734
5.9/10
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
734 points (100.0% liked)
Comic Strips
23592 readers
1619 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
Rules
-
😇 Be Nice!
- Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
-
🏘️ Community Standards
- Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
- Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
- Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
- Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
-
🧬 Keep it Real
- Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
-
📽️ Credit Where Credit is Due
- Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
- Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
-
📋 Post Formatting
- Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
- Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
- When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
✅ Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
❌ Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
-
📬 Post Frequency/SPAM
- Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 🖐) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 🖐) will be removed.
-
🏴☠️ Internationalization (i18n)
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
Sí, por favor [Spanish/Español]
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
-
🍿 Moderation
- We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
- When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Banned Artists
The following artists are banned from the community.
- Jago
- Stonetoss
It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.
Web Accessibility
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
Web of Links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Really? I find the opposite problem. Ratings are inflated and even utter trash on IMDB is 6 or 7 out of 10.
I think part of the problem is that the scale is not used properly. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would consider 5 to be average. Most movies seen are average. Average is well worth watching. 5 is a decent rating as far as I am concerned. I'll even watch a 4 or a 3 if someone tells me that some aspect of the movie was worthwhile. But most people seem to treat the scale as if they only are willing to watch 8 and above, and that anything below a 7 is trash.
It would be much better if there was a site to input your ratings and for it to match you to users and critics similar to your taste. I used to use Last.FM like this for music but haven't found anything similar for movies or TV. Ratings alone are useless because critics and users alike will swing all over the scale for the same movie. Tastes need to match.
Same as Google ratings. Like it? 5 stars. Hate it, 1 star. No nuance. If it's below 3.5 stars, absolute garbage. In Japan they somehow treat the rating system as intended. 3 stars is a solid, ok experience. 5 is exceptionally hard to achieve
This varies a lot by place. In some countries a 4.0 is an excellent score.
Google using Rotten Tomatoes for rating is kinda funny for me cuz imdb have its own problems for rating but i never hear people say something like “if a movie is rated high on RT its probably bad” about imdb
RT's Tomatometer is awful. If everyone would agree it's a 6/10 movie, they'd score it as 100% fresh. If everyone would agree a movie is a 10/10 they would score 100% fresh as well.
Interesting for this video to have just come up on my feed yesterday.
I agree with you, but the problem is, IMDb collates ratings from thousands of people, each of whom have their own scale. I might have the same opinion about a movie, but I rate it as a 5 because it was completely average, and the next person who feels the same gives it a 7.
I would love to use a service that asks you a series of questions about a movie and generates a rating based on that. That way, if you're honest about your answers, the ratings should match. Questions like "was the acting good?" with answers like "the acting was exceptional," "the acting was bad," and "the acting didn't make me think about it at all." But if you ask if the movie was good? If it's a movie about a working man being pushed to the breaking point and he dies, the rich man is going to like that a lot more than a working man.
Then you have review bombing. I think the best example of this is Fullmetal Alchemist. FMA fans believe that no anime should be rated higher than FMA, so if something starts to get popular, they will organise a review bombing of it. Don't get me wrong, Fullmetal Alchmist was a good anime, but it was also kinda trash. The first series in 2003 did 20-odd episodes, caught up with the manga, then they decided to write their own ending/second half. In 2009 after the books were done, they did a remake, but the first episode was original (not in the books), the next nine summed up the first half of the books (because the 2003 series already covered that), and then the next 50-odd episodes cover the second half of the books, so you have one where the pacing is good but the story goes off the rails (IMO, in a good way, I like where they took it), and another one where it's more true to the books (except that random ass first episode) but the pacing sucks. To top it all off, the lead actor was accused of sexual misconduct a few years ago and has basically been cancelled online. It's still an awesome series, but is it so good that nearly 20 years later, nothing can be rated more highly?
I hadn't heard about the voice actor. I wonder if someone has done a fan dub... But yeah, review bombers are scum.
I just checked and it's just the English dub's VO that's been cancelled, so who cares?
