Increase minimum number of votes needed to display user rating

  • 24
  • Idea
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • Under Consideration
  • (Edited)
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members.

http://i69.servimg.com/u/f69/15/87/47...

In my opinion will be more accurate for IMDB to make awaiting votes from 5 up to 100 or more . Thanks !!!
Photo of GOD

GOD

  • 18 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 24
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
In my opinion will be more accurate for IMDB to make awaiting votes from 5 up to 100 or more


Why?
Photo of Tupac Amaru

Tupac Amaru

  • 51 Posts
  • 33 Reply Likes
Becouse you can't create an opinion based on 5 votes !!!5 votes dont reveal the truth .Enyone can create 10 accounts or more to rate his movis 10 ...
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13173 Posts
  • 13430 Reply Likes
The IMDb ratings do not constitute a random sample of the population. This leads inevitably to self-selection bias. Increasing the minimum number of awaiting votes from 5 to 100 will not address this fundamental issue.
Photo of Brad Richmond

Brad Richmond

  • 14 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I agree 100%. 5 is not nearly enough.
Photo of GOD

GOD

  • 18 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
How many stars this must get to look any staff into it to say if is a good ideea (Under consideration ) or a bad ideea (Rejected ) ???
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
How would hiding votes make it "accurate?" It is what it is, whether you see it or not. It seems it would give a film maker a good head start at vote stuffing without it being noticed, if you ask me.

Terrible idea. And pointless. I see folks saying they support it, but none stating why. Let's see some good explanations and less "good idea" vote stuffing.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
1st...not your suggestion. 2nd...public forum. you don't get to choose who gets to post. 3rd..."shut up" is not a good argument for why something should be needlessly changed (and, not appropriate on this forum, which is here for seeking the advice/suggestions of users-or anywhere, really). Lastly, I find it hard to believe you showed up and immediately had 18 valid stars on both of your posts...

So, anyways...do you, or don't you, have a good reasoning for making this change?
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
I see folks saying they support it, but none stating why.


I did try, but no one has said why.

If I might contribute one idea: It could stop vote stuffing - an individual would struggle to add 500 vote personally, although it won't stop some of the attempts to get a large group of people voting for a title. However, I just use a minimum vote filter when looking through search results so...
Photo of Brad Richmond

Brad Richmond

  • 14 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Oops lol I thought this was under my suggestion of a similar topic. And what do you mean "just showed up"? My reply was posted 10 days ago.
Photo of Brad Richmond

Brad Richmond

  • 14 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I do have a reason, but I'd rather post a suggestion about a possible solution also, so that's what I'm going to do in a bit. The reason is... Let's say for instance there are 20 people who hate it and 30 people who love it. If they first receive 5 votes from the people who hate it, the rating will be 1 star. If they receive five from people who love it, the rating will be 10. Neither of those would be accurate. With 5 votes, assuming they rate it either 1 or 10 (which is a whole other issue), the rating is either going to be 1, 3, 6, 8, or 10 (that's just rounding to the nearest whole number), based on what type of people reach it first. Explaining this will be completely pointless if they take the suggestion I'm about to make, so hold on.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
I didn't say, "just showed up." I was referring to when you first "showed up."
Photo of OnlyFear

OnlyFear

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
A good ideea but 90% of all ratings on IMdb Dont reflect the reality of those movies ...which is pointless...
Photo of Brad Richmond

Brad Richmond

  • 14 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
There is no way to entirely accurately get a rating, because it's more of a battle between those who hate it and those who love it, since those are the ones who seek it out to actually vote on it. That's why there are so many 1 and 10 star ratings. I'm about to make a new suggestion that would actually fix this problem.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Glad to hear it! I hope it helps.
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13157 Posts
  • 13397 Reply Likes
Brad, I look forward to your suggestion.
Photo of Bilal

Bilal

  • 62 Posts
  • 34 Reply Likes
@Brad i'm looking forward to hear your suggestion too. I hope you could explain as soon as possible.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
Something has gone wrong here - I didn't start this thread or make that third promoted reply. Very odd.
Photo of Love Gone

Love Gone

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
pbn has a lot more stars then you :D
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
Also I never made that reply "I started this thread, but i forgot !!!"

