TCI with professional critics

[beast]

A ranking of which professional critics you most closely match with.

[iconogassed]

Do you mean both accounts NOT run by the critic (the Armond White and Roger Ebert ones, for example) that collect published ratings of the critic's, as well as "ordinary" users who are professional critics (or claim to be)?

I can't imagine there's enough of the latter to make it worthwhile for the admins. And with respect to the others, they are also not very useful for TCI, since they are almost always a four- or five-star rating "converted" into a Criticker rating, and as such do not have much breadth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granulari ... ranularity). The Armond White one can't even generate TCIs, as his reviews didn't offer a numerical grade (and it also hasn't been updated since 2011).

[beast]

Yeah, don't think it would have to be any more complicated than creating accounts that collect published ratings from published critics. No idea how it could be done. All/most professional ratings are standardised to a 100-point system on metacritic, but I doubt you can just mine that data legally (I guess an agreement could be made) and it would certainly be an impractical amount of work to do it from scratch.

[iconogassed]

Ah. Metacritic also arbitrarily assigns numerical scores to individual reviews that don't offer them. I would strongly urge Criticker and my fellow users to let Metacritic keep that intellectual property (and I use one of those words loosely).

[JonSmith]

Rotten Tomatoes does the same I believe.