Delenai said: Lordwen said: It's hard to understand something that is not said ever. While she do not provide the algoritm for this new system she tought of, this is only a "Do you believe in God or not" type of conversation.or they just simply don't understand how this system would make everyone's opinion equal Pullman said: Excuse me, but hat is this bullshit? This is not a flaw, this is what average IS. This will be present in this system too, as long as it is average counting and not deviation.And IF you really think that line of arguing is meaningful and relevant, it can also be argued that with the current system people who have an average of 1 or 10 (or close to that) are much more 'influential' than someone with an average of 5-6. And someon with an average of 1 has more influence than someone with an average of 10 because the average is somewhere in the 7s. Why is that fairer? I'd start making an issue out of it and lament the 'elitism' of those extreme rating scale that have so much more influence on the average ratings than my more level-headed scale if I thought for a moment that thought process carried any weight in this discussion. But I don't, because it doesn't. Erm, no? If someone's average is 10 then all his 10s will count for 5s, same with someone who rates everything 1. Unlike now. Did you not understand the suggestion or what is it you're trying to imply? But yes, this argument is bullshit mainly because I based it on the same kind of thinking many of those who are against this suggestion have used, which is coming up with scenarios where someone else has more pseudo-'influence' over the ratings than I do with my current rating system. It's a fact that if I rate a show 7 because I'm positively impressed by it it will still LOWER the average score of most shows in the DB despite my opinion obviously being the opposite. In many cases even an 8 will do that. But I don't (seriously) complain about that because nobody cares. My question is what makes the complaints in this thread any different than my imaginary complaint? |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
Pullman said: Erm, no? If someone's average is 10 then all his 10s will count for 5s, same with someone who rates everything 1. Unlike now. Did you not understand the suggestion or what is it you're trying to imply? Erm, yes? What score did you give is meaningless in the second case. If it will count as 5 then it will have more impact on an anime that has 3 as average, than a rate that counted 3 or 4 or 2. |
moodie said: @Pullman Just because you can't find a good argument doesn't mean much to me. It makes no sense that a person who rates harsher or more lenient should have their numbers skewed in the rankings just because you don't feel its a fair ranking. This entire thread is on the assumption that a person isn't using the full rating scale. In fact people actually drop anime when they think its bad or just know how to pick anime that will cater to their needs. In fact there is 100s of other factors to look into before saying lets clump this all up, put it in an equation and generate a "proper" rating. Also please try to make your thoughts short, sweet, and powerful because no one wants to read a wall of text. You're just repeating non-arguments and stuff that isn't related to the question at this point, while ignoring every single point I made in my post. If you're not willing to read and write proper arguments I'm not sure what you're hoping to contribute in this discussion?. I wrote a lot because I care about the topic and because I think most of the aversion is based on either misunderstanding the suggestion or just plain ego and at least the former can be remedied by explaining why all those issues brought up so far are either non-issues or independent of which rating system is used, if applied correctly to the scenario of that new system. I mean I could just say "Just because you can't find a good argument doesn't mean much to me." right back at you, because while I can't SEE any good arguments, your side seems to be the one that can't find any. But I'm trying for discourse here, which becomes utterly useless if you just ignore everything I said and repeat the same things me and others already addressed multiple times before. If that's what 'short, sweet and powerful' means I'd definitely prefer you writing walls of text like me. Here's some input in what you could do to make your position clearer and stop the conversation from going in circles: You could elaborate on why you think it's fairer that someone with all 1s or all 10s can heavily influence the ratings than preventing that sort of up and downvoting? Why it's fairer if someone who uses 7 for good anime still has it technically counted as 'average' on a sidewide scale (since 7 is the average rating on MAL)? Why it's unfair to translate the rating that stands for an ABOVE-AVERAGE show on some individual list no matter their average to an ABOVE-AVERAGE show on a sidewide scale instead of translating scores that might mean 'great' for one person and 'okay' for another one as one and the same thing when attempting to equally and fairly represent everyone's opinion. And most importantly, what does your 'fairness' even mean? How does it differ from fairness as I described it? Since both sides think their way is the fairer one, our ideas of the term fairness must differ so that's a good way to start if the goal is mutual understanding. You could elaborate why you think striving to improve the objectivity for statistically generated toplists is a bad thing since you yourself admitted "all this measurement is just further pushing the mentality that their is objectivity" and I explained why this is a good thing considering the context. You could elaborate on how on this earth it is relevant whether or not people drop shows. There's a rating column for dropped shows as well so if they don't show up in your average rating, that's up to you, not the fault of the rating system. And nothing wrong about picking anime based on bias, but usually there will still be shows you just enjoy and shows you enjoy more or less than that, so terms like above or below average can still be applied in the context of that person's rating system, that's just a mathematical truth. The new system simply doesn't ignore that anymore. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
| I have to skim through this so i can actually understand what point ur trying to make.. Read this again because I dont feel like wasting my time on something that will never happen.. "This entire thread is on the assumption that a person isn't using the full rating scale. In fact people actually drop anime when they think its bad or just know how to pick anime that will cater to their needs. In fact there is 100s of other factors to look into before saying lets clump this all up, put it in an equation and generate a "proper" rating." |
Delenai said: Pullman said: Erm, no? If someone's average is 10 then all his 10s will count for 5s, same with someone who rates everything 1. Unlike now. Did you not understand the suggestion or what is it you're trying to imply? Erm, yes? What score did you give is meaningless in the second case. If it will count as 5 then it will have more impact on an anime that has 3 as average, than a rate that counted 3 or 4 or 2. I'm sorry but I feel like I have to interpret what you're saying because of your grammar and I really don't get what your issue/point is so don't blame me if your point gets lost in translation. I mean of course a weighted 5 will increase the average of a 3.xx rated show, that is how it should be. Complete one-sided 1/10 or 10/10 average rating systems will still skew the ratings a bit for shows with very high or very low average ratings, but considerable less then they do now so where is the argument in that? And someone who uses the full rating scale giving it a 3 and having less influence on it is just not true. First of all every users rating still only counts once for the average and whether your individual weighted ranking coincides with the weighted average is irrelevant, all weighted ratings count the same. It's stupid to say all the 9s and 10s of a show like FMA: Brotherhood count less because of the high average of that show, because those ratings are what made the show have such a high average score in the first place. It sounds like a clear case of mistaking cause and effect. Secondly the user with the full rating scale just rates a show a 3 because that's the rating he gives it, if the actual score if the show is 3 as well that just means his opinion happens to be the 'average' on this particular show. The important thing is that no matter what his opinion on a 1-10 scale is it will always count for what he intended it in terms of judging a show to be above/below/average in relation to the other shows they've seen. Something that a rating system that is fully dedicated to one side of the spectrum can't provide by default. The only difference is that currently both these systems are treated as if they had the same average score and meaning attached to each individual score, which is obviously not true. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
