Order Up

[Reply #160 on:]

Individual?  You mean writer?  Yeah, the season ranking may be a bit harder.  But still doable, I think.

[Reply #161 on:]

No, I meant by individual list. Like, judging by my personal ranklist, how do I rank entire seasons compared to each other. It's not a huge priority because the colors help me see this, but it'd be cool.

[Reply #162 on:]

Anyway, I have now also made it possible to link people to your own list.  Here is spira's, for example.  These lists will not include unranked episodes, however.  A new link in the menu directs you to the link you can use to link others to.

[Reply #163 on:]

For some reason, it's now listing every episode as "unranked" under my ranklist when I view the "Your List" page?

[Reply #164 on:]

Okay, I just contributed to the big list thing. However, I noticed that my original list skipped from 85 to 89, and thus missed three episodes. After a search, I saw that the episodes I missed were "Bendless Love", "A Taste of Freedom", and "Proposition Infinity". I really can't be bothered to fix it all up.

[Reply #165 on:]

You can now rate episodes (from 0 to 10, 1 decimal is allowed), you just click the question mark on the right to rate it like you alter the ranking.

You don't need to rank an episode to rate one, Gorky!

For some reason, it's now listing every episode as "unranked" under my ranklist when I view the "Your List" page?

I now fixed this bug.  My SQL query was terrible.  I apologise!

Update in functionality:

Things that are working:

• Import of text based list.
• Export your list in the same format.
• Display of ranking in descending order.
• Changing the ranking of an episode from the view list.
• Changing the rating of an episode from the view list.
• Colour coding each episode depending on its season or run.
• Showcase one's list to others.
• Sorting episodes.
• Lists update when rankings are altered.
• Legend overview for colour coding.

Things that are not working, but will come:

• Remember preferred sorting.
• Remember preferred colour coding.
• Ability to move all episodes 'down' in ranking, if another episode takes the other's spot.
• More fancy way of altering rankings; with drag and drop.
• More contrast between season colours.

[Reply #166 on:]

I'm enjoying the site, but I can't help but feel as if the way that episode ratings and rank-orders aren't linked is a bit weird. I mean, the average ratings that episodes have has no bearing on whether or not they're higher or lower than other episodes with a higher or lower score. Is there any way to make things a bit more consistent? I can't think of anything right now, but there has to be a way, surely?

[Reply #167 on:]

That's because both are manual scores.  And such, I have introduced the possibility to sort by average rating instead of ranking.

I find it interesting to see if people rate episodes differently than how they rank them.

In addition, there may be significant difference between episode ratings than between rankings, possibly creating a different result.

As an example:  It seems to me that ratings tend to be more favourable towards the original run than rankings are.  Right now, the top 20 has 6 episodes from the new run when sorted by ranking, but only 3 when sorted by ratings.

Furthermore, some prefer ratings, some prefer rankings.  Gorky cannot figure out how to rank her episodes, because some of them are 10/10, so obviously she prefers rating over ranking.

[Reply #168 on:]

It's a neat new toy, and I'm enjoying playing with it. Thanks, Svip.

[Reply #169 on:]

I went through and rated mine with some degree of arbitraryness. My rankings toward the bottom were all wrong. I had some solid 7s thrown in with 3s and 4s.

[Reply #170 on:]

Looking at the averages, I'm surprised that The Beast with a Billion Backs is rated lower than Bender's Game. I'm also surprised that Part 1 of BG is lower than the others, because it's 3 and 4 that ruin the movie for me. On the other hand, it's pleasing to see that AFTR is the highest of Season 1.

Anyway, are the any other features you plan on adding Svip? Or is this it?

[Reply #171 on:]

There will be more.  I am just a bit busy working for money right now.

[Reply #172 on:]

I thought you worked simply for the adulation of your thousands of adoring fans and the free doughnuts?

[Reply #173 on:]

Apparently that they don't accept that as payment for rent.

[Reply #174 on:]

*bump*

New feature:  Graphs!  Here is the first graph, based on Bend-err's old graph.

Note:  This graph is based on ratings, not rankings.  Using rankings would be boring for this kind of graph.

Please suggest more graphs or add more data!

I am also planning a feature to export individual seasons.

[Reply #175 on:]

Good to see season 7 is rated higher than season 6, albeit by the most minuscule amount.

And Jesus Christ, season 3 was definitely a hit-and-miss season.

[Reply #176 on:]

Good to see season 7 is rated higher than season 6, albeit by the most minuscule amount.

It's worth noting that without TFHS, it wouldn't be above by a miniscule amount, but below by a noticeable amount.

It's also worth noting that Season 7 doesn't have many high points comparable with other seasons' highest scores. All the highest points for Season 7 are quite a way below the highest points for other seasons.

