1960s List Logistics: A Poll Question

[senseabove]

I could also compile a list for informational purposes (and present it with the final results) that's every orphan that received a top 5 placement during the individual year lists. Theoretically an orphan list done the old way would look very similar, if it's the same people voting throughout

I mean, I only participated in one or two year lists early on in this year/month schedule and I still plan on submitting a decade list. Maybe I'm the only one, but at least to that extent, it won't be.

[swo17]

True. I suppose this approach only works to the extent that people are participating in both the years and the decades.

Another option: I establish a "contenders" list of titles that received at least two top 10 votes during the individual year lists. You could each submit unrestricted top 50s, but then weigh in on the contenders by adding as many as you want at the end of your list (#51, #52, etc., I guess until getting to the point where you're indifferent to the remaining options). I could use this information to score the final list using a kind of ranked-choice voting approach where I do the multiple rounds of elimination and replacement on my end. I don't like the idea of negative votes, but if someone wanted to give slots 51-150 to 100 films that aren't, say, Dr. Strangelove, it would have a similar impact of voting down that film. And then even if the top 10 is all "safe" films you didn't see the need to include in your top 50, you would still be having a say in which films make it up that high and what order they're in

[therewillbeblus]

I'm admittedly getting even more confused by all these alternative propositions. I apologize if I've missed it, but I don't feel like the question of why a change is necessary has really been answered, instead getting met with other questions/ideas which make the issue convoluted. Even though the intention is obviously very warm in trying to cultivate a compromise, the irony is that things are getting more complicated and overwhelming in pitching new, layered, tangled ideas to a group that seems to be congregating around advocacy for simplicity and less oversight. Maybe the other six voters disagree with that- I don't want to speak for everyone- but I'm going to stick on Team 'Less'. As accommodating as you're trying to be, swo, I think it would actually be less exhausting to go with your original idea that may be less of a compromise since at least it's straightforward, but my priority is to subtract the flux of imposed addendums, so, again, I don't want to speak for the whole voting group

[swo17]

Sorry if all of this seems complicated--it doesn't sound that way in my head. On the contributor end, it really comes down to:

1. Do you want to be able to vote for any film, or just ones that have qualified based on their performance in an earlier round?
2. In addition to submitting a standard top 50 list, would you welcome the opportunity to have an impact on the rankings of films you didn't have room for in your top 50?

[zedz]

I’m not participating in the micromanaged lists, but I’d submit a regular freely-compiled one. Some of the films I’d like to vote for don’t seem to have been mentioned in those individual threads.

But no problem if people want to go in a different direction with this. I’ve compiled more lists for these votes than I ever expected to or needed to!

[swo17]

Some of the films I’d like to vote for don’t seem to have been mentioned in those individual threads.

I wish you would mention them!

[therewillbeblus]

Same! But maybe you'd be more likely to if given a flexible year-long thread/project to pop into at your leisure?

[swo17]

The thread is wide open

[Rayon Vert]

I'm having a hard time finding where the deadline for the 60s decade list is indicated.

[swo17]

I had initially said end of this year, but it probably makes sense to have it be after the 1969 voting finishes

[Toland's Mitchell]

^I assumed the full decade list would be revealed within a week after the 1969 list.

Anyway, my thoughts: I'm mixed on the year-by-year approach. It's great that it keeps conversations fresh and encourages us to keep watching, but it also encourages us to structure our watching habits in ways that sometimes we're in the mood for, and sometimes we're not. And I don't feel there should be a penalty for not participating in them all the way through the whole decade project. I was under the impression from the beginning, the year lists were for fun and had no impact on the full decade list. Changing that at this point doesn't seem fair, because not every user has participated in every single year list, or maybe in any at all. I abstained from this poll because I had a feeling the year lists might burn out, or fall out of favor to watching movies from any year we were in the mood for instead of the year-by-year approach. Personally, I embraced it at first but started feeling a little burned out a few months ago and unfortunately haven't been as active recently in 60s viewing and in these year mini lists. I participated in 1960-64 and '66, skipped '65 and '67...because I didn't think they mattered in the larger decade list. If we're gonna change that, and adopt the rule that a movie must have at least two Top 10 placements in the year lists, then I think users who skipped/missed some or all of the year lists should be allowed to send Top 10s from those years after the fact. And even those who did participate should be allowed to revise their Top 10s from every year, because it's only natural that users make new discoveries from a year after that year's list concluded. And going forward with the 70s project and beyond, it be should be made clear in the beginning the year lists matter. Maybe another idea for the future is to have a month/thread dedicated to each year, but don't do the mini-list that same month? And instead have all ten mini-lists due at the same time near the end of the decade project? And from there, establish an eligibility list? Perhaps I'm thinking too much about it. Anyway for now, I'm abstaining from this poll because each option has its pros and cons. I think the fairest compromise comes from posts #9 and #17, the multiple round voting. It still gives orphans a chance to get noticed, while giving users the option to replace their orphans in order to achieve a more inclusive final list.

