S-8 Edgic (editing and logic) Revised

0 Kudos

Started By	Comment
BlakeB717		#61	[-]
Posts: 2314 (11/17/09 10:54 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I want to point out that the total VF this episode was very, very low. The reason for this is because nearly half the episode was taken up by the challenges. Visibility is relative (pretty much the only part of Edgic that is) and some numbers may seem a little odd, but they are right (unless you can find any mistakes, I'd love to double check!) It's interesting that Chapera got so much airtime last week and this week they were shafted. They only had two half-scenes! Probably cool-off for such a strong start.. Mogo Mogo continues to have not-so-great overall airtime. Saboga, for obvious reasons, got a LOT of airtime this week. Remember you have until tomorrow evening to challenge any of the Episode One ratings!** Last Edited By: BlakeB717 11/17/09 11:21 PM. Edited 4 times.
BlakeB717		#62	[-]
Posts: 2315 (11/17/09 11:02 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Regarding the infamous E2 Amber INV (this week)... I really don't know. I think Sue was definitely more neglected than she was, but Amber didn't get much at all either. My main issue is that Chapera got the shaft in the editing department this week (probably because in the first episode they got so much), but that really isn't an excuse to save someone from INV. If they were ignored, they were ignored. My concern comes from the low VF. A ton of the time was taken up by challenges and Chapera especially barely even had any scenes (I think it totalled up to 2 or 3 scenes, whereas the other tribes had like 4 or more). She got a shitload of faceshots (though I've never really been a fan of these to save someone from INV), a few sentences, and in the recap they reminded us that her and Rob are together. KQ (the founder of Edgic) himself said that Amber was the birth of the INV rule: he said that the INV rule should be used to differentiate between good and bad UTR. He said that Amber never fell into the "bad UTR" (or INV) category at any time. Taking everything into consideration, I'll probably be going with UTR1. I only am making this post to avoid the probable arguments over what her rating should be. I'm not going to take part in it really because I think it'll hold us back, but you know where I stand and why.
BlakeB717		#63	[-]
Posts: 2316 (11/17/09 11:04 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Episode Two starts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CYWWxM7aQM The rest of the parts (2, 3, 4, and 5) are on the side, make sure you click the right ones! You may now begin posting Episode Two ratings.
Katy Carney		#64	[-]
Posts: 9423 (11/17/09 11:08 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I think she was INV but if someone can refresh me on what her three sentences were and in what context that would be great. I literally just watched the episode and cannot remember her saying anything.
AveryC		#65	[-]
Posts: 43 (11/17/09 11:15 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Shouldn't Rudy be a Vis 4? A low one admittedly, maybe a close call?
BlakeB717		#66	[-]
Posts: 2317 (11/17/09 11:17 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	AveryC wrote: Shouldn't Rudy be a Vis 4? A low one admittedly, maybe a close call? He was on the border of a 2/3, so he definitely wasn't a 4. He didn't have much speaking time, it was mainly a lot of SPV (which visibility doesn't count). Even so, I don't think he was a 4. He wasn't on the same playing field as the rest of his tribe.
AveryC		#67	[-]
Posts: 44 (11/17/09 11:18 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	BlakeB717 wrote: AveryC wrote: Shouldn't Rudy be a Vis 4? A low one admittedly, maybe a close call? He was on the border of a 2/3, so he definitely wasn't a 4. He didn't have much speaking time, it was mainly a lot of SPV (which visibility doesn't count). Even so, I don't think he was a 4. He wasn't on the same playing field as the rest of his tribe. But your chart says 25, and 3 is listed as 15-24. Am I missing something?
