IMDB IS IGNORING AND REWARDING CORRUPT BEHAVIOR

  • 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.

My Film 'No Joke' had it's festival premiere last weekend and to coincide with that, we had an online screening (via password protected screener) to promote viewers to give an HONEST rating and write HONEST reviews. Thus far 18 people have voted and collectively the median score sits at 9.

And yes, I know that the median score means NOTHING in your world.

Yet, our current score is sitting @ 3.7.

Apparently what has happened is that a single IMDB user with some sort of 'special' status gave the film a 2/10 and that trumped everybody else's collective average of 9/10. So one 'anonymous' reviewer gave a score that is suspiciously low and that invalidates the votes of the majority? I am the first to admit the film is not a masterpiece but a 2/10 and no explanation via a review to give some insight into their clearly contradictory point of view? And you view their vote as more 'authentic' than the rest?

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? And this is the system that you have devised to root out corruption?

I, and all the people who have taken the time to vote and review the film, demand that you investigate this single 'special' status user and find out if they were either in Toronto, Ontario this past weekend or that they were one of the 22 people who took part in the online screening. If not, then clearly they HAVE NOT seen the film and have given a low score out of spite and quite obviously contrary to the set of rules that these 'special' status IMDB users must adhere to. We demand that you invalidate this members score and have them immediately BANNED.
Photo of Matt Frame

Matt Frame

  • 52 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
  • ABSOLUTELY ENRAGED

Posted 6 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13923 Posts
  • 14502 Reply Likes
Matt,

Please send me a private message on how I may view your film.
My user profile page is
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0127678/

When I have a chance, I will view your film. I do not rate films unless I've seen the entire film including all of the closing credits.

Currently, your film has 17 ratings. Based upon what you have written, it is likely that many of the people who rated your film registered with IMDb so they could review and rate your film. It is also likely that IMDb's algorithms do not consider many of these users as regular users. IMDb does not disclose how it determines whether someone is a regular user to reduce the possibility of users gaming the system.

The weighted average vote only includes votes from regular voters. As such, this metric for your film is probably based only on two or three voters. In your specific case the weighted average vote is meaningless, since it probably uses so few votes.

The Arithmetic mean of 8.4 is more meaningful because it is the average rating of all 17 ratings. However, with a sample size of only 17, even the Arithmetic mean is statistically problematic.

Generally, IMDb scheme for rating films works fine for films with thousands of ratings, since IMDb's algorithms can select ratings from regular users significantly skewing the results.

The IMDb rating scheme is not corrupt. It is simply the wrong metric or tool for films with limited distribution. Comparing your film against films with thousands of votes is like using a sledgehammer to carve a watermelon.
Photo of Matt Frame

Matt Frame

  • 52 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Dan, I would be more than happy to provide you with the password for our online screener so you can see for yourself that the anonymous vote bomb is highly suspect but I am not entirely sure you would be able to view the film objectively now since I have publicly called you out as a vote bomb apologist. Unfortunately this occurred before I read this response from you and (in light of your very mature and generous offer) I feel quite badly for feeling it was important to go on the offensive the way that I did. I made attempts to edit/delete that thread but to no avail. So, if you will accept my apology and if/when the time arises that you think you can view it objectively I will provide you with the password right away. Thanks Dan. Best, Matt.
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13917 Posts
  • 14489 Reply Likes
Matt,

I accept your apology.

I sent an email to media@nojokemovie.com requesting the password.

I will only rate your film after seeing it. Likewise, if I do not believe I can be objective in rating the film, I will not rate the film or note my bias in the review.

Dan Dassow
Photo of Matt Frame

Matt Frame

  • 52 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Thanks Dan. I really am impressed with how you have handled this. I have started a new thread requesting that the offending one be removed as soon as possible. I will send you the screener info now. Best, Matt.
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13917 Posts
  • 14489 Reply Likes
Matt and Shawn,

Shawn Bordoff replied to my email. I will view your film as soon as practical, but I also want to make certain I well rested before seeing the film, so I can be as objective as possible.
Photo of Matt Frame

Matt Frame

  • 52 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Sure. No worries.
Cheers, Dan.
Matt.
Photo of Gerald Gerald Geraldson

Gerald Gerald Geraldson

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Anyone who would give your film a 2 out of 10 is suspect or just hates watching documentaries. I don't think I've ever rated any movie that low because it would just be spiteful and mean. I mean, COME ON!! IMDB needs to review it's rating system here. I noticed Evil Dead 2 only had a 7.8 which also seems off considering it's 98 percent fresh on the tomato-meter and audiences generally rate films higher than critics. I mean seriously, COME ON!!!
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
They have reviewed it. Pay attention, Gerry. And, don't speak for others. There's a reason 2 is available. I've seen some 2's in my time, too. So, give your opinion, but also realize what it's worth to anyone other than you (which is, probably, not much). And, yes, some people hate documentaries (but then, why would they have watched it?...you make no sense).

Let's stop shouting out what could end up as irrelevant nonsense, until we see how they've fixed it. They've announced the fix will be displayed early next week. It's a little silly to shout and rant and throw tantrums on a Saturday, when they announced, on Friday, the fix will appear on or around Monday, don't you think?

For gosh sakes, is this really worth losing your mind over? It's a weighted score. The raw votes are visible, too. Anyone who uses the altered data is an idiot...so, what's the damned big deal in the first place? The actual scores can be easily seen. If someone is making decisions based on ratings, they'll figure it out. There's a huge possibility this is a non-issue to begin with. But losing one's mind over it is just ridiculous, especially without knowing what the fix is.

Good, golly, miss molly! Simmer down!
Photo of Matt Frame

Matt Frame

  • 52 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I agree that it's time or everybody to calm down, but I also think that saying that "anyone who uses the altered score is an idiot" is really disingenuous and silly. Of course people use the altered score. It is the most prominent thing on the page. There is no single element that is more powerful and influencial than the rating of the film at the top of the page. I mean, really?

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.