A couple mods could stream some video and announce winners while we all sat home eating popcorn and beer typing our butts off. Just an idea, and you guys might have too much to do without this kind of thing, but it might be a nice grand finnish to all the months of hard work.
Gord.T
Still "Senior Member"
Oh yeah, on this topic. I know having quarterly screenings in LA may be a bit much to juggle, but how about an official, annual dvxuser sponsered screening, with maybe those participating sponsers getting on board, of the years top entries? Sounds doable I would think.
//And maybe as a bonus, have a 'years best entry'.
//And maybe as a bonus, have a 'years best entry'.
Last edited:
there may be something like that under talks :huh:
majikfraug
Well-known member
Just curious: Why "Top 7" this fest and "Top 8" last fest? Does it have to do with number of entries?
Jeff Anderson
Custom Title!
Jeremiah - go back a page or two. Has to do with the algorithm behind the voting. I believe Larry or Jack explains it quite well, but basically they take the top films that are really close in ratings.
GrizzlyGuy
Active member
I'm a newbie here, have never made a film, and am absolutely astounded by how good these short films are (not just the finalists, but all of them). Highly entertaining, great way to learn about film making. :dankk2:
That having been said, I thought I'd throw out an observation from the perspective of a geek who took way too much math in school:
The films that make the finals are largely determined by their position in the ZIP files.
To illustrate, here are the finalists and their ZIP files:
A Work of Art - 1
Anti De Presence - 1
Broadcast - 2
Calls From the Fuhrerbunker - 3
Cold Calls - 3
My Name is Harold Allen - 7
Teacher's Pet - 11
There are 14 zip files, and all else being equal, the finalists should be distributed randomly across the files. Instead, 71% of the finalists (5 out of 7) come from only 21% of the ZIP files (the first 3). That could be a fluke, but mathematical mumbo-jumbo in the area of statistics (t-tests, etc. that I won't bore you with) suggest it isn't a fluke.
Here's what I think is happening, in terms of my own newbie experience of watching the films:
1) I downloaded all 14 of the ZIP files.
2) I opened up file #1, watched all the films, then moved on to files #2, #3, etc.
3) Because I often stop to read through each film's thread (to hopefully learn something about film making), I've only made it to the first film in file #9.
I imagine that many of the members who can vote (I can't/didn't) watch the films in the same order, and the discussion in this thread seems to confirm that lots of people don't have time to view every film. So... When they vote, their votes are skewed toward the films in earlier ZIP files, and that would explain the non-uniform selection of finalists. Since the films are ordered alphabetically in the ZIP files, another way of stating my hypothesis is:
If your film title begins with an A, you have a higher chance of being selected as a finalist than if your title began with a Z.
If the site administrators think there is something to my theory (and there may not be, I may be all wet), an improvement for future contests would be to randomly choose the order of films in the ZIP files instead of ordering them alphabetically as they are now. The results would still be biased based on order, but at least the order is random and the system couldn't be gamed by people choosing titles beginning with A, B or C.
Anyhoo, I need to get back to watching the rest of these most-excellent short films. :beer:
P.S. - I've got an entry in the works for Scriptfest called "X-Elixir", so maybe I better re-title it "An Elixir Named X".
That having been said, I thought I'd throw out an observation from the perspective of a geek who took way too much math in school:
The films that make the finals are largely determined by their position in the ZIP files.
To illustrate, here are the finalists and their ZIP files:
A Work of Art - 1
Anti De Presence - 1
Broadcast - 2
Calls From the Fuhrerbunker - 3
Cold Calls - 3
My Name is Harold Allen - 7
Teacher's Pet - 11
There are 14 zip files, and all else being equal, the finalists should be distributed randomly across the files. Instead, 71% of the finalists (5 out of 7) come from only 21% of the ZIP files (the first 3). That could be a fluke, but mathematical mumbo-jumbo in the area of statistics (t-tests, etc. that I won't bore you with) suggest it isn't a fluke.
