Your taste at work?

[william ahearn]

Hey,

http://www.flickchart.com/Splash.aspx?return=%2f

[moviePig]

On 11/23/2016 5:37 PM, william ahearn wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> http://www.flickchart.com/Splash.aspx?return=%2f

Not mine (as it were).

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[william ahearn]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:48:03 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/23/2016 5:37 PM, william ahearn wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > http://www.flickchart.com/Splash.aspx?return=%2f
>
> Not mine (as it were).
>

Same concept, yes?

[Bastette]

william ahearn wrote:

> Hey,

> http://www.flickchart.com/Splash.aspx?return=%2f

This site it terrible! Not that I expected it to be great, but after
selecting movies (compulsively, because this kind of BS hooks me) for about
45 minutes, it tells me that my favorite movie of all time is The Wizard
of Oz? WTH? What kind of algorithm are they using? Do you have to rate
thousands of movies before a realistic picture emerges?

Also, I haven't seen many non-mainstream movies, not to mention ones from
outside the US. (Although the images of the posters showed many international
titles of US films, which was slightly entertaining.)

I would actually enjoy something like this if (1) the database was a tad
more wide-ranging, and (2) the rating system made sense.


Bastette

[poisoned rose]

william ahearn <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > http://www.flickchart.com/Splash.aspx?return=%2f
> >
> > Not mine (as it were).
> >
> Same concept, yes?

Flickchart does have the notable advantage of being a functional
website, rather than being one that has been defunct for years (but is
relentlessly promoted anyway).

My own movie site of choice, icheckmovies.com, currently recommends
these 10 films to me:

1. Brief Encounter 1945
2. The Thing 1982
3. Witness for the Prosecution 1957
4. Raise the Red Lantern 1991
5. Underground 1995
6. The Big Heat 1953
7. Anatomy of a Murder 1959
8. The Adventures of Robin Hood 1938
9. Rosetta 1999
10. The Ox-Box Incident 1943

I'm not rabid to see any of these, and I'm unlikely to ever see more
than five of them at most. ICM's recommendations system is not one of
its strong points. (I might have seen Robin Hood as a kid, but am not
sure.)

The best features I saw lately: The Times of Harvey Milk (1984), Grass:
The Epic of a Lost Tribe (1925), Samurai Rebellion (1967), Wings (1966),
In the House (2012), The Invisible Man (1933).

[TT]

24.11.2016, 5:09, Bastette kirjoitti:
> This site it terrible! Not that I expected it to be great, but after
> selecting movies (compulsively, because this kind of BS hooks me) for about
> 45 minutes, it tells me that my favorite movie of all time is The Wizard
> of Oz? WTH? What kind of algorithm are they using? Do you have to rate
> thousands of movies before a realistic picture emerges?

I tried the site a while back... It doesn't matter much how many movies
you rate, the rating/ordering algorithm still sucks.

What you need to do is trying to order the films yourself by rating for
example your favourite films individually, not randomly... so that they
make the top of the list. But it's a lot of work.

I tried doing just that a while back and here's the result, should be
rather accurate on my taste, especially the very top titles...

http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=The_TJT&view=list&perpage=250

--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear. Absolutely"

[TT]

24.11.2016, 5:09, Bastette kirjoitti:

> I would actually enjoy something like this if

What makes it interesting is to compare two entirely different type of
films and trying to decide which one is better. For a while at least.

[moviePig]

Just judged by its splash page, that site looks like a pastime for
playing with one's movie history -- whereas my focus has been the more
elusive one of predicting a user's taste well enough to, say, earn his
trust in the face of usual clues to the contrary. Probably the most
direct (and actually working) instance of that is Netflix's, whose
accuracy afaics is marginally useful at best.

[Steve L]

I used to be fascinated by these types of recommendation systems too,
going back to pre-Internet days when I compulsively used a phone
service that did that. But in my experience they either did not
capture my tastes well or recommended movies I'd already seen or knew
I wanted to see, so I gave up.

[Stephen DeMay]

My taste is don't take one from column A or column B... don't want to see or hear ordinary people talking like ordinary people and dealing with a problem in an ordinary way in a no frills art house/indie presentation ( few exceptions to this : 24 eyes, The Bicycle Thief , Umberto D as examples ) or to see or hear a lack of talent/blandness in any genre. I've never encountered anyone who had my "taste " . The idea of a site that could make worthwhile recommendations rather than just employ a shotgun genre approach seems like wishful thinking.

