The Global Rankings 2: Rankings Reloaded

21 Nov
2010
avatar

by

Today, we’ve upgraded the way we calculate the “best” movies on Flickchart as decided by all of our users (a.k.a. the “global” rankings) to be more accurate than they have been in the past. Previously, a movie had to have an excessively high number of users that had ranked it before it could ascend the global charts – meaning that blockbusters had an unjust monopoly on the Top 100, and as a result, many highly-ranked independent and foreign movies were shut out.

The new algorithm uses a Bayesian formula to take into account those movies that have been ranked by fewer total users, but whose average rankings are very high: several examples currently in the new top 100 are Let the Right One In, The Seven Samurai, Oldboy, and Amélie. Note that this does not use a movie’s winning percentage (how often a movie wins a matchup) but rather the average position where each movie exists on everyone’s individual Flickchart.

In addition, you’ll notice that newly added movies, such as those recently in theaters, will climb the charts much more quickly if they’re ranked highly by our users (e.g. The Social Network, Inception, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One, etc.).

While we think the new overall algorithm is much improved over our previous version, we’ll continue to make minor tweaks as we go along, and we’ll be sure to keep you posted as we do.

  • Michael Schatz

    YAY! AMELIE IS AMAZING!

  • Chaqudemus

    I just checked out a few rankings and a lot of the titles that were in the top 1000 are now far back in 18000. Like the new star wars movies (good!).
    And a lot of movies by Akira Kurosawa and others are now where they belong.

    I like it!

  • Jon Baitzel

    I’m sorry, but I don’t think this is an improvement at all. For example, Yojimbo is #1 to 12 people and in the top 20 of 109 people. Therefore it is now #78 on the Global Rankings. Meanwhile, Armageddon is #1 to 93 people and in the top 20 of 2047 people, yet somehow it is Ranked #17859? That doesn’t seem logical to me.

  • Derek Bowman

    I agree with Jon Baitzel. The idea of the new algorithm giving indie and foriegn films a better spot in the rankings is good, but now it seems like the gap has reversed and big blockbusters and crowd-pleasers are getting thrown in the 16,000+ range. Some movies that only 1% of flickchart have seen getting higher on the global rankings than ones that 50% or higher because of one or two peoples opinions seems foolish.

    I always admired flickchart for being the people’s favorite films no matter my opinion on the rankings, but now it seems like flickchart is trying to make it’s Top list taken more seriously among high end film critics or something.

    A nice balance between the old and new systems would be nice, but if that isn’t possible I liked the old way better. And no matter what I’ll still be here on flickchart!

  • Chaqudemus

    But it must be that a lot of the blockbusters are low on most people’s flickchart. If the movies are in the lower half of the personal charts it’s normal that the movies are in the lower half of the global rankings.

    It’s true that it needs to be tweaked a little but it’s still an improvement too me. And I am by no means a film critic. I just couldn’t stand that a few bad movies took the high places, higher than Oldboy and such…

  • Michael Osciak

    I’m not crazy about the new rankings either. Derrick is right when he says how it seems foolish that a movie that 1% has seen is ranked higher then movies 50% have seen. For example, Buford’s Beach Bunnies has been seen by 3 people yet it’s 7,000 spots ahead of Star Wars: Phantom Menace. You can’t rank Buford’s Beach Bunnies on the same scale as Star Wars: Phantom Menance because barely anyone saw it. That’s why in all sports when they talk about averages they always say for example:

    Highest average among hitters with at least 75 at bats. Because if they included people who only batted once or twice, there would be silly people on there.

  • http://www.flickchart.com Nathan Chase

    We’ll be continuing to tweak the global rankings calculation algorithm. I agree that there needs to be a solution that allows for all films to be properly accounted for – blockbusters, indie, and international films alike. Our goal is just to make the rankings as accurate as we can. Appreciate all the feedback while we continue to adjust things to achieve that.

  • http://www.80sfear.com Paul

    Liking this a lot! The top 100 was always pretty stale and this shakes things up a bit – especially considering that a new movie everybody seems to love (Inception) has suddenly jumped so high up the charts. Same with Inglourious Basterds – lots of people liked this, but it was always very slow at moving up the charts. David Fincher’s chart now seems to reflect what most people I’ve talked to think about his films, and so on…

    @Jon Baitzel: I know what you’re saying, but then how many people rank it low? I love the film myself as mindless entertainment, but there are people I know who consider Armageddon to be one of the worst ever made. It doesn’t matter how many people think it’s #1 if there’s thousands of others who rank it #20000 or something… A movie that some people love and some people like is going to be ranked higher than something that many people hate – and that’s how it should be, surely? A reflection what the ranking on the site actually say about a film’s overall appeal.

  • Travis Easton

    Maybe movies should be on a certain number of peoples lists in order to get into the global ranking list? Like, say, at least 100. That might weed out a lot of the films ranked by only a handful of people. A film can’t be one of the best of all-time until enough people have seen it to justify it as such.

    @Paul There can’t be “thousands” of people who’ve seen 20,000 films. I can’t imagine there are even hundreds of them on Flickchart. A movie a day for 60 years?? Really?

    I am curious as to how many “average” rankings we’re adding to a movie in order to form the Bayesian average at this point.

  • http://www.80sfear.com Paul

    @Travis: Meh, so I exaggerated for dramatic effect.

    My point was that just because a movie has a lot of #1 or top 20 rankings, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not ranked significantly lower by a large number of people and so would be ranked lower than someone who likes the movie might expect. I have it at #97 (a bit to high now that I think about it), but my lowest ranked friend has #4608 and it only wins 31% of the time.

    Maybe the current position of #17,909 is a little low, but there are many people who absolutely loathe it. 93 people having it at #1 means much less if 150 have it as their worst movie ever. Whereas, Yojimbo wins 64% of the time and those most likely has less people who hate it, hence the much higher ranking despite (presumably) less people having watched it.

    Whatever, it’s a work in progress, but I think that the current lineup more accurately reflects what people enjoy. Especially on a site like this which, lets face it, appeals to the more obsessive cinephile who may have a larger spectrum of tastes than the mainstream.

  • KingofPain

    Maybe there should be an alternative list for all the movies with fewer than a certain number of rankings. Snake Dancer, one of my favorite movies, is currently listed as #2981. Very few people have ranked it, and I doubt that there are many people in the world who will ever see it.

    I think that an alternate list for obscure movies is appropriate for flicks like Snake Dancer. My ranking alone shouldn’t propel it so far up the charts, because I know that a lot of people on here might not like it as much. Also, an obscure list would be a good way to get unknown movies noticed.

  • http://www.flickchart.com Nathan Chase

    How are the global rankings looking to everyone now? There were some adjustments made to correct the issue of films unjustly pushed to the top OR the bottom.

  • Michael Osciak

    From what I see, the rankings are a million times better now. It seems to give all films for the most part a fair chance. Thank you for all your hard work.

  • Pingback: 70,000 Flickcharters Pick Their Top 20 of 2010 | Flickchart: The Blog

  • Pingback: Directors Who Dominate: Steven Spielberg | Flickchart: The Blog

  • Pingback: The Dark Knight Falls | Flickchart: The Blog