BlakeB717		#68	[-]
Posts: 2318 (11/17/09 11:20 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	AveryC wrote: BlakeB717 wrote: AveryC wrote: Shouldn't Rudy be a Vis 4? A low one admittedly, maybe a close call? He was on the border of a 2/3, so he definitely wasn't a 4. He didn't have much speaking time, it was mainly a lot of SPV (which visibility doesn't count). Even so, I don't think he was a 4. He wasn't on the same playing field as the rest of his tribe. But your chart says 25, and 3 is listed as 15-24. Am I missing something? Oh gosh -_- Thank you! Rudy was a 4. That makes way more sense lol
chapera rocks		#69	[-]
Posts: 11985 (11/18/09 12:53 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I just watched all challenge and Chapera scenes in order to determine all of Amber's visibility. Recap has never been counted towards ratings, and shouldn't be included now. So moving on... I don't see her three sentences. Sentence count is camp life, correct? I see 0, maybe 1. [1] Opening Chapera scene: Tribe is singing. Led by Boston Rob, everyone else is present. No isolated shots of Amber singing. This could be her only camp "sentence"? [2] Treemail segment. Nothing noteworthy. No out of the ordinary reaction shots. No sentences. [3] Reward challenge. After Jeff asks if they want to know what they're playing for, Amber quips "please!". Only noteworthy for those dissecting her edit, like we are. [4] "Rob, Amber, Sue really struggling" mentioned twice. When Amber sat out of the challenge, her name was not mentioned ... "Rob and Sue heading back out". [5] "You're catching up lets go!". This is probably her most noteworthy moment this episode. Again, quick, and in the midst of tight finish, not very noteworthy unless we dissect it. Others were cheering for their teams, and we're not bumping up their visibility (Jenna, Shii-Ann, Tom, etc.). [6] Quick shot of her rubbing Rob's back while Jeff is explaining the choice Saboga has to make. Isolated shot, yes, but everyone received those. Sue even spoke in this segment, more than Amber. [7] Chapera camp life #2. One reaction shot, everyone else had more. No sentences. Featured Alicia/Tom/Boston Rob/Rob C. No Sue. No Amber. [8] Isolated shot of Amber as they walk into the challenge ... because she's holding the idol. Jeff takes back the idols. "Thank you, Amber. Thank you, Shii-Ann." I believe Jeff took back the idol from Brett and he still received an INV1. [9] No isolated shots or highlights in the challenge, other than a wideshot of her sitting on the boat. Combining all of this, she really, truly does deserve an INV1. Brett got an INV1 this past episode for much less. He spoke about food, and he spoke about Natalie and the rat. Amber really had no camp facetime and extremely limited challenge face time. She even got ignored when it was her turn to drop out of the reward. I think giving her a UTR1 would be to justify the no INV1 for the winner rule. That is the problem with this right now; we're doing it in hindsight, so people may be pushing agendas. Even subconsciously. Amber didn't receive out of the ordinary reaction shots either; it may just appear that way because we're magnifying her edit to determine if she's UTR1 or INV1. Her edit had a lot less than many others who have received INV1 before her. This seems to be very clear cut to me.