What dub did you think I meant? Was I, at any point, speaking French, Japanese, German, or Spanish? No, I was not — so why would you think I'd be talking about some foreign language dub?
A LONG time ago back when Netflix first started its rating system was its major speak. I recall articles saying that even if you did not pay for the service, you should make an account just simply to use its rating system to decide your next watch (and then go get them at Blockbuster or something:-P). My, how things have changed in the meantime..
Back when Netflix had anything you wanted to watch instead of the same 100 movies listed in 5 different categories each.
I remember finding a list of the top 100 movies of all time - stuff like Schindler's List - and perhaps other lists of like most popular in a given year, and only 2 of those were offered via their streaming service at the time (the others only available from their DVD mailing service). Hancock was one, to give you an idea of what that looked like. There is a reason people started calling it "Shitflix". 🤣
is the reason "teenagers who can't separate their mouth from their ass wanted to sound edgy, but ended up sounding like a clown instead"?
you do understand that netflix is not a movie archive of all humanity and it is unreasonable to expect it will have all movies from a list spanning across centuries, cultures, regions and genres... right?
Actually, originally I think it was tongue-in-cheek, as Netflix originally intentionally focused on the long-tail part of the distribution. Also the wording was journalists writing articles iirc, even if emulating edgelords (or possibly spreading it after having read on the likes of 4chan:-P).
And then as its selection went down - tbf that had little to do with Netflix and more with other companies trying to copy its success, like Disney Plus for their content, and Paramount Plus for theirs, and so on - it started more and more to ring true. Especially as it started showing "ads", like at the end of a series it would start auto-playing some previews of some other show. They always walked each such decision back, but at first when they released each one there was no way to turn it off, and then after a month or so it would become possible to log into a computer browser (on a totally separate device) and change the default setting, which would affect your TV also.
I've had Netflix since before it offered streaming, and I am always perpetually pissed off at it and thinking of cancelling after each decision to push forward the enshittification. Again, some of which is not its fault.
Netflix is just an enormously controversial company. Usually I get people pissed off at me for saying that I even so much as use it, while you seem to be offering the opposite thought. Regardless, it's a company that people tend to have strong feelings about:-P.
That seems counter-productive, since Netflix was far cheaper than paying per movie at Blockbuster. I used to use Blockbuster the opposite way, going there to browse for movies to order from Netflix. I do miss being able to browse at a physical store.
The real ones had blockbuster deliver by mail, then returned those discs in store same day so to prompt the next delivery. I think it was a buck cheaper than Netflix at the time, too. Yargh
I did the same. There was a point when Blockbuster was the better deal if you had a store close by.
But, before Blockbuster started its own mailing service, you would have to wait several days for your video choice to arrive. Plus there's the convenience of having it mailed directly to you, especially if you lived further away from a Blockbuster store I guess. Back when Netflix had virtually nothing to watch (as opposed to later when it merely has nothing WORTH watching, hehe🤪), it wasn't so bad to have like one season of an old Star Trek mailed to you, even if you went to Blockbuster for actual movie titles.
More realistically, the article I am half recalling was probably trying to drum up subscriber numbers when Netflix was young and first starting out.
Anyway the point was that at one point in time their ratings system was actually considered quite GOOD, back before they got into pushing crap that they would rather you watch instead of stuff that you might actually enjoy.
I've always found imdb way less inflated than Rotten Tomatoes.
90% on RT means that 9/10 reviewers didn't hate it but they could all have rated it a 6/10.
The wannabe professional reviewers on RT are the absolute garbage. Anything big and you'll find multiple Nobody McNobodyface from Nowhereton Gazette giving anything top score because they gave a boner for the lead actress.
I just joined a site called criticker that aims to fix this via data normalization. It can adjust ratings to the way you rate and base them on people who rate like you as well. Although its database is a bit lacking and all ratings are public.
Also FYI on 1 to 10 5.5 is average, 5 is below average.
