DID YOU READ

Our current star rating systems might deserve zero stars

Our current star rating systems might deserve zero stars (photo)

Posted by on

Those five star ratings systems on websites like Netflix and iTunes have turned us all into a nation of critics (sucks for me, I used to feel special). But is a five star ratings system really the best way to determine whether something is good or not? According to a couple of researchers from MIT, maybe not.

As spotted by the tech site GigaOM, a new paper by Devavrat Shah of MIT’s Laboratory of Information and Decisions Systems argues that online ratings systems “should instead ask users to compare products in pairs, not as stand-alone items.” In other words:

“…the kind of star rating systems that are the status quo on the web today are flawed because, well, humans are flawed. ‘If my mood is bad today, I might give four stars, but tomorrow I’d give five stars. But if you ask me to compare two movies, most likely I will remain true to that for a while,’ Shah says in an article published this week on MIT’s news site. ‘Your three stars might be my five stars, or vice versa. For that reason, I strongly believe that comparison is the right way to capture this.'”

Shah and his team believe that these “pairwise rankings” create a more accurate recommendation model than the five stars (they boast that their algorithm “accurately predict shoppers’ preferences with 20 percent greater accuracy than the kinds of formulas most often in use today”). In other other words, assigning a score to a single movie is a less reliable method of ranking films or television shows than selecting a preference between multiple films or television shows.

This is all tremendously nerdy stuff, so nerdy it’s giving my pocket protector sympathy pains. But it is pretty important, too. Any time you pay any attention to the star ratings on a website before you rent a movie on VOD, or purchase an album, or decide to make a reservation at a restaurant, you are validating those star ratings. And if they’re inaccurate, imagine the impact those inaccuracies have on your choices. If customers are being swayed by what those stars tell them, those stars damn well better be accurate.

Granted, I didn’t go to MIT and I can’t even spell algorithm much less make one of my own. I’m sure their research is sound and well thought-out. But my question would be this: how do they ensure people take pairwise rankings any more seriously than they do five star rankings? If web users, secure in their Internet anonymity, will give a movie one star just because they had a bad burrito for lunch, who’s to say they won’t react similarly when offered the choice of deciding between “Star Wars” and “Battlefield Earth?” How do we know they won’t use that same anarchic impulse to screw with those recommendations too? I’m not sure we do, but maybe there’s some sort of behavioral study that says that they won’t.

The other problem with comparative rankings is something I’ve found through my own casual use of the website Flickchart, where you repeatedly rank pairs of movies in order to create a list of your favorite movies. The site’s a lot of fun to play with, but the comparisons it proposes are often totally absurd. Comparing a thing you love to a thing you hate is easy: when Flickchart throws up “Almost Famous” and “Bad Boys 2” it’s not too hard to pick a winner. But comparing between things you love can very, very tricky.

If Flickchart gave you the comparison of movies above — “L.A. Confidential” and “Chinatown” — you’d have something to choose between. They’re both neo-noirs set in Los Angeles, they have similar tones and themes and ideas. It’s a hard pick, because they’re both phenomenal movies, but there are obvious commonalities. But if Flickchart asks you to compare between, “L.A. Confidential” and, say, “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” which do you select? Personally, I’m more likely to watch “L.A. Confidential” if given the choice between the two, but can I really argue “L.A. Confidential” is a “better” movie than “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs?” “Snow White” is a watershed film in the history of cinema. “L.A. Confidential” is just a very well-acted and well-written crime story. So which one do I pick? And not only which one do I pick, but which one do other people pick? Some might choose according to their taste, some by a quasiobjective system of importance or cultural impact. The room for variation seems almost as large as with five star ratings.

I agree that five star ratings can be very flawed; there’s too much room for human error and not enough nuance. And I’m curious to hear and see more of this pairwise ranking in action. But if you gave me a pairwise ranking of these two options right now, I’m not sure what I would pick.

Your turn for some pairwise rankings: do you like five star ratings or comparative rankings? Tell us in the comments below or on Twitter and Facebook!

Watch More
FrankAndLamar_100-Trailer_MPX-1920×1080

Bro and Tell

BFFs And Night Court For Sports

Bromance and Comeuppance On Two New Comedy Crib Series

Posted by on

“Silicon Valley meets Girls meets black male educators with lots of unrealized potential.”

That’s how Carl Foreman Jr. and Anthony Gaskins categorize their new series Frank and Lamar which joins Joe Schiappa’s Sport Court in the latest wave of new series available now on IFC’s Comedy Crib. To better acquaint you with the newbies, we went right to the creators for their candid POVs. And they did not disappoint. Here are snippets of their interviews:

Frank and Lamar

via GIPHY

IFC: How would you describe Frank and Lamar to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Carl: Best bros from college live and work together teaching at a fancy Manhattan private school, valiantly trying to transition into a more mature phase of personal and professional life while clinging to their boyish ways.

IFC: And to a friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Carl: The same way, slightly less coherent.

Anthony: I’d probably speak about it with much louder volume, due to the bar which would probably be playing the new Kendrick Lamar album. I might also include additional jokes about Carl, or unrelated political tangents.

