[Ginny38]

I'll be closing this poll on Thursday, and those with less than 25-30% of the vote (by actual voters, not total votes as listed in the poll) will be eliminated.

By my "guesstimate" you'll be advancing about half of the names from the poll... which may not have been your plan (or maybe you just wanted to get a sense of how things looked - in which case the rest of my post may not matter to you.

When you have 11 names and the voters can vote for FOUR (mathematically) you're going to have 5 or 6 get 20-25% of the votes (unless you have 3-4 very, very, popular names.

In your "real" polls, you might want to think about doing it with 6 names (max) per poll, and only give voters TWO VOTES. That will more likely skew the result toward 2-3 most popular (I could be wrong about the percentages... someone more familiar with polling may be able to RESPOND with more accurate information?)

My point is if you're looking at a FIVE YEAR window, you'll probably have 10-20 highly popular names and (assuming you want to write tournaments, or even fights) you'll end up with a LOT of names you'll have to deal with at any one era.

It will be interesting to see how this works out IN ACTUALITY as opposed to my assumptions. I'm really looking forward to finding out how this turns out. GOOD LUCK

[catfightlover40]

I'll be closing this poll on Thursday, and those with less than 25-30% of the vote (by actual voters, not total votes as listed in the poll) will be eliminated.

By my "guesstimate" you'll be advancing about half of the names from the poll... which may not have been your plan (or maybe you just wanted to get a sense of how things looked - in which case the rest of my post may not matter to you.

When you have 11 names and the voters can vote for FOUR (mathematically) you're going to have 5 or 6 get 20-25% of the votes (unless you have 3-4 very, very, popular names.

In your "real" polls, you might want to think about doing it with 6 names (max) per poll, and only give voters TWO VOTES. That will more likely skew the result toward 2-3 most popular (I could be wrong about the percentages... someone more familiar with polling may be able to RESPOND with more accurate information?)

My point is if you're looking at a FIVE YEAR window, you'll probably have 10-20 highly popular names and (assuming you want to write tournaments, or even fights) you'll end up with a LOT of names you'll have to deal with at any one era.

It will be interesting to see how this works out IN ACTUALITY as opposed to my assumptions. I'm really looking forward to finding out how this turns out. GOOD LUCK

It's not polling, but statistical analysis, yet the phenomenon you describe is called a p-hacking, a quite frequent accusation in science when results don't conform to expectations, though in a smaller percentage it's a genuine assumption. For example, antivaxxers love them some cherry-picked data to "establish" vaccines cause autism, who knows, once I'll have time I might even write a story about two women duking it out after one's kid infects the whole class (an emerging and real danger in contemporary America and Italy).

Right, back on track... popularity was obviously different in '96 than it is today, without social media stars were only known through directed campaigns, which worked so strongly they created a hairstyle (because, yes, unless we forget it, the stars of Friends during their career made movies, yet their names aren't even here). So, the closest guess is the popularity as we remember them, and not how they were marketed, otherwise, some of whom, who are here wouldn't be (Hollywood still makes movies for the international market).

A direct elimination would be no more participants than 16 which means 4 rounds, that is unless you want a match for 3rd place, that makes it five rounds. Having said that... much like college basketball, or the Champions Cup, you can introduce way more in separate polls eliminating each other, where some become seeded, and only enter the competition on the group stage (though admittedly this is what ensures that top clubs win all the time).

[AmazonBrooke]

I'll be closing this poll on Thursday, and those with less than 25-30% of the vote (by actual voters, not total votes as listed in the poll) will be eliminated.

By my "guesstimate" you'll be advancing about half of the names from the poll... which may not have been your plan (or maybe you just wanted to get a sense of how things looked - in which case the rest of my post may not matter to you.

When you have 11 names and the voters can vote for FOUR (mathematically) you're going to have 5 or 6 get 20-25% of the votes (unless you have 3-4 very, very, popular names.

In your "real" polls, you might want to think about doing it with 6 names (max) per poll, and only give voters TWO VOTES. That will more likely skew the result toward 2-3 most popular (I could be wrong about the percentages... someone more familiar with polling may be able to RESPOND with more accurate information?)

My point is if you're looking at a FIVE YEAR window, you'll probably have 10-20 highly popular names and (assuming you want to write tournaments, or even fights) you'll end up with a LOT of names you'll have to deal with at any one era.

It will be interesting to see how this works out IN ACTUALITY as opposed to my assumptions. I'm really looking forward to finding out how this turns out. GOOD LUCK

Thanks for the advice, Ginny. This first vote is kind of a one-off as there are way more films and actresses to begin with, the same will go for TV and music when I get around to them. But the monthly batches going forward will be more like the level you described there, in fact I've written up a preliminary list for February and it only has 6 as opposed to 11 this time. I will definitely restrict votes for further intakes as we build on the existing roster established here and I might only allow a single vote for the next one.

I agree a 25% vote rate is far too low and as harsh it is on the likes of Bonnie Hunt and Angela Bassett, I'm going to be looking for a 1/3 vote minimum in future 'popularity polls' like this one.

I'll be closing this poll on Thursday, and those with less than 25-30% of the vote (by actual voters, not total votes as listed in the poll) will be eliminated.

By my "guesstimate" you'll be advancing about half of the names from the poll... which may not have been your plan (or maybe you just wanted to get a sense of how things looked - in which case the rest of my post may not matter to you.

When you have 11 names and the voters can vote for FOUR (mathematically) you're going to have 5 or 6 get 20-25% of the votes (unless you have 3-4 very, very, popular names.

In your "real" polls, you might want to think about doing it with 6 names (max) per poll, and only give voters TWO VOTES. That will more likely skew the result toward 2-3 most popular (I could be wrong about the percentages... someone more familiar with polling may be able to RESPOND with more accurate information?)