The scaling on IMDB is bad, 10point scales do not work 5 and below isn't really used, unless they hate it passionately
I have both problems or I am counter-cyclical to IMDb. Anyways. My algorithm now works like this:
IMDb > 5 = potentially good movie
IMDb <=5 = trash
Rotten Tomatoes > 70% = potentially good movie
Rotten Tomatoes <= 70% = potentially good movie.
Might I add, a 10 scale is too granular for most people. It should be on 5. Most people have their scale start at 5 and go above. The only time they will go below is to give a 1 to a movie they hated.
On a scale from 1-10, the average is 7. That's how humans work. You should probably get used to it.
600% this!
Yeah I think this is an issue in general with any kind of 1-10 scale! People tend to think 7+ is good. I don't think people recognize 5 as average or they see "average" as less than what it actually means - I'm with you that most media is average and that doesn't mean it's not worth checking out.
Anyone who creates a scale needs to be super clear about what each interval means lol because I think they get misconstrued all the time.
I do miss the old IMDb review/chat boards though. Before everything just moved to reddit, it was fun to go on there and just talk to people about certain movies. Was so good for when a movie had a confusing/open ending to share theories and stuff. Didn't get trolls when forums were all separate!
I had a professor in college who believed an A should be reserved for the rare student who really nails a subject. He felt that if he gave a test, and several students got an A on it, it was a bad test. He said that was like having a speedometer on a car that only went to 50. So if you worked really hard in his class and did well, you'd likely get a B. Most students got a C, because that's average.
I actually agreed with him, but the problem was that the rest of academia didn't behave that way, so his classes lowered your GPA.
and that is exactly the problem with people suffering from chronic unique-titis like this. they are just assholes.
Do you have A+ where you live? For us, A was very good but A+ was the ultimate!
Interesting though because you're right that C is meant to be average but if you were a C kid you were kinda deemed... either "not trying" or just a bit thick. People felt bad about getting a C which, especially in high school, like teenage years (is college after high school? We'd call it university) is kinda rough! C is average, that's alright! You're keeping up! You can't be above average in everything but it feels like a lot of people were of the mindset that you had to get Bs and above in everything or you were "dumb".
A lot of classes would do A+ on assignments/tests, meaning that you got some extra credit, but generally in college/university, the top score is 4.0, which equates to an A. In the US, colleges tend to be smaller than universities, and universities have more degree programs available.
Hm interesting. In university the grades are totally different but also not super important? In terms of after university, when you go for a job, you either have done the course/degree or you haven't lol, people don't really talk about what grades you got. Maybe if you were a genius getting HDs (high distinctions) in everything you do lol but yeah I've never heard people talk about their actual grades post-university.
Do you share your grades/score with your potential employers over there?
they may not be super important for some useless school that is basically just a diploma mill, but they are important if you are in good school with goal of getting good education, because they will affect your further progress through the system. like going from bachelor to masters level (which i think is not always the case in us) or getting your phd position.
You Aussie? Haha yeah even as I was typing it I knew it would be a sweeping generalisation because ofc it depends on the field someone is going into and the end goal.
I can't say I know about how higher corporate positions work these days other than I know we put more emphasis on education now so I take what you're saying on board. I know my dad started here in the 80s, no education past dropping out in the equivalent of year 10 (in England) and by the 90s was climbing the corporate ladder and ended up quite high (I believe he did a couple of short courses along the way but no diploma or degrees).
He retired a few years ago and yes, definitely spoke about it becoming more focused on what degrees newcomers had. He did also speak to there being the private school boys connections (in his generation too) so yes, all that stuff does exist. Perhaps I have wishful thinking that we're less focused on that in America.
I'm more lower class than my dad lol, so in my line of work and the people around me - which in fairness tends to be in the caregiving, healthcare industries and much smaller corporations - I've not heard people talk about where they went to school or what they're ENTER/ATAR, etc score was or anything. But yes, vastly different experience than climbing the corporate ladder!
