In the OWC thread there is a way of voting on each entry so that a aggregate rating is shown alongside the script title in the thread's home page.

I thought this was quite a nice idea, and while I realise it was because the OWC is a competition of sorts, I was wondeirng whether the idea might work with the normal script threads?

Has it ever been considered?

I suppose that it might be thought as introducing an unfair element into the board, but as we read and review the scripts, and say whether we like them or not anyway, this would be a very clear way to see which scripts are getting the most positive feedback. I should say that the previous writing site had this feature, and it was one of the few things I thought worked there.

I believe it has already been tried with disastrous results.  People rarely agree with their rating unless all the stars are filled.   But someone who was around when it was tried can probably tell you more about the "experiment".

Quoted from mcornetto I believe it has already been tried with disastrous results.  People rarely agree with their rating unless all the stars are filled.   But someone who was around when it was tried can probably tell you more about the "experiment".

I didn't rate the scripts in the last challenge because I was hopeless to choose any kind of winner of sorts.

As stated in the threads, two of my favorites were Autumn Song and Broadway Betty, but only because they just hooked me in a particular way that I couldn't resist.

There were other scripts that really met the challenge strongly with the comedy element, and I had a hard time choosing, but I, in my weakness, couldn't stop with my penchant for these ones in particular, but that's just me.

In the end, I feel that "the rating system" is overrated. Like, what are you looking for? A handshake? A purple crown? If that's what you want then maybe you outta go to Hollywood and be an actor. They at least get to wear it. What the hell do we do anyways?

So don't get hung up on ratings and bullshit. Do what matters to you the most. That's the shit-- straight up, Love.

Sandra

Quoted from mcornetto I believe it has already been tried with disastrous results.  People rarely agree with their rating unless all the stars are filled.   But someone who was around when it was tried can probably tell you more about the "experiment".

Everything like that ends bad around here.

You think everyone is pals until you give them power (Like karma for individuals) but somehow people find ways to abuse it for no reason at all.

It shows how two faced people are and would be nice if you could see the ones who rated so people would seriously think before acting.

Another site I was on had karma for individuals and after one post this guy shot to a -15 and forced the admin/moderator to continually zero out his rating.

With the ratings, what tended to continually happen is that scripts would get hit with one star ratings and yet, the threads didn't reflect any reviews that would indicate why. The only thing we could figure was that someone trolled through the scripts that were doing well and hit them with one star...just because. Complaints erupted. Accusations flew. It just got ugly very quickly.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

Quoted from George Willson ...what tended to continually happen is that scripts would get hit with one star ratings...

Particularly scripts with favorable ratings.

Any script that "dared" to have a 5-star rating -- often with a review to back it up -- would invariably get hit with anonymous 1-star ratings -- no reviews, of course -- simply to tear it back down.

Stupid and petty -- but you can't fight human nature -- and the rating system was trash-canned because it essentially became meaningless.

Of course, that was a few years ago -- but there is no reason to believe it would not be much the same today.

That is part of the reason we started the "Simply Recommended Scripts" thread -- it is not anonymous -- and is the most fair way we have thought of (so far) to recognize works that a reader might feel are ahead of the curve:

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/m-1141227828

There's some things that could be done to prevent people trolling around. Three things, actually.

First. Make who rated what visible to everyone else. People do things when they're anonymous that they wouldn't do when they're not.

Second. To be able to vote on a script, you have to register to the site. Why not?

Third. Let it be visible on a person's page how they've rated. Obviously, if a person has 20 consecutive 1-star ratings, something is definitely wrong.

This makes 4, but it's not about why ratings could end up working.

If you were to do ratings, don't make it a simple 1-10. That way, people who are new, might not know the format or the script is in its first draft, people can judge that poorly, but if the script is good, they can judge that well.

Like this:

Story: 1-10.
Execution: 1-10.
Grammar/Spelling: 1-10.
Structure: 1-10.
Entertainment Value: 1-10.

Then, it justs calculates the average.

Just a thought, though.

Absolutely against this.

What would rating scripts achieve? Nothing posted on here is 'finished', in my eyes. Everything, even scripts on their third or fourth draft, are works in progress. My comments are usually intended to flag up issues and help the writer improve their script - so what's the point of rating them?

