STAR WARS : Episode IX December 20, 2019 6 6

[Bosco685]

3 minutes ago, valiantman said:

You have chosen to compare (without bias, according to you):

a) The first 500 votes of one type to the full 96,000 votes of another type: Not valid. 

b) The percentage change between the 250th vote of one type and the 471st vote of another TO the percentage change between the 7,500th vote of one type to the 96,000th vote of another type: Not valid.

c) You have actually created two charts which show these difference as equal widths (x-axis) although they represent under 500 of one and over 96,000 of the other: Not valid.

d) To set the two graphs to equal heights (y-axis) with different starting and ending points: Not valid.

e) To compare one type of measure (percent approval) to another type of measure (percentage of users rating 3.5 or higher): Not valid.

So, it's wrong to compare the quantity, delta, x-axis, y-axis, and unit of measure, yet, you've done all 5.

 

...and you've said I'm wrong:

1st - for pointing out these problems.

2nd - for implying they're "propaganda" (which is defined as: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.)

3rd - for mentioning my credentials in the proof of my assertions.

4th - for also posting a link to Wikipedia for "misleading graphs" which further supports this proof.

 

Arguing against the bias of the media interpretation with bias of your own is not correcting anything.

Arguing against my methods of proving your errors is not proving I've made any errors.

 

Is it still Friday?

Pull out all the terms you want in what propaganda means. Meanwhile, you stated 'I STARTED IT - YOU FINISHED IT' when you:

1) Accused me of manipulating the data and implying it was propaganda

2) Then actually posted a wiki article talking to how to manipulate charts - as if I was actually manipulating the data coming directly from Rotten Tomatoes results.

You were itching to pick a fight to whip out your 'I'VE GOT A PH.D.' like that would further detract from data coming right from the source, being presented in the range it is is occurring of 86% day-after-day with never a variance. You are going to put your fantastic Ph. D. behind that statement?

Then to work with you I pulled in the IMDb data based on the RT standards that 75% of a vote (3.5/5) must be the result for a binary decision of POSITIVE. So the same would apply to a ten-point scale (70%) being a positive.

So even with that, the result would be a 65% positive across 244K votes. But to be fair with that much information we can make some data inferences here:

• A 5 or 6 can't really be an outright dislike of a film
• A 7 leans more towards a semi-satisfied experience with some mixed emotions (those that usually post 'it was a good film, but...')

So to be fair, creating a three-range score of LIKED, MIXED and DISLIKED. Which I called out earlier and is more believable based on real feedback from critics, general movie-goers and board member movie-goers.

• 44% liked the movie
• 42% were mixed on the movie
• 14% disliked the movie (probably those that post reviews hating it)

That is very statistically sound more than 86% liked this film. Even without direct data, go watch a number of the videos or read articles or people positing their thoughts what they thought of ROS. It actually matches that range, though with those that hated the film they are the loudest so you assume nothing worked in this film (not the case).

You meant to discredit what I post. I teased you about it. Your ego was so overwhelmed as you clutched your diploma to your chest in protest. Then you went from there.

Implying because I presented the always-steady 86% on a 0% to 100% scale was meant to misrepresent the data is just demonstrating on how much you were just going for a statistical fight. And goofy, in 'non-Ph.D.' speak to us commoners. No matter what, there is statistical manipulation occurring in order to counter the critic scores which shocked Disney how bad this was coming across. THE WORST IN THE FRANCHISE'S HISTORY! And for the capstone film to wrap up the entire run over forty years before the next series of films.

Your propaganda statement and intent was far from appreciated.

[valiantman]

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Bosco685]

I guess these more reasonable reviewer voices must be in the 86% category. Because of course RT and Disney could not be manipulating the audience score data.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and a 7.0/10 rating too.

 

[valiantman]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

[Bosco685]

6 minutes ago, valiantman said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism

Hey, this wiki thing works. 

[valiantman]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Bosco685]

17 minutes ago, valiantman said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection

 

[@therealsilvermane]

2 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

I guess these more reasonable reviewer voices must be in the 86% category. Because of course RT and Disney could not be manipulating the audience score data.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and a 7.0/10 rating too.

