Dude that Movie SUCKS but its 5 STAR (reviews)

[VidPro]

there was an OFF-Topic discussion, about adding stars to reviews to relate better to the newer technology, I for one am all for it.
a 2D mag with an Incan, might have rated 4.5 stars in 1970, but it doesnt anymore, Unless a light that is 4 times brighter with 50% more runtime, levels, and focus is then a 6 star.

when checking for the Star ratings on movies, many OLD crusty B/W flicks that Certannly Were 5 star flicks in thier day and age, they are not, for THIS day and age.
so when things get progressivly better , they either need to downgrade that unchanged, or add more stars to the system.
I could state some examples of movies, but that would just cause an argument, you know which ones i am talking about, still great films but when deciding on Which to Watch, they sure arent better, yet the rating system still shows them with more stars..

in the same respect, when deciding on which flashlight to buy, a 2D mag, with a 2$ bulb, isnt nessisarily the "best" anymore.

 

[Greta]

in the same respect, when deciding on which flashlight to buy, a 2D mag, with a 2$ bulb, isnt nessisarily the "best" anymore.

Well... now... that depends on what you want to use it for. For someone... for THEIR purpose... it might indeed be the "best"... still. The word "best" is purely subjective... no matter what you are referring to.

 

[VidPro]

Well... now... that depends on what you want to use it for. For someone... for THEIR purpose... it might indeed be the "best"... still. The word "best" is purely subjective... no matter what you are referring to.

sure and the 75Mgz computer CPU, and a 9.6k modem is just wonderfull for some people, it just shouldnt rate the higest star anymore.

 

[Greta]

sure and the 75Mgz computer CPU, and a 9.6k modem is just wonderfull for some people, it just shouldnt rate the higest star anymore.

Why?!?! To someone it does! You're trying to impose YOUR standards on everyone else. YOUR standards are not mine... on movies, flashlights, computers or anything else, for that matter! So called "ratings" and "reviews" are purely subjective... period.



sub·jec·tive –adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

 

[VidPro]

most reviews are Objective, with some purpose in mind for giving it accolades.

objective (eb-jèk´tîv) adjective
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair1. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Abbr. obj. Grammar. a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

noun
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See synonyms at intention.
3. Abbr. obj. Grammar. a. The objective case. b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. In this sense, also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.

 

[Greta]

Very good! And now you know why YOUR standards are not mine and what *I* consider to be "best" is not necessarily what others consider to be "best". We're good now...

 

[VidPro]

sure so some people see everything subjectivly, and some people try and be objective. which do you think the male flashlight reviewer with light meters, and run tables and graphs, and beamshots, and pictures, is attempting?

 

[h_nu]

I really don't care how much someone else loves or hates the product I'm considering. I go to CPF to find out if the flashlight is regulated and how, what the runtime graph looks like, and other stats that manufacturers tend to leave out. I can pick the number of stars after I know the rest of the story.

That said, I see the point with movies.

 

[VidPro]

If were talking about movies, i could never be Objective of a "lifetime" movie or a halmark movie, but i could still be subjected to, being objective of the script writing and overall quality of one done in 1964 vrses one done in 1998.
they both suck, but i can still tell the old one doesnt deserve more stars for script writing or quality.
of course in that situation, i would only be subjective, give them all 2 stars

but when being objective about the movies i DO like, i can objectivly say the old crusty one doesnt deserve more stars, discluding re-makes, and II versions.

I may like the sound from a good 33Rpm vinal album better, but other properties of it, no longer rate it as 5 star high-fidelity, and neither do overly compressed Mp3s ,but a CD has something that Exists, that gives it more qualities (in a review say) that would rate it higher. but untill then i will rate my 8Track as the highest

 

[Greta]

Let me ask you this...

Positive identification of an individual based on fingerprints (friction ridge detail)... objective or subjective?

 

[VidPro]

Let me ask you this...

Positive identification of an individual based on fingerprints (friction ridge detail)... objective or subjective?

objective.

2) DNA evidence used as positive proof that a person was on the scene, when it can be removed from the person (with the person still alive) and planted on the scene?

 

[Greta]

objective

Wrong. Subjective. The examiner making the identification is giving an opinion based on their own personal knowledge and experience that the prints are a positive match. You will not find one latent print examiner worth their salt to claim anything else... not if they want to keep their job.

2) 100% subjective!! No question... that's why friction ridge detail is preferred over DNA for identification purposes. Hell... even dental records are preferred over DNA!

 

[chimo]

IMO, I see no reason to add stars, for movie reviews or flashlight reviews. In fact, I feel that the score should not change for the review date for (at least) two reasons.

1. A review is a snapshot in time of the product. It considers the merit of the product based on the current crop of products and existing technology. It is a very good judge of the quality of the product for its time.

