criterionforum.org

Dropdowns are also easier if you already composed your list in advance, whereas Drag and Drop is better for “Oh yeah” compiling. But again, I think that still makes Dropdowns superior, as we are all already used to compiling an actual individual list

Yep. And actually, since the output files are identical, I could even present both options, let people use their preferred ballot format, and then combine the output files at the end. But if the preference is near unanimous it might not be worth bothering.

One problem with the dropdown option is that it's possible to submit a ballot where you forget to vote for every rank. For example, while it won't let you vote for more than one film as #5, it will let you vote for #1-4 and #6-20 but no #5. I can only put one constraint on it and the one I've chosen is "must include at least 10 titles." That issue goes away with drag & drop.

To be fair, the same problem sometimes occurs on manual submitted lists, as I’m sure you’ve seen as well

Hahaha don't remind me. I am curious though what you'd think of drag & drop on a desktop, domino. Before I posted anything, I was actually expecting that to be the favorite, with the "having to drag a title from the bottom of the list up a ways" thing being only a minor inconvenience. (I agree that it's harder to do on mobile.)

swo17 wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 10:28 pm One problem with the dropdown option is that it's possible to submit a ballot where you forget to vote for every rank. For example, while it won't let you vote for more than one film as #5, it will let you vote for #1-4 and #6-20 but no #5.

I went into it expecting that to be more of an issue, but the way they keep the unused ranks highlighted and grey out those you’ve already used makes that less likely, I think

Swo, does this drop-down system make it easier to aggregate the final results for you, or just show how many films got how many votes after which you assign numbers?

I'm wondering if this could work for larger list projects, and make them less formidable for tabulators- Hypothetically, if someone volunteered to lead a Musicals Redux project, and cited a list of eligible musicals in a master list, then could people choose from that long list come deadline for submissions? (The 'vote for it' rule could still remain in effect as long as someone reached out publicly or privately to argue for a film's inclusion, which might actually spark more interesting discussion/bring awareness to the film as a unique example and/or allow opportunities for those more well-versed in Musicals to bring in academic criteria i.e. Altman to the table, simply by the nature of that red-tape need to mention it) I realize that might take a lot of front-heavy work vs. in the back (if this system does indeed lighten the load there), but it's a lot easier for people to know if they can carve out time in the immediate future than six/nine/twelve months down the line- again (*if* volunteers could still be considered to lead said passionate list projects at some point in time, which was something openly posed recently post-Fassbinder)

Yes, I can just add a few simple formulas in the end to get points and then sort to put the list in order

Awesome, glad to hear it!

It would normally take me maybe half an hour to manually enter an individual list of 50, so 21 lists of 10-25 each (the average one having about 20) might have taken around 3-4 hours? This took me just a minute to format the data so I could dump it into my usual spreadsheet (all I did was a transpose function and then find/replace to turn all the zeros to blank cells) and then the results just fell right out. So yeah, this could be a huge time saver to anyone else running a list project in the future

Are the full decade lists dead? Or is it still undecided?

dustybooks wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 3:46 pm Are the full decade lists dead? Or is it still undecided?

They come in at the end after the yearly lists are done (so next year, the full 70s list will be held at the end of the year)

Makes sense, thank you!

Here's my thought about how this will all work:

2022: We are still technically in Round 2 of the 1960s project, so even if you aren't participating in the individual year voting, you can still treat the recommendations made for each year as though they were being made in the 1960s thread. There's a month for each individual year with 1969 ending at the end of December. December 31 will also be the last day to submit a ballot for Round 2 of the 1960s project. If you already submitted a list and don't want to change it, it will count as is. If you want to make revisions based on a year of further viewings, you are welcome to submit a revised list. If you didn't submit a 1960s list during Round 1 but wish to do so during Round 2, I will count any new lists as well. Results for both 1969 and the 1960s in total will be published early January 2023.

Note: I have mentioned elsewhere that given how I am assigning films to years, there are a few that were considered 1970s during Round 1 that I am now calling 1969 releases (Adelheid, Case for a Rookie Hangman, Days and Nights in the Forest, The Honeymoon Killers, Il rosso segno della follia [Hatchet for the Honeymoon]). I am inclined to say that if anyone wants to vote for any of these films, they have plenty opportunity to revise their 1960s lists during Round 2, which would put all of these films on equal footing with any other film from the decade. (In contrast, there are films like Letter Never Sent that I might have otherwise assigned to 1959, but I didn't want to make anything ineligible now that was eligible during Round 1, so I've left them as 1960s films.) If anyone objects to this approach, please let me know.