Pulau Tiga		#70	[-]
Posts: 5676 (11/18/09 1:48 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	The guy in charge isn't bothering to address close calls? How lazy. =P I don't know what normally qualifies as a close call, but here are all the debatable ratings we saw from this first episode: Tina: 64% Positive -- 36% Neutral Rich: 64% OTT -- 36% CP Rich: 64% Vis3 -- 36% Vis4 Ethan: 36% Positive -- 36% Neutral -- 27% Mixed Lex: 64% MOR -- 36% UTR Shii Ann: 64% MOR -- 36% UTR Tom: 64% Neutral -- 27% Mixed -- 9% Negative Note that with only 11 voters, these percentages differ in about 10% increments. The closest call we can possibly get is 6vs5, and while that didn't happen, only one vote different leads to a 7-4 split, and there were several ratings elements that turned out like that. It's worth addressing, I feel (especially since I very much disagree with Richard's and Shii Ann's ratings ;) ). Even if you ignore those, there's no way Ethan should just walk away with a MOR3 with no discussion. He was split evenly between that rating and MORP3. Hell, he had more toned ratings than neutral ones. Dunno where Blake was coming from with that "consensus." From someone who feels he had a mixed tone, there should be debate on the subject. Especially since contrasting tone does not often a winner make, meaning the information garnered from this could be useful in future Edgic guidelines. To address a few lingering points about the premiere: KC wrote: Alicia named her and then also said that Rob was the king of the tribe and Amber was his "little in-pocket girl" or something, which identified them as a pair (reinforced immediately by the following scene of their alliance) and also as "running the tribe". But it was all about Rob. Amber was there by necessity, but everything focused on Rob. That's why I feel the little she was shown isn't enough to give her that nudge into a higher visibility, because her airtime wasn't hers, it belonged to a much bigger presence. KC wrote: I think that alone would be enough to warrant more than Kathy or Jenna, even without the confessional. But if we're going by such comparisons, is it really enough to suggest she was on the same level as Lex or (by your ratings) Tina? KC wrote: I feel strongly that a MORP2 for Tina makes her edit sound significantly more meaningful than it actually was But it really seemed to me that the viewers were trying to portray Tina in a positive light (which makes sense, considering how difficult it would have been to paint her as anything but the victim - it's tough to change opinions about the winner of Survivor's most popular season in 45 minutes). They let her explain her reasoning for going on the show, a cheerful explanation of going out with plenty of life experience. They showed her worrying about her place in the game and working with Ethan to change the tide. And they showed her being optimistic at TC. She's a positive character throughout. No, not the "cry over her boot" type, but one you're supposed to be rooting for to some degree (in order to make us despise Jenna, mainly). Avery wrote: And as for the Vis factor issue, I think it's a useful but flawed mechanism. I'll never understand why non-subtitled confessionals are counted as sentences for one, to me it's still a confessional. Plus it doesn't take into account that some contestants (like Dreamz) speak way faster than others and take longer to convey what they are trying to say. And it hasn't been uniformly followed. I was baffled that my Cook Islands Visibility ratings were off base with the original chart until I saw the Vis Charts for that season and counted very few that didn't match. I counted 46 (!) instences where the chart was ignored, labelled incorrectly or went negative in a close call on the Cook Islands chart. Also the labelling of close calls seemed kinda arbitary in a lot of cases. I think it is a useful component of Edgic and am not knocking it's use, but I feel that like several other components of Edgic it's overdue for a review to improve it. X I haven't viewed this second episode yet, so I can't comment on that.
cantthinkofaname		#71	[-]
Posts: 1564 (11/18/09 1:52 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	BlakeB717 wrote: I want to point out that the total VF this episode was very, very low. The reason for this is because nearly half the episode was taken up by the challenges. Visibility is relative (pretty much the only part of Edgic that is) and some numbers may seem a little odd, but they are right (unless you can find any mistakes, I'd love to double check!) It's interesting that Chapera got so much airtime last week and this week they were shafted. They only had two half-scenes! Probably cool-off for such a strong start.. Mogo Mogo continues to have not-so-great overall airtime. Saboga, for obvious reasons, got a LOT of airtime this week. Remember you have until tomorrow evening to challenge any of the Episode One ratings!** Why is Alicia a 2-3 and Kathy not? And Rudy should probably be a 3-4 since he's at the very bottom of the 4 range. Tina: 64% Positive -- 36% Neutral Rich: 64% OTT -- 36% CP Rich: 64% Vis3 -- 36% Vis4 Ethan: 36% Positive -- 36% Neutral -- 27% Mixed Lex: 64% MOR -- 36% UTR Shii Ann: 64% MOR -- 36% UTR Tom: 64% Neutral -- 27% Mixed -- 9% Negative Close call is no rating getting at least 55%, so only Ethan's tone is a close call. Last Edited By: cantthinkofaname 11/18/09 1:59 AM. Edited 2 times.