 

Here's Kevin Smith's review of ROS and he loved it 4 times. He also backs up my argument that the Emperor coming back isn't a stretch because the Sith believe in eternal life of the body, unlike Jedi who believe in eternal life of the spirit.

 

[Bosco685]

31 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Here's Kevin Smith's review of ROS and he loved it 4 times. He also backs up my argument that the Emperor coming back isn't a stretch because the Sith believe in eternal life of the body, unlike Jedi who believe in eternal life of the spirit.

 

You misunderstand something here. I was accused of manipulating data to misrepresent the reactions because naturally 86% of people loved this film.

There is an abundance of the more level-headed reviewers that were very disappointed in ROS. Those are the examples. And even the Senior Editor of Collider, one of the more friendly reviewers.

No data manipulation necessary. These are the calmer folks with film reviews. And not weepy Kevin Smith.

[valiantman]

3 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection

 

You're deflecting alright, but that's to be expected when you're suffering so badly from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

Get well soon! 

[valiantman]

5 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Pull out all the terms you want in what propaganda means. Meanwhile, you stated 'I STARTED IT - YOU FINISHED IT' when you:

1) Accused me of manipulating the data and implying it was propaganda

2) Then actually posted a wiki article talking to how to manipulate charts - as if I was actually manipulating the data coming directly from Rotten Tomatoes results.

You were itching to pick a fight to whip out your 'I'VE GOT A PH.D.' like that would further detract from data coming right from the source, being presented in the range it is is occurring of 86% day-after-day with never a variance. You are going to put your fantastic Ph. D. behind that statement?

Then to work with you I pulled in the IMDb data based on the RT standards that 75% of a vote (3.5/5) must be the result for a binary decision of POSITIVE. So the same would apply to a ten-point scale (70%) being a positive.

So even with that, the result would be a 65% positive across 244K votes. But to be fair with that much information we can make some data inferences here:

• A 5 or 6 can't really be an outright dislike of a film
• A 7 leans more towards a semi-satisfied experience with some mixed emotions (those that usually post 'it was a good film, but...')

So to be fair, creating a three-range score of LIKED, MIXED and DISLIKED. Which I called out earlier and is more believable based on real feedback from critics, general movie-goers and board member movie-goers.

• 44% liked the movie
• 42% were mixed on the movie
• 14% disliked the movie (probably those that post reviews hating it)

That is very statistically sound more than 86% liked this film. Even without direct data, go watch a number of the videos or read articles or people positing their thoughts what they thought of ROS. It actually matches that range, though with those that hated the film they are the loudest so you assume nothing worked in this film (not the case).

You meant to discredit what I post. I teased you about it. Your ego was so overwhelmed as you clutched your diploma to your chest in protest. Then you went from there.

Implying because I presented the always-steady 86% on a 0% to 100% scale was meant to misrepresent the data is just demonstrating on how much you were just going for a statistical fight. And goofy, in 'non-Ph.D.' speak to us commoners. No matter what, there is statistical manipulation occurring in order to counter the critic scores which shocked Disney how bad this was coming across. THE WORST IN THE FRANCHISE'S HISTORY! And for the capstone film to wrap up the entire run over forty years before the next series of films.

Your propaganda statement and intent was far from appreciated.

[valiantman]

5 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

You were itching to pick a fight to whip out your 'I'VE GOT A PH.D.' like that would further detract from data coming right from the source, being presented in the range it is is occurring of 86% day-after-day with never a variance. You are going to put your fantastic Ph. D. behind that statement?

You violated one of the simplest rules in graphing and comparing two charts, and I pointed it out. You told me I was wrong and I mentioned I might be right on this one... you know... because.  Because why you might ask.  Because you should trust me, a random guy on the internet.  Or... because I actually do know what I'm talking about. Diploma, yes, included with a joke and a  emoji.

You accused me of bragging and attempted again to claim your wrong answer equally valid... and on it went until I pointed out all 5 things you actually did wrong, but I only mentioned the most obvious at first. Rather than admit the mistake, you made a second chart that was useless and ignored the actual problem. The other 4 errors you've ignored.

It is still wrong.

There are two charts. One shows a steady number no matter how you display it.  The other one shows a steep decline because it is the chart with the problem. You purposefully made a chart showing a 75% decline from 58% to 52% when everyone over the age of 6 knows that is a 6% decline.

