• 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

Posted 6 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13963 Posts
  • 14590 Reply Likes

Please send me a private message on how I may view your film.
My user profile page is

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.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.