BlakeB717		#72	[-]
Posts: 2322 (11/18/09 1:55 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Ethan: 36% Positive -- 36% Neutral -- 27% Mixed This is the only one that qualifies as a close call. It's not that I'm lazy, but since I don't have a voting site it'll take a crazy amount of work for a project like this (especially since I have school). I think it's great that you did the percentages though (for all the close calls you listed I did a tally too, and Ethan's tone was the only one that was close enough). Thanks! The way I think I want to work it is to post what seems to be the majority, and if anyone really disputes a rating, we can look at how close the vote was on it. Then, if the vote was close enough, we can hold a vote between two proposed ratings. Then we can Aye/Nay it for the next 24 hours and finalize that specific rating. Unless there are any major objections to Ethan getting a Neutral, the ratings will stand as is.
BlakeB717		#73	[-]
Posts: 2323 (11/18/09 1:58 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	cantthinkofaname wrote: BlakeB717 wrote: I want to point out that the total VF this episode was very, very low. The reason for this is because nearly half the episode was taken up by the challenges. Visibility is relative (pretty much the only part of Edgic that is) and some numbers may seem a little odd, but they are right (unless you can find any mistakes, I'd love to double check!) It's interesting that Chapera got so much airtime last week and this week they were shafted. They only had two half-scenes! Probably cool-off for such a strong start.. Mogo Mogo continues to have not-so-great overall airtime. Saboga, for obvious reasons, got a LOT of airtime this week. Remember you have until tomorrow evening to challenge any of the Episode One ratings!** Why is Alicia a 2-3 and Kathy not? And Rudy should probably be a 3-4 since he's at the very bottom of the 4 range. Tina: 64% Positive -- 36% Neutral Rich: 64% OTT -- 36% CP Rich: 64% Vis3 -- 36% Vis4 Ethan: 36% Positive -- 36% Neutral -- 27% Mixed Lex: 64% MOR -- 36% UTR Shii Ann: 64% MOR -- 36% UTR Tom: 64% Neutral -- 27% Mixed -- 9% Negative Close call is no rating getting more than 55%, so only Ethan's tone is a close call. I did the "in between ratings" for those if it really felt like something was wonky (while watching the episode) in that rating. Kathy was completely absent from the episode except for 1 scene, so I figured anything over a 2 would be silly. Rudy was fairly prominent in SPV, so I felt his 4 was justified. Alicia also seemed to have equal prominence to Rob M, so I put the in-between there. The chart is just for a guideline, and I did "in-betweens" for ratings that I really could see either way. At least that's how I did it. Mainly because this Episode had such an unusually low VF, I figured a lot of "inbetweens" would be justified. I know you love the mathematics of visibility (as do I), but if it bothers you just skip my "Projected Edgic Vote" number, no worries! Last Edited By: BlakeB717 11/18/09 2:02 AM. Edited 1 times.
Katy Carney		#74	[-]
Posts: 9425 (11/18/09 2:04 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Pulau Tiga wrote: To address a few lingering points about the premiere: But it was all about Rob. Amber was there by necessity, but everything focused on Rob. That's why I feel the little she was shown isn't enough to give her that nudge into a higher visibility, because her airtime wasn't hers, it belonged to a much bigger presence. The editors could have easily omitted Amber's presence in that entire scene. They could have cut Alicia's confessional before the part about Amber. They could have cut the entire scene, really, since it's only purpose was to show Rob and Amber united. It was included, imo, to showcase a dynamic which Amber was a part of. KC wrote: I think that alone would be enough to warrant more than Kathy or Jenna, even without the confessional. But if we're going by such comparisons, is it really enough to suggest she was on the same level as Lex or (by your ratings) Tina? I gave Tina a MOR2, not an UTR2 (although I considered it), same with Lex. But if you mean visibility wise, yes. Amber was actually closer to Tina and Lex than Jenna. KC wrote: I feel strongly that a MORP2 for Tina makes her edit sound significantly more meaningful than it actually was But it really seemed to me that the viewers were trying to portray Tina in a positive light (which makes sense, considering how difficult it would have been to paint her as anything but the victim - it's tough to change opinions about the winner of Survivor's most popular season in 45 minutes). They let her explain her reasoning for going on the show, a cheerful explanation of going out with plenty of life experience. They showed her worrying about her place in the game and working with Ethan to change the tide. And they showed her being optimistic at TC. She's a positive character throughout. No, not the "cry over her boot" type, but one you're supposed to be rooting for to some degree (in order to make us despise Jenna, mainly). What you're describing sounds to me like a function of Tina's personality, not the way her personality was edited, and also maybe your positive reaction to Tina's personality. I just didn't see any intention to paint her any which way. Her inclusion in the episode seemed like almost an afterthought to me. I could see a weak P for the inclusion of Tina's rationale for returning to Survivor if a lot of Survivors didn't get "we're back! omg!" confessionals.
