RESULTS: Top Ten Most-Goth Movies of All Time
Peter H. Coffin
Vts Title
--- ------------------------------
07 Hunger, The
04 Rocky Horror Picture Show, The
04 Heathers
04 Blade Runner
04 Beetlejuice
03 Throne of Blood
03 Repulsion
03 Nightmare Before Christmas
03 Interview With The Vampire
03 Crow, The
03 City of Lost Children
03 Addams Family, The (1991)
02 Wings Of Desire
02 Wicker Man, The
02 Velvet Goldmine
02 Spirited Away
02 Sleeping Beauty (1959)
02 Princess Bride, The
02 Name Of The Rose, The
02 Masque of the Red Death
02 Legend
02 Lair of the White Worm
02 Harold and Maude
02 Edward Scissorhands
02 Donnie Darko
02 Dark Crystal, The
02 Dangerous Liaisons
02 Cyrano de Bergerac (1990)
02 Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
02 Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The
02 Batman (1989)
02 Addams Family Values, The
01 X--The Man with the X-Ray Eyes
01 Wuthering Heights (1939)
01 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
01 West Side Story
01 Videodrome
01 Vampyr
01 Underworld
01 Undead, The
01 Trouble Every Day
01 Thirteenth Warrior, The
01 Tattoo
01 Summer of Sam
01 Straight Story
01 Srendi Vashtar (2003)
01 Split Second
01 Spartacus
01 Sleepy Hollow
01 Shining, The
01 Shallow Grave, The
01 Sex Lies and Videotape
01 Seventh Seal, The
01 Searchers, The
01 Se*en
01 Rosemary's Baby
01 Road to God Knows Where
01 Reanimator
01 Razor Blade Smile
01 Rashômon
01 Queen of the Damned
01 Queen Margot
01 Pillow Book, The
01 Picnic at Hanging Rock
01 Piano, The
01 Pi
01 Persona
01 Party Monsters
01 Others, The
01 Number 17
01 Nosferatu
01 Night of the Hunter, The (1955)
01 Night of the Demon
01 Night Porter, The
01 Neco z Alenky
01 Near Dark
01 Nausicaa
01 Naked
01 My First Mister
01 Moulin Rouge
01 Morocco
01 Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
01 Metropolis (1927)
01 Mayor of Sunset Strip
01 May
01 Matrix, The
01 Mary Poppins
01 Martin
01 Manhunter
01 Maltese Falcon, The
01 Macross Plus
01 Lost City, The
01 Lost Boys, The
01 Litanies of Satan, The
01 Liquid Sky
01 Leon/The Professional
01 Labyrinth
01 Kissed
01 King Kong (1933)
01 Kind Hears and Coronets
01 Jetée, La
01 James and the Giant Peach
01 In My Skin (Dans ma peau)
01 Ilsa: She-wolf of the SS
01 Horror Hotel
01 Highlander
01 Heavenly Creatures
01 Haunting, The
01 Haunted Honeymoon
01 Hamlet
01 Gypsy 83
01 Grave of the Fireflies
01 Gothic
01 Golddiggers of 1935, The
01 Girls Will Be Girls
01 Ghost World
01 Flesh & Blood
01 Femme Nikita, La
01 Fantasia (1940)
01 Exotica
01 Exorcist, The
01 English Patient, The
01 Ed Wood
01 Dracula Has Risen From the Grave
01 Dracula 2000
01 Dracula (1958)
01 Doom Generation
01 Don't Let Me Die on a Sunday (J'aimerais pas crever un dimanche)
01 Dogs in Space
01 Doctor Strangelove
01 Devils, The
01 Design for Living
01 Death Takes a Holiday
01 Dead Zone, The
01 Dead Man
01 Dawn of the Dead (1978)
01 Dark City
01 Cyclo
01 Craft, The
01 Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover, The
01 Company of Wolves, The
01 Cemetary Man
01 Cat People
01 Cat And The Canary, The
01 Carrie
01 Carnival of Souls
01 Caberet
01 Burning Dreams
01 Buffy the Vampire Slayer
01 Brotherhood of the Wolf
01 Brimstone and Treacle
01 Brazil
01 Brahm Stoker's Dracula
01 Blaue Engel, Der
01 Blacula
01 Black Sunday
01 Believeres, The
01 Being There
01 Beauty and the Beast, The (1946)
01 Batman Returns
01 Batman (1966)
01 Barcelona
01 Bambi
01 Apocalypse Now
01 American Beauty
01 Amadeus
01 All About Eve
01 Alien
01 Addams Family, The (1964)
In alpha with counts:
01 Addams Family, The (1964)
03 Addams Family, The (1991)
02 Addams Family Values, The