moodie said: This entire thread is on the assumption that a person isn't using the full rating scale. In fact people actually drop anime when they think its bad or just know how to pick anime that will cater to their needs. You can rate a dropped anime just as well and if you have watched 1/6 or 1/5 of the show it will count and influence the rating of it. So really the argument that people drop anime they dont like doesnt stand. Most give the dropped anime a score too. And still there are many users which "dropped" anime score never goes below 5. If the worst show you have watched and you dropped is a 5, how can that persons ratings be anything other than skewed? The public ratings only purpose is to help as a guide, as a quick impression of is this good or not? But how can the rank and rating of a show fullfill its purpose if the raters do not use the same rating scale. If for some 5 is absolutely awful and for the other its average the rating is skewed. And as it is, there is no consistency across the ratings. Old and lesser known shows that have not experience the boost of the 5-10 raters have lower ratings compared to newer shows of the same quality. And since you cannot change raters mentality to use the scale properly and treat a 5 as average not as awful, this system would force it to be so. Therefore making the ratings across all anime consistent, old or new, popular or not. |
| You can also just delete a bad anime from ur entry see ppl do all sorts of things ppl are too irrational |
| Hope this actually happens. The way I see it, this can be used as a guide for those who want to delve deeper in the medium and find works that'll reveal the merits of said medium. The counter-argument that people only want to enjoy anime doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you only want to enjoy it, then why care about a stupid list? This list isn't going to tell you what you can or cannot enjoy. Just watch what you like, rate it what you like, and never pay attention to the list. Why is this such a big deal to people who watch to have fun? Just have fun. If you don't agree with what's in the list then who cares? You shouldn't. Just do you. It's a difference in motivations. Some watch anime from a critical lens and others just wanna enjoy stuff. Neither are inherently wrong. But I don't see a lot of purpose in a list that ranks which anime people like more. What one subjectively enjoys does not necessarily apply to another. Regardless of outcome, I don't think this idea should be abandoned. Maybe you could make a blog for it and update it like what this list does for Letterboxd. To everyone who worked on this idea, hope it goes well for you guys. |
moodie said: You can also just delete a bad anime from ur entry see ppl do all sorts of things ppl are too irrational I think you've demonstrated the last line quite clearly. You've ignored countless arguments and even simple attempts to understand your viewpoint from Pullman. Why should anyone care what you have to say if you won't reciprocate? If you're just here to say you don't like this, you can stop now. We get it. You don't like this suggestion. If you have nothing more substantive to say beyond that, repeating yourself over and over when people are trying to discuss the matter with you is simply obnoxious. *And for the record, deleting dropped anime from your list is a personal choice and should have absolutely no bearing on how scores are calculated site-wide. |
| Nice idea. I'd like to see something like that |
 |
| This is interesting, I don't usually use the "top anime" for actual scores but for face value. What I'm more concerned about is how the rating we are given is skewed due to its misconception with the labeling, But that's something completely different. Anyways I'm not against this.. or rather it wouldn't effect me if this is or isn't implemented. |
 Behold of my awesomeness~ controversial and/or sensitive topics likely devolve into the same repetitive, derogatory, abusive, and harassing comments can no longer be posted. But my feels. |
Pullman said: An individual's rating scale is only absolute as long as it just represents his own opinions - which is what the list does and will still do with the proposed system. For an average rating the scale isn't the absolute taste of any one individual though, but each show's average rating in relation to each other show's average rating in the DB. It just seems logical to base that on score that someone gave the show in relation to all the other shows on that someone's list, not the score they gave the show in relation to the whole DB including the 95% they haven't seen. So just because I haven't seen all anime in the world I can't give an anime a score I think it deserves? And another major flaw of the system: I can add to my list tons of bad anime or ones I'll never watch (like Yaoi) and give them score 1 just to make my average score closer to 5 (which was chosen by the maker of the system as average score, meaning there are 25% more good scores than bad scores) This way I make a strong influence on the top ratings than those all-10 and all-1 raters, and I don't even have to make multi-accounts for that. All fair and square. So expanding my database directly influences top scores, thus, the person with more anime in the list has more to say than the one with less. With the current system, no matter how hard one try by giving many shows "1" score and his fanboy show 10, it won't rise his favorite show that much. |
| Lol those elitist would definitely jack off to this rating system. Most popular/newer series will be push to the back, while majority of the old/cult series will be in the top 200. And to not be a hypocrite here, I know that new and popular anime has a huge advantage over older/lesser known series. But this rating system doesn't change or improve anything, this rating system is basically a reverse from the current rating system. I don't think there is any system that will please everyone, it either goes this way or that way. I think the best thing to do is separate old series from new one. Like have a top list for new anime from 2000 - present, and have the older titles from 1999 - to whenever anime first started. This way we can see the top series from both the old and newer generation, both the older anime and newer anime can get a shot at the spotlight. Plus this means other series from both new and older series would move up in the rankings since titles from old and new would be moving to their list, whether it's the new/modern anime list or the old anime list I think everyone would be happy with this. |
keragamming said: Lol those elitist would definitely jack off to this rating system. Most popular/newer series will be push to the back, while majority of the old/cult series will be in the top 200. And to not be a hypocrite here, I know that new and popular anime has a huge advantage over older/lesser known series. But this rating system doesn't change or improve anything, this rating system is basically a reverse from the current rating system. I don't think there is any system that will please everyone, it either goes this way or that way. I think the best thing to do is separate old series from new one. Like have a top list for new anime from 2000 - present, and have the older titles from 1999 - to whenever anime first started. This way we can see the top series from both the old and newer generation, both the older anime and newer anime can get a shot at the spotlight. Plus this means other series from both new and older series would move up in the rankings since titles from old and new would be moving to their list, whether it's the new/modern anime list or the old anime list I think everyone would be happy with this. Have you even looked at the modified top list from the opening post? New shows are still dominating there's just a slight increase in older, critically acclaimed shows in the top 100. Heck, even Boku Dake is still in the top 20, it doesn't get much newer than that. No way is it the 'reverse' effect of the current system. I'd like to hear actual arguments as to why this method is supposed to be equally unfair and not just making statements without providing any reasons to back them up. As for your suggestion, I think it's absurd. No other medium does that, putting up an imaginable barrier for 'old' and 'new' and seperating them as if they weren't all the same basic thing (in this case: anime). It will just keep feeding into the false dichotomy of 'old' and 'new' anime being distinctly different categories instead of just minor attributes of a show along with tons of other factors. I can't be the only one valuing a holistic perspective on things so I highly doubt everyone would be happy with that. If anything it would spark endless, tedious debates about when exactly the cutoff date should be. And franchises would be split between the two lists, something like One Piece would be on the oldschool list and in general there's too many issues based on this random distinction to list all of them right now. Whiterock said: Pullman said: An individual's rating scale is only absolute as long as it just represents his own opinions - which is what the list does and will still do with the proposed system. For an average rating the scale isn't the absolute taste of any one individual though, but each show's average rating in relation to each other show's average rating in the DB. It just seems logical to base that on score that someone gave the show in relation to all the other shows on that someone's list, not the score they gave the show in relation to the whole DB including the 95% they haven't seen. So just because I haven't seen all anime in the world I can't give an anime a score I think it deserves? And another major flaw of the system: I can add to my list tons of bad anime or ones I'll never watch (like Yaoi) and give them score 1 just to make my average score closer to 5 (which was chosen by the maker of the system as average score, meaning there are 25% more good scores than bad scores) This way I make a strong influence on the top ratings than those all-10 and all-1 raters, and I don't even have to make multi-accounts for that. All fair and square. So expanding my database directly influences top scores, thus, the person with more anime in the list has more to say than the one with less. With the current system, no matter how hard one try by giving many shows "1" score and his fanboy show 10, it won't rise his favorite show that much. I really don't know what you're trying to say. If you've read my previous posts you should know that any 'influence' you think you have over the scores as an individual is practically non-existent anyway and complaining about the illusionary loss of personal influence is misguided and egotistical since that's not the point of an average score in the first place. I also previously explained why the current rating system can be equally unfair from the perspective of someone who naturally has an average of about 5. At the end of the day, with both systems, people can choose freely how to use their list if they buy into the illusion that it gives them more influence on the average score, but it won't matter in the big picture. Sure, you can lie and fuck up your list to get a lower average but unless tens of thousands of people do that it won't even influence any score by a digit. And with the same effort you can easily create a dozen or more alts to 'influence' ratings anyway. Just because people can do unreasonable stuff to achieve a totally negligable amount of 'influence' doesn't mean anything, that's always gonna be the case. That's not an argument specific to anything. also "So expanding my database directly influences top scores, thus, the person with more anime in the list has more to say than the one with less." What the random is that supposed to mean? Statements like this make me question whether you understand the basic principle behind this suggestion. Even if I keep pretending this influence you speak of is an actual thing that matters, you don't need more than an average of 5 to make every score count as much as they do now. The number is irrelevant. I don't even know why you would think it isn't. along the same lines "With the current system, no matter how hard one try by giving many shows "1" score and his fanboy show 10, it won't rise his favorite show that much." this makes no sense as well. a 10 now is a 10. A 10 in the new system is at best counted as a 10, so the best case scenario is someone with an average of 5 making it count as the full 10 - which is the default scenario in the current rating system for every single user. You can't make your 10 count more than in the current system, on the contrary, it might even count less, making it HARDER not easier to upvote stuff. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
| -Looks at the top 10 on the link you provided- Oh god, please no. At least not until MAL can put franchise shows under one thing. If 4 Gintama's popped up like that (All in a row without another showing in between), the rating trolls would be fucking rolling in from the other shows (Seeing as how it already happens now... It'd just get worse). Can't say I'd enjoy this new rating one bit to be honest. Maybe I didn't see, but how exactly were these shows ranked to get their spot? |
TyrelFeb 12, 2016 10:51 PM
 |
Pullman said: keragamming said: Lol those elitist would definitely jack off to this rating system. Most popular/newer series will be push to the back, while majority of the old/cult series will be in the top 200. And to not be a hypocrite here, I know that new and popular anime has a huge advantage over older/lesser known series. But this rating system doesn't change or improve anything, this rating system is basically a reverse from the current rating system. I don't think there is any system that will please everyone, it either goes this way or that way. I think the best thing to do is separate old series from new one. Like have a top list for new anime from 2000 - present, and have the older titles from 1999 - to whenever anime first started. This way we can see the top series from both the old and newer generation, both the older anime and newer anime can get a shot at the spotlight. Plus this means other series from both new and older series would move up in the rankings since titles from old and new would be moving to their list, whether it's the new/modern anime list or the old anime list I think everyone would be happy with this. Have you even looked at the modified top list from the opening post? New shows are still dominating there's just a slight increase in older, critically acclaimed shows in the top 100. Heck, even Boku Dake is still in the top 20, it doesn't get much newer than that. No way is it the 'reverse' effect of the current system. I'd like to hear actual arguments as to why this method is supposed to be equally unfair and not just making statements without providing any reasons to back them up. As for your suggestion, I think it's absurd. No other medium does that, putting up an imaginable barrier for 'old' and 'new' and seperating them as if they weren't all the same basic thing (in this case: anime). It will just keep feeding into the false dichotomy of 'old' and 'new' anime being distinctly different categories instead of just minor attributes of a show along with tons of other factors. I can't be the only one valuing a holistic perspective on things so I highly doubt everyone would be happy with that. If anything it would spark endless, tedious debates about when exactly the cutoff date should be. And franchises would be split between the two lists, something like One Piece would be on the oldschool list and in general there's too many issues based on this random distinction to list all of them right now. To your first sentence, I did also say "cult" series which are both new and old, you know series that are liked by people that some would categorise as elitist. Plus majority of those new anime are the ones that are extremwly high on mal like 8.80-9.00 series, these maintain there spot simple because of how highly they are rated but most anime below that are push back into the 100+ - 500+ rankings. I looked at this list, and the advantage is mostly directed to people that have a low mean score. People that rate highly which could be due to the fact that not everyone is willing to watch/complete bad anime. Therefore there score will be screwed with, and the anime for those people will drop in the score because of that. this system is flawed because if a series has a lot of members that has a high mean score then that series will simple drop in the rankings. Basically the more members a series has that are full of mostly high mean scores, the lower the score will be for that series. Basically this rating system was made by evil elitist that are trying to force users to rate a lot of series lower, for their scores to count equally to what they have scored on their list, and if they dont try to decrease their mean score this flawed system will just unfairly lower a user initially score for that particular series, which will hurt that series score. There is no way getting around this flawed rating system its basically forcing people to be edgy snobs to rate the majority of anime with low scores. This rating system is a breeding grown to create snobs and elitist. It's a conspiracy! XD Lol I will stick to the current mal rating system thank you very much. Op and his friend can go home now, or try to implement this rating system on some other site. To your second sentence. I'm not separating old/new anime just because one is old and one is new or that they are different. I'm seperating them because older fans rate differently than newer fans, new anime fans rarely or dont watch older series, therefore there score rarely affect older series. Isn't this entire rating system was made because newer fans are rating everything highly? And so they use this procedure to unfairly balance it out?That's why I'm saying the best procedure is to separate them. Heck, they could still keep the all anime ranking category if you think it is such a bad thing. But I would rather the all anime category not be the default page when I click on the top anime section. Plus this will give older series more exposure and could get more people trying them out since, they won't be in obscure ranking like top 200-300 most people only look at the top 50, so those top 50 older anime would get a lot of spotlight. And I would rather both the new and old anime be on one single page, so everyone can see them both. Technically this is about the rating system, so I could argue that old and newer anime are different simple because of how differently they are rated. The more years goes by, the more the older anime are push back down the ranking while the newer anime will continue to take up most and eventually all the top 100 spots on mal. On your last sentence about the cut off date. This was just a raw idea, well, franchises could be a exception but that all depends on who decide all of this. I'm sure this could work out. |
keragammingFeb 13, 2016 12:25 AM
An algorithm that is yet to be disclosed by it's creator. |
 |
| If that's the case, then I can't really support this at all. |
|
| Let's go in order, first about so called non-influential personal score: Pullman said: Personal influence has HUGE impact on the total result. Because we have a lot of individuals who rate anime each of them contributing to the total score. Just look how all ratings changed when OP adjusted the system a bit, several anime switched places with high jumps and falls. If show was rated by say 10.000 people and 1.000.000 robots, then yes, personal influence would be insignificant.I really don't know what you're trying to say. If you've read my previous posts you should know that any 'influence' you think you have over the scores as an individual is practically non-existent anyway and complaining about the illusionary loss of personal influence is misguided and egotistical since that's not the point of an average score in the first place. I also previously explained why the current rating system can be equally unfair from the perspective of someone who naturally has an average of about 5. At the end of the day, with both systems, people can choose freely how to use their list if they buy into the illusion that it gives them more influence on the average score, but it won't matter in the big picture. Sure, you can lie and fuck up your list to get a lower average but unless tens of thousands of people do that it won't even influence any score by a digit. And with the same effort you can easily create a dozen or more alts to 'influence' ratings anyway. Just because people can do unreasonable stuff to achieve a totally negligable amount of 'influence' doesn't mean anything, that's always gonna be the case. That's not an argument specific to anything. Each individual wants his/her score to matter, and when you say that their influence doesn't matter - that only breeds elitism. And for: "So expanding my database directly influences top scores, thus, the person with more anime in the list has more to say than the one with less." which is conclusion taken from the "rate several shows you don't gonna watch with 1" hax I listed above. You had given answer yourself: Pullman said: The base fact in new system, that by adding more anime in bottom scores - your anime in top scores become stronger in their weight. So you are directly influence your score worth by adding more anime to the list, without breaking any site rules (such as multiple accounts).A 10 now is a 10. A 10 in the new system is at best counted as a 10. You can't make your 10 count more than in the current system, on the contrary, it might even count less, making it HARDER not easier to upvote stuff. On the other hand in current system, just as you said - 10 is 10. 9 is 9, etc. You don't influence the worth of your own score on the anime by using other anime. That one little score is the only way to change the total score of the anime. Unless, you do some crazy stuff as adding WHOLE database with scores <10 and your favorite show with 10. In terms of "If I can't rise mine any higher, I'll just drop all the rest" All in all, with this system you are just trying to replace cause and effect. It's not because system is flawed, that we get such results, but people are flawed, that don't rate shows properly, or can't admit that what they watched is bad, or that they watch only high-rated anime (in result rising them higher) and ignore low-rated ones. If you replace the system - you won't replace people. Max said: How about explaining straight to masses than saying things that worth as much as "goggle pls"? Besides not everyone is friends with computer and php.If you really care this much, look through its PHP. It's not difficult to do so, nor is it heavily guarded. The data isn't fabricated in any way. |
Yeah, this top list looks more diverse in my eyes. However, like Tyrel said, four Gintamas in a row is only going to cause more rating flame wars, so MAL should also put franchise shows under one thing: Also, lol @ the elitism hysteria Stop thinking this is nothing but an elitist conspiracy, please |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
| Meh, don't see the point. I don't mind the current system. |
The point of the weighted overall rankings is not making people change the ratings in their lists. What you have to leave aside is the stupid idea that your personal list as an individual is of big influence in the overall ratings. It is not. Pullman is not saying that that thing you propose about affording 1s to several shows to have a 5 of average is the same as creating multiaccounts in nature, but the fact that responds to the same irrational thought. Stop worrying about X show is rated higher or lower than Y show, and then the rankings will be overall more trustworthy. This proposal serves for everybody to be following the same system (you're the one admitting that people is flawed, so this removes as much as it is possible all the bad influences of such bias based in either fanboyism or disdain), either the ones with a 5 of average, the ones with an 8 of average and the so-called elitist tryhards with averages under 4. Nobody gets a direct benefit or loss, everybody wins. There will still be new shows highly rated, there will still be seasonal shows highly rated, but the hype inflation and both the influence of all the downraters and upraters will be minimized. |
 |
| @Lordwen I don't care what shows go above/below others in top list as in terms of "omg my anime I fanboy of is rated lower than anime X *raaaaage*" What I don't like is the fact that rating of anime is determined by the OTHER anime people watch. Why the heck one anime's rating must be determined by what the person had already seen before? And back to "individual's influence" - it is significant. If it weren't - then in both systems the shows would have had the exact same places. Because what? Because individual's influence doesn't matter, so if we remove all individuals - nothing is supposed to change, as their influence has zero effect. Gathering every little bit from every individual, that's the way total score is achieved. |
| @Whiterock What I don't like is the fact that rating of anime is determined by the OTHER anime people watch. Why the heck one anime's rating must be determined by what the person had already seen before? The whole majority of users with a small list (20 or less) have high ratings. So it does make sense even if there isn't any specific threshold either. It's not a matter of lack of knowledge in the media, which is arguably true anyway, is just that when you create your list is way harder to be precise or ratings use to be taken more lightly.And back to "individual's influence" - it is significant. If it weren't - then in both systems the shows would have had the exact same places. Because what? Because individual's influence doesn't matter, so if we remove all individuals - nothing is supposed to change, as their influence has zero effect. See? Do you know how stadistics work? One thing is the sum of the individuals and the other thing is the individual's importance. If only 5 people rate one show, and you afford it a 10 and the other 4 a 5, the average is just 6. Make that 5 people be only a few thousands (not the hundreds of thousands of the most popular shows in MAL) and it's just worthless. Absolutely nothing. Gathering every little bit from every individual, that's the way total score is achieved. But I think it is pointless to keep discussing about this because, have your read yourself? "Gathering every little bit from every individual, that's the way total score is achieved". Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, great conclusion. You're miles away of the actual point of this, and it's pretty disappointing seeing how people can't understand something as simple as this proposal. Really disappointing. |
|
Lordwen said: Make a minimal threshold until one's rating start counting to, say, 50 anime entries. Problem solved.The whole majority of users with a small list (20 or less) have high ratings. So it does make sense even if there isn't any specific threshold either. It's not a matter of lack of knowledge in the media, which is arguably true anyway, is just that when you create your list is way harder to be precise or ratings use to be taken more lightly. And about statistic - the magic is that it's 10000 people who rate around 10, and 40000 people who rate around 5, ofc some go lower, some higher. In the end show still has averagely 6.xx score. Masses tend to think alike, that's why if one type of individual who enjoys certain type of anime gives high/low score to anime X, other people who enjoy same circle of anime would rate +/-2 score to the anime X. So as a blunt example - if we get a random person, name him Bob. Bob loves mecha, he watches only mecha, because that the only thing he watches and likes that, most of his anime will end up on 7-10 scale. Few would appear on 1-6. And there other guys and girls who have similar tastes as Bob, they watch mecha as well. And we ought to expect, that their score on anime X would not be that much different from what Bob gave it. But maybe we just have different understanding of term "individual's influence" |
Comic_Sans said: Yeah, this top list looks more diverse in my eyes. However, like Tyrel said, four Gintamas in a row is only going to cause more rating flame wars, so MAL should also put franchise shows under one thing: Also, lol @ the elitism hysteria Stop thinking this is nothing but an elitist conspiracy, please That part obviously wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I was obviously joking. Thought it was obvious. O.o |
Max said: Good to know@Comic_Sans I know we don't see eye-to-eye on most things, so your support here is appreciated. Franchises should definitely be grouped together, though I left that out of the OP because it's a different discussion entirely. keragamming said: Have you seen the amount of elitism related threads in AD lately?Comic_Sans said: Yeah, this top list looks more diverse in my eyes. However, like Tyrel said, four Gintamas in a row is only going to cause more rating flame wars, so MAL should also put franchise shows under one thing: [im*g]http://i.imgur.com/yQccNG0.jpg[/img] Also, lol @ the elitism hysteria Stop thinking this is nothing but an elitist conspiracy, please That part obviously wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I was obviously joking. Thought it was obvious. O.o Some of the OPs sound like they're being threatened by some big elitist organization similar to the Illuminati Even for a master bullshit detector like me it's hard to figure out who's being serious and who isn't |
Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
| The salt in Western fans regarding something irrelevant to them is real. |
Comic_Sans said: Max said: Good to know@Comic_Sans I know we don't see eye-to-eye on most things, so your support here is appreciated. Franchises should definitely be grouped together, though I left that out of the OP because it's a different discussion entirely. keragamming said: Have you seen the amount of elitism related threads in AD lately?That part obviously wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I was obviously joking. Thought it was obvious. O.o Some of the OPs sound like they're being threatened by some big elitist organization similar to the Illuminati Even for a master bullshit detector like me it's hard to figure out who's being serious and who isn't Fair enough. |
keragamming said: Pullman said: Have you even looked at the modified top list from the opening post? New shows are still dominating there's just a slight increase in older, critically acclaimed shows in the top 100. Heck, even Boku Dake is still in the top 20, it doesn't get much newer than that. No way is it the 'reverse' effect of the current system. I'd like to hear actual arguments as to why this method is supposed to be equally unfair and not just making statements without providing any reasons to back them up. As for your suggestion, I think it's absurd. No other medium does that, putting up an imaginable barrier for 'old' and 'new' and seperating them as if they weren't all the same basic thing (in this case: anime). It will just keep feeding into the false dichotomy of 'old' and 'new' anime being distinctly different categories instead of just minor attributes of a show along with tons of other factors. I can't be the only one valuing a holistic perspective on things so I highly doubt everyone would be happy with that. If anything it would spark endless, tedious debates about when exactly the cutoff date should be. And franchises would be split between the two lists, something like One Piece would be on the oldschool list and in general there's too many issues based on this random distinction to list all of them right now. To your first sentence, I did also say "cult" series which are both new and old, you know series that are liked by people that some would categorise as elitist. Plus majority of those new anime are the ones that are extremwly high on mal like 8.80-9.00 series, these maintain there spot simple because of how highly they are rated but most anime below that are push back into the 100+ - 500+ rankings. I looked at this list, and the advantage is mostly directed to people that have a low mean score. People that rate highly which could be due to the fact that not everyone is willing to watch/complete bad anime. Therefore there score will be screwed with, and the anime for those people will drop in the score because of that. this system is flawed because if a series has a lot of members that has a high mean score then that series will simple drop in the rankings. Basically the more members a series has that are full of mostly high mean scores, the lower the score will be for that series. Basically this rating system was made by evil elitist that are trying to force users to rate a lot of series lower, for their scores to count equally to what they have scored on their list, and if they dont try to decrease their mean score this flawed system will just unfairly lower a user initially score for that particular series, which will hurt that series score. There is no way getting around this flawed rating system its basically forcing people to be edgy snobs to rate the majority of anime with low scores. This rating system is a breeding grown to create snobs and elitist. It's a conspiracy! XD Lol I will stick to the current mal rating system thank you very much. Op and his friend can go home now, or try to implement this rating system on some other site. To your second sentence. I'm not separating old/new anime just because one is old and one is new or that they are different. I'm seperating them because older fans rate differently than newer fans, new anime fans rarely or dont watch older series, therefore there score rarely affect older series. Isn't this entire rating system was made because newer fans are rating everything highly? And so they use this procedure to unfairly balance it out?That's why I'm saying the best procedure is to separate them. Heck, they could still keep the all anime ranking category if you think it is such a bad thing. But I would rather the all anime category not be the default page when I click on the top anime section. Plus this will give older series more exposure and could get more people trying them out since, they won't be in obscure ranking like top 200-300 most people only look at the top 50, so those top 50 older anime would get a lot of spotlight. And I would rather both the new and old anime be on one single page, so everyone can see them both. Technically this is about the rating system, so I could argue that old and newer anime are different simple because of how differently they are rated. The more years goes by, the more the older anime are push back down the ranking while the newer anime will continue to take up most and eventually all the top 100 spots on mal. On your last sentence about the cut off date. This was just a raw idea, well, franchises could be a exception but that all depends on who decide all of this. I'm sure this could work out. Your post has a lot of irrelevant arguments and passive-aggression. There is no elitist conspiracy here, nor does rating a certain way make anyone a snob or whatever other insult you'd like to throw that has absolutely nothing to do with the whether the suggestion is a good one or not. However, in the interest of keeping the discussion going and perhaps improving the suggestion, I'd like to extract a non-tainted version of your argument. Basically, you're saying: Example 1 said: • Group A has a mean score of 8. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 10. Since in their case 8 = 5, the site-wide score is ~8 (depending on the exact math). • Group B has a mean score of 3. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 10. Since in their case 3 = 5, the site-wide score is ~8 (depending on the exact math). • Group C has a mean score of 5. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 10. Since in their case 5 = 5, the site-wide score is 10. To provide a better perspective, I will also provide a counter-example: Example 2 said: • Group A has a mean score of 8. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 1. Since in their case 8 = 5, the site-wide score is ~3 (depending on the exact math). • Group B has a mean score of 3. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 1. Since in their case 3 = 5, the site-wide score is ~3 (depending on the exact math). • Group C has a mean score of 5. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 1. Since in their case 5 = 5, the site-wide score is 1. What the actual site score is may be a bit different, but the point is that users in the extreme groups will only be able to increase or decrease the score of a given show so much. Although no individual in Group C has any significant power, Group C as a group wields the most power over the rankings because their 10's and 1's have full effect. You're saying this is valuing the opinion of Group C over Groups A and B... When it's spelled out that way, I think you might have a point worth discussing. However, I'm not sure if this is what Max's suggestion does. It seems like we've somehow shifted to this idea somewhere, and even my last post explaining the suggestion probably inadvertently promoted this idea, but having a mean score of 8 should not mean that said user's 10 does not "count" as a 10 when ratings are calculated. It would be helpful if @Max could clarify. @Pullman @Nidhoeggr @Lordwen @Whiterock @Delenai: I believe the below may be of interest to all of you. Examples of possible balancing math for site-wide score calculations: (Note: All examples will follow the format of "List Score = Balanced Score") As you can see, this has the effect of decreasing the upward influence of those with high mean scores, as well as decreasing the downward influence of those with low mean scores. However, 10's and 1's still have full effect. It's everything in between that's balanced. |
TripleSRankFeb 13, 2016 3:48 PM
| @TripleSRank That C > A/B groups is the thing I am against, yes. Especially that you can force your way into group C. And that is generated from base idea and flaw of the system - score wight of the anime is dependent on the rest of your list. The examples you listed in the ends is not much different from the given system (implying it works as you shown) as it's basically shifting the "median" score from 5 to 1 and have a stronger favoring of having the least mean score as much as possible. |
WhiterockFeb 13, 2016 4:35 PM
Whiterock said: @TripleSRank That C > A/B groups is the thing I am against, yes. Especially that you can force your way into group C. And that is generated from base idea and flaw of the system - score wight of the anime is dependent on the rest of your list. The examples you listed in the ends is not much different from the given system (implying it works as you shown) as it's basically shifting the "median" score from 5 to 1 and have a stronger favoring of having the least mean score as much as possible. Having a lower mean score isn't favorable at all. If we're insistent on the "elitists vs. casuals" conspiracy theory, loads of "casuals" voting 10 are still going have a massive influence on the score, and "elitists" who regularly vote low wouldn't decrease the score nearly as much even if they do give said show a low rating. Edit: At that, the balancing for mean scores of 4-7 isn't that harsh. High scores will still generally improve the anime's ranking and low scores will still generally diminish the anime's ranking. Keep in mind that this system would likely completely change what site-wide score would be needed to get into the top anime, so lack of (balanced) 9's shouldn't be an issue on the mid-to-top side, as long as one doesn't go into the extreme 8-10 mean score zone. |
TripleSRankFeb 13, 2016 5:00 PM
| @TripleSRank. It was joke, I wasn't being serious when saying all that about "evil elitist" or "snob" I simple came up with that idea because this rating system is ridiculous imo. This rating system just seem like it was made as a counter measure against casual anime watchers that rate most anime they watch at a high score. But yea, I will try to not use those buzzwords, atleast too often since it annoys a lot of people. |
keragammingFeb 13, 2016 5:13 PM
keragamming said: @TripleSRank. It was joke, I wasn't being serious when saying all that about "evil elitist" or "snob" I simple came up with that idea because this rating system is ridiculous imo. This rating system just seem like it was made as a counter measure against casual anime watchers that rate most anime they watch at a high score. But yea, I will try to not use those buzzwords, atleast too often since it annoys a lot of people. Alright. It's used seriously so often that it's become a bit of a Poe's Law thing. Do you have any opinion on the rating math I posted? |
TripleSRank said: keragamming said: To your first sentence, I did also say "cult" series which are both new and old, you know series that are liked by people that some would categorise as elitist. Plus majority of those new anime are the ones that are extremwly high on mal like 8.80-9.00 series, these maintain there spot simple because of how highly they are rated but most anime below that are push back into the 100+ - 500+ rankings. I looked at this list, and the advantage is mostly directed to people that have a low mean score. People that rate highly which could be due to the fact that not everyone is willing to watch/complete bad anime. Therefore there score will be screwed with, and the anime for those people will drop in the score because of that. this system is flawed because if a series has a lot of members that has a high mean score then that series will simple drop in the rankings. Basically the more members a series has that are full of mostly high mean scores, the lower the score will be for that series. Basically this rating system was made by evil elitist that are trying to force users to rate a lot of series lower, for their scores to count equally to what they have scored on their list, and if they dont try to decrease their mean score this flawed system will just unfairly lower a user initially score for that particular series, which will hurt that series score. There is no way getting around this flawed rating system its basically forcing people to be edgy snobs to rate the majority of anime with low scores. This rating system is a breeding grown to create snobs and elitist. It's a conspiracy! XD Lol I will stick to the current mal rating system thank you very much. Op and his friend can go home now, or try to implement this rating system on some other site. To your second sentence. I'm not separating old/new anime just because one is old and one is new or that they are different. I'm seperating them because older fans rate differently than newer fans, new anime fans rarely or dont watch older series, therefore there score rarely affect older series. Isn't this entire rating system was made because newer fans are rating everything highly? And so they use this procedure to unfairly balance it out?That's why I'm saying the best procedure is to separate them. Heck, they could still keep the all anime ranking category if you think it is such a bad thing. But I would rather the all anime category not be the default page when I click on the top anime section. Plus this will give older series more exposure and could get more people trying them out since, they won't be in obscure ranking like top 200-300 most people only look at the top 50, so those top 50 older anime would get a lot of spotlight. And I would rather both the new and old anime be on one single page, so everyone can see them both. Technically this is about the rating system, so I could argue that old and newer anime are different simple because of how differently they are rated. The more years goes by, the more the older anime are push back down the ranking while the newer anime will continue to take up most and eventually all the top 100 spots on mal. On your last sentence about the cut off date. This was just a raw idea, well, franchises could be a exception but that all depends on who decide all of this. I'm sure this could work out. Your post has a lot of irrelevant arguments and passive-aggression. There is no elitist conspiracy here, nor does rating a certain way make anyone a snob or whatever other insult you'd like to throw that has absolutely nothing to do with the whether the suggestion is a good one or not. However, in the interest of keeping the discussion going and perhaps improving the suggestion, I'd like to extract a non-tainted version of your argument. Basically, you're saying: Example 1 said: • Group A has a mean score of 8. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 10. Since in their case 8 = 5, the site-wide score is ~8 (depending on the exact math). • Group B has a mean score of 3. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 10. Since in their case 3 = 5, the site-wide score is ~8 (depending on the exact math). • Group C has a mean score of 5. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 10. Since in their case 5 = 5, the site-wide score is 10. To provide a better perspective, I will also provide a counter-example: Example 2 said: • Group A has a mean score of 8. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 1. Since in their case 8 = 5, the site-wide score is ~3 (depending on the exact math). • Group B has a mean score of 3. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 1. Since in their case 3 = 5, the site-wide score is ~3 (depending on the exact math). • Group C has a mean score of 5. They are the only ones to watch Anime A, and all of them rate it a 1. Since in their case 5 = 5, the site-wide score is 1. What the actual site score is may be a bit different, but the point is that users in the extreme groups will only be able to increase or decrease the score of a given show so much. Although no individual in Group C has any significant power, Group C as a group wields the most power over the rankings because their 10's and 1's have full effect. You're saying this is valuing the opinion of Group C over Groups A and B... When it's spelled out that way, I think you might have a point worth discussing. However, I'm not sure if this is what Max's suggestion does. It seems like we've somehow shifted to this idea somewhere, and even my last post explaining the suggestion probably inadvertently promoted this idea, but having a mean score of 8 should not mean that said user's 10 does not "count" as a 10 when ratings are calculated. It would be helpful if @Max could clarify. @Pullman @Nidhoeggr @Lordwen @Whiterock @Delenai: I believe the below may be of interest to all of you. Examples of possible balancing math for site-wide score calculations: (Note: All examples will follow the format of "List Score = Balanced Score") As you can see, this has the effect of decreasing the upward influence of those with high mean scores, as well as decreasing the downward influence of those with low mean scores. However, 10's and 1's still have full effect. It's everything in between that's balanced. Interesting data, thank you very much. |
| Steel Ball Run anime when? |
| I like the current system, because I have one time in my life clicked all the top 1000 animes. I did this, because I want to know which anime I have to watch in my lifetime. I think if you want to have an accurate score, you have to make an extended system. The current system is not bad, because it shows us which animes are worth watching even if it are old animes, for example Rosen Maiden, Sailor moon and GTO. I think replacing this system would be useless. Only extending this system would be a option. A extended system would have additional categories for which you can vote: (story score, art score, sound score, character score, enjoyment score) and what we now have the "overall score". #The system is based on this formula>>>> Only scores where a user has completed at least 1/5 of the anime/manga are calculated. Example: If you watched a 26 episode series, this means you would had to have watched at least 5 episodes (26/5.2)=5. We're using 5.2 instead of 5 so we get a whole number for "most" series. Formula Weighted Rank (WR) = (v / (v + m)) * S + (m / (v + m)) * C S = Average score for the Anime (mean). v = Number of votes for the Anime = (Number of people scoring the Anime). m = Minimum votes/scores required to get a calculated score (currently 50 scores required). C = The mean score across the entire Anime DB. Top Upcoming and Most Popular ranking calculation The Top Upcoming and Most Popular titles are calculated differently to above, and are instead judged by popularity. This popularity is measured according to the number of users who have the title in their list. The more users that have the title shown in their Anime or Manga list, the higher it will be ranked. |
EternalwishFeb 14, 2016 4:05 AM
why do you believe is "stupid"? ande constructive criticism would be better than "it's stupid". just becuase you don't understand the idea you don't need to call it stupid. |
 "Be who you are and say what you mean, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind" - Dr. Seuss |
