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

81–90 of 247 posts

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

#81

Post by swebs »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #69
josefresco wrote: post #58

This, and many other concepts based on "vetting" news assumes that the audience cares. A significant portion of the audience does not care, and is instead looking for news that validates their worldview, and furthers their (and their chosen political party's) goals. So basically these services will cannibalize the part of the audience that does care about truth, turning people against each other over marginally skewe…

To a point, you are correct, but most people don't "not care". Most people are unaware and only assume a knowledgeable, experienced editor vets and edits the news. Today, most news has a marketing angle applied to it to attract more viewers and visitors.

I don't think "most" people even assume that. Only 1/3 of people under 30 even trust the mass media.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-re...

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

#82

Post by fartcannon »

martythemaniak wrote: post #79
crististm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently I'm getting myself in a SJW hive. Shame on me. s/hive/swarm

Did you mistake Rotten Tomatoes for Russia Today?

I think he's referring to when they delete reviews that are affected by cultural phenomenon.

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

#83

Post by michaelt »

dagw wrote: post #15
keiferski wrote: post #4

Taking a look at the Rotten Tomatoes “Top 100 Films of All Time” list [1], I’m not exactly sure why it’s a model to be replicated. It’s extremely obvious that “top” means “popular and/or most advertised.” [1] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/

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?

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

#84

Post by komali2 »

crististm wrote: post #74
crististm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3. RT is based on people's opinions, but news should be fact checked. Except when RT doesn't like to hear people's opinion when it differs from the mainstream. Unfortunately it's easy to box it as "trolling" and hide it under the rug.

Apparently I'm getting myself in a SJW hive. Shame on me. s/hive/swarm

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 around "sjw" as an accusation.

Like, downvoted because HN is a hive of sjws? As if. Progressive, sure, but a hive of SJW as you undoubtedly mean by the word is a laughable accusation.

Nowadays it seems when someone wants "multiple viewpoints" to be presented what they really want is the right to continue to bully people. This would have been an extremely presumptive thing to say but, crististm, you've gone and made this obvious for me by trotting out the old sjw accusation.

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

#86

Post by gambler »

duwease wrote: post #53

I want to bring a note of positivity here -- while most comments seem to be poking holes in the concept, all also seem to acknowledge the need for such a service to be successful. This is a domain that I've also put a lot of thought into over the years, so I hope something succeeds. And some things do. Keep in mind that Wikipedia caught a lot of flak for being unreliable or impossible at first, but nowadays they have…

>while most comments seem to be poking holes in the concept, all also seem to acknowledge the need for such a service to be successful.

Speaking plainly: anyone who believes you can get better news through some kind of external meta-review process is a fool. Probably a fool who also thinks the review process should validate journalists that share their political biases, because that's what it's all about these days.

You cannot test quality into the product. News sources are supposed to cross-validate each other in the first place. Clearly, that have stopped working some time ago.

The only thing that can save news now is an overhaul of its financing and discovery models.

>Wikipedia caught a lot of flak for being unreliable or impossible at first, but nowadays they have a robust editorial process for contentious subjects

Hah.

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

#87

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

goto11 wrote: post #60
keiferski wrote: post #4

Taking a look at the Rotten Tomatoes “Top 100 Films of All Time” list [1], I’m not exactly sure why it’s a model to be replicated. It’s extremely obvious that “top” means “popular and/or most advertised.” [1] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/

It is important to understand what RT actually are rating here. It is not an aggregate of reviewers selections of best movies ever. Neither is it some aggregate of how much reviewers liked a certain movie. RT is more like a list of the movies which a lot of critics rated but fewest critics disliked. So you get popular and uncontroversial. These are good choices for movies to show on airplanes. It is actually an inter…

> 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.

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

#88

Post by ceejayoz »

nukeop wrote: post #77
ceejayoz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There doesn't seem to be any indication in the "Adjusted Scores" popup that it's based on cinematography.

Don't play passive-aggressive, you know very well what I meant.

I really don't.

RT's value prop has never been "a good score indicates a technically/artistically good film". It's just "how'd the critics we track like the movie?"

If it's over 80%, I can reasonably assume I'll enjoy it. If it's below 30%, I should probably figure out if it fits my particular "critically panned but I'd love it" quirks before shelling out $15 for a theater outing.

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

#89

Post by TeMPOraL »

josefresco wrote: post #58

This, and many other concepts based on "vetting" news assumes that the audience cares. A significant portion of the audience does not care, and is instead looking for news that validates their worldview, and furthers their (and their chosen political party's) goals. So basically these services will cannibalize the part of the audience that does care about truth, turning people against each other over marginally skewe…

It's even worse.

For most people, news is just a social object. Something to talk about with family, co-workers, etc. Whether or not any particular story is true doesn't matter - what matters is that everyone in their circle is aware of the described event (whether they read the same story, or a different one).

Humans are pretty good at fact-checking and critical thinking when getting it wrong means some immediate loss. But most news stories are irrelevant to almost everyone's lives, and those few that are, don't have a direct and immediate impact.

Post reply on HN