Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Biomega]

Note the words "should ideally," because the skill set trumps identity. They're not going to hire random women who can't do the job just because they are women.

That's a very common and very nonsensical argument you hear all the time in hiring debates.

"They refused to hire the white dude with a Harvard degree, and instead just took a random black person without a high school diploma!".

Yeah, right. I'm SURE that's how that works.

It's the bigots' defense mechanism against the fact that once you get to the last stages of a selection process, you DON'T just have objective criteria to go by. If it WAS as easy as going "this one has score 5.1, that one has score 5.2, so we go with the higher one" we wouldn't have any problems. But that's just, well, NOT HOW ANYTHING WORKS. Without quotas, experience has shown that biases creep in. Until we can reduce those biases on a widespread, systemic levels, quotas are a necessary safeguard to combat biases. Does that mean that sometimes they're unfair to some people? Yes. But guess what's even more unfair - what we had before.

[BigToast]

Would you be so kind to explain in details what you did understand then ?

.....Nah.....

[InfiniteCharger]

That right there is why these ratings are a terrible metric.

This is not how point ratings are supposed to work. You don't just go "this one aspect of it is a deal breaker for me, therefore 0/10". That's exactly NOT what point scales are for. Instead, they're supposed to be the sum of MANY aspects, some of which you like and some of which you don't like, averaging out to one number at the end. If you give something 0/10 that would have to mean you think it's a 0 in EVERY aspect, not that it's a 0 in ONE aspect. And you may hate the adaptation as much as you like, it still doesn't mean that there's ANYTHING "realistic" about giving, say, the show's visuals a 0/10.


People just misuse the rating system, plain and simple.


Isn't that circular logic? You're basically saying "high ratings means it's good, and good means it gets high ratings, QED" which is a pretty vapid statement. And if you're not tying how "good" a show is to its rating, then it's even MORE meaningless because anyone can subjectively go "I think this is good!" regardless of the rating.

Dude. Some people seriously do not like this show. It is real. Get over it.

It is supposed to be an "aggregated" model used statistically along with other metrics.
Meaning 0 to 10 scale only becomes valuable when used in a larger sample set.
Obviously with all the large number of ratings below a 6, that must mean a lot of people don't like it.
This data is intended to give a general assessment of the overall reception of this show.
I don't get your point other than it is just OK to ignore the obvious.
There are plenty of things that get pretty low reviews all the time and there are plenty that get good reviews.
And I have found that in general the audience review averages tend to be good references.

Seems like you are getting ready to pretend that your opinion is the only reference that matters and that others can't have theirs.
Like come on dude, I don't have time to debate with you about parading your subjective opinion as objective fact again.

[Yourendbsby]

Note the words "should ideally," because the skill set trumps identity. They're not going to hire random women who can't do the job just because they are women.

dei.amazonstudios.com/goals/



Really you should read the website you're linking, it would make you look less silly

So according to you, the amazon policy is not forcing anyone to hire by race quotes or sexual identification?

Do you can read?

Skill based means that those race selected persons or those selected by sexual identity should meet skill requirements.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You try to convince people that amazon studios own race agenda is made up and they only hire by skill.

When it’s only skill based you dont need to mention or draw lines how many % should be black or gay

The % of race/disabilit/sexual identity is clearly stated by them

If any of these aspirational goals are not met, the external partner may be asked to submit a description of the steps that were taken to achieve these goals.

Do you understand? When a external partner as example didn’t fullfill race quotas they have to submit how they will make it happen

[BigToast]

So according to you, the amazon policy is not forcing anyone to hire by race quotes or sexual identification?

Do you can read?

Skill based means that those race selected persons or those selected by sexual identity should meet skill requirements.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You try to convince people that amazon studios own race agenda is made up and they only hire by skill.

When it’s only skill based you dont need to mention or draw lines how many % should be black or gay

The % of race/disabilit/sexual identity is clearly stated by them

If any of these aspirational goals are not met, the external partner may be asked to submit a description of the steps that were taken to achieve these goals.

I thought we were supposed to be discussing a TV show, not complaining that there are black people in it.

[Yourendbsby]

That's a very common and very nonsensical argument you hear all the time in hiring debates.

"They refused to hire the white dude with a Harvard degree, and instead just took a random black person without a high school diploma!".

Yeah, right. I'm SURE that's how that works.