OWCs are different, since there are set parameters and, to an extent, it is possible to judge how well a writer has met the challenge. But with all the other scripts? Bad ratings will just demoralise writers and cause people to avoid the scripts most in need of help. Good ratings...well, what will they really achieve? An ego boost, perhaps. What good is that, in the long run? Isn't actual, qualified praise better than the bluntness of a rating? I'm guessing most people would rather know what could be improved in their work than be handed an arbitrary score that doesn't actually MEAN anything.

Just my opinion, of course. But I really hope this isn't introduced.

I got to say I'm against the ratings too.  Some people might love a script and others hate it so all you get are average scores.  That's just how it goes, what one person gold is anothers turd.  A new film is reviewd by a single review and they give their impartial and honest opinion.  More reviews simply contradict views so the only fair system is if ONE PERSON reviews every script posted....any volunteers?

Quoted from JonnyBoy Absolutely against this. What would rating scripts achieve? Nothing posted on here is 'finished', in my eyes. Everything, even scripts on their third or fourth draft, are works in progress. My comments are usually intended to flag up issues and help the writer improve their script - so what's the point of rating them? But I really hope this isn't introduced.

I agree wholeheartedly with JB here - can't see anything positive coming out of it except to create unfair bias and foster in some circumstances ill-will towards others. .

Disagreements can occur under normal circumstances, I feel this would just create opportunities for more disagreement and defeat the great community-feel that is SS. Just adding mo.

Also, as Bert has mentioned script recommendations can be posted in the appropriate thread.

A script rating system is useless. I am here to learn not be rated. I need words of advice not numbers of negativity.

Well, that pretty well answers that! Thanks everyone for the comments.

To tell you the absolute truth, I had forgotten all about the Recommended Scripts Thread - maybe it needs to be promoted more? I think I shall pop over there at some time to add a couple of scripts I have been impressed with recently, and stick to that avenue in future.

Thanks again for the feedback.

This is very strange, I had this thought yesterday of rating scripts on here. But yes the Recommend thread is pretty much for that. Good idea though. I could see how it'd go either way on the boards.

Quoted from grademan A script rating system is useless. I am here to learn not be rated. I need words of advice not numbers of negativity.

Strange. I agree, but in a different line. I am here to learn to rate myself against myself and for that I think I need negativity and I also need numbers, but not from some elusive "ideal" or "perceived ideal" because that's just useless.

I can't feel anything tangible in five stars or purple crowns. I only feel it inside of the action towards something uncertain. A desire that compels me to work for this mysterious uncertainty.

A script that I would rate as 5 stars would be Killing on Carnival Row because I get it and it's like when you hear a song and you get it. But I'm not even sure where the script came from.

Sandra

Not a bad suggestion. Mr. Blond's pro arguements had me halfway towards entertaining the notion but Johnnyboy has put me firmly in the "nay" corner again. And the fact that it was tried before with disasterous results ahould be enough to leave things be. Would things be any different now if reintroduced? I can't say for sure but I seriously doubt it.

I had no idea about the recommended thread either, a fantastic idea but yeah, maybe it could do with being advertised/promoted more. Even have it as one of the main threads on the discussion board page itself or provide links to it from other areas on he site.

I realise you have to be careful not over sell or make it too convenient to  namedrop stuff there as everyone will start using it if its only one click away which would cheapen the whole idea of it but as its stands it might not be a bad thing to give it some more exposure.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 I realise you have to be careful not over sell or make it too convenient to  namedrop stuff there as everyone will start using it if its only one click away which would cheapen the whole idea of it but as its stands it might not be a bad thing to give it some more exposure.

I think it should be used rarely for scripts that blow you away and not just any script you liked. I have enjoyed a lot of scripts but the ones that I'd recommend can be counted on one hand.

Just an opinion.

The script I always recommend is by a guy who isn't here but I recommend it anyway. I am also one of the only people who read the sequel haha unless I missed him posting it.

I posted some recommends earlier - there are plenty of good scripts on SS that I am more than willing to mention in such a thread.

My main concern was that some good scripts don't get a lot of replies, for whatever reason, and gradually sink down the boards and into oblivion, while a bad script might get a big discussion going (especially if the author gets involved) and thus get lots of replies, thus staying high up the board.

