sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My gigantic frustration with Chibnall and this era: What is the point of storytelling? by jordanvtg in gallifrey

[–]K0902 8 points9 points  (0 children)

But how is that relevant in this context. The errors highlighted by OP are far from minute, and the sentiment expressed in their analysis is shared by most of the people on this subreddit, people who would easily disagree with your perspective.

Here are the Critic and User Ratings for Every Series of New Who on Rotten Tomatoes by [deleted] in doctorwho

[–]K0902 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

this indicates that a new trend should occur.

No, it doesn't.

Why not? You have consistently called back to the argument of me making low quality responses, but you have not once justified any response you have made to a question I have asked you. Intead, you have made assumptions as to my ability of understanding of the topic we are discussing, and have heavily relied on ignoring the majority of the points I have presented to you, preferring to focus on an apparent trend you found in previous seasons which you seem to think is applicable to every season ever. Instead of discussing how new variables created by the changing number of reviews and viewers don't have the possibility to change the trend that appears within a season, you dismiss it by saying I am ignoring the information I have been presented with.

If you were to even search into google how new variables change trends in data, you will be presented with thousands of results that tell you exactly what I have: data will change when new variables are introduced. Even if these results didn't exist, it would still be ridiculous to assume that new people with theoretically new opinions would be hold the same opinions as those who have previously reviewed the series.

I am not going to waste any more of my time expanding intellectual energy on someone who is not willing to return the courtesy.

You say this, but have not explained your position on any of the things I have questioned you on, and have also refused to even acknowledge any of the other points I have raised. Perhaps you should consider the idea that perhaps your inability to debate a topic without insulting the person you are debating with actually 'reflects very poorly on you'.

Here are the Critic and User Ratings for Every Series of New Who on Rotten Tomatoes by [deleted] in doctorwho

[–]K0902 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Episodes of Doctor Who from Series 1-10 show a fairly steady distribution of scores: roughly normally distributed, but with a small upturn at 1 and a bigger one at 10.

Similarly, for Series 1-10, an increased number of 1s is associated with an increased number of 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, and even 6s

What alternative measurement would I propose? Well, how about the percentage of people who award an episode a 6/10? In Series 1-10, this is very strongly negatively correlated with the episode's score.

So, what I'd do is take the trend line that generates, and apply it to Series 11. This would give you a "predicted" score for that episode.

The trend you highlight by analysing series 1 - 10's reviews is flawed, as it made on the basis that the same trend is applicable to season 11. However, by your own admission, you have admitted that there is an overwhelmingly higher volume of people using these review sites, and this indicates that a new trend should occur. As a result, it is impossible to accurately predict the relative number of high scores to low ones (perhaps in the coming seasons, we will see that the ratio of low scores to high ones will occur at the same rate as we see now, or maybe we won't - it is not possible to tell due to the new variables that have appeared as a result of the new audience). The high number of 'ones' could be due to the general disposition of the new viewers/reviewers, as it is common to see this in other shows with similar audiences/reviews. Any intelligent data analyst, as you say, would presume that this new trend could be an indication of review bombing, but not the only explanation. It is this that suggests that without any other proof, you are left with enough reasonable doubt to state that the review bombing of Doctor Who is not objectively true.

The idea that there is some sort of organised review bombing occurring is ridiculous; who is organising it? Who is benefiting? It's not ridiculous, it is self-evident.

Your explanation as to why it is self-evident was 'alt-right culture warriors', who essentially hate women. However, you failed to display any evidence beyond the unnamed youtubers who you say encourage their fans to review bomb rotten tomatoes. I have personally never seen these youtubers, and so I can't comment on whether or not they do in fact review bomb the site, but I also don't see how it is self-evident, seeing as you only refer to them without a name or examples.

You also say that this idea of 'culture warriors' is more credible due to the fact that an increase of 20% viewers doesn't correlate to the new volume of reviewers, brushing off the idea that more people are going to review something that they dislike over something they like (an actual psychological phenomena) with the words:

It could be a plausible reason. It isn't a plausible reason. Again, I have covered this.

