zlacker

>>tortil+(OP)
I’ve been wondering for a while if a Nate Silver like system of rating critics might be a better approach. Then you might get a more accurate accounting of critical reviews.

>>blueda+n52
> I’ve been wondering for a while if a Nate Silver like system of rating critics might be a better approach

Critics aren't a proxy or predictor of some objectively verifiable outcome. If you want something useful for you, you could vuild a model with your ratings of movies you've seen, then then takes critics ratings of those movies to build a model of the relationship between individual critics ratings (in isolation or combination) and predicted ratings for you, but other than that you'd just be rating how well one proxy for “will I like it” matches a different proxy.

>>dragon+ik2
The only reliable system is, unfortunately, a lot of work and generalizes very poorly. You need to pay close attention to individual critics so you understand their tastes and how your own tastes intersect with theirs.

This is why the pre-internet system of reading your local newspaper and seeing what their film reviewer thought worked okay. From long experience you'd know that the reviewer e.g. loved anything with anti-war themes, had really high standards for romance subplots, and couldn't stand fantasy. Thus you could fit their review into your own standards and perhaps wind up interpreting an intensely negative review as a recommendation that you'd love that film.

>>kemayo+dZ2
just thumbs up or down or quickly rate 50 movies then essentially assign critics point values based on closeness to your votes and rank them strongest to least and bam you've got a personal rating system that's way better than anything they've got now