I recognise that a ratings system is open to abuse and so is probably not as good an idea as it might at first appear. I notice that some people will include a rating within their own reviews, so it's just a question of personal preference.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Not a bad suggestion. Mr. Blond's pro arguements had me halfway towards entertaining the notion but Johnnyboy has put me firmly in the "nay" corner again. And the fact that it was tried before with disasterous results ahould be enough to leave things be. Would things be any different now if reintroduced? I can't say for sure but I seriously doubt it. I had no idea about the recommended thread either, a fantastic idea but yeah, maybe it could do with being advertised/promoted more. Even have it as one of the main threads on the discussion board page itself or provide links to it from other areas on he site. I realise you have to be careful not over sell or make it too convenient to  namedrop stuff there as everyone will start using it if its only one click away which would cheapen the whole idea of it but as its stands it might not be a bad thing to give it some more exposure.

Interesting how you said, if it's easy and just a click away, it cheapens it.

Sounds to me like you know exactly what you're talking about.

Sandra

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Not a bad suggestion. Mr. Blond's pro arguements had me halfway towards entertaining the notion but Johnnyboy has put me firmly in the "nay" corner again. And the fact that it was tried before with disasterous results ahould be enough to leave things be. Would things be any different now if reintroduced? I can't say for sure but I seriously doubt it.

I believe you misunderstood. I'm not for rating scripts in any way. I was just explaining the methods that would make it work if others wanted it done.

Personally, I think it would be an absolute waste of time when most any review would tell a person more than a star rating would.

Quoted from Mr. Blonde I believe you misunderstood. I'm not for rating scripts in any way. I was just explaining the methods that would make it work if others wanted it done. Personally, I think it would be an absolute waste of time when most any review would tell a person more than a star rating would.

I'm not sure, but I don't think colkurtz8 was misunderstanding you. I think he was touching upon a deeper level where the aspects of reviewing "considered to be top notch scripts" are reviewed and placed in a bit of a "limelight". At least that's how I read it.

Now this can be both good and bad, because in doing so, we kind of do create a rating system as if, by default I think, even if not explicitly with those purple crowns or five stars or whatever you want to call them.

The aspect of freedom exists in this. Whenever you rate something, I think you rate according to the rules of "the game" or "the genre" or "whatever" so it gets interesting to say the least.

A perfect example for me, is the last OWC from August - 09. I personally selected scripts that actually fell out of "my perceived" boundaries of theme and expression through comedy/drama thus dramedy or whateverthehellitwasafterall.

In the end, to me, it didn't amount to anything and I had to choose based upon my individual stupid perception or glorious perception or whateverthehellitwasafterall.

The thing is, that I think on some mysterious deep and cosmic level and heavy and freak you out and in your face at the level of everything and nothing,

My personal choice is for freedom. That's why I have trouble with structure. That's why I have trouble with rules. That's why if you read my shit, you'll see it completely lacks in that department.

So, what am I trying to say?

This: Who cares? Do you care that you have a million star rating? OK, yeah. It's very attractive. Ah!!! Massage me make me feel good. Yuh! Good. All good!

But something has to come out of all that. Something.

What is beyond the five stars? What happens after we get them and we are still empty? That's what we need to figure out.

Stars themselves are irrelevant.

Sandra

Quoted from Mr. Blonde I'm not for rating scripts in any way.

Quoted from Mr. Blonde Didn't drag, didn't move too fast. A nice, even pace throughout. 9.1/10.

Considering the above, (and no offence meant) but you've confused me here Mr B.  Each to their own, though.

My last 2c. to the 'powers that be' -  If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I'm not sure, but I don't think colkurtz8 was misunderstanding you. I think he was touching upon a deeper level where the aspects of reviewing "considered to be top notch scripts" are reviewed and placed in a bit of a "limelight". At least that's how I read it. Now this can be both good and bad, because in doing so, we kind of do create a rating system as if, by default I think, even if not explicitly with those purple crowns or five stars or whatever you want to call them. The aspect of freedom exists in this. Whenever you rate something, I think you rate according to the rules of "the game" or "the genre" or "whatever" so it gets interesting to say the least. A perfect example for me, is the last OWC from August - 09. I personally selected scripts that actually fell out of "my perceived" boundaries of theme and expression through comedy/drama thus dramedy or whateverthehellitwasafterall. In the end, to me, it didn't amount to anything and I had to choose based upon my individual stupid perception or glorious perception or whateverthehellitwasafterall. The thing is, that I think on some mysterious deep and cosmic level and heavy and freak you out and in your face at the level of everything and nothing, My personal choice is for freedom. That's why I have trouble with structure. That's why I have trouble with rules. That's why if you read my shit, you'll see it completely lacks in that department. So, what am I trying to say? This: Who cares? Do you care that you have a million star rating? OK, yeah. It's very attractive. Ah!!! Massage me make me feel good. Yuh! Good. All good! But something has to come out of all that. Something. What is beyond the five stars? What happens after we get them and we are still empty? That's what we need to figure out. Stars themselves are irrelevant. Sandra

Right. Star ratings by themselves are just that. Ratings. It would be like the MPAA saying this movie is rated R and then nothing after that. You'd know that it's not for kids but you don't know why.