Curious what your experience has been if you've seen/heard/experienced how it looks in different industries? Easy to get caught in your own little bubble so I'm always interested in others experiences!
i am czech. basically whole europe is part of bologna system, which makes it easy to standardize and compare schools between countries and do different stages of your study in different places.
so basically you do 3 years for bachelor's degree, then you do another 2 years for master's degree. these 2 don't need to be at the same school or even same country. if you are continuing within the same school, you may be accepted to master's based on your grades. otherwise you go through some application process where grades may play a role. it is the same when you apply for phd position. so the grades may definitely affect you. it is true that once you are done with the school and have your diploma, your grades are not really the topic of the conversation, but before that happens, you may have a reason to care.
(medical and law schools are exceptions from this system).
People who did well usually put their grade point average (GPA) on their resume. I was a hiring manager for some decades, and I didn't tend to hire people who had less than a 3.2 from a decent school. Generally when people didn't put their GPA it meant they didn't get 2.5 or better.
But I was hiring for a specialty, and for a lot of jobs they really just want you to have the degree.
Yeah I would assume it's definitely role-dependent right? Like speciality roles, higher paying roles I understand there's always going to be a bit of prestige around that stuff but I guess I am more of an average Joe (Jane? Is that a saying, average Jane lol) 😅
See, I reckon we've become more degree focused here over the years which I don't actually think is a good thing. My dad came from England (to Australia) with not even finishing high school and managed to climb up the corporate ladder without ever having to go to university. He was very good at his job, headhunted regularly and retired 5 years ago and still gets offers on contracts because he's obviously held in high regard.
I think it's a mistake to automatically require a degree for jobs. Not a dig at you personally, I understand that's how the system has probably worked there for a long time and as I said it's come in here too. I just don't agree with that everyone needs a degree to do certain jobs. Some people do seem to have a natural infinity towards certain things and can excel without the study so I think it's a flawed model to push everyone to the same requirements.
Yeah, it's interesting. I was hiring embedded software engineers for space-based, human rated applications. The company was hardcore engineering, with software being a tiny piece of the engineering staff. They wanted engineering degrees from good schools as a kind of risk reduction: it didn't guarantee people were good, but it ensured that they had mastered the subject matter from an academic point of view.
But I was there 40 years, from the mid 1980s, and computer science had only more recently been a degree offered by universities for a little while at that time. Most of my peers when I started learned to code as part of other degrees or non-degreed interests. A number of math and physics majors, but a couple excellent employees who learned to code as part of music/recording. A degree wasn't a requirement for software people before my time.
So I had mixed emotions about it. Certainly a person could be an excellent developer by having learned on the job, but we were only rarely short of applicants with good GPAs from good schools. Oh, and we mostly promoted engineering leadership from the engineering staff, so your dad's situation wouldn't apply.
As an aside, my dad also came here (US) from England with only a high school education, though at least at the time, English high schools were more like US junior colleges.
This is why approval voting is better than score voting, or rather, score voting quickly becomes approval voting anyways so might as well not overcomplicate matters 🙃
yes but with approval rating the "best" movies are the ones which appeal at least enough to the most people.
True, I was thinking about this some other time too. I think more granularity in votes doesn't really solve that though, you need some way of weighting approvals. Like determining whose approval matters most.
If the point of a rating is to be used as a predictor for how much you might enjoy a movie, then it might be worth switching to a three star system and weighing the star choices of other reviewers higher or lower based on how many previous movies you rated similiar to them.
criticker seems to try kinda this. It looks like ListenBrainz but for visual media. I only discovered it in this thread
Oh my god that actually looks perfect. Thank you.
seems to cost after 50 ratings, which I wouldnt mind if it is a very low amount monthly or only once
I rely on Letterboxd for a glance on rating curvature but that too has become untrustworthy for anything just released big and blockbustery that fortunately isn't really my thing anyway.
When I see something I really like I go check out the other productions by the people involved. Director and writer mainly, also producers and sometimes actors if they seem to be character actors that pick what projects to be in.