|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 5, 2015 9:32:36 GMT
A little summary for the main runs in ASM:
Stern - Romita Jr. (one Frenz issue): 6.59/10 27 issues total
O'Neil - Romita Jr. (two Miller issues): 5.75/10 13 issues total
Conway - Romita/Kane: 5.18/10 11 issues total
Wolfman - Pollard (two Byrne and two Sal Buscema issues): 4.91/10 17 issues total
Wein - Andru (two Sal Buscema issues): 4.9/10 30 issues total
Lee - Romita (John Buscema/Gil Kane): 4.73/10 72 issues total
DeFalco - Frenz (four Leonardi and one Sal Buscema issues): 4.58/10 26 issues total
Lee - Ditko: 4.54/10 41 issues total
Michelinie - McFarlane (one Larsen issue): 4.25/10 28 issues up to ASM #325
Conway - Andru: 3.92/10 25 issues total
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 9:45:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 5, 2015 9:48:17 GMT
Hmmm.. The problem I tink people see in you method is you use the word data for opinion... Anyone who translates his evaluation into a number, is working with data. The problem is that few people bother to do it, and even less recognize that number as something you can actually use. You can't average the adjectives you would give to individual comics, in a given run, the most you can do is assign another adjective to the group. Does it produce the same result? Sometimes, but why risk inaccuracy when you can avoid it? The general impression you get after reading a run, doesn't necessarily correspond with the aggregate of the individual evaluations. The fact that we're dealing with subjective opinions, doesn't mean we can't (or even shouldn't) organize, relativize or extract some basic statistic information, from them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 9:55:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 5, 2015 9:56:48 GMT
I'm not sure I understand you correctly though […], especially in the claims of "accuracy" regarding this "method". Other than the aspect I tried to explain, regarding averages, the most obvious upside of a number versus adjectives, is that hierarchy isn't always clear among the latter. Furthermore, if we take just the adjectives that do have a clear relative position, their ranks are decimated, and so we can't have the fine grain a number provides. It's also much easier to see the difference, between a low rating and a high one, if we're using numbers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 9:58:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 5, 2015 10:00:19 GMT
Making it a number doesn't make it data, any more than if you call it 'pink', 'pineapple', and 'elephant'. The numbers have to mean something. Is each number twice as good as the last? Are you grading on 10 criteria, and telling us how many are met? Are you doing a normal distribution centered around 5? Is a 6 twice as good as a 3? That's why people are more interested in numbers like that.. they don't mean anything without a detailed explanation. People understand 'great', 'good', 'OK', etc. much better. Then there's the fact that you're a bit of an iconoclast, and don't rate comics that are pretty generally beloved very highly. that befuddles people even more. Never mind that I see no 10s on your scale.. the whole thing makes sense to you, I'm sure, but for us to appreciate it, we need more info  Funny you should mention colors, as something that can't be converted to data, because you're seeing a bunch of them right now, on your screen. As for your other questions, you hit jackpot with the normal distribution, congratulations, you're the first one to see trough that, without me saying it first. I knew there was something wrong with me, I find 'great', 'good', 'OK', etc. to be kind of fuzzy. Always liked numbers better. You hit the nail again, at some point, I defined my Spider-Man forum as "iconoclast". The thing with the majorities opinion is… I don't regard it as very valuable. The absence of 10's, or anything close, is directly related to the way data aligns itself, in a normal distribution. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 13:06:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 5, 2015 13:09:10 GMT
It's just that at first glance, it seems just as subjective as anyone's opinion, because I don't know you, I don't know what you seek in comics. To stay within the recent halloween theme, let's take a widly available and recognized comic, like Sandman's first issue by Neil Gaiman and Sam Kieth from 1989 DC. It is subjective at this stage, as I've already said. Using numbers instead of adjectives, allows for averaging several people's opinion, this is a first step towards objectifying what seems exclusively subjective, trough inter-subjectivity. But I wouldn't say "just as subjective", because I'm more rigorous than most. What do I seek in comics? Depends on the mood. Sometimes I seek nostalgia, sometimes quality entertainment, sometimes thought-provoking art. But when I place them under scrutiny, they all receive the same treatment. Sandman #1 deserves a 7.9/10, IMO it's not the best one of the series. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 9:47:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Dec 3, 2015 12:21:47 GMT
Ahh.. see telling us it's a normal distribution is much more useful that 'I put them into piles and give them a number'. So is 5 average? What Standard Deviation are you aiming for? .5? 1? I'm thinking less than one, since you don't give anything much higher than a 7 despite (I assume, given the time and trouble you spent on it) it being you favorite series. I gave a description of the process, rather than go with more technical details, because I don't expect most fans to have any specific interest in statistics. I aim for a "Normal Distribution", with a mean of 5 and a standard deviation of 1.232856, but data doesn't fit very well with small samples. For all the Spider-Man comics from 1962 to 1989, the shape of the curve is right-skewed, with a peak at 4.25 and the standard deviation was indeed less than one; my guess is that editors act as a sort of natural limit, avoiding comics being published at the left side of the graph, and Marvel doesn't encourage top talent, to work on the character (which accounts for the absence of high rated comics). As for my favorite series, I don't have one. Spider-Man is my favorite character, but if you take a look at the thread rating the Ultimate Universe, you'll see I rated up to an 8. |
|