2. To continually update a database of reviews to rate a product in the current market would be a near impossible task. As well, adding stars would be a temporary measure at best. To implement this you would need to add at least a star (or two) per year. Consider the case for movies: Lets say we started in 1943 and gave Casa Blanca 5 stars. If we added only one star per year, in 2007 we would be up to 69 stars! With 2 stars added per year we would be up to 133 stars! I don't think I would visit a site that used this system!

One thing that a review should absolutely contain is the date it was reviewed. With a review date, the reader can take the appropriate measures to determine if the product meets current requirements.

Paul

 

[Manzerick]

You two are killing me!!

I topic like this normally has my fingerprints all over it :lolsign:

 

[VidPro]

Wrong. Subjective. The examiner making the identification is giving an opinion based on their own personal knowledge and experience that the prints are a positive match. You will not find one latent print examiner worth their salt to claim anything else... not if they want to keep their job.

2) 100% subjective!! No question... that's why friction ridge detail is preferred over DNA for identification purposes. Hell... even dental records are preferred over DNA!

is it more in the mind of the examiner, or more in reality?
course you didnt specify that the subject and his fingerprints were no longer connected.. identity of the subject, based on fingerprints left ELSEWHERE, well , then i would agree.
there must be some way to slip a fingerprint from one medium to another, its just body stuff left in some pattern.

 

[Greta]

chimo... very well put! :twothumbs:

The point is that there must be a clear cut criteria for measuring "standards". As these "standards" change on a daily basis based on current technology etc. etc, the criteria must also change. One can use light meters, and run tables and graphs, and beamshots, and pictures 'til the cows come home and those measurements are indeed objective. However, whether or not those measurements make something the "best" is purely subjective... and is based on an individuals own personal knowledge and experience. It cannot be claimed otherwise.

 

[Greta]

is it more in the mind of the examiner, or more in reality?

Both... reality for the examiner can only be based on their own reality which is based on their own personal knowledge and experience.

course you didnt specify that the subject and his fingerprints were no longer connected.. identity of the subject, based on fingerprints left ELSEWHERE, well , then i would agree.

Doesn't matter if the subject and his fingers are no longer connected. To make a positive ID (trust me on this one... I worked as a fingerprint tech in the morgue), one must first have a known print to compare to the "suspect" print.

there must be some way to slip a fingerprint from one medium to another, its just body stuff left in some pattern.

There's a theoretical method that I've been wanting to try out... but haven't had time. It still has it's flaws though and a good examiner would find them.

 

[VidPro]

chimo... very well put! :twothumbs:

The point is that there must be a clear cut criteria for measuring "standards". As these "standards" change on a daily basis based on current technology etc. etc, the criteria must also change. One can use light meters, and run tables and graphs, and beamshots, and pictures 'til the cows come home and those measurements are indeed objective. However, whether or not those measurements make something the "best" is purely subjective... and is based on an individuals own personal knowledge and experience. It cannot be claimed otherwise.

but the star system for some subjective & objective judgement made, already exists.
if using that same judgement a reviewer , and his/her subjective and or objective opinion, based on circumstantial objective results of new data, determines that the NEW wizz bang light is 10 times better than the old one, what purpose would there be in giving it the same stars?

assuming the reviewer has used any objectivity , in thier subjecting us to the rating system, that same objectivity still has to be compared, either objectivly or subjectivly to the previous data, for the rating system to be valid to the general populace, reguardless of the reviewers subjective opinion of the previous data.
The general populace that the reviewer is attempting to provide a rating system for, would expect the reviewer to use some objectivity, and not just make things up in his/her mind blindly.

 

[Greta]

Well... one would hope that anyone reading a review or rating would at least have enough intelligence to know that a 5 star movie made in 1956 was measured by different standards than a 5 star movie made in 2007. Likewise with flashlights. As chimo said, date of review is essential and so should the current standards that the product is being rated at. But again... whether or not those ratings... then or now... make something the "best" is purely subjective.

 

[VidPro]

Both... reality for the examiner can only be based on their own reality which is based on their own personal knowledge and experience.

and at some point you come to, what is reality, and do we actually exist, we could indeed inferr that our lack of knowlege has us in the position were everything could be concidered Subjective.
I dont know for a fact that i am typing this, i could make conclusions that i was, but my reality itself is subjective.
Within the english language all words in some form are subjective to thier meaning, we communicate as best as we can, we determine things as best as we can, and the objectivity of the objective, while only theroetical, has a higer percentage of being right, than the person who only determines for themselves in thier own mind.

you now see the text i have typed, you could SAY that its subjective that i typed anything, or you could admit that objectivly speaking you can see enough that within your and my reality i DID. within our ability to percieve and communicate , that would be objective.