1960s List Logistics: A Poll Question

[swo17]

Since we're doing the decades lists by year now, how would people feel if I changed the actual decade polls to be based on the individual year results in the same way that the all-time list is based on the decades results? Namely, after we finish all the individual years from a particular decade, participants could vote from among those films that received at least two top 10 votes during the individual year vote. (For the 1960s, I figure that would leave about 150-200 films eligible.) Going along with recent discussion in the Sight & Sound thread, I think this would make the final list more reflective of all participants' tastes, because instead of "throwing away" many of your votes on orphans that failed to gain traction when they were only competing against films from the same year, every vote now would be going toward a film with enough support from other members to stand a real chance of placing. I know this means we would lose the orphan lists for the decade overall, but you could still refer to the individual year mini-lists for that. Thoughts?

[domino harvey]

I like it, it makes the cumulative decades list demonstrably separate from the individual lists but informed by them versus what must seem awfully familiar otherwise

[therewillbeblus]

I see where you're coming from, but, unsurprisingly, I don't like it for a few reasons. Sometimes I only catch up on films from prior lists later on (this move would really favor those who are rigidly conforming their viewing habits to following these single-year projects, which may indirectly neglect the 45% of voters in the earlier poll that seemed to be looking for a more flexible, less definitive system to organize personal screenings), and there are sure to be cases where a film is released by a major label later in the identified 'decade year' but for an earlier covered 'year' project, suddenly bursting onto people's radars when it's too late (this seems a lot more likely now and particularly for the next decade, as Radiance's obscure releases get exposure, perhaps with most discussion occurring in their dedicated threads vs these ones). Or I might discover a film on my own later that's worth coming back into the single-year thread to champion (I thought that's part of why we keep them active?) in hopes that I can get support for the final list, but that would be muted or pointless with this arrangement. Without saying too much, I know of a member who's currently working on a massive personal project that, if posted in time, will potentially influence people to seek out new films that were not even mentioned on the ballots of already-past individual year lists during this decade, and could potentially draw up enough collective enthusiasm to affect the final list. At least, I know I was planning to prioritize undertaking a bunch of these mystery films before the more comprehensive decade project ends (I've even deliberately held off on writing up a few myself because what's coming is far more persuasive than anything I could come up with)

I realize that all these scenarios are likely to and do occur outside of the annual decades lists, but quarantining any wiggle room down from a year to a month just doesn't make the decade lists very dynamic, removes some opportunities for reflection in the final annual review, and kinda assumes people are gonna be locked into each year consistently as we go, or at least favors those interested in imposing such order. I realize a lot of people here are enjoying and feeling motivated by the fixed structure of these lists, and that's great, but this idea of imposing more rules on the ultimate project extrapolates a system I already find overwhelmingly busy and unfortunately inelastic into the broader decades lists themselves, and the notion of that honestly threatens to suck the fun out of the whole thing for me

[DarkImbecile]

To steal your structure: I guess I see where twbb is coming from, but these lists are all arbitrary end points and cutoffs anyway, and I do find the idea of a decade list with a different dynamic than the yearly lists appealing. Perhaps starting swo’s suggested system in 2023 would be a good compromise, in case people had alternative plans under the existing rules?

For the 1970s, I would hope it would encourage more enthusiastic advocacy during the yearly lists for obscure or oddball choices to make sure they get that second high vote to make them eligible. I also often catch up with films after their designated year, but it’d be useful to have a concrete list of eligible titles to focus on to try to get the highest coverage rate for the decade. And if I catch a gem from 1972 in November, there’s always 2037 (or whatever)!

[senseabove]

I realize a lot of people here are enjoying and feeling motivated by the fixed structure of these lists, and that's great, but this idea of imposing more rules on the ultimate project extrapolates a system I already find overwhelmingly busy and unfortunately inelastic into the broader decades lists themselves, and the notion of that honestly threatens to suck the fun out of the whole thing for me

Just to throw my 2¢ in, this sums up why I have pretty well stopped participating in these lists since the switch to the month-per-year model. It was a fun one-off idea that I supported initially. But picking a list-qualifying movie to watch went from "I'm in the mood for something [pick an adjective]. What can I pull from the [decade] keyvip?" to math-lady-meme.gif choice paralysis.