01 Alien
01 All About Eve
01 Amadeus
01 American Beauty
01 Apocalypse Now
01 Bambi
01 Barcelona
01 Batman (1966)
02 Batman (1989)
01 Batman Returns
01 Beauty and the Beast, The (1946)
04 Beetlejuice
01 Being There
01 Believeres, The
01 Black Sunday
01 Blacula
04 Blade Runner
01 Blaue Engel, Der
01 Brahm Stoker's Dracula
01 Brazil
01 Brimstone and Treacle
01 Brotherhood of the Wolf
01 Buffy the Vampire Slayer
01 Burning Dreams
01 Caberet
02 Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The
01 Carnival of Souls
01 Carrie
01 Cat And The Canary, The
01 Cat People
01 Cemetary Man
03 City of Lost Children
01 Company of Wolves, The
01 Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover, The
01 Craft, The
02 Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
03 Crow, The
01 Cyclo
02 Cyrano de Bergerac (1990)
02 Dangerous Liaisons
01 Dark City
02 Dark Crystal, The
01 Dawn of the Dead (1978)
01 Dead Man
01 Dead Zone, The
01 Death Takes a Holiday
01 Design for Living
01 Devils, The
01 Doctor Strangelove
01 Dogs in Space
02 Donnie Darko
01 Don't Let Me Die on a Sunday (J'aimerais pas crever un dimanche)
01 Doom Generation
01 Dracula (1958)
01 Dracula 2000
01 Dracula Has Risen From the Grave
01 Ed Wood
02 Edward Scissorhands
01 English Patient, The
01 Exorcist, The
01 Exotica
01 Fantasia (1940)
01 Femme Nikita, La
01 Flesh & Blood
01 Ghost World
01 Girls Will Be Girls
01 Golddiggers of 1935, The
01 Gothic
01 Grave of the Fireflies
01 Gypsy 83
01 Hamlet
02 Harold and Maude
01 Haunting, The
01 Haunted Honeymoon
04 Heathers
01 Heavenly Creatures
01 Highlander
01 Horror Hotel
07 Hunger, The
01 Ilsa: She-wolf of the SS
01 In My Skin (Dans ma peau)
03 Interview With The Vampire
01 James and the Giant Peach
01 Jetée, La
01 Kissed
01 Kind Hears and Coronets
01 King Kong (1933)
01 Labyrinth
02 Lair of the White Worm
02 Legend
01 Leon/The Professional
01 Liquid Sky
01 Litanies of Satan, The
01 Lost Boys, The
01 Lost City, The
01 Macross Plus
01 Maltese Falcon, The
01 Manhunter
01 Martin
01 Mary Poppins
02 Masque of the Red Death
01 Matrix, The
01 May
01 Mayor of Sunset Strip
01 Metropolis (1927)
01 Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
01 Morocco
01 Moulin Rouge
01 My First Mister
01 Naked
02 Name Of The Rose, The
01 Nausicaa
01 Near Dark
01 Neco z Alenky
01 Night of the Demon
01 Night of the Hunter, The (1955)
01 Night Porter, The
03 Nightmare Before Christmas
01 Nosferatu
01 Number 17
01 Others, The
01 Party Monsters
01 Persona
01 Pi
01 Piano, The
01 Picnic at Hanging Rock
01 Pillow Book, The
02 Princess Bride, The
01 Queen Margot
01 Queen of the Damned
01 Rashômon
01 Razor Blade Smile
01 Reanimator
03 Repulsion
01 Road to God Knows Where
04 Rocky Horror Picture Show, The
01 Rosemary's Baby
01 Searchers, The
01 Se*en
01 Seventh Seal, The
01 Sex Lies and Videotape
01 Shallow Grave, The
01 Shining, The
02 Sleeping Beauty (1959)
01 Sleepy Hollow
01 Spartacus
02 Spirited Away
01 Split Second
01 Srendi Vashtar (2003)
01 Straight Story
01 Summer of Sam
01 Tattoo
01 Thirteenth Warrior, The
03 Throne of Blood
01 Trouble Every Day
01 Undead, The
01 Underworld
01 Vampyr
02 Velvet Goldmine
01 Videodrome
01 West Side Story
02 Wicker Man, The
01 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
02 Wings Of Desire
01 Wuthering Heights (1939)
01 X--The Man with the X-Ray Eyes
--
43. I will maintain a healthy amount of skepticism when I capture the beautiful
rebel and she claims she is attracted to my power and good looks and will
gladly betray her companions if I just let her in on my plans.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Tom..
