How about we ditch the “downvote” button?

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 4 months ago
  • Answered
How do people feel about that? I proposed this idea during the time the user review section was being re-programmed, and we were having discussions about functionality in here. When this site was brand new, the “not helpful“ button may have even been useful. But lately, in the last three or four years it would seem, it’s use and sometimes ab-use has turned IMDb in a form of Reddit. And it would appear that the troll behavior that was inherent in the IMDb comments area, which was removed some time back, has migrated directly into the reviews area.

Has anybody noticed that positive reviews of movies and television shows are practically Non-helped (downvoted) into invisibility moments after they are published? While negative (1-star) reviews are all given massive helpful votes?

I have occasionally made comments about this, sometimes even in my reviews which I don’t like doing because it takes away from the reason why I am here. And that would be, I enjoy movies and some television shows and when I see something that affects me positively I race to my computer or smart phone and I have to capture that feeling immediately.

But there are others, and I don’t understand this, if they hate something, why even bother making a public comment about it? Other than in a bar. They claim they despise this movie or that television show, and they do so with sometimes verbatim duplicates of reviews that appear like they were written by other people, and they couldn’t wait to get to their computer or handset and post that negative review. I can understand, when being positively impacted by something, wanting to make a statement about that as soon as possible. But to do the same thing for something that you hate? Mind you, these are people that claim that they don’t watch these films or shows. Yet here they are, reviewing them negatively week after week, day after day. And they even sat through the entire movie or television show, which they claim to despise.

What if all we had was a like button or, maybe take a lesson from Facebook and give us a like/reaction button?

Because the way the review environment is right now it appears to be an environment filled with hostility. And that “down vote“ button makes this place a lot like Reddit which is sometimes a most unhealthy environment (with that place you just have to know which subs to block out from your feed- but there is no doing that here on IMDb).

So I am just asking, how do we feel about that, I have even seen experiments in various Reddit subs I had been involved in, where they completely removed the ability to “downvote“, and the positive atmosphere that ensued caused them to make it permanent.

Can we do something like that here? Even change it into a reaction button, because I feel the way that it is set up right now, the “non-helpful“ button is being used as a weapon sometimes.
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes

Posted 4 months ago

  • 3
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 13038 Posts
  • 14681 Reply Likes
Really!
the “non-helpful“ button is being used as a weapon sometimes.
So for all that don't find the review helpful..............they no longer have a voice?

Weapons kill and maim. Words are not weapons.

Words that say "I don't like" are just as important as "I like"

Whats next?

Ban Votes between 1-4!
(Edited)
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Also, I admit that this idea probably is not going to be a very popular idea. But it simply my attempt at trying to get IMDb to admit that this problem exists, and that something should be done about it. Maybe not even as drastic as removing the non-helpful button, maybe just a better way for them to get rid of duplicate accounts used by Bot-nets.

It’s just that something needs to be said about this, a discussion about this phenomenon needs to begin.
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
I’m just going to put this up here where it’s a little bit more visible to the upper portion of the thread. Somebody else identified the other problem with this site: short, illiterate reviews.

There’s a high probability that reenacting the automatic spellchecker that we used to have, that one that absolutely would not allow you to post your review until every last bit of spelling and punctuation were corrected? That might actually solve this better than the removal of a feature that obviously some of you like and/or use.

Also I see this comment has been marked “answered“, not in your life. This needs to be an ongoing discussion because if the solution isn’t at least temporarily removing access to “not helpful“, then maybe somebody else has a better idea that would stop robotic accounts cold.

And there’s a high probability that reenacting the spellchecker that we used to have previously doing this- that would be almost every bit as effective as adding a Capcha.
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Normally this is true, but if you are familiar with Reddit, you could see how that function could be used as a weapon in the hands of trolls and Bot accounts. And simply having a “like button“ is the same thing- it’s not about removing somebody’s voice if somebody doesn’t like something, they have the freedom to not hit the “like” button. But not having a “not helpful“ button, is not really removing anybody’s God-given free-speech. It is just removing the ability of troll accounts to misuse the function.