[moviePig]

On 5/5/2017 4:33 PM, Stephen DeMay wrote:
> On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 9:14:18 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>> On 11/23/2016 9:59 PM, william ahearn wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:48:03 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 11/23/2016 5:37 PM, william ahearn wrote:
>>>> >
>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickchart.com/Splash.aspx?return=%2f
>>>>
>>>> Not mine (as it were).
>>>>
>>> Same concept, yes?
>>
>> Just judged by its splash page, that site looks like a pastime for
>> playing with one's movie history -- whereas my focus has been the more
>> elusive one of predicting a user's taste well enough to, say, earn his
>> trust in the face of usual clues to the contrary. Probably the most
>> direct (and actually working) instance of that is Netflix's, whose
>> accuracy afaics is marginally useful at best.
>>

> My taste is don't take one from column A or column B... don't want to see or hear ordinary people talking like ordinary people and dealing with a problem in an ordinary way in a no frills art house/indie presentation ( few exceptions to this : 24 eyes, The Bicycle Thief , Umberto D as examples ) or to see or hear a lack of talent/blandness in any genre. I've never encountered anyone who had my "taste " . The idea of a site that could make worthwhile recommendations rather than just employ a shotgun genre approach seems like wishful thinking.

The theory is that, properly analyzed, a broad population of tastes,
though each unique, can nevertheless inform yours.

[Stephen DeMay]

Most people on rampf write very well have " elevated " taste and seem to appreciate oddities and under appreciated ( by the masses ) films . Many films you like I would also like but certainly there would be many exceptions. There's nothing like really seeing a couple of brief clips of a movie along with a reviewer's/reviewers' comments to get a feel for a film's approach/style. When Siskel and Ebert were en vogue I disagreed with them ( seemingly hard to do when they disagreed with each other a whole lot ) as much as shared their views, but I had the clips to better guide me. I can see a site as throwing out " recommendations " but without clips to provide a look at the work's style in dialogue and performance recommendations would be based n too many combined tastes. I basically stopped watching TV about 2/3 years ago tho I'm still set up to get the programming . One show I might have stayed current with if it were available was Siskel and Ebert. I have not a clue now as to what has been released in the past three years or what ( other than horror ) I might like.

[Stephen DeMay]

> Most people on rampf write very well have " elevated " taste and seem to appreciate oddities and under appreciated ( by the masses ) films . Many films you like I would also like but certainly there would be many exceptions. There's nothing like really seeing a couple of brief clips of a movie along with a reviewer's/reviewers' comments to get a feel for a film's approach/style. When Siskel and Ebert were en vogue I disagreed with them ( seemingly hard to do when they disagreed with each other a whole lot ) as much as shared their views, but I had the clips to better guide me. I can see a site as throwing out " recommendations " but without clips to provide a look at the work's style in dialogue and performance recommendations would be based n too many combined tastes. I basically stopped watching TV about 2/3 years ago tho I'm still set up to get the programming . One show I might have stayed current with if it were available was Siskel and Ebert. I have not a clue now as to what has been released in the past three years or what ( other than horror ) I might like. Even putting aside the idea of combined taste person A can like film A for one reason , person B can like film A for a completely different reason ) the idea of recommendation by anyone for anything only works when a certain universe of viewers have conventional ( within their universe ) . Thus a consensus of opinion by people who like foreign films will be a reasonable guide to someone who likes foreign films. I look for elements specific to films in general that might appear in any genre ( an animal might be of interest in a non-animal film, or there might be a well written character or performance in a movie that is otherwise ordinary ) that's what captures my interest. You are correct that for a person with conventional tastes within a genre universe of viewers people might have shared opinions but in many respects I'm a stand alone for taste.

[moviePig]

On 5/5/2017 6:02 PM, Stephen DeMay wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:08:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen DeMay wrote:
>> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 4:51:45 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2017 4:33 PM, Stephen DeMay wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 9:14:18 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 11/23/2016 9:59 PM, william ahearn wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:48:03 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 5:37 PM, william ahearn wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.flickchart.com/Splash.aspx?return=%2f
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not mine (as it were).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same concept, yes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just judged by its splash page, that site looks like a pastime for
>>>>> playing with one's movie history -- whereas my focus has been the more
>>>>> elusive one of predicting a user's taste well enough to, say, earn his
>>>>> trust in the face of usual clues to the contrary. Probably the most
>>>>> direct (and actually working) instance of that is Netflix's, whose
>>>>> accuracy afaics is marginally useful at best.
>>>>>
>>>> My taste is don't take one from column A or column B... don't want to see or hear ordinary people talking like ordinary people and dealing with a problem in an ordinary way in a no frills art house/indie presentation ( few exceptions to this : 24 eyes, The Bicycle Thief , Umberto D as examples ) or to see or hear a lack of talent/blandness in any genre. I've never encountered anyone who had my "taste " . The idea of a site that could make worthwhile recommendations rather than just employ a shotgun genre approach seems like wishful thinking.
>>>
>>> The theory is that, properly analyzed, a broad population of tastes,
>>> though each unique, can nevertheless inform yours.
>>

