Yuku free message boards

scepticA wrote:

---

If someone would care to do so, maybe they'd compare eps 2-5 for Chris in S9 and those "empty episodes" of parvati.

A lot of us, myself included, gave Chris a CP1 or 2 for some of those eps when the "consensus" was UTR. I was amazed at how just about every comment from his mouth, whether confessional or conversation, was heavy-duty game related. I even said that a few of his comments should be in the "how to play survivor" game book.

I confess I don't recall that from Parv's quiet period, but if she did say truly game-pertinent stuff, then MOR or CP was warranted.

And that's probably why Edgic missed seeing Chris as a contender at the end. If his good comments are buried under UTR ratings, how can the group see it at the merge that he's obviously being tended carefully?

I'm not sure if Parvati would rate CP for her UTRs, but it's possible that one was, while another was MOR. Maybe 2 of the UTRs were true UTRs.

unduli, I agree that INV needs work. Jif calling a player's name 3 times could be more than INV, tho. We'd need someone to do challenge duty, keeping track of how many times everyone's names are called, so that we could see if 3 were a lot or a little for that challenge. When there are 16 or more players, being called 3 times is a lot. If there are only 6 people, three calls would perhaps be INV worthy. If people still have some eps TIVO'd maybe during the next few months they could work with the FvF season just to test the theories, and see what kind of data we'd have been working with if we had had this system in place. That would be fun, yes?

It could be that the scale for INV needs to change over the season. In the first few eps, it would take less to attain UTR status, because of there being so many whose names aren't mentioned more than once, and they are INV in the challenge. If they don't get personal time in the rest of the ep, bam INV.

Mid-season, with the number of players reduced by a quarter, we would like see an overall increase in the number of times everyone's names are called. However, again, if we had a watchdog keeping track, rather than having a set chart, maybe the best way is to use the data so that we draw a line depending on how many or how few even get their names called twice, or three times.

And so on. What do you think?

colleenlover wrote:

---

I don't know if there is a system that can work because editing is a craft, an art-form and will always be based on predicting their pyschology on telling a story.

In order to work more efficiently, the ratings need to be more cut and dried, less interpretative. The idea isn't to have ratings that are wishy-washy, or vague & indistinct, which are being subjectively applied. The idea is to have easy to understand ratings, which are a shorthand for the edit. A shorthand that everyone knows what's meant and isn't left guessing if the UTR was actually something more vital.

I agree that editing is a craft & an art form, and the editors aren't doing it to make our job easier or more difficult. Their goal is to tell a story, with many other stories running through it. Being more objective in the ratings will help us to see the intent, I think.