If you don’t believe that the function is being Misused then you haven’t been reading the reviews section here.

Also, you are presenting a dissenting opinion, which is fine. But it’s my opinion that one voice should equal one vote, I gave my voice which is one vote and you gave your voice which is one vote. But there are some who would create an entire bot-net, to make their voice more important than mine or yours. Should The owner of a bot-net have more weight in the reviews section then me or you? And this was part of the reason why the comments section was removed.

Also “Ban Votes between 1-4!”

How about, take away the tool which botnets use to make those 1-4 votes have more weight than the 5-10 votes?

Because I tell you this, it is tiresome, it is very tedious and tiresome, to go to the page of a movie that I personally like, that I know has gotten great responses and reviews from outside of IMDb, and only on THIS site, when you read the reviews section, all of the one-star votes are at the top, with hundreds of helpful votes- while all of the 10 star reviews are buried underneath hundreds of “not helpful” votes.

So you see it’s not really about me suggesting that anybody take away your God-given right to not like something, but you should be happy with the freedom to not hit that like button, rather than going that step further, which would be to give your voice more importance than mine or anybody else on this site.

Because if you start at the top and go through the reviews of any movie, take your pick, you will find verbatim reviews - lots of them. But apparently written by “different people”.
(Edited)
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 1760 Posts
  • 2994 Reply Likes
Hi, XweAponX.
I really can not understand the main idea of this topic.
If you mean that negative reviews should be less in quantity and suggest to rig them, then I totally agree with what Ed said above. If you think the "NO" button equals to "DOWN VOTE", you've mistaken. 

When "DISLIKE" buttons are used for down-voting, in such systems one click results in minus one point out of the current total (e.g., it was 22 => then 1 dislike => results 21). And sometimes you can see negative points in total.

The IMDb system serves only one direction. One "YES" click results in plus one point; one "NO" click results in zero points; the number of votes rises on any of the two clicks. As result, e.g.: 
it was 2 of 2 => then 1 dislike => results "2 of 3", and so on.

When only "LIKE" buttons are used, such systems demonstrate results that may be informative only for a limited number of options (a kind of referendum). For example, 2 long reviews that are opposite to each other plus 1 neutral review may be voted using only "LIKE" buttons. In such case all of them are on one screen-page, and then other users see the clear picture of which review is mostly appreciated.
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Well the main idea of this topic is, that when I go to read the reviews of some film that I am interested in, and it doesn’t really matter what it is these days, the first thing I see are hundreds of one star reviews that have hundreds of “helpful” votes, while any positive review has been buried way down in the system with hundreds of “unhelpful“ votes. Sure, I understand that people have the ability now to change how they see the reviews, but the default view is always by “most helpful first“, and, it defaults to that setting when you leave the site and then come back. So basically there are people who are abusing this website to make their nasty reviews of certain films and television shows more visible than say, my review, or your review, or the other gentleman who commented review.


If I want to see some positive reviews, sometimes I have to scroll through maybe three or four pages of reviews before I see any.


That’s pretty much the main point here, it doesn’t really matter how anything is “weighted“, as far as how the rating of the show goes, I suppose it really doesn’t matter if anybody found anything helpful or not. What I’m talking about is pure optics, it’s what people SEE when they visit IMDb- The first thing they see when looking through any item, are hundreds of negative reviews or comments about a film or other show.


It doesn’t really matter that your weighting system doesn’t actually count those unhelpful votes toward the actual rating of an item, what matters is that it is manipulation of the review system, by agencies unknown, with the express goal of targeting a particular film or television show to make sure that negative comments about it are seen more readily than positive comments.


I really don’t understand how you can’t see that this is happening here, as rotten tomatoes knows this and they are doing everything they can to stop it from happening. But here? When you bring up the topic, I either get a kind of semi-rude response like from the other fellow, although I respect his opinion that he doesn’t see the need for it, but from IMDb we get “crickets“.
(Edited)
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 1737 Posts
  • 2972 Reply Likes
the main idea of this topic is, that when I go to read the reviews of some film that I am interested in, and it doesn’t really matter what it is these days, the first thing I see are hundreds of one star reviews that have hundreds of “helpful” votes, while any positive review has been buried way down in the system with hundreds of “unhelpful“ votes.
the above cited is not the main idea, it is how you describing some moments of your life. The main idea may be generally expressed in few words as you did when naming your initial post. It sounds "How about we ditch the “downvote” button?", the main idea there expressed as "to ditch the down-vote button". And I can not understand such an idea, and I've tried to explain why it is so.