2023: At the start of the year I will open both a 1970s decade thread and a 1970 mini-list thread. I imagine most of the discussion throughout the year will occur in the mini-lists, but the option will be there if anyone wants to jump ahead. The end of October will be both the end of the 1979 mini-list and the 1970s Round 1 deadline. There will then be a 2-month orphan rescue round and a December 31 deadline to submit list revisions.

2024 and beyond: Same as 2023 but for each successive decade

I would normally start the 1964 poll and 1965 thread tomorrow, but I'm leaving town today with unknown internet access so may not get to this until next weekend.

But don't worry, SNAPSЖOT is all set to update in my absence!

I appreciate your implicit recommendation for people to get a head start on 1965 with Pierrot le fou as you hit the road with unknown variables ahead

I hear the concerns about flexibility with the year-by-year schedule. For the 1970s, what if I ran things about the same as the 1960s, with the sole exception being that I wait to publish all of the mini-list results together, toward the end? (And then this would be followed by a 2-month endcap devoted to the entire decade.) If you're up for it, you could follow a more structured viewing schedule and still submit a vote each month. But if that's too rigid for you, you could go at your own pace, submit ballots as you're ready, and also revise them throughout the year as you make new discoveries. Would this help? Or do the people that find the monthly schedule too rigid not really have an interest in submitting lists for each year?

For myself, I expect I'll just let y'all go on your merry way with the year lists and post in the general 70s thread when that gets rolling. The break from list-watching while y'all reduxed the 60s was nice, but I'm looking forward to a little light constraint again.

If annual lists were all compiled at the end, I'd be more likely to make them, but really it's a granularity that I just don't find particularly interesting or compelling. What I dislike about the initial controlled list proposal is feeling sorta strong-armed into compiling an extra ten lists in order to participate, whether they're tallied at the start or the end. So if we don't have a controlled list for the decade tally and most folks who do enjoy the yearly lists constraint want them done each month, I have no dog in that fight. If we do end up with the control list for the final decade poll, then I would definitely request that we at least have an orphan rescue month, so those of us who aren't doing the monthly/yearly lists can throw one together and save or petition to save any beloved orphans, but I expect that, for me, that'd just be me, e.g., submitting a 1966 list with "All My Life" and a few others I love and horse-trading the other slots to make mine and others' orphans eligible.

And anyway, I'd still just prefer the full decade list be wide open.

This is a separate point but just to throw it out there: what if the lists were scored from 100-51 instead of 50-1 so the weight division is less extreme and the bottom half of a list has a little more impact?

That would be mathematically equivalent to the current scoring system plus an extra 50 points for every vote received. I believe this would tend to favor broadly popular films with less passionate support.

senseabove wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 11:18 pm And anyway, I'd still just prefer the full decade list be wide open.

I know no one's posted in it for 8 months, but it is open!

(I meant I'd prefer the vote for any given decade poll be wide open, rather than using a controlled list.)

Based on the poll now, you prob won’t have to worry about it

Would anyone be interested in doing a list on experimental/avant-garde shorts, with maybe a 4-6 month lead time for recommendations and discussion?

I'd do it!

Absolutely, flood the LB feeds

denti alligator wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:26 am Would anyone be interested in doing a list on experimental/avant-garde shorts, with maybe a 4-6 month lead time for recommendations and discussion?

I'd be up for that, though I think we ought to include features as well, since there are generally fewer of them, and there are a lot of cases that would be in an awkward intermediary zone that we'd have to constantly litigate and relitigate. Who wants to be the one to tell swo he can't vote for Zorns Lemma?

I will boldly predict that there will be a lot of people wanting to vote for mainstream and arthouse narrative films and arguing over what is and isn't experimental (predictions: Fight Club, something by Christopher Nolan, Fire Walk with Me, 2001, Jeanne Dielman, selected episodes of Deadwood). Though God knows what guidelines could be drawn up to limit the vote to actual experimental cinema.