Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Credder Wants to Create an Equivalent to “Rotten Tomatoes” for News

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 247 posts

Re: Credder Wants to Create an Equivalent to “Rotten Tomatoes” for News

#111

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

goto11 wrote: post #105
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you get popular and uncontroversial. I agree with you, but I don't know if that's the right way to describe them. Looking in the top 10 I can see, to name a few, Moonlight, BlacKkKlansman and Get Out, all items that SHOULD be discussed. I think these also include movies that have a social message that critics agree need to be discussed.

By "uncontroversial" I mean there is broad agreement among critics that this movie is worth watching. This does not necessarily mean the subject matter of the movie is uncontroversial.

Ah, ok. In that cause I gotcha. I just didn't want it to sound like these films were somehow safe when it came to subject matter.

Re: Credder Wants to Create an Equivalent to “Rotten Tomatoes” for News

#112

Post by specialist »

"Fake news" is such an easy problem to solve: Just sign all the work. So you can verify who said what. Done.

Don't see a signature, and it matters to you, just hit "next".

--

Efforts to establish truth, factualness, credibility, whatever cannot succeed. Because humans don't work that way.

The people who watch Alex Jones (for instance) don't care about your truth. So stop trying.

Re: Credder Wants to Create an Equivalent to “Rotten Tomatoes” for News

#114

Post by cazum »

crististm wrote: post #100
komali2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why my hackles are raised the instant somebody starts a "people should be exposed to various viewpoints discussion." I want to give the good faith interpretation, which would be, maybe, a healthy exposure to different economic system philosophies or something. But, nowadays, I find this argument, or people "just promoting the right to free speech," are really exactly the kind of people that casually toss arou…

Just to be clear, I should have said swarm. This is not about the whole HN and I've been here for a long time to see how it adjusted its directions from the top. I should probably know better than to voice my opinion to a group of strangers, but no, I will not apologize for what I think. I voiced my opinion and that part of HN crowd that heard me considered that I should shut up. Such is life

You're getting downvoted and told to "shut up" primarily because of your use of the word "sjw", because it's a dumb meaningless slur used to drag anybody with socially progressive values. It's not a criticism, it's just a petty insult.

If you have a genuine problem with the social direction of HN, there's ways to raise those concerns without regurgitating offensive alt right memes

Re: Credder Wants to Create an Equivalent to “Rotten Tomatoes” for News

#115

Post by overthemoon »

What value does Rotten Tomatoes provide? Is review aggregation really the model for truth we want to use? "A lot of people find this reliable/unreliable" tells you exactly that and nothing more. This is an attempt to cram the huge, complex enterprise of discourse into some kind of boolean true/false reliable/unreliable binary it cannot fit neatly into. Disinformation and tribalism are social problems that aren't waved away with technological solutions.

At the end of the day, I'm not interested in startups as truth gatekeepers. It's empty when it comes to movies--it's downright disingenuous when it comes to the news. It provides the veneer of objectivity by being a technological solution, but the enterprise's foundation is still ideological. I trust them as little as any other outlet that can't honestly assess and describe their own viewpoint.

At best, you're adding another layer that will itself become ideologically polarized. If this or similar platforms succeed, we'll see a proliferation of them by people who feel like it is too or not enough .

Re: Credder Wants to Create an Equivalent to “Rotten Tomatoes” for News

#117

Post by amanaplanacanal »

sverige wrote: post #80
dragonwriter wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> RT's model prioritizes consensus in quality instead of brilliance. Using RT for a best of list will give you good safe movies instead of outstanding ones. > I'd say it's a good model for news. It's not, but then the whole concept isn't good for news. Particularly, a model with the effects you describe would favor news that, irrespective of the ground facts, avoids reaching conclusions that are going to be unwelcome…

If "news" involves reaching conclusions, isn't that really "editorial" content? For example, it's one thing to report what AG Barr's letter on the Mueller investigation says, and maybe also what it doesn't say. It's also "news" to report what various players say about the report. It's another thing for reporters to speculate what it means in terms of future investigations, or whether the report is "trustworthy," or t…

I suspect most people either can't or don't care to tell the difference.

Fox News, for instance is widely regarded to be biased to the right. And their opinion or editorial content absolutely is, often to the point of absurdity. But their actual news content is very well done so far as I can see. Do their viewers distinguish the two? I doubt it. Do their detractors distinguish the two? I doubt that also.

Re: Credder Wants to Create an Equivalent to “Rotten Tomatoes” for News

#118

Post by amanaplanacanal »

richmarr wrote: post #45
bko wrote: post #3

> In order to be vetted as an individual critic, you should meet the following guidelines: Written > • Consistent output for a minimum of two years. > • Demonstrated film/TV coverage at a publication outside of a self-published website. If you are a self-publishing critic, your reviews should reflect our key values. Having journalist rate other journalists won't serve as a good filter on the actual quality of reporti…

> ... it doesn't address the large problem with modern reporting, which is inaccuracies or misstatements on technical topics. If I was going to pick a journalism problem to solve, the accuracy of technical details would not be it. If I could solve one or both of (a) funding and (b) deceptive balance, then I would quite happily sell 'technical accuracy' down the river.

Yes, funding is the biggest one. "If it bleeds it leads" is a terrible way to give your readers or viewers a real picture of what is going on in the world.

Re: Credder Wants to Create an Equivalent to “Rotten Tomatoes” for News

#120

Post by rhino369 »

michaelt wrote: post #83
dagw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s extremely obvious that “top” means “popular and/or most advertised.” In RTs case, "Top" means films no one dislikes it and everybody thought it was at the very least OK. The "problem" with genuinely great films is that they can often be divisive and challenging and generate a lot of strong opinions in both directions, and thus they'll never rate as well on RT.

Looking at the RT top 100 list, 76 films are from 2010 or later, 6 from 2000-2009, and 18 from earlier. Were films a lot more divisive before 2010?

RT top list appears to be more than just a ranking my Tomatometer score. It looks like they are somehow including popularity or number of reviews.
Post reply on HN