It's the bigots' defense mechanism against the fact that once you get to the last stages of a selection process, you DON'T just have objective criteria to go by. If it WAS as easy as going "this one has score 5.1, that one has score 5.2, so we go with the higher one" we wouldn't have any problems. But that's just, well, NOT HOW ANYTHING WORKS. Without quotas, experience has shown that biases creep in. Until we can reduce those biases on a widespread, systemic levels, quotas are a necessary safeguard to combat biases. Does that mean that sometimes they're unfair to some people? Yes. But guess what's even more unfair - what we had before.

They hire by race/ethnic/sexual identity.

That doesn’t mean they pick randoms.

Those race selected still need to fullfill other criteria.

But that’s still race and wthnic and sexual identity hiring.

It’s explicitly states wich goals they have and explicitly stated in % wich races or groups they want to see

Doesnt mean random still needs other criteria.

[Biomega]

Dude. Some people seriously do not like this show. It is real. Get over it.

That's not in question.

"I don't like it" is fine. That doesn't mean giving it a 0/10 rating on a website is justified, because that's not how these ratings systems are supposed to work. It's a misuse of the rating system - THAT is my problem, not the fact that some people don't like the show.

It is supposed to be an "aggregated" model used statistically along with other metrics.
Meaning 0 to 10 scale only becomes valuable when used in a larger sample set.

It's not about whether it's "valuable", it's about whether it's VIABLE as a rating at all.

You're right that the aggregation process relies on a statistical approximation - both for the overall ratings, and for how individuals compose ratings. Obviously people will differ in their chosen criteria, but the idea is to have the score be representative of many factors, not one single factor. If you do that, you're introducing distortion, and that's why 0/10 ratings are by and large useless and a misuse of the system.

Obviously with all the large number of ratings below a 6, that must mean a lot of people don't like it.

Why 6?

[jonnysensible]

WARNING, THREAD UPDATE: With the premiere of this show tonight, we're going to end lots of this discussion which has taken over this thread. It's tiring and goes in circles, and, in many cases, entirely in bad faith.

Do not post bad faith YT trash in this thread, whether it's from a YouTube channel with literally 4 subscribers (see above), or the Babylon Bee, a parody site engaged in culture war bullshit. This show is coming out tonight, and the time for these inane discussions of what a faithful adaptation is are done.

Going forward, the discussion should be centered around what is actual shown in the aired media, which, again, is premiering tonight. And no, the existence of a black elf in a Tolkein adaptation is not permission to continue these previous discussions.

Further continuation of these topics will be considered off-topic, derailing, and will be infracted.

can you enforce this when you are back on, people wanna talk about who the wizard lad is but all the 'woke' 'european stories' 'black people' posters are trashing the thread.

[kenn9530]

snip

a 1/10 review is completely dishonest especially on something like this series, there is nothing to back anyone up giving a 1/10 review on this series let alone most things, if you believe otherwise you are just lying to yourself, many ppl are not honest in thier reviews and reviews dont actually tell anything accurately.

Just because you dont like something doesnt mean it is worth a 1/10, reviews actually mean very little because you cant prove they are actually true or not.

This show is not disrespectful to tolkien in any way, nothing will ever be able to capture the spirit on the origional author to please a hardcore lore fan, companies can spend the money any way they want and employ hundreds or thousands of ppl so the money is not just wasted, things are getting more and more expensive these days.

[InfiniteCharger]

That's not in question.

"I don't like it" is fine. That doesn't mean giving it a 0/10 rating on a website is justified, because that's not how these ratings systems are supposed to work. It's a misuse of the rating system - THAT is my problem, not the fact that some people don't like the show.

These systems aren't designed to make people justify the reason as to why they gave the review they did.
It is a quick and simple guide to give people feedback that ultimately has value when used in aggregate.
If the system is not worthwhile then they should remove the whole thing all together because all reviews for everything are invalid.
Just focusing on this one show to worry about whether the review system is broken is just ridiculous.
At that point, you may as well say turning off comments is good too because people just don't have the right views on things.
It is the same mentality. Personal opinions aren't quizzes with a right or wrong answer.

It's not about whether it's "valuable", it's about whether it's VIABLE as a rating at all.

