S-19 Edgic (editing and logic) in Survivor Speculation Forum

0 Points

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)

Started By	Comment
BlakeB717		#6121	[-]
Posts: 2854 (01/02/10 04:48 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Semi finale: Ads vs. People Remove this ad KQ: "Before we get bogged down, lets make some things clear. I don't want to debate about certain players rankings and I don't want to debate about the MORP or MORN issue. Those who like it use it, those who don't wont. It's not going to hurt my analysis. Simple rule: Put forth your analysis. At the end of the day is someones ranking or the MORN/MORP issue going to make or break the point? The charts and labels are here to help us talk the same language and simplify basic ideas, not to bog us down. Let's look at the forest and not every tree. This thread has always found a way to be 80% labeling and 20% analysis. I hope that this ratio gets closer to 50/50 this season. One other thing: Edgic has one clear goal: to pick the winner as early as possible. Edgic is not designed to pick the boots week by week. Can it help? certainly, but it really takes about 3 or 4 weeks of data before we can make any serious conclusions. One last thing: This is speculation. Not everyone is going to agree. Don't let that discourage you from posting an idea, but then don't get caught up defending it until everybody agrees. It will never happen in any speculation thread. That is the nature of this beast." -- This is when they introduced toning MORs rather than just having MORneutral. I think he brings up a few interesting points: we should all do our ratings the way we judge them, and shouldn't be forced to follow rules like the recap not counting, visibility being just a formula, using the M-tone, using the INV-rating, etc. We should all rate how we interpret them, since it shouldn't harm our analysis. For me, I'm counting the recap to save people from INV (since both Amber and Natalie wouldn't be INV in their episodes if that was the case) and being careful because I eliminate people. I think I'd rather work more as an analyst next season rather than a police officer. Seriously, guys, read the past Edgic threads. It's so much more thought and way less math and colors and strict rules. I was "edgically raised" in the 'label Edgic' environment. I'm excited to analyze next season.
BlakeB717		#6122	[-]
Posts: 2855 (01/02/10 04:52 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I always found this post by KQ to be really, really accurate and still relevant after he summed up the first 7 seasons: "Now as you can see, Sandra was a Middle of the Road player and had Medium Visibility. I'm guessing her final rating was probably CPP. That's good. Being OTT or UTR is not as good, although we have had two UTR winners in Tina and Ethan (UTRP). Although they had much meaningful editing as apposed to a Darrah or a Butch. Sandra came from the tribe that was edited as more strategic. Sandra was never ignored in the editing, but she was also not the 'front stage'kinda player (like ruppert or Jon). Basically, we chart these players editing from week to week. Early on we can rule out players like Osten, Jon, Ruppert etc. becuase they are too OTT or too Negative or even too positive. Then the players in the background - with little or no story. After 4-5 weeks, you only have a handfull of players. Apply the logic - alliances - secret pairs etc. Then it all an educated quess. Keep in mind these 'similarities' have been in all six survivors since the first on. We usually don't count S1 editing as heavily, because MB was just getting started. The concept is easy, but applying it is tricky. That is why if anyone can come up with other 'similarities', then we will add it to edgic. If you look past to all past winners, you can logically satisfy all the elements of this theory. Obviously some fit better than others. As a definition clarafication, when I say Middle of the Road, I mean not too OTT or not too UTR - I hope that makes sense, because Sandra being CPP is still considered Middle of the Road editing. "
getting real		#6123	[-]
Posts: 2034 (01/02/10 04:57 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	KernelQ: "The problem is, we have to stop making the rules the end all. We need to step back from the data once in a while and say why? We spend 90% of our time rating people, tally the ratings and then put it in a nice neat chart. We need to look deeper. There is nothing wrong with the premise, but I feel like everyone wants this to be a neat and tidy check-list. Horray, x fits all 7 rules, we have our winner. We can't expect it to be that easy. We should have been wondering why Rob was so OTT and what it meant. Once again, now that I see the ending, it all makes sense. The trick is to be able to see it before it unfolds. We have the Edgic-box, but sometimes we need to think outside of it (and I'm as guilty as any!)." Seriously, guys, read the past Edgic threads. It's so much more thought and way less math and colors and strict rules. I was "edgically raised" in the 'label Edgic' environment. I'm excited to analyze next season. If Natalie has caused this change in edgic approach then her win will be more far-reaching than could ever have been envisioned, lol. For goodness sake, people, we could have easily picked Bob - easily! Last Edited By: getting real 01/03/10 11:29 AM. Edited 1 times.