Carl: He really delights in randomly slandering me for no reason. I get him back though. Our rapport on the page, screen, and in real life, comes out of a lot of that back and forth.

IFC: In what way is Frank and Lamar a poignant series for this moment in time?
Carl: It tells a story I feel most people aren’t familiar with, having young black males teach in a very affluent white world, while never making it expressly about that either. Then in tackling their personal lives, we see these three-dimensional guys navigate a pivotal moment in time from a perspective I feel mainstream audiences tend not to see portrayed.

Anthony: I feel like Frank and Lamar continues to push the envelope within the genre by presenting interesting and non stereotypical content about people of color. The fact that this show brought together so many talented creative people, from the cast and crew to the producers, who believe in the project, makes the work that much more intentional and truthful. I also think it’s pretty incredible that we got to employ many of our friends!

Sport Court

Sport Court gavel

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Joe: SPORT COURT follows Judge David Linda, a circuit court judge assigned to handle an ad hoc courtroom put together to prosecute rowdy fan behavior in the basement of the Hartford Ultradome. Think an updated Night Court.

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to drunk friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Joe: Remember when you put those firecrackers down that guy’s pants at the baseball game? It’s about a judge who works in a court in the stadium that puts you in jail right then and there. I know, you actually did spend the night in jail, but imagine you went to court right that second and didn’t have to get your brother to take off work from GameStop to take you to your hearing.

IFC: Is there a method to your madness when coming up with sports fan faux pas?
Joe: I just think of the worst things that would ruin a sporting event for everyone. Peeing in the slushy machine in open view of a crowd seemed like a good one.

IFC: Honestly now, how many of the fan transgressions are things you’ve done or thought about doing?
Joe: I’ve thought about ripping out a whole row of chairs at a theater or stadium, so I would have my own private space. I like to think of that really whenever I have to sit crammed next to lots of people. Imagine the leg room!

Check out the full seasons of Frank and Lamar and Sport Court now on IFC’s Comedy Crib.

Watch More
Brockmire-103-banner-4

Millennial Wisdom

Charles Speaks For Us All

Get to know Charles, the social media whiz of Brockmire.

Posted by on

He may be an unlikely radio producer Brockmire, but Charles is #1 when it comes to delivering quips that tie a nice little bow on the absurdity of any given situation.

Charles also perfectly captures the jaded outlook of Millennials. Or at least Millennials as mythologized by marketers and news idiots. You know who you are.

Played superbly by Tyrel Jackson Williams, Charles’s quippy nuggets target just about any subject matter, from entry-level jobs in social media (“I plan on getting some experience here, then moving to New York to finally start my life.”) to the ramifications of fictional celebrity hookups (“Drake and Taylor Swift are dating! Albums y’all!”). But where he really nails the whole Millennial POV thing is when he comments on America’s second favorite past-time after type II diabetes: baseball.

Here are a few pearls.

On Baseball’s Lasting Cultural Relevance

“Baseball’s one of those old-timey things you don’t need anymore. Like cursive. Or email.”

On The Dramatic Value Of Double-Headers

“The only thing dumber than playing two boring-ass baseball games in one day is putting a two-hour delay between the boring-ass games.”

On Sartorial Tradition

“Is dressing badly just a thing for baseball, because that would explain his jacket.”

On Baseball, In A Nutshell

“Baseball is a f-cked up sport, and I want you to know it.”


Learn more about Charles in the behind-the-scenes video below.

And if you were born before the late ’80s and want to know what the kids think about Baseball, watch Brockmire Wednesdays at 10P on IFC.

Watch More
Brockmire_101_tout_2

Crown Jules

Amanda Peet FTW on Brockmire

Amanda Peet brings it on Brockmire Wednesday at 10P on IFC.

Posted by on
GIFS via Giphy

On Brockmire, Jules is the unexpected yin to Jim Brockmire’s yang. Which is saying a lot, because Brockmire’s yang is way out there. Played by Amanda Peet, Jules is hard-drinking, truth-spewing, baseball-loving…everything Brockmire is, and perhaps what he never expected to encounter in another human.

“We’re the same level of functional alcoholic.”


But Jules takes that commonality and transforms it into something special: a new beginning. A new beginning for failing minor league baseball team “The Frackers”, who suddenly about-face into a winning streak; and a new beginning for Brockmire, whose life gets a jumpstart when Jules lures him back to baseball. As for herself, her unexpected connection with Brockmire gives her own life a surprising and much needed goose.

“You’re a Goddamn Disaster and you’re starting To look good to me.”

This palpable dynamic adds depth and complexity to the narrative and pushes the series far beyond expected comedy. See for yourself in this behind-the-scenes video (and brace yourself for a unforgettable description of Brockmire’s genitals)…

Want more about Amanda Peet? She’s all over the place, and has even penned a recent self-reflective piece in the New York Times.

And of course you can watch the Jim-Jules relationship hysterically unfold in new episodes of Brockmire, every Wednesday at 10PM on IFC.

Watch More
Powered by ZergNet