Netflix Movie Fans

Netflix uses the following meanings for its star ratings:

5 Stars = "Loved It"
4 Stars = "Really Liked It"
3 Stars = "Liked It"
2 Stars = "Didn't Liked It"
1 Star = "Hated It"

So what's wrong with these meanings ? Here's my main gripes:

(1) What does "Really" in "Really Liked It” supposed to mean? That when you rate a movie as “Liked It” you are just kidding ? Or that you speak like a 8-year old, and express an intensive like of a movie as "Really Like" ? But than how would you rate a movie that you really, really, really, really, really liked ?
(2) The rating is not symmetrical: we have “REALLY Liked It”, but not “REALLY Didn’t Liked It”. Subsequently the intervals between 1 and 2 Stars are larger than between 5 and 4 stars.
(3) Is “Hated It”, really opposite of “Loved it” ? Can’t you hate a movie you love ? Isn't indifference the opposite of love ?


As an alternative I propose the following meanings:
5 Stars = "Loved It"
4 Stars = "Liked It MUCH"
3 Stars = "Liked It MODERATELY"
2 Stars = "Liked It LITTLE"
1 Star = "Didn’t Liked It AT ALL"

Here’s the advantages of the meanings above:

(1) It’s more accurate and consistent, since it measures only one dimension, “Likeability” of the movie, and it doesn’t concern itself about other feelings like “Hate” the viewer might have while watching the movie.
(2) It’s symmetrical. The intervals between stars are roughly equal.
(3) It forces the viewer to recapitulate all they liked about the movie they’ve watched, and the intensity of that feeling. Rather anything they’ve hated it.

While Netflix spends millions on developing a better recommendation algorithm, it should give more thought about the meaning of its rating system: make sure it’s not confusing, ambiguous or overlaping. It must be simple but not juvenile ( “really liked it” and “hated it” do sound juvenile to me).

Tags: Didn't Liked It, Hated It, Liked It, Love It, Netflix, Ratings, Really Liked It, Star

Views: 337

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Of course, "okay" is much weaker than "liked", besides it takes an objective view about the movie, as in "Great", "Good", "Okay" & "Poor". While "liked" is about viewer's feeling about the movie.

Those are two different things. For example Citizen Kane is a great movie, that I did not liked.
Your criticism is pedantic. You can ascribe whatever values to the stars you want, from "not enough toy cars" to "too many women with an odd number of boobs". All ratings are subjective and "okay" is just as subjective an adjective as "liked".

Citizen Kane is only a great movie if you liked it. If you didn't like it, it's not a great movie.

A 3 star rating is a 3 star rating no matter what adjectives you attach to it. Whether it's "meh", or "okay" or "liked it" or whatever. Ratings are directly transferable between Netflix and Amazon since they use the same scale. The scale is important, not the adjectives attached to each numerical value.
The scale is important, not the adjectives attached to each numerical value.

Actually the scale is nothing without a reference. An reference that varies from user to user can create big problems.

For example a 3-Star-Hotel in US is a decent place to sleep in, while when I've slept in a 3-Star-Hotel in Istanbul, it was a dump with cockroaches, something that shouldn't get more than 1-Star. But that's how it is in much of Europe, anything bellow 4-stars is equvalent to 2-Stars or less in Us. Would I be pedantic if I were to demand some kind of international standards on hotel ratings, or on movie ratings for that matter ?
I think it's a bad analogy, comparing hotels to movies. There's no uniform standard for the number of stars awarded to/by a hotel, some countries have laws about it, others don't. Hotel ratings may range from 1-5, 1-6 and 1-7 stars, so obviously there's no uniform scale. Besides, hotel guests have little influence on how hotels are rated.

I've stayed in a 5 star hotel in China and hated it. I've also stayed in a 1 star hotel in Paris and loved it. The yardstick by which you measure hotels may be objective to some standard (amenities & services), but staying there is still a subjective experience.

Actually the scale is nothing without a reference. An reference that varies from user to user can create big problems

From 1-5 stars, 5>4>3>2>1. It's that simple. And since we're involving millions of users there will inevitable be many interpretations of what the stars mean. A 3 star movie may be a good rating for some people while it's a bad rating for others. Your suggestion doesn't change that one bit.
Citizen Kane is only a great movie if you liked it. If you didn't like it, it's not a great movie.