My point is if you're looking at a FIVE YEAR window, you'll probably have 10-20 highly popular names and (assuming you want to write tournaments, or even fights) you'll end up with a LOT of names you'll have to deal with at any one era.

It will be interesting to see how this works out IN ACTUALITY as opposed to my assumptions. I'm really looking forward to finding out how this turns out. GOOD LUCK

It's not polling, but statistical analysis, yet the phenomenon you describe is called a p-hacking, a quite frequent accusation in science when results don't conform to expectations, though in a smaller percentage it's a genuine assumption. For example, antivaxxers love them some cherry-picked data to "establish" vaccines cause autism, who knows, once I'll have time I might even write a story about two women duking it out after one's kid infects the whole class (an emerging and real danger in contemporary America and Italy).

Right, back on track... popularity was obviously different in '96 than it is today, without social media stars were only known through directed campaigns, which worked so strongly they created a hairstyle (because, yes, unless we forget it, the stars of Friends during their career made movies, yet their names aren't even here). So, the closest guess is the popularity as we remember them, and not how they were marketed, otherwise, some of whom, who are here wouldn't be (Hollywood still makes movies for the international market).

A direct elimination would be no more participants than 16 which means 4 rounds, that is unless you want a match for 3rd place, that makes it five rounds. Having said that... much like college basketball, or the Champions Cup, you can introduce way more in separate polls eliminating each other, where some become seeded, and only enter the competition on the group stage (though admittedly this is what ensures that top clubs win all the time).

For me it's difficult to know who as popular back then, I wasn't even alive! lol. I just use box office mojo to see which films were doing well in a month then check to see the leading female stars in those films. But I guess that makes me unbiased as I'm ignorant to most of these names. As for the stars of Friends, you'll see their names appearing soon enough

I hadn't planned on running this as a tournament, more like an ever-changing roster like how it would have been back in 1996. When musicians or actresses drop off the radar for a while then they get removed as their popularity of the time wanes, but chances are they come back with a new film or album soon enough. My thoughts were to introduce championships sort of like WWE. Film studios, record labels and TV could all have their own in time once there are enough names.

However I'm writing this for you guys and I'm always open to suggestions and ideas, if what I've mentioned here doesn't sound like you think it will work I'm happy to tweak and change it to popular opinion.

I'm aware this is a huge task and it's going to go on for months and months, and if enough people enjoy reading it I hope it can go on for years. I'm hoping to get the first story written and posted this weekend.

[catfightlover40]

[/quote]

For me, it's difficult to know who as popular back then, I wasn't even alive! lol. I just use box office mojo to see which films were doing well in a month then check to see the leading female stars in those films. But I guess that makes me unbiased as I'm ignorant to most of these names. As for the stars of Friends, you'll see their names appearing soon enough

I hadn't planned on running this as a tournament, more like an ever-changing roster like how it would have been back in 1996. When musicians or actresses drop off the radar for a while then they get removed as their popularity of the time wanes, but chances are they come back with a new film or album soon enough. My thoughts were to introduce championships sort of like WWE. Film studios, record labels, and TV could all have their own in time once there are enough names.

However, I'm writing this for you guys and I'm always open to suggestions and ideas if what I've mentioned here doesn't sound like you think it will work I'm happy to tweak and change it to popular opinion.

I'm aware this is a huge task and it's going to go on for months and months, and if enough people enjoy reading it I hope it can go on for years. I'm hoping to get the first story written and posted this weekend.
[/quote]

There are always firsts unless I'm told, this is the first time I'm talking to someone who wasn't around in '96 In a nutshell, the '90s literally split in half in 1995. The first half was about entertainment finding not just its own voice after the '80s, but also about serving the new markets (half of Europe and Russia, meanwhile on the fetish market, DWW and others found a lot of girls from there). How to put this best... when parents lecture their kids what to stay away from, at some points some kids will claim to know that kissing makes a girl pregnant. So, there were quite a few movies, which studios have dumped on people in the knowledge they can't know it's a bad movie (compared with the Soviet schlock, even Adam Sandler movies look good). In the late '90s, the internet started to become a thing, but so did early viral marketing. They made us believe Sinbad is as good an actor, as he's a comedian, Shaq can act as swiftly as he plays, but most importantly they made us believe Schwarzenegger and Stallone can carry a comedy. This is because here's what we got to see: a trailer in the movies, a review, unbeknownst to us paid for by studios and a making of in the television. We needed to rely on buddies to know if it was good or not.

That's why word of mouth back then was as important as box office numbers. Just one example, in 1997, two years before the premiere, the first teaser dropped for The Phantom Menace and it promised to be awesome. Haters don't admit this, but back then the CGI, since it came from the same company that did Jurassic Park, promised to be quality... and then we got Jar Jar Binks and pod racing. Yet, because in lack of broadband and online piracy, by the time the first good pirated copy came out, ticket sales went through the roof, ardent fans have seen it 6 times in a row. I remember there being a 2 or 3-month preorder at some point.

One other thing. Since studios were no longer required to produce jingoistic action like Rambo, Chuck Norris or Schwarzenegger movies, they used their leverage to replace these actors with classically trained ones and opened the then-one way door from TV to movies. Back then, doing TV after movies were considered a career ender. That's how Jim Carrey and George Clooney got onto the big screen. As a matter of fact, Jim Carrey knows Jennifer Lopez personally, as they both left the same show to do movies (and to this date, never did one together). Heck, speaking of Carrey, the Lauren Holly vs Renee Zellweger story has written itself way back when... was it Diana the Valkyrie or TinaDiane's site... I can't recall exactly. I'm not saying look it up, but catfight stories of that era are a pretty good indicator who was famous.