My point was that using other questionable scoring methods to call RT into question doesn’t make logical sense.
But it makes perfect sense. If you measure the same thing with different methods and none of the results agree, it’s perfectly logical to assume that any or all of the methods are flawed.
No, it doesn’t make sense. He said RT is flawed and he pointed to other sources he considers more definitive to support his argument. I’m the one who posited that they’re all likely flawed in some way.
And we’re not measuring the same thing. While there’s almost certainly some crossover in the samples, CinemaScore’s audience isn’t IMDB’s and isn’t RT’s.
I never said the bot thing was an anti-SJW conspiracy, nor did I say that it even happened, just that it plausibly could have. Using bots is not “hacking,” and wouldn’t even be that hard to do. When I say bots I mostly mean people making a ton of socks accounts, which isn’t something that anyone in their right mind should think is a possibility far divorced from reality. The potential of someone making a script that’d do the work for them logically follows, though again I’m not saying it definitely happened (honestly the bot thing was pretty clearly beside my point).
Then why bring it up at all other than to obscure the lack of logic in the argument? “Hacking” doesn’t just mean breaking into a computer or network or writing malicious code; social engineering is a form of hacking. Using bots to overwhelm a system and subvert its intended purpose qualifies as hacking even though it works within the confines of the system. And bots aren’t people with sock accounts; bots work independently, which is what makes them bots. Words mean things.
I bring it up because it’s one of many factors that should be considered. Also, each time I brought it up I was saying “even if you don’t believe in the bots,” which is to say it’s obvious that you don’t believe people who say bots were made, so I’m acknowledging that and moving on to the other points.
What I meant by my definition is that I lump them together. Non-sock bots are still a part of that factor, as I stated if you paid attention to what I posted.
I think you’re intentionally blurring meanings because your argument that RT is an invalid source for audience opinion was based on your opinion (you admitted yourself you couldn’t bother to research it) and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. At worst, it’s no more faulty than any other audience metric.
It seems to me like you’re just latching on to the bot thing (which I barely talked about) because you have no good counterargument to my actual point. Cool man, well done.
I pointed out where I think your logic is flawed beyond the bot subject and won’t repeat myself. You scoffed at RT based solely on your impressions of it, only presented alternative data when pressed, used your own definitions for words (that’s not how definitions work), and you’re grasping at straws to salvage your argument.
RT is just as valid as the other scores you mentioned based on what we know to be true about them. Unless you can provide real evidence or data to the contrary, I’m not sure why you’re still debating other than the fact that you like the movie and want to believe most other people agree with you, which is perfectly natural, but not reasonable.
I don’t care how other people feel about TLJ and their opinion doesn’t affect my own. I just work with the data I have and don’t invent theories why it may or may not agree with my own opinions.