I Like this change!!!

Bobby Knight · Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008, 22:03 (GMT) Post subject:

Well I was ranked #1 out of 27 on a recent job, and just got a "considering" ..not sure what to make of that..

Claire Dodin · Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008, 22:13 (GMT) Post subject:

Diane Havens · Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008, 22:34 (GMT) Post subject:

Yes, that is true. I have on occasion been contacted by seekers after an audition, usually production houses, to keep me on their "digital rolodex." And I keep in touch with them. Every favorable contact may lead somewhere down the road.

Travis . · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 04:14 (GMT) Post subject:

Here's my info, all the way back through April

Date Pl/Total Response
7/12 14/31 Not Likely
7/8 1/23 Considering
6/28 1/42 Considering
6/25 1/9 Likely Hiring (Hired)
6/20 45/201 Not Likely
6/16 16/24 Maybe
6/13 13/39 Not Likely
6/3 4/30 Considering
5/28 1/71 Likely Hiring
5/28 1/90 Likely Hiring
5/28 1/70 Likely Hiring
5/27 1/38 Likely Hiring
5/25 10/42 Considering
5/21 90/147 Considering
5/19 13/47 Considering
5/16 1/16 Likely Hiring
5/13 5/33 Considering
5/9 1/20 Likely Hiring
4/28 1/115 Likely Hiring
4/25 1/5 Considering
4/23 10/98 Considering
4/18 2/7 Considering
4/6 15/28 Maybe
4/6 1/43 Likely Hiring
4/6 1/47 Considering
4/5 1/30 Likely Hiring (Hired)
4/5 8/51 Not Likely
4/5 12/18 Not Likely

Of all submitted 56 had no feedback, 17 of those weren't opened.

Have no idea what any of this means.....

Doug Parks · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 12:58 (GMT) Post subject:

Travis,

I would say all the likely hirings and considerings and maybes mean you are a viable talent and the not likelys mean you take some risks on some of your reads. And all the unopened ones mean that many seekers are having difficulty being professional enough to either limit auditions or at least listen to--much less take two seconds to provide feedback on--a talent who has taken time out of his busy day to submit (usually) a custom audition.

Peter Ganim · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 13:40 (GMT) Post subject:

Ya know...I was hesitant to contribute this...but, at this point - why not?

How gullible are we..?

There is no way to legitimize these rankings, and I don't think V123 is bound to. How in the world do we know if this data is even accurate and not simply a ploy to keep the natives from getting too restless, (if you know what I mean?)

It would be an exceedingly simple paradigm to generate the data they have most recently provided...it's an easy little program...and there is no way to legitimize any of it.

Has it struck anyone that, even with the wide variety of leads that come through here and the caliber of talent that frequents these boards...that nearly EVERYONE has a couple of "#1s" in their recent rankings..?

Sure, it could all be legitimate, the talent are good, the leads have been, at times, plentiful....but, I do wonder if any of us got "#1s" on the very same project...? That would certainly give the lie to this latest development-

Now - I am not saying that the above IS so...just that it is worth considering - it is so very easy to manipulate data - how are we to really be assured that the data is legit?

In any case, you're all welcome (of course) to any perspective you choose to adopt...just-

"Caveat Emptor"-

...ya know??

PG

Diane Havens · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 13:57 (GMT) Post subject:

Well, now, Peter, you must be one of those cynical New Yorkers! Laughing

I can't say that thought hadn't crossed my mind more than once -- just like multiple FIVES were rampant, multiple "#1s" -- or, if not, at least multiple "likely hirings" might as well. And what happened to the claim of simplicity for the seeker? All the while, they were doing THREE things? Giving a number/star, giving a rank, and contributing phrase like "maybe, etc." to each audition. I could see why there are a great majority of them not using this system. I would rather get no ranking, than a hastily given one, especially if people are going to draw conclusions about their viability in this field based on them. For them to be able to go back six months with this, it must have been in place from the beginning. This is not really a change, but a revelation, right? Just as the ratings were before them. Piece by piece, we are privy to what's happening behind the scenes. And we still don't know exactly how this figures in to that magic percentile.

The thing that amuses me most, and believe me, I am quite amused by it all -- is how it draws people's attention and energies into this site. Is it really time well spent even musing over? That is up to each individual, of course, to decide.

Best, as usual, to all my friends here -- you're all #1 in my digital notepad! Very Happy

September Day Leach · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 14:01 (GMT) Post subject:

Diane Havens · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 14:08 (GMT) Post subject:

Melba Sibrel · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 14:11 (GMT) Post subject:

Well, in confirmation to just one of Peter's very salient points, and in answer to one of your questions, Diane...yes, I can tell you that multiple folks are #1 in the same job posting, because two people who listed previously on this thread certain postings in which they were "#1, Likely Hiring"...I was also "#1, Likely Hiring". Now, both were men so, maybe it's like being Homecoming King and Queen... Laughing

...which shows how even more silly the whole thing is!

Scott Pollak · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 14:56 (GMT) Post subject:

I just love to start threads that stir up the pot.

On our next Springer: "Should midgets be allowed to voice mini-series?!"

Doug Parks · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 15:14 (GMT) Post subject:

Peter, your last post was a good one. You're right. We COULD all be just getting blasts of sunshine right up the old--uh, you know. But if OVER TIME you discover your very favorite/best reads are often garnering a "likely hiring," your less-than-stellar efforts a "maybe" and your average stuff a "considering," wouldn't you say there's a chance that this new system has just a tiny bit of relevance?

Of course, this would not explain Scotty, whose auditions are always scintillating. (Said with equal amounts of admiration and sarcasm).

Larry Maizlish · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 16:02 (GMT) Post subject:

From the Voice Seeker's viewpoint...

The rating wording is now also much clearer to Seekers. This way, Seekers have a better understanding of what those little stars really mean in relation to the posted job. And maybe as a result, more Seekers will begin rating jobs.

Personally, we still rarely rate the auditions since the rating affects other parts of the Voice123 system. We will rate the hired talent with the max (5 or likely hiring) almost all of the time. Yet, even rating other talents with 4 stars has other repercussions that can change the way the talent and auditions are reviewed by the Seeker. Voice123 is working on developing this so it evolves into a better system for both talents and Seekers.

We use an in-house rating and short listing system here that works well and even if a talent does not match the current project and is not short listed (possibly equal to 1 or 2 stars) they are still fully ranked and positioned for the next project's audition.

Larry

Diane Havens · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 19:05 (GMT) Post subject:

Larry Maizlish · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008, 20:06 (GMT) Post subject: