4 ms·
I guess then, it depends on execution. If you're combining both of these numbers into one single metric of "goodness", then you'll just be accomplishing Pahalia
by wvl 15y ago
I guess then, it depends on execution. If you're combining both of these numbers into one single metric of "goodness", then you'll just be accomplishing Pahalial's point of "legitimizing 'poor taste'". If, however, you can expose this information separately and well, then perhaps it will add value.
Personally, I'd like to break down the "rewatchability" metric into more components, to really get at the heart of the matter, like others here have commented. Pace, quality, fun, emotional impact, length, genre -- these are the things that really matter. But now we're getting into movie geek territory.
Speaking of movie geek -- I can't believe you left out the most interesting thing in that blog post. Where can we see a breakdown of what movies are where in that scatter plot? I want to know what those outliers on the high quality / low rewatchability scale are!
- glen_goodfilms 15y agoYeah there's no sense in combining them. Or even averaging scores, really. Using a scatter plot you can get quite a good insight into the film at a glance. As for which movies are the outliers, that you'll find out when you're a member :)
- carbocation 15y agoOn your scatterplot, the correlation between the two scores looks incredibly high. By eyeballing it, I'd say > 0.8. Will you give the actual score in your upcoming post? Ideally, it would be nice to find two axes that are orthogonal and let people rate on those. Clearly these two axes are highly correlated.