I agree, just added KG to the panel a couple days ago but I'll talk to him about it.  Short, entertaining movies from popular directors do tend to get reviewed faster because it's easier since these are films we'd watch and review anyway.

That said, please refrain from giving a video one out of five just because you're frustrated.  You know who you are.  Don't rate a film low to compensate for high ratings, rate it how you really think of it, regardless of what this will make the overall rating out to be.

No, not yet.  My understanding is that Sloth has been busy with other engagements lately, we have plans to expand the search functionality quite a bit but it may be a little while before this is done.

There is a mistake in this review

it says overall 5, and I calculated the ratings and it should be overall 7.

-Darkman

youtube]                   Twitter]

Sloth is working on making the pages fully editable.

And Darkman, I'm not sure what to make of your post, I guess it's some kind of joke? 

edit: oh, unless you thought overall was an average.  It's not, it's a unique 1-10 rating.  The overall effect of a movie is rarely equal to the sum of its parts.

Sorry about that, you must have been writing the reply when I edited my post.

Sméagol, could you put this Youtube link with Deal in the directory please ?

-Darkman

youtube]                   Twitter]

Edit by Sloth: I seemed to have messed this up, this discussion started here[/edit]

I would not go so far as to call it a misstep, even if it is right on the border of acceptability - like I said, it's subjective, it's quite alright if you enjoyed the film and so decided to recommend it.  It's very minimal but what's there is well-done, the concept is so simple that it didn't take much animation to represent it.  The thing is, in a video that short, most viewers are not going to take note of the ratio of text to animation and be concerned by it.  (The titles aren't overly long, after all; obviously 3 minutes of text/credits for a 1 minute movie wouldn't be OK but even if something is very short you have to have the text up long enough to read it.)  And user ratings indicate that our users are enjoying "Maladroit" more often than not - it averages out at just over 3/5.  (Only one rating of the five ratings is below a 3, thanks to somebody giving it one star, and for the record these ratings all took place over a month ago.)

But I think I'll call it quits here.  You aren't following up on any of your points when I refute them, just posting the same broken example over and over, which just isn't sufficient to demonstrate an inherent flaw in the reviewing system.

I believe your film got in when the standards were quite low, at some point An Old Ore was put in charge and the standards were raised substantially.  For example, my first movie "Cretaceous Camp" was accepted back when Jason Rowoldt was the admin of Brickfilms, and it stayed in the directory, but it would not have been good enough to make it under An Old Ore's standards, or those of the BiM directotry.

That's simply not true, there are plenty of 2s and 3s among the user ratings, showing that users have been giving out moderately low ratings.

I'm aware you didn't like "Maladroit," my point is that you probably aren't in the majority.  You call it a 3:1 text to video ratio, (it's actually only about 60% text, I just checked) I call it a very short movie with a few seconds of text on each end - when you look at it as only 8 seconds of text it becomes clear that it's hardly much of the users' time even if they don't enjoy it.  If you don't like the video that's fine, but all evidence points to you being in the minority here.  On YouTube, the same video has 4.5/5 stars, with 23 ratings.

Almost every video on this site is "amateur."

Well, brian requested I remove it from the directory yesterday, so I did.

Well I think that is a bit immature, but Brian can do whatever he likes with his videos.  One thing I tried to do with this site is make it as easy as possible to rate films, even before the film is available in the directory users can rate it via the forums, and I think as a result more people are rating films here then they did at Brickfilms.com. I know the average users rating will not always coincide with the staffs rating so there are two separate ratings, the ratings do not look similar so they should be very hard to confuse.

I wanted the ratings to be transparent as possible, if a company does not have any negative reviews of there products online I wonder if they are actually a scam, so if our users rate the film poorly the rating will reflect that.  I have never deleted a negative comment about my videos on youTube (although I think I only have one which says "Add voices you retard") becouse I think that filtering comments (appart from spam) is dishonest to viewers.  It would be nice if we could have another ratings which would give the average based on viewers with similar preferences however that would require hundreds of votes per film to work with any kind of accuracy.

As I do not review films I had no control over what is and is not recommended by that panel, and if the panels judgment reflects that of the masses its not overly surprising as they are part of the masses.

Furthermore, why would you attack Sméagol for that, you are just being petty and immature, any complaint about the coding should be directed at me.  However I do have a life outside of BiM and as Sméagol is not going to pay me for the time I spend working on the site.  In addition to that I am in the possess of moving and making my own film, this leave me very little free time for coding right now.

If you would like to see the compliance issues fixed right now I charge $15 an hour and you can contact me at [email protected], if needed you can also stay in touch as I do the work for you via gTalk or Skype (chat or by voice)