If your main idea is another one, wider than the button, please explain it here in a short form. And please be ready for this topic be possibly merged to an existing one, if it was discussed earlier. Thank you in advance.
_____________________________
BTW, I'm not a staff, I'm a user here.
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
I don’t know if this has been discussed before, I’ve never seen it, if this should be merged into a discussion about the subject that already existed? That’s absolutely fine with me. Because I would want to add my voice to that discussion. But I’m not talking about simply a moment in my own life, everybody that I speak to who uses IMDb complains to me about this, The most common thing I hear is “where are all the positive reviews“?
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Oh yes, The main idea that I’m trying to bring into discussion here is “vote manipulation”, a subject which is highly frowned upon even on Reddit, when they discover it they not only ban the user that does it, but they find every possible account that they are linked to and they get rid of them completely. But on IMDb, it seems that anybody can create an account with a fake burner hotmail or outlook email address at any time and add it to some kind of manipulation scheme.

That’s the main idea, it’s not about my feelings, your feelings, or any random users feelings, it’s about what goes on on this site and it should be at least discussed if not stopped and prevented.
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 1737 Posts
  • 2972 Reply Likes
OK. Now we see your idea is “manipulations when voting reviews”. 
And as a protective measure you suggest to eliminate the “downvote” button...

Let us presuppose that the dislike button does not exist and then someone manipulates the "Like" button to benefit of the reviews (or movies) you don't like. What are you going then to say here on this matter? "Let us ditch the "upvote" button"?

PS: Here is one of the examples (your possible opinion in dystopian future):
IMDB Reviews are clearly skewed by paid nonsense reviews.
(Edited)
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 44 Posts
  • 26 Reply Likes
[quote]Let us presuppose that the dislike button does not exist and then someone manipulates the "Like" button to benefit of the reviews (or movies) you don't like.[/quote]

We don’t have to presuppose, This does happen. It’s all part of the same issue, vote manipulation. Doesn’t matter if I like it or not, each person should be allotted one opportunity, not 1000 opportunities to manipulate either the like or dislike function . As far as it being on a film or show that I personally don’t like, that’s not really an issue as I would not be visiting those IMDb entries.

But the activity that I have witnessed, involves people who not only don’t like the show, but they manipulate the system to say that they don’t like it, not just one time but sometimes hundreds of times.

Whenever I come across a verbatim entry that is identical to an entry written by “another user“, I report both of them.

And whether or not removing the non-helpful feature seems like a good idea or not, the problem still persists. The only reason why I suggested it was that the downvote button is a feature on Reddit that is constantly abused, and many boards there have removed it all together- The end result being that the people can now visit those subs without fear of whatever they have to say being buried under 500 downvotes. Which makes the quality of overall discussion in those areas much better than it had been previously.

Now IMDb is definitely not Reddit, but it can be abused the same way that the subs in Reddit have been abused.

Also there is this. I used to administrate bulletin boards all through the 90s, The most popular one being the huge bulletin board at the original MP3 com, and we didn’t allow manipulation with playback statistics, and we also did not allow manipulation with the bulletin board system, therefore everyone had an equal say and discussions either Rose or fell due to their own marriage, rather than manipulation from an outside agency. I set up the other private boards that I administrated the same way, we included a like button, but no “down vote“ button. And many of those boards, which were on private servers but are now on Tapatalk, are still thriving with more users than ever before, long after I handed the administration over to somebody else. And a few of these boards deal strictly with reviews of movies and television shows.