[DarkImbecile]

Interesting — I’ve had the opposite experience, where trying to narrow down ten years’ worth of options into a single evening’s choice is paralyzing, but to have only maybe dozen options for a particular genre/style/region to choose from is very helpful in committing

[knives]

I like swo’s idea and would support it at least through conversation.

[therewillbeblus]

It’s weird how different people are paralyzed by different things. I see where DI is coming from, but if I’m honest with myself, imposing additional structure isn’t going to make me organize myself harder to watch x film and champion it within y window with heightened “enthusiastic advocacy” - it’s going to have the opposite effect. For a place of leisure, thinking about achieving motivation through increased constraints to mechanically hyper-organize myself during these identified periods to ensure people see these films feels exhausting to even think about.

I wasn’t alive in the era when movies came through a town for a few weeks and then were swept up to move onto the next one in a You Snooze You Lose modality, but this feels a bit like that dated system, even if I understand the logic behind the change is sourced in something more productive and unrelated to the caveats I’m identifying.

To circle back, I guess my question becomes- if people are motivated or paralyzed by structure differently, and we already have a pretty inelastic structure in place that favors those who enjoy the rigidity, what’s the benefit for those people enjoying the current system to have this additional rule imposed? And does it outweigh the overwhelming experience for those who feel the opposite? If it makes tallying a lot easier for you swo, I think that’s the answer- you’re doing the hard work and I support less annoying work for you above all else. But I guess I don’t see any real expository benefit in limiting the window of exposure to new-to-[member]-films discovered in a twelfth the time, and I feel like exposing and exploring movies with more breathing room is helpful. (Real talk, are 55% of you Type A?)

[swo17]

TWBB, how does this sound? The starting list of eligible titles would be everything that placed on at least two top 10s during the individual year lists, but if any two members request in the thread that any other films should be eligible, I will make them eligible. That could cover any well-loved late discoveries.

The other thing is that I can allow (but not require) participants to submit revisions to their lists to maximize the power of their vote. In other words, if you submit a top 50 but 10 of those films end up with no other support, I can throw those votes out and let you add 10 more films from among the ones that have received enough support. That way even if most of your personal favorites don't make the list, you would still have a say in which other films place the highest. This multi-round back-and-forth would be optional though, if it sounds like too much work to anyone

[domino harvey]

It is much easier to winnow down what to watch if you are limited in your options. I saw a vast majority of the All Time List eligible titles, and I would never have even bothered with the hundreds I saw for the first time if there weren't a set selection to work with. This is the opposite of dated, and the method you like so much is how the individual yearly lists will still operate

I don't like the "Make a film eligible by asking for it" rule. It defeats the purpose of the method

[DarkImbecile]

It is much easier to winnow down what to watch if you are limited in your options. I saw a vast majority of the All Time List eligible titles, and I would never have even bothered with the hundreds I saw for the first time if there weren't a set selection to work with. This is the opposite of dated, and the method you like so much is how the individual yearly lists will still operate

I don't like the "Make a film eligible by asking for it" rule. It defeats the purpose of the method

Agreed on both counts

[knives]

Thirded

[swo17]

Well there could be different people participating at the end of the decade, or there is the possibility of a film becoming much more available after we've already covered its year. The whole point of limiting eligibility is minimizing wasted votes, but if there are legitimately 2 or 3 people that want to be able to include a film on their list then they wouldn't be wasted. Maybe if the threshold were upped to 3 people committing to vote for a film? I'm open to whatever, just trying to be flexible and accommodate the most people that would want to participate

[domino harvey]

It's your show, but I still say no

[therewillbeblus]

Ultimately this appears to come down to what is easier for different people based on how people like to or feel comfortable engaging in more organized structure for their viewings, so of course people will agree who find x helpful and those will agree who don’t.. I don’t think there’s any swaying that will occur here, or consensus to be reached. It boils down to how our brains/anxieties/motivators work. I find more space helpful within a larger window that’s already structured and don’t see why it needs to be structured further, but if you don’t, that’s fine. The question remains: what additional benefit do those who do favor this gain by this addition achieve in contrast to its overwhelming/potentially ostracizing nature to those who don’t. If those benefits outweigh the identified problems from other points of views, that’s fine and reasonable, but this overall conversation doesn’t really seem to be inclusively considering the opposition. I appreciate the flexibility, swo. Your willingness to experiment with different ideas to apply flexibility towards a win-win situation is appreciated. But I’m not going to die on this hill- I’ve already spoken enough about my feelings but I doubt I have more to say, especially when a lot of these responses read a bit like well my brain doesn’t work that way so let’s just do this- of which I’m just as guilty. But I don’t know what to do with that except advocate again for how mine does work, and this kind of inherently dissonant back and forth doesn’t seem primed for fruitful discussion. It’s nobody’s fault, it’s just how it is. I’ll probably participate either way.

