Quote:
Originally posted by Ash12345
No he said he gives them more or less weighting not due to their credibility like metacritic but due to how closely they match his list which is ridiculous.
|
Yeah, he simply gave his methodology for how he gauges credibility; Metacritic gives weighted scoring based on credibility yet they simply don't publish their methodology for how they come to their conclusions regarding what publications are more or less credible.
He creates a baseline of a general consensus based upon best of and decade/all time publication wide lists and gives less weight to the publications that have an inordinate amount of not so highly acclaimed works (which brings into question credibility against the established general consensus among the "tastemakers"). Quantifying the subjective is never going to be a perfect science no matter how you slice it, but this isn't any less credible than Metacritic. It's not him choosing what publications he agrees with and disagrees with; he's gauging publications against norms established by OTHER publications and weighing accordingly.