Actually I just realized that I logged here to reply with the user account that I used when we were testing out the new reviews boards after they had been migrated to the new system, and this is an example right here. I had not realized that I still had access to this account. But I could manipulate my own idea by putting a like on it, which would be the same form of cheating that I am talking about. Of course, I will not do this.
(Edited)
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
“Whenever I come across a verbatim entry that is identical to an entry written by “another user“, I report both of them.”

Lately they have been getting a bit more clever, rather than creating a boilerplate and posting identical reviews as, maybe 50 different people, they now mix it up a little bit... they move paragraphs around and they re-phrase them slightly so that it is harder to detect that it is the same author, but various things give them away, the way that they spell which is usually not correct, and their grammar and certain other things about the style of the writing— when you’ve been looking through these things for as long as I have, you can immediately identify somebody as an author that you have read previously, using a different account.
Photo of J.

J.

  • 295 Posts
  • 398 Reply Likes
What if we kept the downvotes, but stopped including them in the algorithm that decides which reviews make it to the top?

A bad review of a popular movie, or a good review of a controversial movie, is bound to have an excess of downvotes, even if the review is interesting. An unpopular opinion will go higher in the rankings if the downvotes aren't considered.
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
I already addressed that, how about the algorithm that makes things visible? It would be better if the site used some kind of random method so that different reviews are highlighted on different days. They used to do this before they changed the entire review system, so that on any given day you would see any random review highlighted. This needs to be put into the list of reviews so that when you look at it it will show a random list rather than the “most helpful“.

I’m talking about vote manipulation, something that they even frown on on Reddit.
Photo of Nick Burfle

Nick Burfle

  • 90 Posts
  • 115 Reply Likes
I have to say, whether downvotes are used to put low ratings on top depends on which films you look at.  Plenty of them have nothing but 10s at the top.  I like having the downvote: it lets me deprioritize reviews that a) only say "I liked/disliked it", b) are full of bile and name-calling; either of liberals/conservative or those who liked/disliked it when the reviewer felt the opposite, or (less significant) c) are 700 lines long with no paragraphing.  I can honestly say none of those reviews are helpful to me.

Having up and down capability gives us three choices (up, down, or none); less choice is usually worse, not better.

Looking at histograms of other user's ratings, there are some folks (with hundreds or more of ratings) that give predominantly 1s.  But there are plenty others whose histograms are U-shaped... all ones or 10s.  And I've seen almost as many reviewers blatantly state that they're giving something a 10 to compensate for low votes as the inverse.  (Both of those cases I routinely downvote; they aren't helpful to me.)

Looking at the histograms of all users' ratings for any given movie:  It's easy to see that most movies have something like a skewed normal distribution, as expected, and any large excess of 1s and/or 10s sticks out like a sore thumb.  One can always filter reviews by ratings to eliminate those from view, although that capability could be more flexible.
(Edited)
Photo of MAthePA

MAthePA

  • 1706 Posts
  • 2936 Reply Likes
In addition to Nick Burfle's great experience, there is also official guides:
What does it mean if I found a user review helpful or not?
FAQ for IMDb Ratings (and reviews)
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 44 Posts
  • 26 Reply Likes
Yes, I agree that there are entries on this site that have what appeared to be normal distribution of likes and dislikes., Where many of the positive reviews are at the top.

Would you mind pulling up an example if you will, and giving me the date that the entry was put into IMDb?

Because I would make a guess, and it is just a guess, mind you, that whatever films or television shows have what appeare to be normal distribution of user responses and reactions, I will bet any amount of money that they were there in existence before the new review system was put up.

I’m not talking about behavior from 5 to 10 years ago, I am talking about behavior that appeared to have begun starting around 2016.

This entire issue with vote manipulation and review manipulation is a brand new issue, it really didn’t exist when I first came to this site over 10 years ago.

Basically, because the way that the reviews section was set up back then, it was not really that easy to manipulate anything- you could not really create more than one account, and if you tried it, it would get merged into whatever account you had created previously, especially if you tried to do it on the same computer you used when you created your original account. I know this, because one night I sat up and created about 12 brand new user accounts using every email address I had access to. Within a day, they were all migrated into my main IMDb account and when I tried to login to those new users, I no longer had access to them.