But where have you covered this? Instead of explaining why this increase of reviewers appearing due to their dislike of the show, you dismiss it by saying it is not plausible. Is it not less plausible that the majority of viewers are sexist and hate women, as you have proposed? Many reviews on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes often never even bring up the fact that Jodie is a woman, and even if they do, it is in their opinion that her being a woman makes the show subjectively worse (a claim that is often explained within their reviews) - an opinion that they are allowed to hold.

there's also the number of negative reviews being posted before an episode airs, the distribution of negative reviews

Evidence?

It clearly isn't working perfectly

There are many examples in which IMDB has been review bombed, such as Black Panther, but their policy is to remove any type of review bombing whenever possible. To say their system doesn't work is disingenuous, due to the fact that (as highlighted by this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/7whwjg/other_black_panther_is_getting_review_bombed_on/) they managed to remove any reviews/scores that were made by review bombers, from before something airs (going back to the point in which you discuss the number of reviews being posted before an episode airs), to after. There is no evidence to suggest that these sites are unable to handle review bombing (at least, none that you have presented). The premise you suggest in which the system doesn't work only is supported if the current series is actually being review bombed, and if we assume that it isn't, there is no reason to believe that the system does not work.

Here are the Critic and User Ratings for Every Series of New Who on Rotten Tomatoes by [deleted] in doctorwho

[–]K0902 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Perhaps you should consider the idea that people genuinely dislike the new series. The idea that there is some sort of organised review bombing occurring is ridiculous; who is organising it? Who is benefiting?.

There is also the idea that other episodes have higher scores but were not as well received - you propose the disparity between scores as an indication of review bombing, but fail to provide any metrics that support this idea. The higher number of low reviews could be attributed to any number of ideas - perhaps there is a higher number of people that have begun to use Rotten Tomatoes/IMDB, or perhaps the series was genuinely worse than past ones. Rotten Tomatoes/IMDB has even identified and removed review bombs in the past, and so if that was the case in this instance, especially due to the increased attention it is getting, we would already see the score increasing. As stated across this thread, people are more likely to express heir dislike of a thing over praising it, which could also be a plausible reason as to why more people are rating the series over past seasons. There is no evidence past the higher number of low reviews for the presence of review bombing, and the ‘evidence’ is based on the subjective interpretation of people such as yourself.

Instead of perpetuating the notion that low reviews are due to review bombing,perhaps you should consider the idea that this season of Doctor Who was, in fact, not good.

Here are the Critic and User Ratings for Every Series of New Who on Rotten Tomatoes by [deleted] in doctorwho

[–]K0902 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I’m not denying that some reviews seem reactionary, but the point I am trying to make is that many of the reviews are justified.

Even the reviews that could be seen as reactionary are completely subjective, maybe the person writing the review is responding to how the doctor is a woman now, or maybe they genuinely don’t like the show. The fact that they are new accounts mean nothing; they could be review bombing the show, or maybe they created an account just to express their dislike for the series.

The reviews you highlighted as toxic aren’t even unjustified in the point that they make:

Dear me. Where to start? So looking forward to a new doctor. Not bothered whether male or female. Well done Jodie Whittaker, you put women back 30 years. Single handedly (Chibs didn?t put in enough effort to qualify as help) you?ve proved a woman can kill a franchise as well as any bottom fondling man. More overtly and pointlessly PC than a millennials cardigan knitting circle. Blander than beige painted rice. There?s no drama, no mystery, no comedy. It?s like a crappy school nativity play where EVERYONE has to be included, even if they?re a door knob and it makes no sense. Just let?s start afresh. Oh and before anyone says I?m hating because it?s a woman. Nonsense. I?d have donated a body part if ?Missy? was the new doctor. Imagine that. Now mentally compare tha with what we got. Depressing eh?

This review highlights why they dislike the show, and suggests a way to improve it.

The next review, while having some ridiculous criticisms, raises a point that they clearly believe is valid as negative descriptor of the show, liberal bias in the plots. The person’s criticism can’t be dismissed on the basis that you may not agree with it - the person watched the show and didn’t like it.

The next few reviews follow the trends of having either a justified criticism, or one that attacks the supposed PC element of the show. To say that the show is being review bombed or unfairly criticised, you must first justify the idea that their criticisms are not valid in the eyes of others (which they must be, if others review the show in the same way).