Max said: Wait, what? Now you confuse me, isn't ranking directly influenced by score? Or are you proposing to combine both systems? Aka it might turn out that on ranks #40, #41, #42 we could see anime with score 8.92, 9.00, 8.96? I.e. just different sorting method based on another system to determine the rank? Now I really need the math behind the system to understand it fully.Boku dake ga Inai Machi would keep its score of 9.11, and only its spot in the top anime would change. Max said: And this number keeps bugging me. Why 5.00 and not 1.00, 4.00, 4.59, 7.00, 5.33, and, ultimately, the true middle score 5.50? Because (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10)/10=5.50?Yes, the closer a person's mean score is to 5.00 I know that 5.00 is named "average", but that doesn't change the fact, that if we take people that go below or above average, the people's same weight will be 4+6, 3+7, 2+8, 1+9. And since you can't go below 1.00, ratings of 9.01 to 10.00 go out of the scale, in the bottom of priority. Oh, reminds me about the mean score - there hardly any people who rate things in 1-5 without rating at least single show 8-9(and 10), so basically most people who have scores below 6 are the ones using whole scale. That why I always said that mean score has an effect of favoring. And in addition - the system would only favor people who rate anime strictly and those who put "1" to shows they hate over those who watch only anime from their circle of interest and those who can't admit that what they watched is bad. You could include me into group of people who sees "elitism conspiracy" based on this, but I think that we should educate people who rate "wrongly" rather than neglecting their opinion or making it matter less. (And for those whoa re lazy to check profile - I am of people who use whole scale, up to the point where I would keep finishing anime even though I had given it "1" or "2" at the 6/13 point or earlier. Just because I want to give a justified score, based on watching all episodes, as it may increase or decrease the score.) And as I said a little above - if people so worried about the fact that "If person has seen only 3-6 anime, then his opinion can't be considered objective enough" - the possible solution to avoid several "wrong" raters - set up a minimal requirement before your scores start affecting the database (10, 25, 50, up to makers of site to decide). However. One can form an opinion of an anime based on his knowledge of films and western animation that he had seen, and that information is not reflected in this database. I am sorry that I can only rant and point out on wrongs and weaknesses of this system. It's just my mentality to disassemble complex things into it's base simple objects and find out which bolts cause harm to the whole system, as it's said "The quality of chain is determined by it's weakest link". A "beta-tester" mentality, as you could call it. Unfortunately, I am not good at giving suggestions how to actually fix those errors. |
| assigning a weight for each user is unfair and will inevitably cause (some) people to try and exploit the system: step 1: create many dummy accounts step 2: adjust their mal list to maximize the "weight" step 3: rate a series you like or rate, knowing that it will be given preference compared to other, legit users. repeat 1 -3 until satisfied. and yes, people will abuse the system if given the chance. it's also pointless to implement this system: the score given will not be any more accurate compared to what we have now. |
DreamingBeatsFeb 14, 2016 5:27 PM
| You can buy lossless digital music from your favorite Japanese artists on https://ototoy.jp/. The songs are all DRM-free and you can re-download your purchased albums as you wish. Show your support to your favorite artist if you can! ps. if you are looking for Japanese albums, you have to search it in Japanese (not romaji). Just copy and paste the name. For those who want to learn Japanese through anime Resources for learning the language |
TripleSRank said: keragamming said: @TripleSRank. It was joke, I wasn't being serious when saying all that about "evil elitist" or "snob" I simple came up with that idea because this rating system is ridiculous imo. This rating system just seem like it was made as a counter measure against casual anime watchers that rate most anime they watch at a high score. But yea, I will try to not use those buzzwords, atleast too often since it annoys a lot of people. Alright. It's used seriously so often that it's become a bit of a Poe's Law thing. Do you have any opinion on the rating math I posted? It is interesting, thougth I don't think I will ever get on board with this type of system. It's not going to happen anyways so its not worth going too deep into all this. |
keragammingFeb 14, 2016 5:55 PM
| I only glanced at the first two posts but this doesn't seem like a good idea to me? So if a guy has seen 20 anime with a mean score of 8, an anime he has rated 8 would drop down to 5? He rated it 8 because it at least good. Tbh this seems like it would favor "elitist™" stuff way too much, and disfavor(?) other more "casual" anime. (Well, just ignore the buzzwords) Plus, it's kind of like ignoring the popularity of a show, which imo is not good. Popularity is one form of success, and ignoring it is unfair to those that do get popular. This seems really unfair to casual viewers. If someone has watched a small amount of anime, mainly picked with popularity/or from various top lists that are going around, they are very likely to like most of those anime, hence having a high mean score, but still actually meaning 8=very good, and not 8=average. With what you're proposing in the OP, this would make those scores meaningless. If I understood what you're proposing correctly, I'm against this. E: removed shitposting cause there seems to be a civil discussion going on. I'll need to read this thread and revise. |
EucliFeb 15, 2016 4:06 AM
 |
Eucli said: I only glanced at the first two posts but this doesn't seem like a good idea to me? So if a guy has seen 20 anime with a mean score of 8, an anime he has rated 8 would drop down to 5? He rated it 8 because it at least good. What do you mean 'drop down'? For all intents and purposes except ranking it will still be an 8. Tbh this seems like it would favor "elitist™" stuff way too much, and disfavor(?) other more "casual" anime. (Well, just ignore the buzzwords) Plus, it's kind of like ignoring the popularity of a show, which imo is not good. Popularity is one form of success, and ignoring it is unfair to those that do get popular. There's a whole 'most popular' toplist so I think we don't need to let popularity influence the rating-based rankings as well. The two are supposed to be different after all. This seems really unfair to casual viewers. If someone has watched a small amount of anime, mainly picked with popularity/or from various top lists that are going around, they are very likely to like most of those anime, hence having a high mean score, but still actually meaning 8=very good, and not 8=average. With what you're proposing in the OP, this would make those scores meaningless. But the purpose is not guaranteeing everyone has the same influence but rather to get a representative toplist that negates the differences in rating, no matter what those differences are based on. Why is the lack of individual influence an argument in the first place? It's just egotistical imo, and as I mentioned before I could also complain that with the current rating system when I give something a 6 and I mean 'fine/above average' it still counts as 'below average' if we take the MAL wide average into account (which everyone does when looking at ratings). The only difference is that currently people who use the rating system 'correctly' get 'punished'. I use those words with caution because personally I don't think me right now or the 8 average guy in the future actually get punished and have any right to complain. I could adapt to the 'actual' MAL average and the guy in the future can adapt to the 5-as-mean system if he wanted. But I think one way or the other the extremely minimal influence gained is not worth hauling over your rating system since - as far as I'm concerned - the ratings are supposed to be mostly for yourself. Or do you really rate while mostly thinking about how it influences the MAL score? I don't think many people do that now and I don't think many people would do that with the new system either so I'm not sure why that 'loss of influence' should be a valid argument in this discussion. It's way too subjective to matter, imo. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
Pullman said: There's a whole 'most popular' toplist so I think we don't need to let popularity influence the rating-based rankings as well. The two are supposed to be different after all. Not this shit again, popularity has nothing to do with the Top Anime or whatever rating. Among anime Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu is in the Top 10 however in popularity its only the #736. Among manga, Naruto is the 1st in popularity, but only ranked #601. So you tell me how is this a popularity contest |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Add list setting to make notes private (on public lists)S_h_a_r_k_93 - Nov 12, 2022 |
25 |
by anonymate
»»
Yesterday, 9:57 PM |
|
» Add number of episodes and number of members in the advanced search.Yacine2104 - Jan 10 |
8 |
by Alexioos95
»»
Yesterday, 12:26 PM |
|
» Local Language districtskuroneko99 - Apr 22 |
5 |
by Luchipher-Zen
»»
Apr 23, 1:02 PM |
|
Poll: » Change picture of favorite character ( 1 2 )gehoti2822 - Nov 12, 2022 |
60 |
by AgravityBoy
»»
Apr 23, 9:09 AM |
|
» Corporate imagesNoctisnox - May 15, 2023 |
19 |
by himanshi122
»»
Apr 19, 5:51 AM |