Like the stories, you'd know people liked them but you wouldn't know what people liked about them.

Oh, and I didn't mean he misunderstood the whole post. Just the part when he believed that I was for the star ratings and he went along.

Quoted from LC Considering the above, (and no offence meant) but you've confused me here Mr B.  Each to their own, though. My last 2c. to the 'powers that be' -  If it aint broke, don't fix it.

That's what I'm talking about. Whenever I finish reading something or watching a movie, I score it. But, I don't just give a score. I tell why it's good and end it with the score.

Mr. Blonde, I know we're on the same side here, but I want to just refer back to the very first point I made on this thread.

Quoted from JonnyBoy What would rating scripts achieve? Nothing posted on here is 'finished', in my eyes. Everything, even scripts on their third or fourth draft, are works in progress. My comments are usually intended to flag up issues and help the writer improve their script - so what's the point of rating them?

There is a fundamental difference between scoring a book or a movie, and scoring a script you read on here. A FUNDAMENTAL difference, which is this: the first two are finished products, but the latter isn't. A book, or a movie, has reached the end of its journey. It's as good as it's going to be, and therefore a score is applicable. But the scripts here aren't finished until they've been sold or made. They're works in progress. Until they've been committed to film, they're subject to change.

And THAT'S where our comments can help: to show the writer their script's flaws, and to point him/her in the direction of improvements. Therefore, any kind of score is meaningless, no matter how good the script is; until it's something more than words on the page, it can always get better. Your score will become irrelevant once changes have been made.

That's the difference, for me. One is a finished product, and so its success can be reviewed. But the other is a work in progress, and so advice is key, not a rating, no matter how well backed-up.

Quoted from LC Considering the above, (and no offence meant) but you've confused me here Mr B.  Each to their own, though. My last 2c. to the 'powers that be' -  If it aint broke, don't fix it.

LC, can you clarify? I'm confused on how you are both in an apparent disagreement.

Sandra

Quoted from JonnyBoy Mr. Blonde, I know we're on the same side here, but I want to just refer back to the very first point I made on this thread. There is a fundamental difference between scoring a book or a movie, and scoring a script you read on here. A FUNDAMENTAL difference, which is this: the first two are finished products, but the latter isn't. A book, or a movie, has reached the end of its journey. It's as good as it's going to be, and therefore a score is applicable. But the scripts here aren't finished until they've been sold or made. They're works in progress. Until they've been committed to film, they're subject to change. And THAT'S where our comments can help: to show the writer their script's flaws, and to point him/her in the direction of improvements. Therefore, any kind of score is meaningless, no matter how good the script is; until it's something more than words on the page, it can always get better. Your score will become irrelevant once changes have been made. That's the difference, for me. One is a finished product, and so its success can be reviewed. But the other is a work in progress, and so advice is key, not a rating, no matter how well backed-up.

Ooh, that's good. You know, I absolutely forgot about that angle? Lol.

Yeah, perpetual works in progress.

But, we also agree that a review is so much more helpful than just a rating.

Like you said, same side. =)

Sorry Mr. Blonde, I hear what you are saying. You gave some interesting criteria and detailed how it maybe could be done but ultimately don't endorse its introduction. My thoughts are, in essence, much the same. Apologies for the misinterpretation. ;)

I’ve always felt the rating system was a terrible idea. The one OWC that I participated in that had the ratings enabled had people anonymously knocking down the ratings to the highest rated scripts.

There are some writers who don’t want to see other writers succeed where they might be failing. One of the reasons I don’t participate in OWCs anymore is because of the ratings system. As long as jealousy is alive, and as long as members can rate anonymously, the system will never be fair and therefore pointless.

A look at a logline and a cursory look at a script should tell a reader about all you need to know with regard to whether you want to read a script or not. There’s nothing good a ratings system can offer that can’t be achieved easily without it. About all it can do is contribute to hard feelings between members.

I would also point out that I write for producers, directors, audiences, etc., not other writers. Most producers do not really care what other writers think about a script. If I was looking for a script to produce, no offence, but I wouldn’t really care what other writers thought about it. I’ve never met a producer who cares what other writers think about something unless they want you to revise the script.