cantthinkofaname		#75	[-]
Posts: 1565 (11/18/09 2:07 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I did the "in between ratings" for those if it really felt like something was wonky (while watching the episode) in that rating. Kathy was completely absent from the episode except for 1 scene, so I figured anything over a 2 would be silly. Rudy was fairly prominent in SPV, so I felt his 4 was justified. Alicia also seemed to have equal prominence to Rob M, so I put the in-between there. The chart is just for a guideline, and I did "in-betweens" for ratings that I really could see either way. At least that's how I did it. Mainly because this Episode had such an unusually low VF, I figured a lot of "inbetweens" would be justified. I see. When I made VF charts, I just used the V factors to determine inbetweens and then looked at SPV and others' VF relative to the inbetweens to determine whether they get the lower or the higher vis. So we do the same thing, you just include SPV and stuff in the projected VF ratings you give.
BlakeB717		#76	[-]
Posts: 2324 (11/18/09 2:31 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Open Challenge Please post in this thread any arguments you have for Ethan's tone for Episode One: Neutral, Dynamic (Mixed), or Positive. Please post your vote for his tone in bold red; and the tone with the most votes by Wednesday (tomorrow) at 11:30 PM Eastern will be the final tone. -- I didn't see anything strongly in favor of N in Ethan's edit, mainly because him and Tina were opposing the N force of Jenna. However, I didn't see much P in either Ethan or Tina's edit, because it mainly went in Rupert's favor; so I can't go with M. Thus, I am voting for Neutral for Ethan.
chapera rocks		#77	[-]
Posts: 11989 (11/18/09 9:45 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I vote P for Ethan. Saboga's storyline was Jenna vs. Ethan/Tina. It was unfair that Jenna was targeting the winners, who really didn't do anything wrong. Tina and Ethan were a unit, and for most of the episode, Ethan was the mouthpiece for the duo. He wanted to save Tina, and he tried his hardest. He gave a good fight. Gave a good argument at tribal ... if a team wins the championship one year, they aren't supposed to lose the next. Especially since Tina ended up with P, Ethan should as well.
Oowatanite		#78	[-]
Posts: 9384 (11/18/09 10:26 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	chapera rocks wrote: I vote P for Ethan. Saboga's storyline was Jenna vs. Ethan/Tina. No it wasn't. It was unfair that Jenna was targeting the winners. No it wasn't. who really didn't do anything wrong. Tina was weak in challenges. Any many, many early boots "don't do anything wrong" other than be considered the weakest. Tina and Ethan were a unit. They were ? Did they even have a scene with just the two of them ? He wanted to save Tina, and he tried his hardest. He gave a good fight. So ? Gave a good argument at tribal ... if a team wins the championship one year, they aren't supposed to lose the next. Championship teams and Survivor winners have NOTHING in common. Everyone is trying to beat out the Steelers this year, no one's giving them an easy walk to the Super Bowl again. Especially since Tina ended up with P, Ethan should as well. Two wrongs don't make a right. Tina was unimportant cannon fodder this season. The P tone some gave her for Ep1 was a carryforward from S2. Last Edited By: Oowatanite 11/18/09 11:05 AM. Edited 1 times.