Somehow this profile:
https://getsatisfaction.com/people/co...

Has collided with mine:
https://getsatisfaction.com/people/mi...

Or are you just screwing with me Mr bitza? I see the avatar you are using is a much fuzzier version of mine, which suggests you downloaded it and added it to your profile. If so I'd appreciate you switching it all back to avoid confusion or I'll have to waste everyone's time by getting it changed back.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
what the...??

@Love Gone...all the smart folks do! ;)
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
I am truly puzzled why I've received 719 stars.


Not wishing to cast aspersions on your good work here but if someone were to hypothetically sign up a couple of dozen accounts to help get their suggestion up to, say, +45 then you could open up someone's profile and go through their posts throwing stars onto everything and in quite a short time you could generate an extra 600 stars. Why you would waste your time doing this is difficult to work out, but you could do it if you wanted to do something like, say, screw with the person who previously had the highest total of stars on here (for opaque reasons). Although this would be worth doing if that person cared about such things, when I suspect they might take attempts to pass themselves off as someone else more seriously. All hypothetically speaking, of course.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
@Dan...pbn is up with you in stars now too!
Photo of Brad Richmond

Brad Richmond

  • 14 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Don't allow voting before release. People should not be able to rate a film years or even minutes before its release. I have seen where sometimes voting is disabled on the page directly, but when you see that same film in a list, you are still able to rate it. I don't believe it should even display the rating until the release date. Also, the minimum number of votes before it is displayed should be raised to 100, or at least 50.

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Don't Allow Voting Until Release Date and Raise Minimum Votes.
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13157 Posts
  • 13397 Reply Likes
Brad, I strongly agree that IMDb should not allow films to be rated before their release date. This will reduce, but not eliminate, vote stuffing and score bombing. I personally, will not rate a film unless I've seen the entire film from the first frame to final credits.

Although, I agree in principle that ratings for a film should not be shown below a threshold of 100 votes, this unfortunately simply hides cases of vote stuffing and score bombing.
Photo of Bill Goode

Bill Goode

  • 71 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
I also agree with this that voting should not be allowed before release. However, many films have more than one release date and IMDb would have to either 1) disallow all voting until the final release; 2) allow voting after initial release; or 3) read the voter's location and allow or disallow his vote based on the location until release in that location.
Photo of Aamir Raza

Aamir Raza

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I would say it should be around 50, but I agree that 5 is too low.
Photo of Brian McDonnell

Brian McDonnell

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Agreed with 50...maybe even 20 or 25, but certainly not 100
Photo of Tupac Amaru

Tupac Amaru

  • 51 Posts
  • 33 Reply Likes
I like this ideea 5 is too low indeed !!!
Photo of Rufiniano Maldonado

Rufiniano Maldonado

  • 5 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I don't like this idea, particullary because it would make it very hard for little seen shorts, and lbscure old films to ever reach the number of votes neccesary for their rating to be shown. It would be another move that would affect less popular films and their visibility.
Photo of Aamir Raza

Aamir Raza

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
maybe they could implement it as a variable based on how popular it is? So 50 for big budget films, 20 for independent shorts or something like that!
Photo of Rufiniano Maldonado

Rufiniano Maldonado

  • 5 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
If they had a way to do that maybe, but i don't like it as a general rule.
Photo of Bill Goode

Bill Goode

  • 71 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
I think the number of votes should be tied to the year of release. Many older films are seen very seldom. Also many independent films are also seen very seldom. After a full year or two years after initial release, the minimum number of votes might be lessened. Independent films might have a lower minimum.

Somehow the breadth of release and the date of release should be taken into consideration.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.