[therewillbeblus]

Maybe another idea for the future is to have a month/thread dedicated to each year, but don't do the mini-list that same month? And instead have all ten mini-lists due at the same time near the end of the decade project? And from there, establish an eligibility list?

This is the first alternative proposition that sounds appealing. I’m not sure how simple it would be for swo as the list runner (sounds like kind-of an annoying back-heavy tabulation period) but it feels like an actual win-win compromise, if I’m understanding the other side’s motivations correctly: to still use a system that compiles a top 100 out of most popular titles filtered through the pile of top 10s per decade (or whatever the parameters are), but also allow flexibility in when those lists are complied, giving the whole year for discoveries and advocacy (so, for those of us returning to old 60s year list threads of late, those films could still stand a chance of making the final lists)

[domino harvey]

Ten active year threads sounds like a nightmare. What incentive would there be for anyone to participate at the same time?

Also, like, the amount of discussion and minutiae swo’s rather innocuous suggestion has generated is exhausting. I hate lists now, and you know me, I’m a fount of positivity who hates nothing and no one

[swo17]

Maybe another idea for the future is to have a month/thread dedicated to each year, but don't do the mini-list that same month? And instead have all ten mini-lists due at the same time near the end of the decade project? And from there, establish an eligibility list?

This is the first alternative proposition that sounds appealing.

I'd kind of already proposed that (threads for each year open all year, one deadline toward the end of the project). The suggestion I like most about TM's post is the ability for people to submit lists or revise their already submitted lists after each mini-list deadline, if that's what's going to determine eligibility. That capability may be possible in the future, but I also agree with the point that it's kind of unfair to spring this on everyone at the end of the '60s project. Perhaps we can reevaluate in the future.

I think it's clear that there are two camps that have interest in the decades project, one that's into the yearly lists and one that isn't. Even if only for that, I think it makes the most sense to run this final tally for the decade like any other decade list before it, to maximize participation

[therewillbeblus]

I like that revision aspect too. Sorry that I didn’t catch that proposition earlier swo! It still seems like a worthwhile compromise to pitch again at some point if it aids the goal of this proposed alteration, i.e. to have a decade list following the all-time parameters. As long as there’s that kind of reflective elasticity in ultimate submission, I don’t have a problem with these new wave changes of year lists, new rules for final-list qualification, etc.

[ryannichols7]

I am very pro-yearly list, monthly thread. I was kinda against it at first but after doing it I admit its way more fun this way. because

Interesting — I’ve had the opposite experience, where trying to narrow down ten years’ worth of options into a single evening’s choice is paralyzing, but to have only maybe dozen options for a particular genre/style/region to choose from is very helpful in committing

DI put it absolutely perfectly. it provides me way more focus and allows me to create quicker lists, get my purchases/rentals in order, etc. seeing people like DI, TWBB, and dustybooks among others on my letterboxd watching many of the same movies I am is a pretty encouraging and fun way to keep it going.

this doesn't answer the question of the "end of decade" list so I'll answer those: I voted in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" option, as I think many films in my top 50 may not be eligible. and I do welcome the idea of having an impact on rankings outside of what I voted for. I hope this works!!

[Toland's Mitchell]

Again I'm half in, half out with the year-by-year approach. Sometimes I like structuring my watching schedule that way, sometimes I don't. I loved this 60s project because we had 6-8 months of free-for-all, watching movies from any year, before going into the year-by-year mini lists. It's good to get the best of both approaches. I would like the 70s project to have a few months of free-for-all before the year-by-year mini lists get started but I don't think that's gonna happen. Doesn't mean I won't participate in some of the mini lists, but it's worth noting a 1970 mini-list I submit in Feb 2023 would probably look different by Dec 2023. So if the mini-lists are gonna affect decade eligibility going forward, please give us the option to edit and re-submit.