Tom
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrncjicpu....@othin.ninehells.com...
Joe Brenner From:
>"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>> The Top Ten
>>
>> Vts Title
>> --- ------------------------------
>> 07 Hunger, The
>> 04 Rocky Horror Picture Show, The
>> 04 Heathers
>> 04 Blade Runner
>> 04 Beetlejuice
>> 03 Throne of Blood
>> 03 Repulsion
>> 03 Nightmare Before Christmas
>> 03 Interview With The Vampire
>> 03 Crow, The
> So The Crow made it into the top 10. *is happy*
Well, personally, I'm happy that "The Crow" wasn't the
number one vote getter (I was woried for a little while
there), but I don't think you're reading the data right.
The Crow has a score of 3 "votes", which means it's tied
with 7 films, two of which you've arbitrarily dropped in
your zeal to get a top 10. Going by the given data, you
could call these the top 12:
07 Hunger, The
04 Rocky Horror Picture Show, The
04 Heathers
04 Blade Runner
04 Beetlejuice
03 Throne of Blood
03 Repulsion
03 Nightmare Before Christmas
03 Interview With The Vampire
03 Crow, The
03 City of Lost Children
03 Addams Family, The (1991)
But really, I think you're missing the point here... the
entire list Peter posted is the "Top Ten".
But actually, you need to let everyone complain about
miscounts, proceedural problems, parlimentary points of
order as established by the Convergence Tribunal of 1994
and so on.
Just to get things started, I hereby assert that the Tiny
Human Ferret confused the issue with his original posting,
and people had trouble getting it through their heads that
they were really *voting*. There's a tendency in
discussions like this to (a) try and come up with
recommendations for stuff that people might not have heard
of before, (b) to avoid doing inane "me too" posts, and this
is what's responsible for the wide but shallow range of the
vote totals.
Really, it would make more sense to use this list as a list
of nominations, and then ask everyone to tick the ones they
agree with.
But this would make pretty boring reading. Getting everyone
to mail it direct to a volunteer vote totaller would have
loads of proceedural problems in itself.
Really, discussion groups are bad mediums for conducting a
vote. Web sites might be marginally better, but given the
broken state of the art of web design, I don't know that I'd
seriously suggest we go that route.
(Could've sworn I voted for "Liquid Sky", too... then it
should have 3 votes on this list. Eh, maybe I forgot.)
Tom..
"Joe Brenner From:" <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:chccgj$97$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> "Tom.." <kori...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>
>>> The Top Ten
>>>
>>> Vts Title
>>> --- ------------------------------
>>> 07 Hunger, The
>>> 04 Rocky Horror Picture Show, The
>>> 04 Heathers
>>> 04 Blade Runner
>>> 04 Beetlejuice
>>> 03 Throne of Blood
>>> 03 Repulsion
>>> 03 Nightmare Before Christmas
>>> 03 Interview With The Vampire
>>> 03 Crow, The
>
>> So The Crow made it into the top 10. *is happy*
>
> Well, personally, I'm happy that "The Crow" wasn't the
> number one vote getter (I was woried for a little while
> there), but I don't think you're reading the data right.
Oh well, stereotyped or not, I do like it.