You can use the exact same chart for a decline from 99.98% to 99.92% with a scale of 99.9% to 100% and it would still be completely wrong.

 

Just admit it's wrong... and the other 4 errors while you're at it.  

 

You've loudly concluded that there is significant manipulation of movie reviews based on your "investigation" which made 5 errors in just two charts.

I said "nope" and your panties twisted so hard my (actual) diploma just existing and being mentioned once in a joke broke your waistband.

[Bosco685]

9 hours ago, valiantman said:

Spoiler

 

You're deflecting alright, but that's to be expected when you're suffering so badly from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

Get well soon! 

 

Blah

 

9 hours ago, valiantman said:

 

Spoiler

Blah

 

8 hours ago, valiantman said:

Spoiler

 

You violated one of the simplest rules in graphing and comparing two charts, and I pointed it out. You told me I was wrong and I mentioned I might be right on this one... you know... because.  Because why you might ask.  Because you should trust me, a random guy on the internet.  Or... because I actually do know what I'm talking about. Diploma, yes, included with a joke and a  emoji.

You accused me of bragging and attempted again to claim your wrong answer equally valid... and on it went until I pointed out all 5 things you actually did wrong, but I only mentioned the most obvious at first. Rather than admit the mistake, you made a second chart that was useless and ignored the actual problem. The other 4 errors you've ignored.

It is still wrong.

There are two charts. One shows a steady number no matter how you display it.  The other one shows a steep decline because it is the chart with the problem. You purposefully made a chart showing a 75% decline from 58% to 52% when everyone over the age of 6 knows that is a 6% decline.

You can use the exact same chart for a decline from 99.98% to 99.92% with a scale of 99.9% to 100% and it would still be completely wrong.

 

Just admit it's wrong... and the other 4 errors while you're at it.  

 

You've loudly concluded that there is significant manipulation of movie reviews based on your "investigation" which made 5 errors in just two charts.

I said "nope" and your panties twisted so hard my (actual) diploma just existing and being mentioned once in a joke broke your waistband.

 

blah

Now, since you felt so offended your insinuation I was posting manipulated data as propaganda wasn't accepted as kind feedback, like that is needed on a comic book forum discussing TV shows and movies, let's talk about descriptive statistics basics and data visualization.

First off, with the data to be analyzed we determine is it nominal data (positive votes) or categorical/ordinal data (number of positives by region, or even male vs female). But why is that important?

If it is nominal data, you can use charts such as a histogram to determine average positive per-day results over time. In general, how did the audience like Film X? Though by averaging out the results, it makes it a little difficult to distinguish what contributors led to the results. It's just a mean score to convey the central tendency.

If it is categorical data, then we can consider bar charts to distinguish between these categories how their differences may have influenced the results. In this example, Asia was not as big a fan of Film X, which would lead to deeper analysis to determine root cause what about Film X failed to connect with the Asian market compared to other regional results.

Some would say it's all ordinal data with surveys when applying a Likert scale (Like, Kind of Like, Dislike). But when you add those factors to break out by region or gender, now it is easier to distinguish contributor differences leading to a variance.

In the case of Rotten Tomatoes data, this is nominal data that captures average positive responses. To determine 'over time' you have to capture this yourself as result updates occur in to determine shifts. And what shifts they are.

I mean...there has to be shifts there across 96,430 audience contributors, right? Unless everyone is conditioned the same, and the average daily is 86% positive day-in and day-out. Right? 

The same goes for IMDb user tracking. But in its case, we are very clear the count of votes per each of the individual ten-point scores. Which makes us better informed on reactions. And which allows us to generate some interesting data visualization to determine how a film is landing with audiences based on a small sample (244,427 audience members). And like I noted before, we can make some inferences from this data in charting the results based on common measurement practices (e.g. 70% or better is good to great, like test scores) or even mixed reactions (5-7) versus those that strongly liked a film (8-10) versus those that strongly disliked a film (1-4).

So rather than attempting to discredit what was posted, which was statistically sound, how about we get back to the real topic?