I think that the higher comparative ratings for much of Season 7 as compared to Season 6 have a lot to do with the expectations set by Season 6.

[Reply #177 on:]

You raise a good point, totalnerduk.  As such, I have created a new feature for the graph: ignore.

Here is an example of "The Futurama Holiday Spectacular" ignored, which definitely raises the average rating for season 6 above season 7.

You can ignore episodes by their number (e.g. '101' for "The Futurama Holiday Spectacular"), and to ignore more episodes, just comma separate the numbers.

[Reply #178 on:]

Yeah, it's been a bit of a meh season. No really bad episodes, but no really good ones either. But there's no point getting hung up on what ifs, because TFHS does exist, and season 6 is deservedly rated down because of it.

[Reply #179 on:]

True, but it is still interesting.  And since it was an incredibly easy feature to implement, I thought why not.

[Reply #180 on:]

Oh, I know it is. Sorry if it looked like I just crapped all over your cool new feature. It's certainly a better way to analyse them than the CGEF ratings.

Although speaking of which, fun fact, season 7 is the first season since season 1 to have every episode rated 70% or higher, at time of typing.

[Reply #181 on:]

"The Butterjunk Effect" is at 5.0 and "The Thief of Baghead" is at 6.0.

Or are you talking about the CGEF ratings?

[Reply #182 on:]

CGEF.

[Reply #183 on:]

But there's no point getting hung up on what ifs

Really? The thing about making comparisons is that it's all about playing around with data in various ways. This is a useful tool I think. Going back to what I was saying about expectations, I think that this is one reason why S7 has had such comparatively high ratings for largely sub-par episodes. There may also have been a shift in the demographics reviewing on CGEF: I know I've not done so for many of the S7 or most of the S6B episodes. I haven't been enthused enough to do so.

Nobody's getting "hung up on what-if's" by playing around with the data in this way. In fact, it's standard scientific practice to exclude data points from a series where they are clearly anomalous. As TFHS deviates so far from the "standard" range, it's quite reasonable to leave it off a graph for comparative purposes.

Plus, overall, S6 wasn't terrible. It gave us a couple of truly excellent episodes, three or four good ones, and some okay episodes too. The average is dragged down by half a dozen bad episodes. I don't think that overall, S7 is any better. I'd say that it's definitely not as good, in fact. It has one example of a really decent episode that doesn't have much wrong with it, and a few middle-of-the road ones. It also has some really facepalm-worthy stuff in it.

 

Although speaking of which, fun fact, season 7 is the first season since season 1 to have every episode rated 70% or higher, at time of typing.

The episodes are overall rated that little bit higher because of the shifting demographic (new fans that can't see the difference between the original and new runs are replacing the "first generation" fans, who tend to prefer the older episodes and of whom fewer and fewer are still watching the new stuff) and the shift in expectations that's occurring across the fanbase. People have significantly lowered their expectations following the worst episodes of S6 (such as TFHS) and the marked shift in tone towards the more "toony" nature of episodes like TTOTZ and TSMDM.

A shark may not have been jumped, but some time between 6B and 7A, some sort of large piscine entity may have been delicately stepped over. The show has definitely undergone a shift, and I don't think it's for the better.

The reasons that we don't see a clear and obvious shift in ratings are because the show is changing slightly and has changed slightly from what it was, the audience/fanbase has changed slightly, and the expectations of the audience have also been altered. So we don't see the sharp decline in overall ratings for episodes that we, in my view, should.

Put simply, there are too many idiots voting 10/10 on episodes that don't in any way deserve more than a 6/10 for that to be worth anything. Your mileage may vary, of course. But I'm not going to take the opinion of a teenager who has only ever known one woman in his entire life seriously.

[Reply #184 on:]

Nobody's getting "hung up on what-if's" by playing around with the data in this way. In fact, it's standard scientific practice to exclude data points from a series where they are clearly anomalous. As TFHS deviates so far from the "standard" range, it's quite reasonable to leave it off a graph for comparative purposes.

It's interesting, yes, but ultimately pointless. It's like saying "If season 7 had the best episode of all time, it would, as an average, surpass season 3". And since there are a smorgasbord of detested episodes in season 6, including AotKA, IaGDL, YLL and Neutopia, it doesn't stray that far from the standard range.

I won't bother discussing your opinion of season 7 being being worse than season 6 (pfft), as there's no point. But you talk about people, veterans of futurama, giving up on the show as they don't like it anymore, and new viewers arriving to replace them. The way I see it, that's not a bad thing. It's not like these newcomers don't realise what futurama's supposed to be about. If they hold the CC run in a higher regard than you, that's okay. I don't think futurama's ever going to become a show that's nothing but pop culture gags. There's family guy for that. If people like futurama, they know why they like it, so quit acting like fresh blood is a bad thing.