Reviews from other writers here at the site are used primarily for improvement. I don’t see how ratings can really contribute toward that goal.


Breanne


Addendum: Yes, producers use readers, often writers, to cover scripts but those are writers they employ, not writers they don’t know from an internet site.

I agree with you, Brea. In the first place we the writers have to write for the producers and here and there for an actor or actress in special.

When I started here I wrote first for my pleasure and second for my SS colleagues here. Why? Because I thought:  Helio my dear, you can write in English to this people, man! You can, doesn’t matter how you will write, but you can! I confess that most of my short scripts were to empress you, Phil, Wilson, Shelton, Newcomer, Pia, Kevan etc and just for fun. Rating scripts? I never cared about it, indeed. What I wanted was to be happy and who knows make someone laugh with my writings.

I'm another one who thinks that we don't need to illicit the star system.

We do have a couple threads around here about what people's favorite scripts on the site.

I think it is best left at that.

I'm not sure if you meant something like maybe a system so that a producer could look at the scripts with the most stars or something like that, but if that is what you meant, then they can just as easily find those threads.

Cindy

Clorox writes "wha wha whaaa, bwaaa, bwaaa, wha, wha. So, therefore, your scripts really didn't strike a chord with me. Two stars (out of ten)."

Writer responds, "Wtf, Clorox, everyone, and by that I mean everyone else that reviewed Klondike says this is the best script since Shane Black penned Lethal Weapon! You suck and you have no idea what you're talking about! I'm asking the mod to take down your two-star review, you hack!"

Quoted from cloroxmartini Clorox writes "wha wha whaaa, bwaaa, bwaaa, wha, wha. So, therefore, your scripts really didn't strike a chord with me. Two stars (out of ten)." Writer responds, "Wtf, Clorox, everyone, and by that I mean everyone else that reviewed Klondike says this is the best script since Shane Black penned Lethal Weapon! You suck and you have no idea what you're talking about! I'm asking the mod to take down your two-star review, you hack!"

It is inevitable. ANd, Lethal Weapon is so overrated, I can't get over it. But, A) No one ever talks about Lethal Weapon 2 and no one ever talks about Die Hard with a Vengeance.

Stupid fucking people.

I liked LW2... and I don't think LW is "overrated", but people talk about it because it was a spec script and who wouldn't want to be able to say, "Yeah, I wrote Lethal Weapon purely on spec..."? ;)

Totally agree with you on "Die Hard with a Vengeance" mention, Mr. Blonde. I always loved it and watched it again recently...what I fu?king action film. I've never been a big actioner but this grabs you by the balls and doesn't let go till the final scene, although I think Simon is foiled too quickly and easily by McClane once they come face to...er helicopter at the end, he's just such a great villian you want to him to put up a better fight. Also there are some very ropey CGI in the tunnel, but so what, its still an exemplary two hours of pure entertainment.

I'd go out on the limb and say its better then Die Hard (I know, sacrilege) which is also a classic but, for me, "Vengeance" is s cut above the rest and only 7.4 on IMDB, a shame.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Totally agree with you on "Die Hard with a Vengeance" mention, Mr. Blonde. I always loved it and watched it again recently...what I fu?king action film. I've never been a big actioner but this grabs you by the balls and doesn't let go till the final scene, although I think Simon is foiled to quickly and easily by McClane once they come face to...er helicopter at the end, he's just such a great villian you want to him to put up a better fight. Also there are some very ropey CGI in the tunnel, but so what, its still an exemplary two hours of pure entertainment. I'd go out on the limb and say its better then Die Hard (I know, sacrilege) which is also a classic but, for me, "Vengeance" is s cut above the rest and pnly 7.4 on IMDB, a shame.

I enjoy Vengeance better than the original, but the original is more of a classic. And, it's true. The ending is kind of weak. But, that's because it's the studio ending. The original ending, although it doesn't fit at all, is much better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSVwuFsiZv4

Very cool, takes you completely out of the frenetic pace of the film but a good scene anyway although I'd reckon that Rocket Launcher would make more of an explosion then that. I loved how McClane sort of whispers the "yipee-ki-yay" line as he walks away. Cheers for posting.

I love the line from Singapore on your sig too, much respect, sir.

I will take this thread back to where I started it - the OWC.

I notice that the October one no longer has the ability to vote for the scripts - which suggests that it was not thought to be a good idea, even in this context!