BlakeB717		#6124	[-]
Posts: 2856 (01/02/10 05:10 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	For any of you who wanted to know what happened in our "lost seasons" of Edgic, here is KQ's "History of Edgic" post: "Edgic History 101. During S3 I started a thread call 'find the invisible pair', because of the Tina/Colby hidden alliance. I also had a 'Facetime' thread that tracked airtime much like ILT's thread does now. Then I came up with this grand theory called 'Franks Rollercoster'. It was all garbled, but the theory was based on Frank's up and down editing, hidden alliance with Brandon etc. Complete failure. However, in looking at Ethan's win, there was a secret pair - not in an alliance sense but in a 'surprise' ending sense. Also, although Ethan seemed like a 'star' his airtime and editing was medium. During S4 the actual term Edgic was coined by, yours truely. We tried to make sense of the editing and came up with the 'over the top', 'complex' and 'under the radar' labels. We added the positive and negative to the lable. Once again wrong with Paschal. However, this is really when we had to take a step back because Vee's win was tough to spot. This is where the complex tribe theory began. The lack of editing on early Rotu should have been the clue to eliminate all Rotus, including Paschal. Once you narrow down Vee's tribe, Rob and Sean did not fit the profile and bingo. Next on to S5, we applied some of what we learned and were correct in focusing on Chuay Ghan (complex tribe) and wrong in focusing on Helen. Once agian Brain's alliance with Clay was kept hidden - in other words the two were rarely seen together. It seemed more likely that Helen and Brian had the alliance and the jury would vote for Helen. However, once again notice the editing is all around Brian, but not always focused on him. Wrong again, however all the same things applied to Brian as it did to Helen. The big difference here was Brian and Clays editing was manipulated to keep both of them closer to MOR, while Helen was basically herself (I hope that makes sense, because it is a key point). Now on to Jenna. She stood out from the start because Heidi and Deena were all talikng about Jenna, yet was very much in the brackground. Also Hiedi was taking all the OTT hits while Jenna was probably say and doing the same thing. The real clincher came as the game moved along. We were able to eliminate most of the other players from winning. When everyone thought Matt would win, we knew that he was too OTT as was RobC (also we knew that Matt was not as well liked based on reading between the lines) . We had Jenna by episode 4, but as the game got closer to the end we knew we were right. Steady middle of the road editing, medium visibilty and surprise ending all fit here, as does the complex tribe. Sandra was not easy and we really had to use all the tools to extract her. Once agian the complex tribe was Drake. I wont go into detail, because that thread is still available. Once again we knew that Darrah would not win, which is what the spoilers were selling - that is mt motto, I will never believe a spoiler that does not fit the editing. So are we perfect? No. However, we have gotten the last two right and we understand why we got the other three wrong. That is why when poster come here and expect @#%$Z=winner, its not that easy. However, if applied correctly all the rules stated in the first post here have always applied to the winner. It is not that the editors do it on purpose, it is just the way it happens to create a surprise ending. The closest analogy I can think of is a murder mystery. You can't make it obvious that the butler did it, however, you do have to make an interesting story if you want us to believe the cook did it. ...and yes UTR editing can tone down a persons OTTness. Once again not a formula, but a perception." -- Some can say that KQ is outdated, but Edgic still fits what he considered it, and he did create Edgic... we are using his system. It's OK to get it wrong. It's not OK to continuously get it wrong and stick with the same principles. From time-to-time we'll get it right, but Edgic should always get it right. I think we need to seriously look at old-time Edgic as-in looking at the big picture and not eliminating people after 1 episode. Episode 1 was always a big deal here, but that only held up for Seasons 13-18. In the broad scope, that's not even half of all the seasons. I can admit that I'm equally at fault for all these fallacies. *The part I put in red is something really important: it could have been used to pick JT over Stephen. Stephen was all CP-talk because that's who he is, but JT had more out-of-character substance. It's why I picked JT over Stephen--Stephen was being his nerdy self, JT was editted to be a pretty damn good player when they could have gone another direction. Last Edited By: BlakeB717 01/02/10 05:14 PM. Edited 1 times.
Hippochinfat		#6125	[-]
Posts: 581 (01/03/10 11:00 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Where can I make my own edgic chart?
BlakeB717		#6126	[-]
Posts: 2857 (01/03/10 02:15 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	http://www.2shared.com/file/7876445/8658995f/S19Edgic.html
FallenTorch.fantasygamescen...		#6127	[-]
Posts: 246 (01/03/10 03:12 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Blake all the points you just brought up look great. It's making me excited for the next season (which I hopefully will participate more actively in)
Hippochinfat		#6128	[-]
Posts: 584 (01/03/10 03:58 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	BlakeB717 wrote: http://www.2shared.com/file/7876445/8658995f/S19Edgic.html Doesn't work. Non valid link.