I don’t know if this has changed with the new system, I have not tried it. It was merely an experiment that I did maybe seven years ago. But it appears that someone has figured out a way around this, due to the sheer bulk of identical user reviews written by people with different usernames.
Photo of Nick Burfle

Nick Burfle

  • 90 Posts
  • 115 Reply Likes
I haven't watched a lot of stuff produced 2016 & forward lately, but here are a few:

Unleashed (2016) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4587780/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt, fairly Normal, with a noticeable excess of 10s and 1s, albeit a smallish sample size.

Thelma (II) (2017) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6304046/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt, , looks very Normal (I'm just eyeballing here), with just a slight excess of 1s.

Son of Sofia (2017) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6197022/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt, Normal, with an excess of 1s, but small sample.

Blue My Mind (2017) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6193454/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt, looks very much Normal, and with a distinct excess of both 1s and 10s.

November (2017) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6164502/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt, Normal, with perhaps a greater excess of 10s than 1s.

I try to remind myself occasionally that sometimes a 1 or a 10 may be someone's true evaluation.  When it's not, as best I can suss it out, 10s are promotional, 1s come from dislike of the genre, political considerations, or, amazingly often, a distaste for nudity.
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Those are definitely some of the stand out releases of recent, some of those have gotten great reaction. Those are actually considered, at least I consider them, movies for people who really like movies. But I’m talking about things that aren’t really intended to be artful, just entertaining. Take a look at things like Captain Marvel, the Avengers movies, any of the recent Star Trek movies, actually case in point, Star Trek: into darkness. I saw that in the theater on the day that, or it was actually about a week after it was released. Packed theater, standing ovation at the very end. The only other time I had seen something like that occur was in 1979 when I saw Star Trek the motion picture in Denver Colorado, packed house, standing ovation at the end. And I myself did not think STID was as good as the first Kelvin.

Or, another case in point, Gotti. Was completely obliterated by trolls on rotten tomatoes, wasn’t treated very well by critics, but was actually very good I thought. Now scrolling through the reviews after I watched that, there were a few very positive in the first couple of pages.

It just depends on where you look, naturally some films aren’t treated as shabbily as others., But I enjoy just about everything, it doesn’t take that much to entertain me. If I enjoy it, then it’s good. Very rarely do I hand out anything less than five. But that’s just me, other people are really picky, I avoid going to the movies with people that I know that are like that.

But if you look at most of the entries from the 90s through the early 2000’s up until about 2004, It just looks like normal people reacting to the films, some people not liking it, other people liking it, some people not liking it a lot, other people liking it a whole lot, it’s a veritable rainbow of reactions especially the longer a film has been on IMDb while I am DB was in existence. Some of the first movies that were put up, have a very good reactions and even the negative reviews have positiveb it just looks like normal people reacting to the films, some people not liking it, other people liking it, some people not liking it a lot, other people liking it a whole lot, it’s a veritable rainbow of reactions especially the longer a film has been on IMDb while I am DB was in existence. Some of the first movies that were put up, have very good reactions and even the negative reviews have positive aspects.

But recently, the reviews have become extremely polarized, it’s as if the people who react negatively are actually reacting politically rather than to a film, they are reacting to perceived slights to a, er, a particular political figure that can’t handle being making fun of like every other person who has been in that particular position. So when I start going through there and I start seeing political statements and complaints about “liberals“ rather than reviews that contain things that are actually about the film itself, That’s when I start marking things in appropriate.

I don’t know where you are looking, but I see this more than anything else, it’s all over IMDb. Especially in television shows like Westworld and Star Trek discovery. But not Game of Thrones, those same people that complain about the same things in Westworld and Discovery, don’t complain about those things in Game of Thrones, so I guess that show is OK for them. Ironically, there are a few people in the crews of those shows that work on all three.

Oh, it switched me back to my normal account.
(Edited)
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Something occurred to me this morning and it took me a while to find your response in here.

When we are voting, I mean voting in the voting booth? Do we also have “not helpful“ or “down vote“ For the candidates we don’t want/like? Imagine what would happen if we also had that when we were voting for our representatives.