Maybe it would be easier to run another voting poll like last time. Chances are those in favor of another change will win out anyways if they still make up the majority of the voting pool

[senseabove]

It is much easier to winnow down what to watch if you are limited in your options.

If, out of all movies made in a given decade, I have 120 movies on a watch list and 10-12 months for some portion of them to align with available time, commitment level, and mood, yes. If I have 10 movies from a given year and 1 month for some of them to align, no. But as twbb says... that's just how my brain + movie appetite work.

[swo17]

The question remains: what additional benefit do those who do favor this gain by this addition achieve in contrast to its overwhelming/potentially ostracizing nature to those who don’t.

I touched on this earlier in terms of the Sight & Sound poll results, but here's the question: Did those 1600ish contributors collectively name Jeanne Dielman the best film of all time, or was it just a couple hundred of them, which was more than for any other film? That's certainly one measure of greatness, but there's no place in those results to register all the people who don't think it belongs at the top of a list. We've done the lists project a certain way several times now, and I'm interested to see how an alternative approach like this would pan out, with everyone having more of a say on the final rankings. There are certain films we all love and hope others will finally give their due, but at a certain point we have to just accept that now is not that film's time. Making 2 top 10s for an individual year is a pretty low bar if you think about it. There is not room for half of those films on a top 50. If you couldn't get even that much support for it during an individual year then that pick would almost certainly wind up an orphan. And if you voted for it during an individual year list, it already was one, you already got to champion it, etc.

In theory, I could run multiple rounds, taking unrestricted lists to start, and then eliminating the orphans each time to achieve the effect I've described above, where the top rated films reflect the consensus love or hate of most contributors instead of just the love of half of them or less. My thought is that starting with a list of eligible titles would basically just skip straight to the second round of this process. Also bear in mind that this final tabulation for the decade is an end cap to the discovery period of the individual year lists which take up most of the year. There isn't time to do much exploring of films that don't have strong support from other contributors.

Above all, I do want this to be fun and inclusive, which is why I'm open to having some kind of backdoor eligibility provision, when in theory I would side more with those favoring the cleaner approach I initially outlined. I do think that setting the bar at even just 2 or 3 commitments to list would not allow that many more films to become eligible. And then if those perform poorly as expected, that contributor would be able to revise their list anyway to pick things with more of a shot. Maybe not everyone would want to go through multiple rounds of voting, but those that do would have an opportunity to, and the final results would presumably reflect their greater efforts.

Finally, it should perhaps go without saying that everyone is allowed to watch and/or write about any film whenever they want, regardless of where we're at in the lists project. The main advantage of keeping up with our schedule is that it may give you a more receptive audience

[therewillbeblus]

You've been running these lists for a while, and continue to put a lot of effort into them. With the (for me, pretty significant) loss of the auteur and genre list projects, the last thing I want is for you to lose enthusiasm for what's left. I'm not a list-runner, I don't bear that responsibility nor do I have the experience or passion for concocting lists by exploring optimal metrics, so I support your experimentation. Personally I don't like the idea of whittling down the window of opportunity any further than it's currently at, because in general, as I've been vocal about, the dynamic nature of this forum, returning to old favorites, changing opinions, discovering new films or familiar films in new ways and forming new readings and arguments, etc. is something I love and do best exploring more liberally with a less concentrated space to do so. I also respect that a lot of the active voices in favor of the change have Been There, Done That during past iterations when I was either inactive or not a member yet. Maybe I'd look for something New if I was in that position too. So please, do what you feel is right. I really appreciate your efforts and engagement in this part of the forum, far more than I care about getting my way

[dustybooks]

I like the idea being floated in the initial post; I also like the idea of an additional eligibility option but that’s possibly a selfish position because I missed 1960.