> The Crow has a score of 3 "votes", which means it's tied
> with 7 films, two of which you've arbitrarily dropped in
> your zeal to get a top 10. Going by the given data, you
> could call these the top 12:
But it's the 10th one on the list. I know it's missing the point, but I'm
just glad one of the movies I voted for is near the top (top 10, top 12,
whatever)
... ... I'm not in a mood to read through your entire post and make witty
retorts, so I'll just say "You're right." and leave it at that.
Tom *coughthecrowrockscough* =P
kest
>
> Really, it would make more sense to use this list as a list
> of nominations, and then ask everyone to tick the ones they
> agree with.
>
> But this would make pretty boring reading. Getting everyone
> to mail it direct to a volunteer vote totaller would have
> loads of proceedural problems in itself.
>
> Really, discussion groups are bad mediums for conducting a
> vote. Web sites might be marginally better, but given the
> broken state of the art of web design, I don't know that I'd
> seriously suggest we go that route.
>
>
LJ poll!!!
k, causing trouble
Ivan Groznii
Regards, Ivan
--
Gothic. Freaky. Conservative.
Joe Brenner From:
>"Joe Brenner From:" <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> "Tom.." <kori...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> So The Crow made it into the top 10. *is happy*
>>
>> Well, personally, I'm happy that "The Crow" wasn't the
>> number one vote getter (I was woried for a little while
>> there), but I don't think you're reading the data right.
>Oh well, stereotyped or not, I do like it.
It doesn't bother me that you like it -- I like some far
sillier movies -- though personally I've got problems with
the 90s idea that automatic weapons fire is the ultimate in
cinema (it's much like the 70s concept of car chases).
I do think that the goth content is kind of marginal though.
Nice outfit. Watching Detroit burning on Hell Night (or whatever)
was okay. Would've probably been way more goth if they
hadn't taken it away from John Shirley mid-way through.
>... ... I'm not in a mood to read through your entire post and make witty
>retorts, so I'll just say "You're right." and leave it at that.
Diplomacy, yet. Is diplomacy allowed in here?
Peter H. Coffin
> But really, I think you're missing the point here... the
> entire list Peter posted is the "Top Ten".
Well, actually, I just forgot to remove that after noticing that "top
10" didn't come out even with the tying vote-getters...
> But actually, you need to let everyone complain about
> miscounts, proceedural problems, parlimentary points of
> order as established by the Convergence Tribunal of 1994
> and so on.
I've still got the raw collection. Someone wants a recount, they can do
it.
> Just to get things started, I hereby assert that the Tiny
> Human Ferret confused the issue with his original posting,
> and people had trouble getting it through their heads that
> they were really *voting*. There's a tendency in
> discussions like this to (a) try and come up with
> recommendations for stuff that people might not have heard
> of before, (b) to avoid doing inane "me too" posts, and this
> is what's responsible for the wide but shallow range of the
> vote totals.
That's okay. We ended up with a fairly limited cluster at the top (the
12 with 3 or more votes) and a whole bunch of others. Even though there
was some confusion as to the goals, it was hopefully made clear enough
that anyone that wanted to add to their list was welcome to. Certainly
people didn't seem to feel bound to listing ten, no more, no less.
[..]
> (Could've sworn I voted for "Liquid Sky", too... then it
> should have 3 votes on this list. Eh, maybe I forgot.)
You did. Perhaps two others discussed it, but I've got only one list
entry recorded for it, and it's yours.
--
63. Bulk trash will be disposed of in incinerators, not compactors. And they
will be kept hot, with none of that nonsense about flames going through
accessible tunnels at predictable intervals.
Peter H. Coffin
> Joe Brenner From: <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> scrawled:
>> vote. Web sites might be marginally better, but given the
>> broken state of the art of web design, I don't know that I'd
>> seriously suggest we go that route.
>
> LJ poll!!!
>
> k, causing trouble
At least that works with My Favorite Browser... But your journal,
please, not mine.
--
Graham's First Rule of Internet Retailing:
If your 'shopping cart' site requires anything more complex than
HTML, SSL and a session cookie, at least one of your competitors
will run a site which does not. Your competitor will get the sale.
Tom..
"Joe Brenner From:" <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:chd9pt$fvk$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> "Tom.." <kori...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>"Joe Brenner From:" <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>> "Tom.." <kori...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> So The Crow made it into the top 10. *is happy*
>>>
>>> Well, personally, I'm happy that "The Crow" wasn't the
>>> number one vote getter (I was woried for a little while
>>> there), but I don't think you're reading the data right.
>
>>Oh well, stereotyped or not, I do like it.
>
> It doesn't bother me that you like it -- I like some far
> sillier movies -- though personally I've got problems with
> the 90s idea that automatic weapons fire is the ultimate in
Would you prefer tanks? *thinks* That wouldn't be such a bad idea, though
Detroit may be destroyed too quickly. It's far more satisfying to see a city
burn to the ground than to knock it down.
> I do think that the goth content is kind of marginal though.
> Nice outfit. Watching Detroit burning on Hell Night (or whatever)
> was okay. Would've probably been way more goth if they
> hadn't taken it away from John Shirley mid-way through.
>
>>... ... I'm not in a mood to read through your entire post and make witty
>>retorts, so I'll just say "You're right." and leave it at that.
>
> Diplomacy, yet. Is diplomacy allowed in here?
No, but when have I ever observed the rules in here?
Tom
Jennie Kermode
> Just to get things started, I hereby assert that the Tiny
> Human Ferret confused the issue with his original posting,
> and people had trouble getting it through their heads that
> they were really *voting*.
Agreed. I voted for ten films, then other people went on to vote
for dozens, and there were many more I would have liked to add, but making
further lists seemed like bad netiquette.
> Really, it would make more sense to use this list as a list
> of nominations, and then ask everyone to tick the ones they
> agree with.
What I propose is that everyone give each film on the list a rating
between zero and five, with five being the most goth (this being about how
goth the films are, not how good). If one hasn't seen a film, one should mark
it with an 'X', so that the average rating for that film can be calculated
based on the people who have. All this could be done in email, and would be
fairly easy to tally up. I think it would give us a much better idea of which
films are really gothy, as opposed to which films are better known and
therefore liable to be thought of first.
I'm prepared to handle the data for this one if nobody else
volunteers. Peter? Joe? Do people think it's a viable idea?
If we can come up with a list of rated films as a consequence, we
can stick that list on the web (with brief reviews oo descriptions of the
films, if people wish to contribute them), and kest can make reference to it
in her faq.
> Getting everyone to mail it direct to a volunteer vote totaller would have
> loads of proceedural problems in itself.
Granted. So how could we work around those? First of all, there
should be a clear voting period. I think two weeks should be quite adequate.
Everyone who participated in the original thread could be alerted to this via
email, so that they didn't miss out. Another two weeks thereafter would
provide time to tally the results and deal with any problems arising.
Obviously, the vote tallying would need to be done by somebody whom
everyone trusts in this regard. I've done stats for the netscrape before, and
Peter does his weekly posting stats, sop I reckon we're fairly neutral, but I
wouldn't want to take responsibility for this if people felt that was
inappropriate.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
kest
> On 2004-09-04, Joe Brenner From : <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Really, it would make more sense to use this list as a list
>> of nominations, and then ask everyone to tick the ones they
>> agree with.
>
> What I propose is that everyone give each film on the list a
> rating
> between zero and five, with five being the most goth (this being about
> how goth the films are, not how good). If one hasn't seen a film, one
> should mark it with an 'X', so that the average rating for that film
> can be calculated based on the people who have. All this could be done
> in email, and would be fairly easy to tally up. I think it would give
> us a much better idea of which films are really gothy, as opposed to
> which films are better known and therefore liable to be thought of
> first.
<snip>
You know, I understand how some people have Philosophical Objections to
LJ. However, it doesn't eat your brains, I swear to god. And I really
can't see not using already existent technology to do something like
this, when it's so readily available. And we even have our own
community, you know, and we never use it for anything. So there we go,
the poll's up, http://www.livejournal.com/community/alt_gothic/37504.html
Vote, or don't. No skin off my back either way.
*hand|staple|forehead*
k
Tom..
"kest" <ke...@spamfree.nettrip.org> wrote in message
news:Xns955B6E5561A6...@216.196.97.136...
I don't understand why people object to LJ so much. After a while, it's just
another thing to do. I could just as easily use my LJ as much as I use ag,
but this is more fun.
Plus I occasionally get replies here.
Tom
Jennie Kermode
> You know, I understand how some people have Philosophical Objections to
> LJ. However, it doesn't eat your brains, I swear to god.
Of course not. If it did, it would be goth. :p
> can't see not using already existent technology to do something like
> this, when it's so readily available. And we even have our own
> community, you know, and we never use it for anything. So there we go,
> the poll's up, http://www.livejournal.com/community/alt_gothic/37504.html
I have no ethical objections to this, but I can't seem to make it
go. Does one need to have a LiveJournal to use it? When I click 'fill out
poll', it just brings up the answers again. I've tried it on two different
browsers and I'm not sure what's wrong.
H Duffy
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrncjoll3.6i2...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
Yes, you can only fill out LJ polls if you have an LJ account of your own,
and are logged in.
H
MistressDeath
> The Top Ten
>
<snip>
Of course this happens while I'm away and unable to vote for Nosferatu
or Dr. Phibes. I'm sure whoever hacked my google account timed this so
as to disenfranchise me in this critical poll.
Nosferatu should be much, much higher up, as should City of Lost
Children.
--Villagecloud
Jennie Kermode
> "Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrncjoll3.6i2...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
>> go. Does one need to have a LiveJournal to use it? When I click 'fill out
>> poll', it just brings up the answers again. I've tried it on two different
>> browsers and I'm not sure what's wrong.
> Yes, you can only fill out LJ polls if you have an LJ account of your own,
> and are logged in.
Oh, great. That makes it a little difficult for everyone to
participate, then, doesn't it?
Can one person vote twice? If I submitted my responses
seperately, could they be added?
kest
>> Yes, you can only fill out LJ polls if you have an LJ account of your
>> own, and are logged in.
>
> Oh, great. That makes it a little difficult for everyone to
> participate, then, doesn't it?
> Can one person vote twice? If I submitted my responses
> seperately, could they be added?
>
Well, the part of the needing to be logged in is it does more or less
effectively keep it to one vote per person. But I have two journals, and
since I have some sort of responsibility, if you want to give me your
response, I'll add it. (Or you could get an LJ. It's no worse than
registering for a newssite, really, and no one says you have to post in
it. I know, I know, I'm a horrible irredeemable crackdealer. I'll shut
up now.)
k
H Duffy
> On 2004-09-06, H Duffy <Hester_Du...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, you can only fill out LJ polls if you have an LJ account of your
own,
> > and are logged in.
>
> Oh, great. That makes it a little difficult for everyone to
> participate, then, doesn't it?
> Can one person vote twice? If I submitted my responses
> seperately, could they be added?
Nope; if s member fills out the same poll twice under the same username, the
original answers are replaced with the new ones.
You could always get an account if you're keen to enter? They're free, and
you no longer need invite codes.
H
Joe Brenner From:
Peter H. Coffin
Results are public use, and I've got no more claim on them that any of
the participants for all of me, you can release an "Amended Results"
version with your own data included.
--
82. I will not shoot at any of my enemies if they are standing in front of
the crucial support beam to a heavy, dangerous, unbalanced structure.
Jennie Kermode
> Of course this happens while I'm away and unable to vote for Nosferatu
> or Dr. Phibes. I'm sure whoever hacked my google account timed this so
> as to disenfranchise me in this critical poll.
You have a LiveJournal, don't you? In that case, there's still time
for you to join in.
Kara
wrote:
I think voting in a newsgroup should be kept out of LJ. Most of us
don't have one, and I know I am not going to get one just to vote (I
know, they are free, and I'm sure it is really simple to set up, I
just don't want yet another internet account to keep track of.) Since
Jennie was willing to take care of the voting, wouldn't that be
better? I will still stop people from making severeal votes (unless
they have several e-mail sccounts, which would be the same as having
several LJ accounts).
Kara
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so absolutely unbearable
that we have to change it every six months."