Kitty Pryde1		#6129	[-]
Posts: 11270 (01/04/10 02:12 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Also, this is jsut something I was thinking about, and I don't have relevent data for most seasons, but it seems that whenever the old "X is too nice and the jury will vote for him/her" argument, that person never wins the game. Mick, Micronesia Amanda, Neleh, etc.
cantthinkofaname		#6130	[-]
Posts: 1713 (01/04/10 03:03 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Semi finale: Ads vs. People Remove this ad Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Also, this is jsut something I was thinking about, and I don't have relevent data for most seasons, but it seems that whenever the old "X is too nice and the jury will vote for him/her" argument, that person never wins the game. Mick, Micronesia Amanda, Neleh, etc. There wasn't something like that brought up about Natalie?
chapera rocks		#6131	[-]
Posts: 12463 (01/04/10 03:08 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Surprisingly, no.
SFC		#6132	[-]
Posts: 973 (01/04/10 04:06 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Bob and JT were said to be big jury threats.
BlakeB717		#6133	[-]
Posts: 2866 (01/04/10 09:21 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	The trick is when it's said. Pre-merge comments regarding the end-game almost always come to fruition because it's so early on that the casual viewer ends up forgetting about it come the merge time, but it's still in their heads somewhat. Natalie, episode 4: Plans to face Russell and beat him via building personal relationships (what made this even more interesting was that it was actually recorded a few days before the final vote, but was shown in episode 4) Had this been said in the penultimate episode, alongside her big helicopter confessional, it would become extremely obvious. Instead, her "end-game in sight" confessionals were spread out and not clumped towards the end. Corinne, episode 2: Bob can't be beat in a jury vote, which is why he's the Onions' fifth wheel Jon, episode 3: Sandra won't be in the final 4, and definitely won't be the winner--irony at it's best I'm sure there are more you guys can think of. I forget who said it, but there are a couple different approaches the editors take to winners. With more low-key winners, they show their worthiness through positivity, but are usually deemed harmless, which is the surprise. Whereas more strategic, clear winners are given doubt. A UTR winner doesn't need doubt because then it just makes them look unworthy, whereas a CP winner really needs doubt because then it's ridiculously obvious. JT was obvious in the sense that him winning in the F2 was clear, but he has the minority merge struggle, followed by being in a power position, and then back at risk because there was so much hype of Stephen thinking of betraying JT right before the finale and during the finale. Like KQ said, we can eliminate people who are just being themselves rather than actually getting a crafted edit.
Shred		#6134	[-]
Posts: 1115 (01/04/10 12:15 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Jenna M - (About the men) - I just wanna shut them up.
Kitty Pryde1		#6135	[-]
Posts: 11277 (01/04/10 02:40 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Actually, I think I should clarify. It's one thing to say that X would definitely win the jury vote, but it's another to have someone say "We need to vote out X because X is too nice". If you're ever called "too nice" to face the jury, and you make it to the jury, you aren't winning. Mick, Amanda (16), Lill, Neleh, etc.
great personality		#6136	[-]
Posts: 948 (01/04/10 04:41 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	someone said it about Danielle in EI as well..Cirie I think?
Hippochinfat		#6137	[-]
Posts: 588 (01/04/10 10:15 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Yes, Cirie said Danielle could be a jury threat because of things like her love affair with Bruce, and how she might have bonded with Austin on exile island.
Kirblar		#6138	[-]
Posts: 8661 (01/04/10 11:42 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	what made this even more interesting was that it was actually recorded a few days before the final vote, but was shown in episode 4 I believe it was actually moved from Ep1 (when it was filmed) to Ep4.
cantthinkofaname		#6139	[-]
Posts: 1715 (01/04/10 11:52 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I'm still surprised that Danielle didn't get Austin's vote. I mean if Austin didn't vote for Danielle then why show us the bonding they had on exile? I thought Danielle had the potential to get votes from Bruce, Shane, Courtney, Austin, and Sally.
cindidindi76		#6140	[-]
Posts: 21151 (01/05/10 02:18 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Semi finale: Ads vs. People Remove this ad Kirblar wrote: what made this even more interesting was that it was actually recorded a few days before the final vote, but was shown in episode 4 I believe it was actually moved from Ep1 (when it was filmed) to Ep4. No, it definitely wasn't filmed that early, you could tell just from the way she looked. I'm sure someone probably has caps and whatnot, but we saw more of that same confessional in one of the last few episodes.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)