Readers complained to Roger Ebert that "Lost in Translation" doesn't merit a "Great Movie" 4-star rating, since it's difficult to like that movie. Ebert replied that professional critics will rate movies as "Great", even if they didn't like it very much, if these movies are technically excellent. I agree. But I don't pretend to be a movie critic and share my wisdom with the world so I rate movies on the intensity of liking them.

P.S.

Even worse than netflix rating is the one on jini.com, while I love the website it's rating meanings are sooo cumbersome:

0 Terrible
1 Awful
2 Bad
3 Poor
4 Disappointing
5 So-So
6 Okay
7 Good
8 Great*
9 Amazing*
10 Must See*
*Recommended

What is the difference between so-so and ok ? Terrible, bad, awful and poor ?
Can't you like a movie you find dissapointing ?
Ah, missed this post. Sorry.

Thank you for making my point. The adjectives, as you show, are irrelevant. Only the numerical values make any sense. You can call the stars whatever you want, as long as 5>4>3>2>1. From "good" to "okay" to "disappointing" to "crap" to "OMG!WTF?" (5->1) or from "fine" to "good" to "excellent" to "spectacular" to "I died and went to heaven" (1->5).

It doesn't matter what we call the stars.
I looked you up. You are indeed a registered pedant in the state of Arkansas. STAY AWAY FROM OUR CHILDREN, YOU SICK FUCK!
I've also looked you up, and you are a registered pediatrician in Vermont. Since you've molested little kids, I'll have to KILL YOU !
Tabi ain't from VT.

VT peeps are chill and cool.
Serge, why'd you pick Vermont?
Why'd you pick Arkansas ?
'Cuz everyone knows a properly impaired hillbilly'll throw his hot dog down any hole around just to see what comes out.

Your turn.

RSS

Badge

Loading…

Latest Activity

eviltimes replied to pterosaur's discussion 'The Listening Thread: Part NEIN!' in the group The Soundtracks to Our Lives
"I always thought soundgarden was over rated."
1 hour ago
eviltimes replied to pterosaur's discussion 'The Listening Thread: Part NEIN!' in the group The Soundtracks to Our Lives
"The Punk and the Godfather     Pete Townshend with the Who"
3 hours ago
eviltimes replied to The Professor's discussion 'What did you watch today? v 34.0'
"Me, too.  Miss him dearly."
3 hours ago
eviltimes replied to The Professor's discussion 'What did you watch today? v 34.0'
"Odd parties in Manhattan in the 70's.  Mostly in the Village at a friend of a friend of a fr.. you know.  Sometimes upper East Side in million dollar apartments overlooking Central Park - all kinds of people from Hollywood, the NY…"
3 hours ago
eviltimes replied to eviltimes's discussion 'Television Commercials Worth Watching' in the group Television
"It's pretty simple, just follow the simple instructions.  If not, chat or call them up.  Most of the time when I've had any LAN problems they were hardware (ie: unfixable) related and I just swapped the router out for a new…"
4 hours ago
eviltimes replied to David's discussion 'Currently watching' in the group Television
"That was another great episode.  I hope there's more.  All CNN does on weekends is repeat specials they just showed that week!  C'mon, can't somebody try to be creative / competitive on the weekends?"
4 hours ago
eviltimes replied to David's discussion 'Currently watching' in the group Television
"I couldn't get into Mad Men when it was new and all the rage, and haven't tried again.  Same goes for the others you mentioned.  Dexter, too..  Sitting in front of the TV is the opposite of what all my doctors keep yelling…"
4 hours ago
David replied to The Professor's discussion 'What did you watch today? v 34.0'
"Yup, yup.  I still go back and read some of his responses.  That TCM thread where we'd recommend movies shows his insights. "
4 hours ago
David replied to The Professor's discussion 'What did you watch today? v 34.0'
"Crossed paths, ok I'm curious,  where was that at?"
4 hours ago
David replied to David's discussion 'Currently watching' in the group Television
"Bourdain has bounced between the ordinary and the fringe, from Texas barbecue joints to post-war militia zones like Kurdistan and Mozambique. This year, with the move to CNN, his new Parts Unknown series turns up his travelogue format to 11.…"
4 hours ago
eviltimes replied to The Professor's discussion 'What did you watch today? v 34.0'
"TCM is just a wonderful gift to movie lovers everywhere!  Those threads are so vacant without Sev."
4 hours ago
eviltimes replied to The Professor's discussion 'What did you watch today? v 34.0'
"I agree."
4 hours ago

© 2013   Created by droidmaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service