We have a Star Wars film that, in general, is trending below the modern norm for satisfaction as the capstone of a forty-year franchise. One that many of us would love to see delivered so much consistent and satisfying to honor the combined story versus throwing together a bunch of awesome scenes like a fetch game event rather than a true well-packaged franchise experience.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Bosco685

[valiantman]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

 

 

Your second chart shows a drop from a height that is 80% up your chart at 58% to a height that is 20% up your chart at 52%,

58% to 52% is NOT the same as 80% becoming 20%.

You have purposefully shown a visual drop of 75% when REALITY was a simple subtraction drop of 6%.

PROP-A-GAN-freakin'-DUH

(And there are still FOUR other errors in these two charts you YOU created that I have mentioned, and a few additional errors I haven't mentioned.) 

You're still arguing that 58%-52% should be a 75% drop visually, with new words you found "ordinal" and "cardinal" (before you went to Google for help,  you though those were bird baseball mascots) so we're not getting anywhere.

 

If you didn't post 2,400 times a week in movie topics, it wouldn't matter, but you're a self-proclaimed "fellow statistician" all over this category of the board, in every topic, all the time who is not reppin' our squad, homey.

Edited February 1, 2020 by valiantman

[Bosco685]

20 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Your second chart shows a drop from a height that is 80% up your chart at 58% to a height that is 20% up your chart at 52%,

58% to 52% is NOT the same as 80% becoming 20%.

You have purposefully shown a visual drop of 75% when REALITY was a simple subtraction drop of 6%.

PROP-A-GAN-freakin'-DUH

(And there are still FOUR other errors in these two charts you YOU created that I have mentioned, and a few additional errors I haven't mentioned.) 

You're still arguing that 58%-52% should be a 75% drop visually, with new words you found "ordinal" and "cardinal" (before you went to Google for help,  you though those were bird baseball mascots) so we're not getting anywhere.

 

If you didn't post 2,400 times a week in movie topics, it wouldn't matter, but you're a self-proclaimed "fellow statistician" all over this category of the board, in every topic, all the time who is not reppin' our squad, homey.

I see you still want to imply I purposely manipulate data to convey propaganda. Actually, with Six Sigma methodology it is all about data-driven decision-making. I didn't need to run to Google to look that up.

Now you want to make it about how much I post to feed news and stories from TV shows and films here for people to discuss? Are you sure your PhD isn't in trollmanship? I didn't realize your job here was to regulate posting frequency.

Oh, and guess what? Consistent 86% even now.

[Bosco685]

29 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Spoiler

 

Your second chart shows a drop from a height that is 80% up your chart at 58% to a height that is 20% up your chart at 52%,

58% to 52% is NOT the same as 80% becoming 20%.

You have purposefully shown a visual drop of 75% when REALITY was a simple subtraction drop of 6%.

PROP-A-GAN-freakin'-DUH

(And there are still FOUR other errors in these two charts you YOU created that I have mentioned, and a few additional errors I haven't mentioned.) 

You're still arguing that 58%-52% should be a 75% drop visually, with new words you found "ordinal" and "cardinal" (before you went to Google for help, 

 

you though those were bird baseball mascots

Spoiler

 

) so we're not getting anywhere.

 

If you didn't post 2,400 times a week in movie topics, it wouldn't matter, but you're a self-proclaimed "fellow statistician" all over this category of the board, in every topic, all the time who is not reppin' our squad, homey.

 

 

I guess a PhD doesn't bother with validating spelling and definition application. The times, they are a-changing. 

[valiantman]

I could point out your parentage includes a hamster and the scent of elderberries, but that's a much better comedy than your comedy of errors.

Edited February 1, 2020 by valiantman

[Rip]

Some really cool behind the scenes shots

https://assets.adg.org/media/submissions/2019-12-27_11-27-04/SW_ADG_PDF.pdf

[Bosco685]

20 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I could point out your parentage includes a hamster and the scent of elderberries, but that's a much better comedy that your comedy of errors.

'than' 

Calling my parents now to tell them how proud I am. But dad keeps getting hurt. 

[Bosco685]

17 minutes ago, Rip said:

Some really cool behind the scenes shots

https://assets.adg.org/media/submissions/2019-12-27_11-27-04/SW_ADG_PDF.pdf

Talk about massive sets.