But I appreciate you not giving a shit about my opinion, but still taking the time to write a long-ass response.

[Reply #185 on:]

It's as pointless as rating episodes in the first place.

[Reply #186 on:]

That's very true. Giving episodes ratings out of 10 or percentages is fairly pointless as well.

[Reply #187 on:]

By the way, I do not believe totalnerduk was saying that fresh blood was a bad thing, he was instead trying to explain the data with an analysis that made sense.

[Reply #188 on:]

Nobody's getting "hung up on what-if's" by playing around with the data in this way. In fact, it's standard scientific practice to exclude data points from a series where they are clearly anomalous. As TFHS deviates so far from the "standard" range, it's quite reasonable to leave it off a graph for comparative purposes.

It's interesting, yes, but ultimately pointless. It's like saying "If season 7 had the best episode of all time, it would, as an average, surpass season 3". And since there are a smorgasbord of detested episodes in season 6, including AotKA, IaGDL, YLL and Neutopia, it doesn't stray that far from the standard range.

Apples and oranges. I've not proposed that you add a highly rated episodes into another season. I've suggested that the average for a particular season is skewed by an extreme data point.

If you'd actually looked at the graph and the scores for the episode in question, you'd see that it's outside the standard range for poor scores by quite a way. It beats all other episodes for the title of "Worst. Episode. Ever." based on the aggregated reviews of however many people have signed up for Svip's thingy.

But I appreciate you not giving a shit about my opinion, but still taking the time to write a long-ass response.

Where did I say I don't give a shit about your opinion? I said I'm not going to take it that seriously. That was also a pretty short response from me. Honestly. I don't consider it terribly long at all. It certainly didn't take long to write. Besides which, it doesn't mean that I do or don't give a shit about your opinion.

I won't bother discussing your opinion of season 7 being being worse than season 6 (pfft), as there's no point.

Do you mean that there's no point because I can actually expand upon it and present a case for my opinion, or do you mean there's no point because you're unable to present a countercase?

By the way, I do not believe totalnerduk was saying that fresh blood was a bad thing, he was instead trying to explain the data with an analysis that made sense.

^ This. Y'know, it's nice to know that as many Mr. Snrubs as we get, PEEL does still have the occasional Svip still posting.

[Reply #189 on:]

Do you mean that there's no point because I can actually expand upon it and present a case for my opinion, or do you mean there's no point because you're unable to present a countercase?

Yes.

[Reply #190 on:]

How do I graph?

[Reply #191 on:]

What you mean?  How you see the graph?  It's here.

[Reply #192 on:]

How do I graph?

How is graph formed? You need to do way instain mother.

[Reply #193 on:]

Oh, I misread and assumed we could make a graph for our individual lists, but now i see it's a combined one. - Don't mind me, I'll just take my improper English elsewhere

[Reply #194 on:]

[...] based on the aggregated reviews of however many people have signed up for Svip's thingy.

That would be fourteen o' us. So I'd say this site isn't quite as useful as CGEF... yet.

Definitely agree with tnuk that comparing season 6 sans TFHS to season 7 is a perfectly legitimate use of the data, since TFHS is such an outlier. Basic statistics there. Seriously, I think my stats teacher last year specifically said "it is often good practice to remove outliers when comparing averages in your scatterplots" on day 2.

If we're trying to argue that one sort of comparison has more of a point than another, I think we'd all better get off our cartoon-sci-fi-sitcom online discussion forum and go take a walk or something.

[Reply #195 on:]

Or you could just appreciate my graph drawing tool.

[Reply #196 on:]

Woo! Now we need to get more people using this, in order to make CGEF ratings irrelevant.

[Reply #197 on:]

Not to say I didn't appreciate your graph! It was the graphiest graph that ever graphed.

I was just saying my way of saying things doesn't seem to go by normal sentence structure... or in the case of this post, normal words.

Also I don't think I'm in a typing mood - took me three goes to spell "normal" right - so I'm obviously far from it.

Nice to see The Sting clawing its way back to 5th - in fact I like how the top 5 looks anyway, there is hope in the PEEL community!

[Reply #198 on:]

Oh, I misread and assumed we could make a graph for our individual lists, but now i see it's a combined one. - Don't mind me, I'll just take my improper English elsewhere

You can now, just add &userid= at the end of the URL and include your userid (which is the same id appearing in the URL that links to your own list).  Here is your graph, for instance.

[Reply #199 on:]

Wow, this is an awesome feature.

TLF, you gave Love's Labours a 1?