Post by damngumby on Nov 7, 2017 22:24:31 GMT
the list is a bit of a joke.
Yes.
This list is compiled from a small "discrete" sub-set of critics selected by Rotten Tomatoes.
They try to make up for the smaller (and varied) sample size for each movie by running it through some commercial statistical software, set for Bayesian.
Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows the result, the "adjusted score", is just a probability, with a margin of error.
Sample sizes in the low 100s usually have a margin of error over +/- 3%.
A clear sign of a true numb-skull is the person who tries to compare adjusted scores that are within the margin of error.
If you must rank the movies, you should us the true RT scores.
Those are genuine numbers from actual critics.
Not interpolated probabilities with a wide margin of error, from a small group of critics that no one knows.