-Oscar Wilde
siani
> On 2004-09-06, H Duffy <Hester_Du...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:slrncjoll3.6i2...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> I have no ethical objections to this, but I can't seem to make it
>>>go. Does one need to have a LiveJournal to use it? When I click 'fill out
>>>poll', it just brings up the answers again. I've tried it on two different
>>>browsers and I'm not sure what's wrong.
>
>
>>Yes, you can only fill out LJ polls if you have an LJ account of your own,
>>and are logged in.
>
>
> Oh, great. That makes it a little difficult for everyone to
> participate, then, doesn't it?
> Can one person vote twice? If I submitted my responses
> seperately, could they be added?
nope. and neither can EdwardS and i both vote, even if we are logged in
as ourselves, because we share an IP address.
LJ polls are truly shite.
siani
--
\\||//
- oo -
-|--|- (hedgehog)
siani
i'm in favour of that.
Tom..
"siani" <si...@velvet.net> wrote in message
news:2q6djoF...@uni-berlin.de...
I guess I could be.. but you have an LJ anyway, Siani, so you could vote on
it either way.
Tom
Jennie Kermode
> I think voting in a newsgroup should be kept out of LJ. Most of us
> don't have one, and I know I am not going to get one just to vote (I
> know, they are free, and I'm sure it is really simple to set up, I
> just don't want yet another internet account to keep track of.)
Aye, something like that. I have too many such things to keep track
of for work, as it is. Though I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, one of
these days, some editor insists on contacting me through LiveJournal - they're
always doing stupid things like that, trying to be modern and informal.
> Since Jennie was willing to take care of the voting, wouldn't that be
> better?
Since kest has already started running her LJ poll - and I have, in
fact, mailed her my own entry so that she can add it - what I suggest is that
she continues to collate results there and I collate results by email, and we
fit the two together. kest, does that sound workable to you? LJ alone is
clearly not working for everyone.
> I will still stop people from making severeal votes (unless
> they have several e-mail sccounts, which would be the same as having
> several LJ accounts).
It would actually be easier to monitor, from that point of view, if
it were done solely by email. I'd notice if two sets of answers were almost
the same. Since a few people have more than one LJ account, that seems wide
open to cheating. However, as things are now, we're just going to have to
trust people to be responsible about it. If I see films about Santa Claus
high up the list, I'm going to have to look for somebody to burn.
MistressDeath
> On 2004-09-06, MistressDeath <villag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course this happens while I'm away and unable to vote for Nosferatu
> > or Dr. Phibes. I'm sure whoever hacked my google account timed this so
> > as to disenfranchise me in this critical poll.
>
> You have a LiveJournal, don't you? In that case, there's still time
> for you to join in.
I'll go look around for it. BTW, I wasn't serious about that timing
thing. I sometimes fear my sarcasm is lost in my crankiness.
--VillageCloud
Joe Brenner From:
> Joe Brenner From : <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Really, it would make more sense to use this list as a list
>> of nominations, and then ask everyone to tick the ones they
>> agree with.
> What I propose is that everyone give each film on the list a rating
>between zero and five, with five being the most goth (this being about how
>goth the films are, not how good).
There's a few problems with this, maybe not big ones, and I
don't know how much I care, but there are still problems:
(1) Some people favor large numbers and some don't. So when
you do the stats, you need to scale people's responses,
for example, you might try to normalize them using
the averages each person's votes. Otherwise you
penalize judgement in favor of effusiveness.
(2) "a rating between zero and five", would be 1, 2, 3, or 4,
if restricted to integers. If you meant "inclusive",
then the allowed values would include both 0 and 5.
Myself, I tend to favor a very coarse scale on these kinds
of things. I suspect a simple thumbs-up/thumbs-down makes
more sense than trying to quantify what isn't.
>If one hasn't seen a film, one should mark it with an 'X',
>so that the average rating for that film can be calculated
>based on the people who have.
I like this idea, it helps compensate for the advantage of
big budget movies of the last decade. But it's pretty
unusual, so you really need to pound that into people's heads,
and expect to listen to lots of "but I didn't understand!"
whining later.
Joe Brenner,
From what?
