Are imdb doing something to avoid false vote trashing of films?

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • Answered
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: Old thread

From time to time I see strange Things happening to votes.
The last days I've senn this:
The film Pioneer has not been released in the US, still an American Viewer has voted a 1 for the film. Is it taceable to see if this sometghing this person often do?
The New 1 Direction film, as other films with other youth stars are trashed so hard on imdb, that I believe most of the votes aren't coming from People actually seing the film before they vote.
Is there a way to avoid these users to do so? Blacklist them or things like that?
Photo of OJT


  • 15 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 6 years ago

  • 1
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6431 Reply Likes
Yes...they do things all the time to try to keep folks from doing such things. They recently changed the way ratings appear for films with few votes so one vote of 1 will have less affect on the displayed rating. That said, it's near impossible to know if the person actually saw the film or not. I am American and have seen films in other countries. If I rated one of them, would I deserve to be blacklisted? Also, I've seen films via links given to me on this site, to see and rate films after having them offered by the film maker..same thing...should I be blacklisted? I doubt there will ever be a way to determine if someone has seen a film.

It seems, though, some users have been locating films with few ratings, most of which are 10's and throwing on 1's to try to even the score, as odd as that sounds. So, there are two camps. Those not believing the 1 and the other not believing the bunch of 10's. Somewhere in the middle lies the true picture, in most cases. Most films, though (if not all) start out out of balance and even out over time as more votes come in. I would think most people looking would throw out the 10's and 1's and look at the middle ground. I think, also, most people looking for something to see put a minimum number of votes in their search criteria to skip over those that probably are not too accurate. I usually put to exclude those with less than 1,000 votes. The best thing for a film maker of a small film is get it seen and voted on as often as possible.
Photo of OJT


  • 15 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Thanks for your good answer. I agree to what you write, completely, but still have a couple of more points to consider. Sorry for not answering before. It skipped my attention.

I've seen the same practice on a couple of new documentaries ("Supervention" and "Søsken til evig tid") which have US top voters voting 1 for a film obviously without having seen them. 
I see that some don't like high scores, and I agree to you conclusions that it won't matter over time, but still I think it's annoying, and I would also say that it probably will be some doing this which should out of your database be easy to read, as they are all top voters.
(At least those voting 1's for the two I mentioned.)
You could send an automated mail to those which tend to be in this cathegory.

I've seen both films, and they are far from 1's.
As to Supervention (
11 US voters have given an average rating as 1 (!), and 7 of these are top raters.
What's even more strangfe, is that 7 of them are women.
(I've seen and rated more than 3000 films during the last 20 years, and I'm not a top rater.)
Well, that's how it is. 

I'll make a note of that I haven't got anything to do with these productions, though I've both entered them and reviewed them, since they were missing in the list, but that's also why I've noticed the updating and voting.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.