You're right that the aggregation process relies on a statistical approximation - both for the overall ratings, and for how individuals compose ratings. Obviously people will differ in their chosen criteria, but the idea is to have the score be representative of many factors, not one single factor. If you do that, you're introducing distortion, and that's why 0/10 ratings are by and large useless and a misuse of the system.

If you know what aggregation means then you know why that 1 out 10 rating by itself has no value.
If a lot of people have a 1 out of 10 rating (meaning lowest rating possible) it means they really dislike something.
And because most of this data goes through statistical modeling and analytics, they are going to adjust anyway for internal purposes.
So I don't see your point. People picking the lowest or highest rating whatever it is is going to be one factor out of many.
And this data is collected from across multiple websites and platforms, some with ratings, others with like/dislike and other channels.
This is the day and age of big data and data is the value. Otherwise these web sites wouldn't exist.

Why 6?

As in meaning dislike.

[Yourendbsby]

Why 6? Because amazon(imdb) removed all written reviews lower than 6.

Fact.

Episode 2 has only 4 ! Approved written reviews so far

[InfiniteCharger]

a 1/10 review is completely dishonest especially on something like this series, there is nothing to back anyone up giving a 1/10 review on this series let alone most things, if you believe otherwise you are just lying to yourself, many ppl are not honest in thier reviews and reviews dont actually tell anything accurately.

Just because you dont like something doesnt mean it is worth a 1/10, reviews actually mean very little because you cant prove they are actually true or not.

This show is not disrespectful to tolkien in any way, nothing will ever be able to capture the spirit on the origional author to please a hardcore lore fan, companies can spend the money any way they want and employ hundreds or thousands of ppl so the money is not just wasted, things are getting more and more expensive these days.

Again, I am not having this debate with you about your opinion. You can't force people to like something they don't like.
Nobody has to justify themselves to you or anybody else why they rated something the way they did. That is just a waste of time argument.
And I don't see the point.

Also there is no objective way, outside of things like emails, IP addresses or verified accounts to catch "bots".
Otherwise, you have to accept these are the honest reviews of real people and use percentage to filter noise at an aggregate level.

[Shadowferal]

Did I miss a scene? How the hell did this bitch swim back to Middle-Earth?

Something similar to this?

[InfiniteCharger]

a 1/10 review is completely dishonest especially on something like this series, there is nothing to back anyone up giving a 1/10 review on this series let alone most things, if you believe otherwise you are just lying to yourself, many ppl are not honest in thier reviews and reviews dont actually tell anything accurately.

Just because you dont like something doesnt mean it is worth a 1/10, reviews actually mean very little because you cant prove they are actually true or not.

This show is not disrespectful to tolkien in any way, nothing will ever be able to capture the spirit on the origional author to please a hardcore lore fan, companies can spend the money any way they want and employ hundreds or thousands of ppl so the money is not just wasted, things are getting more and more expensive these days.

Look man, if you like it thats all that counts. Why are you worried about anybody else?
Like seriously this is pointless.

[tikcol]

These systems aren't designed to make people justify the reason as to why they gave the review they did.
It is a quick and simple guide to give people feedback that ultimately has value when used in aggregate.
If the system is not worthwhile then they should remove the whole thing all together because all reviews for everything are invalid.
Just focusing on this one show to worry about whether the review system is broken is just ridiculous.
At that point, you may as well say turning off comments is good too because people just don't have the right views on things.
It is the same mentality. Personal opinions aren't quizzes with a right or wrong answer.


If you know what aggregation means then you know why that 1 out 10 rating by itself has no value.
If a lot of people have a 1 out of 10 rating (meaning lowest rating possible) it means they really dislike something.
And because most of this data goes through statistical modeling and analytics, they are going to adjust anyway for internal purposes.
So I don't see your point. People picking the lowest or highest rating whatever it is is going to be one factor out of many.
And this data is collected from across multiple websites and platforms, some with ratings, others with like/dislike and other channels.
This is the day and age of big data and data is the value. Otherwise these web sites wouldn't exist.


As in meaning dislike.

10/10 reviews by his own logic would have no value too and there's about 19k of them and they keep rising every minute. About 4k more 10/10 reviews than 1/10.

Some folks over here are pretending like the show is getting review bombed in a vacuum and conveniently disregarding the 33% of all reviews that give it a perfect score. (those are totally valid, deserved and logical, of course yes)

Literally deleting every written review below 6 overnight? Totally valid. Racist reviews are not allowed. They say.