Here's what I think is happening, in terms of my own newbie experience of watching the films:
1) I downloaded all 14 of the ZIP files.
2) I opened up file #1, watched all the films, then moved on to files #2, #3, etc.
3) Because I often stop to read through each film's thread (to hopefully learn something about film making), I've only made it to the first film in file #9.
I imagine that many of the members who can vote (I can't/didn't) watch the films in the same order, and the discussion in this thread seems to confirm that lots of people don't have time to view every film. So... When they vote, their votes are skewed toward the films in earlier ZIP files, and that would explain the non-uniform selection of finalists. Since the films are ordered alphabetically in the ZIP files, another way of stating my hypothesis is:
If your film title begins with an A, you have a higher chance of being selected as a finalist than if your title began with a Z.
If the site administrators think there is something to my theory (and there may not be, I may be all wet), an improvement for future contests would be to randomly choose the order of films in the ZIP files instead of ordering them alphabetically as they are now. The results would still be biased based on order, but at least the order is random and the system couldn't be gamed by people choosing titles beginning with A, B or C.
Anyhoo, I need to get back to watching the rest of these most-excellent short films. :beer:
P.S. - I've got an entry in the works for Scriptfest called "X-Elixir", so maybe I better re-title it "An Elixir Named X".
haha, or don't that's 4 contentious pages back
Basically wherever the first significant dip in ratings occurs is where we make the cut. So we could have any number of finalists regardless of the number of entries. Another way to think of it - if it looks even possible, based on the ratings, for a film to move up to 5th place, it would be in the finals.
Mike Manning
Well-known member
I watched each film by downloading them individually. I didn't have the patience to download the zip files...
I'm a newbie here, have never made a film, and am absolutely astounded by how good these short films are (not just the finalists, but all of them). Highly entertaining, great way to learn about film making. :dankk2:
That having been said, I thought I'd throw out an observation from the perspective of a geek who took way too much math in school:
The films that make the finals are largely determined by their position in the ZIP files.
To illustrate, here are the finalists and their ZIP files:
A Work of Art - 1
Anti De Presence - 1
Broadcast - 2
Calls From the Fuhrerbunker - 3
Cold Calls - 3
My Name is Harold Allen - 7
Teacher's Pet - 11
There are 14 zip files, and all else being equal, the finalists should be distributed randomly across the files. Instead, 71% of the finalists (5 out of 7) come from only 21% of the ZIP files (the first 3). That could be a fluke, but mathematical mumbo-jumbo in the area of statistics (t-tests, etc. that I won't bore you with) suggest it isn't a fluke.
Here's what I think is happening, in terms of my own newbie experience of watching the films:
1) I downloaded all 14 of the ZIP files.
2) I opened up file #1, watched all the films, then moved on to files #2, #3, etc.
3) Because I often stop to read through each film's thread (to hopefully learn something about film making), I've only made it to the first film in file #9.
I imagine that many of the members who can vote (I can't/didn't) watch the films in the same order, and the discussion in this thread seems to confirm that lots of people don't have time to view every film. So... When they vote, their votes are skewed toward the films in earlier ZIP files, and that would explain the non-uniform selection of finalists. Since the films are ordered alphabetically in the ZIP files, another way of stating my hypothesis is:
If your film title begins with an A, you have a higher chance of being selected as a finalist than if your title began with a Z.
If the site administrators think there is something to my theory (and there may not be, I may be all wet), an improvement for future contests would be to randomly choose the order of films in the ZIP files instead of ordering them alphabetically as they are now. The results would still be biased based on order, but at least the order is random and the system couldn't be gamed by people choosing titles beginning with A, B or C.
Anyhoo, I need to get back to watching the rest of these most-excellent short films. :beer:
P.S. - I've got an entry in the works for Scriptfest called "X-Elixir", so maybe I better re-title it "An Elixir Named X".
- Status