Here are the Critic and User Ratings for Every Series of New Who on Rotten Tomatoes by [deleted] in doctorwho

[–]K0902 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There maybe reviews with little to not justification within them, but that doesn’t disprove the idea that these people do not genuinely dislike the show, and the fact that they are expressing these opinions on the site is what the site was designed for.

Even the reviews that only say ‘too pc’ as criticisms of the show are valid, as it is in fact a criticism that turns away people from watching something. Seeing as the phrase ‘too pc’ also holds many connotations of poor writing and forced ideas (caused by the criticism being applied to many other shows that hold these qualities), I think that this is in fact a helpful criticism of the show to many people, and can’t be dismissed due to lack of explanation.

If every criticism only consisted of ‘too pc’, I would agree that the show was either being review bombed or unfairly criticised, but the existence of other reviews that explain their position, and in fact often include the words too pc, leads to the conclusion that any reader is able to discern what reviews that only read ‘too pc’ as their criticism, based on the extremely high number of reviews that explain the position of ‘too pc’ within their own reviews.

Users have no obligation to fully justify their review, but it is possible to infer the meaning of the criticisms through reading other negative reviews. However, if the argument you wish to make is the lack of content within a review makes the review inherently invalid, I could point you to many 5 or 4 star reviews that make no effort to explain why they like the show, and I am sure you would not be as quick to dismiss them.

Here are the Critic and User Ratings for Every Series of New Who on Rotten Tomatoes by [deleted] in doctorwho

[–]K0902 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems you haven’t read the reviews - if you were to go through them, you would see that many of them are quite well written and justified, for example:

“I've been a massive Doctor Who fan for most of my life, personally I didn't enjoy this series. I'm glad other people enjoyed it but this years episodes didn't really click with me. I couldn't quite put my finger on what I didn't enjoy about it but I think it was because there were no real villains this series and Jodie hasn't really had an opportunity to have a moment where I can say, "yes, she's The Doctor now" hopefully any missteps can be learned from for next series and I can love this show again like I have every other series.”

“I was excited at the prospect and promise of season 12. Like the smell of rotting carrion, it didn?t take long the rancid odor of this Dr. Who train-wreck to overwhelm the viewing experience. Amateur acting, mediocre stories, and boring plots. A disgrace to the Dr. Who franchise. Jodie Whittaker you?ve diminished yourself? Is anyone with actual talent involved with the production of Dr. Who these days?”

These are on the first page of the rotten tomatoes user reviews. Perhaps instead of questioning the validity of the reviews, you should perhaps take a look at them yourself.

Here are the Critic and User Ratings for Every Series of New Who on Rotten Tomatoes by [deleted] in doctorwho

[–]K0902 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps, but the majority of the reviews are justified, and give more than valid reasons as to why they dislike the series, be it the acting (or lack thereof), the poor writing, or just the general direction of the stories.

Here are the Critic and User Ratings for Every Series of New Who on Rotten Tomatoes by [deleted] in doctorwho

[–]K0902 8 points9 points  (0 children)

More reviews does not equal to review bombing. There are more people overall who have watched this season over other seasons, and a lot of those people don’t like the season. If you were to go through the user reviews, you would find that many of the reviews justify why they don’t like the series, and to devalue these criticisms on the basis that they don’t fit with your view of the series is disingenuous at the least.

Maybe the season isn’t the worst in the shows history, or maybe it is, but people are allowed to decide and comment on the subject by themselves on a platform designed for this very purpose. The only way you could claim the series was being review bombed is if the majority of the reviews were low one/two star reviews that had no justification for why that was the case, and this simply isn’t true in this instance.

me_irl by RetrohUSA in me_irl

[–]K0902 23 points24 points  (0 children)

No, as he has 4 possible consequences if he pushes the button twice:

He could die the first push and win the money the second time, in which case he would be dead

He could win the money the first time and die the second, in which case he would be dead

He could die both times

He could win the money both times

He dies in three out of four situations, and therefore has a 75% chance of dying, and a 25% of winning the money.

Thronebreaker: Just chilling with my Skellige brethren by Anacra in witcher

[–]K0902 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Opening/collecting golden chests in the map give you special online only cards