[Yourendbsby]

10/10 reviews by his own logic would have no value too and there's about 19k of them and they keep rising every minute. About 4k more 10/10 reviews than 1/10.

Some folks over here are pretending like the show is getting review bombed in a vacuum and conveniently disregarding the 33% of all reviews that give it a perfect score. (those are totally valid, deserved and logical, of course yes)

Literally deleting every written review below 6 overnight? Totally valid. Racist reviews are not allowed. They say.

1 is racist

10 is fine

By Woke logic

[InfiniteCharger]

10/10 reviews by his own logic would have no value too and there's about 19k of them and they keep rising every minute. About 4k more 10/10 reviews than 1/10.

Some folks over here are pretending like the show is getting review bombed in a vacuum and conveniently disregarding the 33% of all reviews that give it a perfect score. (those are totally valid, deserved and logical, of course yes)

That is true too. And there is no way to stop that in such review systems....
If it was a simple like/dislike at least all this nonsense about why a 0 out of 10 vs 10/10 would go out the window.
Either you like it or you don't. Period.

Having 1 to 10 or 1 to 5 gives a broader spread that can be more meaningful in aggregate.
But that still means the possibility of the worst or best rating either way.

I also think these social media "storms" go with the system and are an intended part of the analytics.
It means people are "paying attention" to something and making it a popular topic.....
Which means people arguing "for" something and people arguing "against" something.
At the end of the day most people will judge for themselves regardless.


Honestly these people at Amazon knew full well that this was going to be a risky proposition from the door.
They know it and this stuff is just them trying to defend their investment after the fact.
Again, this exercise in 'data and marketing' belies the fact that a good product will generally get good reviews.
And I don't see anything proving otherwise due to this one show.

[Dhrizzle]

So according to you, the amazon policy is not forcing anyone to hire by race quotes or sexual identification?

Do you can read?

Skill based means that those race selected persons or those selected by sexual identity should meet skill requirements.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You try to convince people that amazon studios own race agenda is made up and they only hire by skill.

When it’s only skill based you dont need to mention or draw lines how many % should be black or gay

The % of race/disabilit/sexual identity is clearly stated by them

If any of these aspirational goals are not met, the external partner may be asked to submit a description of the steps that were taken to achieve these goals.

Do you understand? When a external partner as example didn’t fullfill race quotas they have to submit how they will make it happen

No, they have to explain why those goals were not met. Hence the phrase "steps that were taken." Past tense.

[Biomega]

These systems aren't designed to make people justify the reason as to why they gave the review they did.

That doesn't mean 0/10 is justifiable. They're free to give any rating they want, but we're also free to call them out for giving bullshit ratings. That's how it works. That's what I'm doing.

At that point, you may as well say turning off comments is good too because people just don't have the right views on things.

That's you trying again to make this about me not wanting people to not like the show. Which is not what my problem lies with (and besides, if you'd read any of my comments on the show, you'd see *I* don't like it). If comments were used the way ratings were I'd have the same problem; and in fact I have, on many occasions, pointed out to people (including you, I think) why I do not in fact find comments like "I just don't like this" useful. That is NOT the same as saying nobody is allowed to say that, it just means that you liking vanilla ice cream and not chocolate will not result in a constructive debate because those are preferences you can only state, not discuss.

Personal opinions aren't quizzes with a right or wrong answer.

And the only one bringing right or wrong into this is you. Stop doing that. It's not about right or wrong, because these ratings aren't about what one person thinks as much as they are about creating information for other people - and if you misuse the system, you're creating bad information. Your opinion is your opinion, but once you start distorting things for other people, it's no longer just about you.

If you know what aggregation means then you know why that 1 out 10 rating by itself has no value.

Which is partly why I started everything with me saying it's not about value.

If a lot of people have a 1 out of 10 rating (meaning lowest rating possible) it means they really dislike something.

And people using the system like this is why I think it's a shit system. I'm not defending rating systems. I'm showing WHY they're shit - people misuse it.

As in meaning dislike.

But why 6 specifically? Why pick that number and not another?

[Yourendbsby]

No, they have to explain why those goals were not met. Hence the phrase "steps that were taken." Past tense.

Exactly they have to explain why racial quota was not met and what they will do to get the desired racial % .

Simple as that