Because basically the reviews section contains a voting system, and where the voting booth of the United States has only one option: vote for the thing or people that you like, then a like button serves the purpose of all of the choices that you mentioned in your comment.

Somebody else mentioned that they use non-helpful to fight people who are abusing the system in the same exact way that I am describing in my threads here, and I have to admit I use not helpful for the same reason, to fight what that person calls “review bombing“- but as I said in that reply, I and this other person, we are only two people. Whereas, whoever is manipulating the not helpful button is a single person who has access to multiple accounts, and there is not just one person doing it, there appear to be several, if not an even larger number. A better solution would be to at least temporarily remove access to that button, give us only a “like” button, because if somebody likes something then they are prone to just hit that and the one like button also serves the same purpose if you choose to not press it . End it makes no sense to simply manipulate the “like“ button. You see this abuse can only exist where there is a positive/negative competition thing enabled on any discussion site or site where her user interaction is enabled. The only other solution I can think of is to remove both like and not helpful, that works too. And then figure out an algorithm that allows every review posted to cycle through visibility.

It’s simply my idea to solve this problem, that maybe some of you others have actually noticed happening, And the reason why I suggested it is because this is the solution that they used on Reddit actually worked, the bot accounts leave every community there that enacts removal of “downvote”- if we want them to leave our community, something drastic might have to be enacted. Maybe not even what I am suggesting, which is why I opened this discussion.
(Edited)
Photo of IMDbmember

IMDbmember

  • 69 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
With all due respect, I hate this idea.  The real problem with reviews now are that they're mostly not reviews at all, but, instead, are brief comments or reactions of no real value (because they contain no argument... no analysis of the picture) other than for people to line up behind the ones that correspond to their general feeling of the picture, whether they like or dislike it.  Simply, IMDb should go back to its policy before the site changes of minimum requirements for what constitutes a review.

Instead, what you propose is to make IMDb more like Facebook.  I think Letterboxed also has what you describe in the original post.  IMDb has already done more than enough to placate those who want a pleasant "safe space" of positivity on the web as opposed to critical discourse.  There are no message boards, no private messages, and people aren't allowed to respond in writing to "reviews."  Voting reviews as unhelpful isn't a problem--at least no more than any other voting scheme on the site, positive or not; it's not a weapon.

I've written hundreds of reviews (all a paragraph at minimum to over IMDb's old limit of 1,000 words), and hundreds of them are negative, and hundreds of them are positive.  Because I don't want to live in a cuddly echo chamber.  I want to see some bad movies, so that I know what a good one is, and I want to examine why.  I want to read reviews that disagree with my own assessment, too.  And the helpful/unhelpful votes, at least, let me know someone else has seen what I've written.  I don't mind if 0 out of 8 people found one of my more recent reviews unhelpful.  That encourages me to examine whether my review is poorly reasoned or written, at least.  If I still don't think it is... well, at least I know someone read it.  It's the "0 out of 0 found this helpful" ones that bother me, and that the review section is polluted by illiterate, one-to-a-couple sentence comments that bury actual reviews is what's not helpful.
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
“and that the review section is polluted by illiterate, one-to-a-couple sentence comments that bury actual reviews is what's not helpful.”

Finally somebody who sees what I’m talking about, the manipulation of like/unhelpful is just the other aspect of it, because the illiterate’s as you say are usually the visible manifestation of the Botnets. I say usually, but not always. With the previous review system it not only prevented you from writing a review that was less than actually 10 lines, it also would not allow you to post it until it was thoroughly spell checked and corrected. Remember that?

Maybe that’s what we need to solve both of these problems, the one that I am talking about and your illiteracy issue as well. Because I think they are connected. Maybe it’s as simple as bring back the spellchecker? What do you think about that?

Something just occurred to me, most sites I mean even sites that have a simple like/reaction/not like or even “respond“ feature, most of these run Capcha now, and in most cases that stops bot activity. But that automatic spellchecker that used to invoke before it would allow a review to be posted, served the exact same purpose.

