Does people knowing the background history of your video...

sayde · Post by **sayde** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:13 pm

In regards to what you said x_rex30, I would'nt doubt that if you announced to the community how long you worked on your amv, that it might have some affect on your star scores, however, I don't think it makes any drastic difference (at least with my amv's). In fact, a lot of my amv's will start out with 4's or 5's and then quickly drop to around the 3.5~3.8 average in what seems to be overnight; and this is without letting anyone know how long I worked an amv. If you want to be safe, just don't say anything in regards to the issue. In the majority of situations, I'd say the quality of the amv probably speaks for itself with regards to how much work or effort was put into making it.

1stAgent · Post by **1stAgent** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:41 pm

With the possible exception of the "Effort" category on ops, listing the time spent shouldn't increase or decrease scores. That should be based solely on the quality of the video.

If anyone's like me, however, they will make the decision whether or not to *download* a video based on the information given. That's the real place to sell your video to an interested viewer, and a lack of information, or unappealing information could lead people to not download the video at all (which is would be far worse than low ratings).

Basically, the amount of work spent on the profile might give us a clue as to how serious the editor is, and how much work went into the video. Tomes of text about every little detail in the video is a bit annoying (and usually pretentious enough to be construed as "unappealing"), but who really wants to download something billed as "plz dl and leave op k thx"?

JaddziaDax · Post by **JaddziaDax** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:53 am

i dont read video descriptions....

but if i happen to read "this took me 4 hours to make" I prepare myself for crap...

STAR SCORE for me is on how much i ENJOIED the video itself, not anything to do with effort, unless its ovbious stuff like subs <- those will drop a star score for me...

if i am leaving an OPINION then it may effect the "effort" score.. but I dont leave many ops anymore...

HorrorPhD · Post by **HorrorPhD** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:52 pm

I'm with a lot of people here when I say that if a video has the time spent listed in the description, it determines whether or not I dl it if it's an editor I don't know. i.e. - if it says "this video took me 2 hours", I generally avoid it. And, to be honest, this will keep me from downloading more than a wmv file or an admission to using wmm.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule out there and some gems to be found that were made in 4 hours or less...but everything (and I do mean everything) that I've personally dl'd that said that has turned out to be...how shall I say it without being an @$$..."less than noteworthy?"

However, in terms of star scores...the time spent doesn't affect them for me at all. A bad video that took 4 months is going to get the same score as a bad video that took 4 hours.

My .02

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:04 pm

I download the video first, watch it, then read the description.

Its not the audiences job to care about the effort that went into the video. All you can ask of them is to watch it and think about the content they see.

[Mike of the Desert] · Post by **[Mike of the Desert]** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:31 am

If I don't know the editor, probably I'll not download a video that's been made in 4 hours, wrote or not, it's something that can be understood by giving a look at the comments, if the creator used to have effort during the editing, the comments of the video will have at least a minimum part of it.

Anyway, not always the time spent on an amv become the proof of a good work, of course not.. Some people can make in 3 hours what others do in 30. Call it "Experience" or "Talent", but it's better to don't enter into this argument now.

IMO, your stars and scores are been better since you quitted that point because of the whole huge mass of n00bs that conquered this page, you have to understand that the 85% of the users fly from an age of 13 to an age of 16, this means that reading "This video took me 4 hours", they already made in their minds an idea of the work, without even have seen it.

OmniStrata · Post by **OmniStrata** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:05 pm

That date rape FMP video was done in a VERY short amount of time...

But the score, well, you get the idea...

it's not the program, and now, not even the time spent, it's just... the editor that makes the good video...

Mad_Cyric · Post by **Mad_Cyric** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:11 am

If your video doesn't make sense without you explaining it verbally, you've failed. It's your job as an editor to make a video that is stunning in itself, not that requires verbiage in order to understand. AMV making (except in rare cases) is not a linguistic art, it's visual and auditory nonverbal semantics.

I can understand comments that point out some inside jokes or easter eggs (as in Nightmare), or talk about what kind of programs were used or some general info on its creation and premise, but all that aside, I score videos entirely on the video itself (unless it's a parody I would not have otherwise understood) and if it doesn't make sense or isn't good without the comments, then it is not a successful piece of art.

Keeper of Hellfire · Post by **Keeper of Hellfire** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:57 am

Mad_Cyric wrote:... I score videos entirely on the video itself (unless it's a parody I would not have otherwise understood) and if it doesn't make sense or isn't good without the comments, then it is not a successful piece of art.

With the exception for parodies you contradict yourself. Art always has to be seen in it's context. Sometimes this context is common knowledge, so no further explaination is necessary. Sometimes it's specific and has to be explained to the audience. If an explaination is necessary or not doesn't say anything about the artistic quality of the AMV.

So yes, knowing about the background of the video can influence the rating. Though I don't think the time spent should have to much influence. If you're familiar with your NLE and have a detailed idea what to do you can edit an AMV within a couple of hours. But you shouldn't forget, editing is only a small part of the time that you'd used for the AMV. And people are prejudging. The majority of AMVs which are done in a short time are simply crap. So if people know that you did it in a short time they will be biased. And that will influence the score, no matter if they ensure you it doesn't.

Ingow · Post by **Ingow** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:05 am

Keeper of Hellfire wrote:So if people know that you did it in a short time they will be biased. And that will influence the score, no matter if they ensure you it doesn't.

I agree here. But for a different reason: I usually don't put up my time spent on my videos since it's always about 3 days only, yet when I tell people most of the feedback is positive instead of negative. But I personally think that that only goes for the creators that know me and my work. I think that because tastes differ a lot from each other even the time spent can influence the opinion. For example I'm someone that cares most about what kind of an idea stands behind the execution than the exact editing itself while there are others that care most about technical details and if the AMV is "correctly executed" in means of exact action synch, flow and use of effects.

This is why a great idea can be ignored from everyone due to its lack of flashy effects and onbeat action synch and yet a completely useless or overused video idea can be in the top 10 just because it has been gone through for half a year about any kind of technical flaws or offbeat synches. It's why I also think that you could produce a number one AMV just by observing the scenes dos and don'ts and by considering the main taste and using the average score to fit into most of the peoples personal taste.

It's like directing a movie, doing something like Falling Down is a risk when you can pull off a King Kong Remake and know for sure that it'll be a big hit (I think those two movies are also a good example considering the time and effort put into both, I didn't even watch King Kong but Falling Down rocked my world. In average score the King Kong Remake still has the higher and the most good reviews and is known by more people etc.)