Joe Brenner From:
>Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Joe Brenner From : <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> Really, it would make more sense to use this list as a list
>>> of nominations, and then ask everyone to tick the ones they
>>> agree with.
>> What I propose is that everyone give each film
>>on the list a rating between zero and five, with five
>>being the most goth (this being about how goth the films
>>are, not how good).
Oh, and I forgot this point: you can tell people to rank on
gothicness rather than quality, but that's not really what
they're going to do.
You might get closer to it if you asked them to rank them
both ways, and provide you with two numbers.
(Then you could plot the data for each movie, fit a curve to
it, and integrate to get a combined gothic-quality
parameter...)
siani
unless that lj is one of the ones that logs your IP, and i try to do it
at the same time as EdwardS - it seems to puke when that happens. and i
think it's unfair to move a usenet poll to LJ, in any case.
Weeble
> Since kest has already started running her LJ poll - and I have, in
> fact, mailed her my own entry so that she can add it - what I suggest is that
> she continues to collate results there and I collate results by email, and we
> fit the two together. kest, does that sound workable to you? LJ alone is
> clearly not working for everyone.
Will you both collect the same data from each subject? I believe the LJ
poll asks each user to rate every item from 1 to 5 inclusive, whereas
Jennie specified from 0 to 5. That could cause problems trying to
integrate both sets of results.
Weeble.
Jennie Kermode
> Will you both collect the same data from each subject? I believe the LJ
> poll asks each user to rate every item from 1 to 5 inclusive, whereas
> Jennie specified from 0 to 5. That could cause problems trying to
> integrate both sets of results.
kest's system is established now, so I'd use that. My initial
suggestion _was_ only a suggestion, not a hard and fast set of rules.
Joseph Brenner
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> writes:
> Joe Brenner From Hell: wrote:
> > (Could've sworn I voted for "Liquid Sky", too... then it
> > should have 3 votes on this list. Eh, maybe I forgot.)
>
> You did. Perhaps two others discussed it, but I've got only one list
> entry recorded for it, and it's yours.
Ah, no, I just got around to checking.
(1) THF brought up "Liquid Sky" in my spin-off thread.
(Not clear if he was voting for it)
(2) Endymion included it in his list.
(3) I recorded an official vote for it, along with Harold
and Maude in the main thread.
Joseph Brenner
Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Weeble <wee...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Will you both collect the same data from each subject? I believe the LJ
> > poll asks each user to rate every item from 1 to 5 inclusive, whereas
> > Jennie specified from 0 to 5. That could cause problems trying to
> > integrate both sets of results.
>
> kest's system is established now, so I'd use that. My initial
> suggestion _was_ only a suggestion, not a hard and fast set of rules.
Is it really established? A lot of us are skipping it for
fear that it will eat our brains.
James Donovan
> Is it really established? A lot of us are skipping it for
> fear that it will eat our brains.
>
Same here. I've been threatened with disembowelment and decapitation if
I ever sign up for an LJ account.
--
Regards,
James
Tom..
"James Donovan" <jdon...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:EqOdnapyc-q...@speakeasy.net...
Just do what I did, get someone else to make an account for you.
I still have 89% of my body intact.
Tom
Jennie Kermode
I don't want to step on kest's toes. People here may disagree with
the choice she made, but he did take it upon herself to do _something_, after
all, which, I believe, was intended to benefit us.
If yous mail me your votes, according to that system, I'll process
everything and later merge that data with kest's.
Joseph Brenner
Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> writes:
> James Donovan <jdon...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> > Joseph Brenner wrote:
> >> Is it really established? A lot of us are skipping it for
> >> fear that it will eat our brains.
>
> > Same here. I've been threatened with disembowelment and decapitation if
> > I ever sign up for an LJ account.
>
> I don't want to step on kest's toes.
Well, this is nice of you, but really she was trying to step
on ours ("just causing trouble").
> People here may disagree with the choice she made, but he
> did take it upon herself to do _something_, after all,
> which, I believe, was intended to benefit us.
That's certainly a point.
> If yous mail me your votes, according to that system, I'll process
> everything and later merge that data with kest's.
I think we should all invent our own incompatible voting
systems, take the poll multiple times, and therby prove
Arrow's paradox.