Maybe we need something like that here, maybe just for entering reviews, that would prevent the robotic accounts from automatically posting those one word to one sentence regurgitations. Because the atrocious spelling that I have seen in those less than one paragraph reviews cannot be human, at the very least they are not familiar with the English language, which normally indicates a robotic account. I don’t know, I’m not Mike Farb, he’s the expert on identifying robotic trolls. We need somebody that IMDb who can do the same thing. But you put the automatic spellcheck are back in, that’s as good as gold and it’s just as good as any captcha, because it requires human interaction.
(Edited)
Photo of IMDbmember

IMDbmember

  • 69 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
Yes, I want the spellcheck back, as well as the 10 lines min.
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 44 Posts
  • 26 Reply Likes
Good, see this what I wanted when I posted this most insane idea- my only issue with the spellchecker was it’s very limited vocabulary- it could not recognize “googol” or “googolplex” as the legitimate words they are. There was also a mild profanity filter built into it, that was a little bit on the overzealous side. But I’ll take that over what we have now.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 2434 Posts
  • 3051 Reply Likes
First of all, my five cents as an avid Reddit user: there is a clear difference between helpful/not helpful and downvote/upvote system. Reddit can be basically viewed as a bit of a competition in that regard with your upvotes and downvotes stored in "Karma" counter. It's up to you whether to pay attention to that as a form of side activity or just enjoy the ride, but helpful/not helpful on IMDb serves a very different purpose then just showing whether certain claim has drawn more negative or positive attention: the purpose of the buttons is to show whether people consider the points of the review valid. Now, don't get me wrong: I do feel like this system is very far from being a fool-proof as it relies mainly on self-organizing aspects of people, which are far from perfect nowadays and also have too much confirmation bias. 

All that said, I'm not an expert on anything review as I've never wrote one on IMDb, although as a researcher I sometimes use reviews as a way to figure out how attention to certain movies changed over the years (and since some of the oldest reviews are also stored, many of them from the 90's IMDb is a great place to do so). I also fairly rarely vote for anything on IMDb, including rankings in general and helpfulness, but recently I tried my best to use "not helpful" as a way to fight review-bombing. I feel that if that could have been done by at least a few people some effects of that activity could have been fought, so there is some potential use of "not helpful". 
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
“Review bombing”, yes, that’s part of the same issue.

On Reddit, removal of “downvote” was enacted when it was abused by what could be considered similar to “Review Bombers” - Thread bombers. I also use not helpful to fight this phenomenon, but where Reddit removed the function, it took the teeth out of “thread bombers” - and the problem went away. You take away the mechanism that troll and bot accounts use, they can’t continue.

Not helpful is of course not supposed to be equivalent to “downvote”, unless it is being abused the same way “downvote” is being used. And of course, if you don’t write (and read) reviews, you can’t see a changing trend, things have changed in the reviews area, now that there is practically no lower limit to length of review, you used to have to provide ten LINES. Now it’s kess than ten WORDS. Therefore, there have been lots of spambombing the reviews.

I use “not helpful” to fight those, and so do you, but we are only 2 people, and the entity that does the review bombing, they have access to hundreds of accounts at times. One person, posing as sometimes hundreds, and more than one “person” doing it.
Photo of XweAponX

XweAponX

  • 50 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
My friend “IMDbmember” up there, Who hates my idea (Naturally, didn’t I say it wouldn’t be a very popular idea ?) Has identified the other half of this issue or at least the visible aspect of it, illiteracy. Robotic accounts can sometimes feign intelligence, but sometimes the person that programmed it don’t get the spelling correct.

How many of you remember when this site had an automatic spellchecker that would absolutely not allow you to post a review until every last item was corrected? Raise your hand?

Because my problem is with robotic accounts posting fake reviews and manipulating helpful/unhelpful counts.

If we were to reenact the automatic spellchecker, a device which absolutely required human user interaction to proceed, would this be a better solution? Also and I have suggested this hundreds of times— bring back the 10 line lower limit for a review.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6936 Posts
  • 8731 Reply Likes
O?