• Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    2cm per hour is an objective measure though. So now we have an objective standard so we can all understand what ‘a lot’ means, which is great but not at all like the bias methodology from MBFC.

    Rate the amount of rain from 0 to 10 is still entirely subjective and is closer to the actual methodology used by MBFC.

      • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Sounds like I’m just missing your point then. I don’t understand the relevance of the methodology if it doesn’t produce a useful rating beyond the subjective opinion someone would have given anyway, nor establish a coherent reason for the rating.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          “Subjective” is not the same as “useless” or “arbitrary”.

          If you know the types of movies I like then when I give movie ratings you can adjust for that bias. Especially if I publish my review criteria, preferences, etc. You may not agree with my rating, but if you understand it then you can make an informed decision about whether you may like the movie as well.

          • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense now. I think from that perspective, MBFC in my mind is still useless because the why behind their rating is totally opaque, at least to me. I have read several of their analysis and their methodology and I just still have no idea why they give a certain rating. It feels more like a post hoc rationalisation than a process or set of criteria that was followed. Maybe it’s just me though, and it’s clearer for other folks.