UlasanAnime.com – This article delves into the frustrations surrounding eligibility rules for anime rankings, particularly those that categorize shows based on their airing schedules, such as split-cour or ongoing series. The author expresses a desire to vent about the arbitrary nature of these rules, which often complicate the process of evaluating and ranking anime effectively.
The author questions the fundamental purpose of such ranking systems. They suggest that the principles of creating sensible rules and achieving desired outcomes are often overlooked. Drawing parallels to simple toddler toys, where matching shapes to holes is a basic rule, the author implies that ranking anime should also have clear and logical criteria.
The stakes in ranking year-end anime are considered significantly lower than avoiding damage to toys. The author ponders the goals of these rankings, suggesting that if the aim is to highlight notable anime of the year, then imposing restrictions on ongoing or split-cour shows seems counterproductive. They cite the Anime Popularity Ranking (APR) as an example, where it made little sense to rank anime on an episodic basis weekly, yet then require the “whole shebang” for final evaluation.
Two specific anime, Nagi no Asukara (NagiAsu) and Shirobako, are presented as prime examples of how these eligibility rules create problems. The author declared Shirobako as anime of the year by episode 3 and felt this opinion was solidified by episode 13. They question whether the subsequent 13 episodes could invalidate this sentiment and, more importantly, why anyone would go back and change a previous year’s ranking based on later episodes.
While acknowledging that exceptions might exist for such retrospective evaluations, the author argues that this is not the typical intent behind eligibility rules for split-cour shows. The common justifications for such rules—preventing a show from getting multiple chances at “Anime of the Year” or ensuring a show is evaluated completely—are deemed arbitrary. The author believes it’s perfectly acceptable to evaluate shows based on a whole season or even a pre-defined number of episodes, like the one- or three-episode tests.
The second reason the author finds these rules problematic relates to the purpose of end-of-year rankings: to capture and preserve a moment in time. As 2014 draws to a close, the author argues that these posts should reflect what happened within that year. Excluding relevant content simply because it falls into the “ongoing” or “split-cour” category, and deferring its evaluation to the next year, is seen as a “dumb” way to cut out relevant material.
This “lack-of-the-present” issue makes evaluating NagiAsu difficult if it were considered a 2013 show. The author states that as a 2014 show, it was “awesome,” and that’s how they choose to view it, acknowledging that any fixed methodology based on air dates will inevitably encounter such problems.
The overarching issue, according to the author, is that people are implementing rules without fully understanding their implications. They question when air dates are truly relevant. For publications like Newtype dealing with stats and TV guides, it might make sense. However, for anime bloggers, the author argues, audience interest should be the primary consideration. For organizations like the APR, the author urges them to consider how their poll or questionnaire format statistically skews data and whether it serves or undermines their intended model.
The author suggests that if a ranking system is more flexible, most people understand the common interpretation of “this year’s anime.” Exceptions can be made for established classics or long-running shows like Cowboy Bebop to avoid diluting the rankings with universally known titles. If the goal is to introduce readers to new shows they might not be aware of, the approach should be straightforward. The author points out that comments on annual posts often feature discussions about Cowboy Bebop, implying that the rules are often flawed and create more problems than they solve, thus suggesting they should be revised or discarded.
You might also be interested in : Year in Review 2014: Event Log