The year-by-year lists have been a godsend in helping me get a handle on an overwhelming number of films I’d long needed to see. Allowing the decade list to be a sort of victory lap for that in the same manner as the all-time list we did sounds interesting/fun to me. As long as the individual years’ orphan lists are still available — because I really enjoy looking over those — I’m very keen on the idea.

[senseabove]

If we’re proposing modifications to make lists that aren’t just the canon redux and make swo’s life more complicated, I’d like to (only half-facetiously) propose: the antagonist list. Each user who submits a full list of 50 gets to submit a list of up to ten films that detract points from each film, corresponding to the points given for positive votes in those slots. In other words, I like 2001 but it won’t be in my decade list because there are well over 50 movies I’d happily watch again before it even if I have 0 delusions that Don’t Make Waves is a “better” movie, it does not need my help, and I’d happily take it down a peg or five to see something more interesting the top spot if I could.

[swo17]

I feel like the approach I've outlined accomplishes something similar. Let's say 2001 is at the top of the list and you wanted to vote it down. Assigning it negative points would have the same effect as assigning positive points to every film #2-#51 beneath it. And it would do this under the guise of proposing better alternatives as opposed to being negative

[senseabove]

Sure, but I like orphan lists on a decade scale–choosing to throw your vote behind and arguing for an orphan as one of 50 in a decade says “don’t care,I really do think this movie is worth your time,” while voting for it as one of 20 in a year is just as likely (for those of us who have seen less than dom) “well, I’ve got the room”–and I’d rather have decade lists with more interesting top 5s AND see what weird movies folks are really passionate about.

[swo17]

I could also compile a list for informational purposes (and present it with the final results) that's every orphan that received a top 5 placement during the individual year lists. Theoretically an orphan list done the old way would look very similar, if it's the same people voting throughout

[therewillbeblus]

Sure, but I like orphan lists on a decade scale–choosing to throw your vote behind and arguing for an orphan as one of 50 in a decade says “don’t care,I really do think this movie is worth your time,” while voting for it as one of 20 in a year is just as likely (for those of us who have seen less than dom) “well, I’ve got the room”–and I’d rather have decade lists with more interesting top 5s AND see what weird movies folks are really passionate about.

I agree with you, and while swo's solution may be practical with a blueprint of data to comb through etc., it's in those posted lists of highlighted orphans in their barest form, from people I find common tastes with, that I go to seek out and prioritize unknown-to-me films. I've discovered so many gems that way, and I wouldn't consult a master list and do the cross-checking legwork to draw links get those rewards. Again, just feels too busy and overwhelming and not personalized or fun. I get it, but I want to go look at specifically senseabove's posted decade list, for example, to see what other films might be like his tastes a la Don’t Make Waves or whatever draws me to his tastes that day. I want to see someone shamelessly place some obscure movie as their #2 in front of a bunch of All-Timers and immediately reserve it at my lib. And so on and so forth. That's way more exciting

[ballmouse]

I suppose this comes down to the purpose of the forum's 1960s list, in which case even the point system, its aggregation, and maybe some other processes come under discussion. I'm no statistician or pollster, but I suspect there are different ways to illustrate aggregate responses for something like this, each showing something different.

The current system allows for 50 responses per person, with each response given a different point value to be aggregated with all other respondents. Given the wide range of responses, we unlikely understand how each respondent feels about all the response choice possibilities, but instead we understand the 50 the respondent wants to tell us about.

Also, given the point system forces a point value for each response (instead of allowing the respondent to give point values - eg top 50 all weighted equally or tiers where films within the same tier are all weighted the same, etc.), this may or may not distort some point values given they may not precisely reflect the value given to each response.

This is the current design, but maybe it doesn't reflect what we want to show. Maybe we do want to get more nuanced and adjust films that have a very polarized value (let's say something like 2001) by having folks give value to all choices. Or maybe we want respondents to more precisely value their responses, because maybe the #1 film in the response is the same value as the #5 (or #30 vs #50), or at least not differentiated by as much as the current systems says it is.

And then there's even aggregation. Maybe outliers are ignored because they are not representative. Or maybe not because...we want some leftfield responses in the poll, even if only a few feel that strongly about them.

Long story short: if we're looking to adjust the results of the poll, then there are other things we could consider in the process as well. Although maybe I'm thinking too much about it.