>> Most people on rampf write very well have " elevated " taste and seem to appreciate oddities and under appreciated ( by the masses ) films . Many films you like I would also like but certainly there would be many exceptions. There's nothing like really seeing a couple of brief clips of a movie along with a reviewer's/reviewers' comments to get a feel for a film's approach/style. When Siskel and Ebert were en vogue I disagreed with them ( seemingly hard to do when they disagreed with each other a whole lot ) as much as shared their views, but I had the clips to better guide me. I can see a site as throwing out " recommendations " but without clips to provide a look at the work's style in dialogue and performance recommendations would be based n too many combined tastes. I basically stopped watching TV about 2/3 years ago tho I'm still set up to get the programming . One show I might have stayed current with if it were available was Siskel and Ebert. I have not a clue now as to what has been released in the past three years or what ( other than horror ) I might like. Even putting aside the idea of combined taste person A can like film A for one reason , person B can like film A for a completely different reason ) the idea of recommendation by anyone for anything only works when a certain universe of viewers have conventional ( within their universe ) . Thus a consensus of opinion by people who like foreign films will be a reasonable guide to someone who likes foreign films. I look for elements specific to films in general that might appear in any genre ( an animal might be of interest in a non-animal film, or there might be a well written character or performance in a movie that is otherwise ordinary ) that's what captures my interest. You are correct that for a person with conventional tastes within a genre universe of viewers people might have shared opinions but in many respects I'm a stand alone for taste.

Being unique is probably the least unique thing in the world.
Nevertheless, unless experience has taught you, say, to steer clear of
any movie that others seem to like, then their taste is somewhat both
relevant and useful to you. Or, so goes the theory. (And if your
tastes *are* so reliably counter-popular, then the theory has you
covered there, too.)

[william ahearn]

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 6:39:47 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> Being unique is probably the least unique thing in the world.

He's not unique. He's a troll who picks fights with everyone. Dude, Special Olympics and all that.

[Stephen DeMay]

You missed the bus completely . My taste can be said to to hone in on dialogue, performance and imaginative concepts no matter what the genre. Sometimes I like what the cineaste likes, sometimes more to the preferences of the mass audience . At times I don't agree with either group, Doubt if anyone could detect a pattern since my idea of quality would not infrequently differ from theirs. If you know anyone whose posting style is similar to mine give an example, I could make my entries slicker, but it's the evaluation that's really important. Even in the short period of my return I've upset more than a few folk with my opinions. I'll out think ( if this were about conversation I'd also say out talk ) any challenger. The only defenses that sort of work against me are stupidity and rationalization and I've seen more than enough of that here . Your " unique " analysis is pure cliche and completely wrong. Not much of a defense/come back on your part.

[Stephen DeMay]

I've bounced you off the wall so often I'm going to re-christen you' Squash Ball " Squash Ball is so rationalized he writes that "I" pick fights. That is classic. He's like a schmo, knock him down back up he pops just like the late Nimrod. Probably the only way he'll really go away is if he dies dead. I suspect anyone here who has read your " attacks " on me mentally shakes his head and thinks " pity the fool " , that is if your mindless verbiage even registers on them.

[william ahearn]

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 7:52:46 PM UTC-4, Stephen DeMay wrote:

> I've bounced you off the wall so often I'm going to re-christen you' Squash Ball " Squash Ball is so rationalized he writes that "I" pick fights. That is classic. He's like a schmo, knock him down back up he pops just like the late Nimrod. Probably the only way he'll really go away is if he dies dead. I suspect anyone here who has read your " attacks " on me mentally shakes his head and thinks " pity the fool " , that is if your mindless verbiage even registers on them.

I rest my case.

[Stephen DeMay]

wish it were RIPU

[Stephen DeMay]

not many people get their ass kicked then pull down their drawers and show the damage as a badge of honor. Rationalization at work.

[gtr]

I often wonder if when people repond to DeMay, if they excluded his
contributions altogether, with their only their own views of the
subject matter provide; if the thread would be of interest. Long ago
kill-filed, I see people post and then note it's a long blabber-fest
with DeMay's ID at the top and I move on. Still, as I say, it makes me
wonder.

[william ahearn]

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 9:07:46 PM UTC-4, gtr wrote:
>
> I often wonder if when people repond to DeMay, if they excluded his
> contributions altogether, with their only their own views of the
> subject matter provide; if the thread would be of interest. Long ago
> kill-filed, I see people post and then note it's a long blabber-fest
> with DeMay's ID at the top and I move on. Still, as I say, it makes me
> wonder.

He's an angry old man, mad at "coloreds," and the like, and he's vying for troll attention. He's not worth my attention.

[Stephen DeMay]

If Willy says anyone's "not worthy of his attention" you can be sure he'll be back and back and back. Pity the fool

[Stephen DeMay]

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 9:07:46 PM UTC-4, gtr wrote:

Incoherent post, try to untangle it , I'm always at your service.

[Stephen DeMay]

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 9:07:46 PM UTC-4, gtr wrote:

If you intended to convey the fact that you've kill filed me I can understand that. There's so much else here to explore and appreciate. Much like a graveyard.

[Stephen DeMay]

1 and 2 for sure 3 and 6 maybe, my taste at work