Oowatanite		#79	[-]
Posts: 9385 (11/18/09 11:01 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Pulau Tiga wrote: Oowatanite wrote: There may some leeway for vis ratings when the player is on or near the cusp of, say, vis3 and vis4, but this is clearly NOT the case in Amber's situation. Once again, the numbers calculated in the chart are arbitrary and irrelevent. It gives a nice objective comparison of strict oral expression from each character, and that can be useful when you're not sure just how visible a character is. But they don't make sense as a determinant of visibility ratings because they don't take into account context or the more subjective (and more important) measure of overall impact on the story and their character arc. If you disagree, I beg you to consider the editors' intentions when deciding what airtime to give a player. They're not counting sentences. They're not counting confessionals (and differentiating between those with names at the bottom and those where such identification is unnecessary, as it would often be throughout an All-Star season). They're not doing any math at all. They're looking at the big story. They include a scene and cut it the way they do for an overall effect. If they're looking at how much they show each character relative to the others (which really isn't confirmed, but it's accepted as a tenet of Edgic), they look at it in terms of the big picture, and in the big picture, Amber's impact was as small as it could have been without ignoring her entirely (which would give her that deadly INV1). Look, I'm not arguing this point because I hate Amber or I hate her edit or I hate UTR2's. I'm arguing this because Amber won, and if Amber walks away from this with an UTR2 in the premiere, every future potential winner is going to be easier to discredit when they have the same first episode edit. If Amber isn't considered an UTR1 like she should be, then future winners with the same amount of screen time in the premiere are going to be ruled out for winner contention, and Edgic will suffer. I don't think Edgic works the way it is now (it worked for the period of time where the editors gave us the same obvious winner in the same basic way, but they've stopped doing that in recent seasons), but I do want to see it reformulated so that it can become a better means of finding the winning edit in any given season. Amber proves the winner doesn't always carry a significant edit in the first episode. A rating of UTR1 is appropriate for the edit she got, and it serves most effectively to show future winners can get the same almost-nothing edit and not be ignored. "The editors are not counting sentences. They're not counting confessionals" No, they are not. But Warrior has set up this visibility formula that we've used for the last many seasons. It is what we're using for this redux season as well. But they don't make sense as a determinant of visibility ratings because they don't take into account context or the more subjective (and more important) measure of overall impact on the story and their character arc. As others have mentioned, "overall impact" and "storylines" and "character arcs" are properly reflected in the tone ratings and the UTR/MOR/CP/OTT ratings. NOT the visibility ratings. Amber had a low-key premiere and this should properly be ONLY reflected in her UTR rating. So we can have players receiving UTR3 ratings and players receiving CP2 or OTT2 ratings. I don't think Edgic works the way it is now (it worked for the period of time where the editors gave us the same obvious winner in the same basic way, but they've stopped doing that in recent seasons), but I do want to see it reformulated so that it can become a better means of finding the winning edit in any given season. Amber proves the winner doesn't always carry a significant edit in the first episode. A rating of UTR1 is appropriate for the edit she got, and it serves most effectively to show future winners can get the same almost-nothing edit and not be ignored. Oh, I see where you're going now. You think Natalie wins Samoa and you want Amber's edit set up as some sort of "precedent". Sorry Charlie, it ain't gonna work. Last Edited By: Oowatanite 11/18/09 11:04 AM. Edited 1 times.
Oowatanite		#80	[-]
Posts: 9386 (11/18/09 11:08 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	chapera rocks wrote: Combining all of this, she really, truly does deserve an INV1. Brett got an INV1 this past episode for much less. I haven't seen Ep2 yet but Amber's possible INV in Ep TWO should NOT be compared to Brett's INV in Ep NINE.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-8 Edgic (editing and logic) Revised