Archived and Closed
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members.
While researching a new film, I discovered that approximately 50 of the 56 written user reviews on IMDb are nearly identical. They are absolutely glowing without a single negative criticism, use the same writing style, and contain the same details and themes. All but 3 are 9 and 10-star ratings.
This made me curious enough to dig further, and I noticed that all of these reviews are written by users who claim to be from the United States, joined IMDB in the past year, and haven't written any other reviews. The "number-only" reviews from IMDb users provide a stark contrast, in which 334 users have given the movie an average rating of 4.9 to date.
I have no connection to the film industry, but this disturbs me because I frequently rely on IMDb for recommendations on new movies to watch. Film producers (and others who stand to gain) shouldn't be able to game the user reviews so readily. I couldn't find any specific prohibition on this conduct in IMDb's policies, but I may have missed something. It bothered me enough that I had to report.
The film in question is Hello Herman (2012) at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1876330/?....
Thank you for your time.
This made me curious enough to dig further, and I noticed that all of these reviews are written by users who claim to be from the United States, joined IMDB in the past year, and haven't written any other reviews. The "number-only" reviews from IMDb users provide a stark contrast, in which 334 users have given the movie an average rating of 4.9 to date.
I have no connection to the film industry, but this disturbs me because I frequently rely on IMDb for recommendations on new movies to watch. Film producers (and others who stand to gain) shouldn't be able to game the user reviews so readily. I couldn't find any specific prohibition on this conduct in IMDb's policies, but I may have missed something. It bothered me enough that I had to report.
The film in question is Hello Herman (2012) at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1876330/?....
Thank you for your time.
Posted 7 years ago
Emperor, Champion
bluesmanSF, Champion
Outstanding work, @vhavnal, thanks! Before this thread, it hadn't even occurred to me that someone could be distributing an outline of "key points" to paid writers and/or the cast and crew. More illusions about the Internet shattered. :-)
bluesmanSF, Champion
You missed the whole Karmalicity.com fiasco, faking credits, patting each other on the back on each other forums, to raise their StarMeter...
Nothing surprises me anymore...
Pretty blatant to be loading up the ratings and reviews with a link right there on the page to watch or rent it at Amazon...pure money grab!
Nothing surprises me anymore...
Pretty blatant to be loading up the ratings and reviews with a link right there on the page to watch or rent it at Amazon...pure money grab!
I did miss it, but I'm Googling it now!
bluesmanSF, Champion
vhavnal had a nice list of all those on IMDb that were participating. I don't know if the list is still around. One of them even started posting threats, had people contacting some of us threatening to beat us up. Contacted who she thought was an IMDb user, but was mistaken, on Facebook and started threatening an innocent family...One had an "investment" company that supposedly funded filmmaking and someone found a mugshot of her when she'd been arrested for fraud. We found youtube clips of them in which they looked like trailer trash idiots...which when we posted links to them, the clips immediately disappeared...sad bunch, really. The one seeking investors had herself in the credits of some big films (those credits are gone now), like Identity Theft, of all things. Crazy. Karmalicity is a paid site/service that teaches "actors" how to boost their rankings. It teaches them to get together and rate each other's films raving about these complete pieces of trash, and posting praise on each others' pages.
That's incredible....sort of an MLM for building bogus reputations. I'm certainly learning a lot tonight. I wish it weren't in connection with this particular film, as I adore Norman Reedus and am a huge Walking Dead fan (that's why I looked it up to start with). And for all I know, maybe it IS a good movie. But these tactics are appalling.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Yeah...in a strange way makes me want to see it, hoping it is that good. But, what are the odds when they have to resort to this to promote it?
The odds seem somewhat remote!
yeah IMDb mods deleted my list because it was bringing them "bad" publicity..got over 60,000 views within a week..i chose not to make it again because IMDb didn't care so why should i bother...Hell I got over 10 death threats, I got "outed" and even attacked via social media..........good times :P
OK, now I'm on a mission from God. @kevinpark9, who joined IMDb in July 2013, claims here to have made the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1876330/b... He/she urges everyone to watch the movie on demand, Amazon, or iTunes to help "put the spotlight on bullying." This comment includes a link to a "Bully Awareness Video" by Michelle Danner and others involved in the film.
Then, this same user posts a 10-star review raving about the movie but acts as an uninvolved party and says things like: "I can see Danner being persuaded by many others to not make this movie since the subject matter is so controversial."
The coup de gras is @kevinpark9's postings on this thread, in which he/she again tells people to buy the movie, then COMPLETELY OBLITERATES film critic reviews to make it appear as if they endorsed the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1876330/b... Example: Actual New York Times Review: "Movies forced to do double duty as thoughtful entertainment and public-service campaign (like last year’s sex trafficking fiasco, “Trade of Innocents”) are almost invariably irritating." @kevinpark9's version: New York Times: "...thoughtful entertainment"
AARGH!
Then, this same user posts a 10-star review raving about the movie but acts as an uninvolved party and says things like: "I can see Danner being persuaded by many others to not make this movie since the subject matter is so controversial."
The coup de gras is @kevinpark9's postings on this thread, in which he/she again tells people to buy the movie, then COMPLETELY OBLITERATES film critic reviews to make it appear as if they endorsed the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1876330/b... Example: Actual New York Times Review: "Movies forced to do double duty as thoughtful entertainment and public-service campaign (like last year’s sex trafficking fiasco, “Trade of Innocents”) are almost invariably irritating." @kevinpark9's version: New York Times: "...thoughtful entertainment"
AARGH!
bluesmanSF, Champion
Aww Geezz!
Thanks for pointing this out, we need a lot more people to start 'policing" this site (as with wikipedia) or it will become useless very quickly.
Emperor, Champion
Before this thread, it hadn't even occurred to me that someone could be distributing an outline of "key points" to paid writers and/or the cast and crew.
Yep, you can buy batches of fake reviews, votes, social media followers and likes. I saw a documentary on it recently (there are "farms" in the developing world, especially Dhaka, where people with dozens of accounts spend all day logging in and out of them doing whatever they get paid for) - it is a big deal in books, because of the rise in self-publishing, where a few dozen positive Amazon reviews can make you your money back many times over:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/bus...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/tec...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/suwcharma...
I found this offer for IMDB votes:
http://www.prfastmarketing.com/imdb-m...
In fact, not just votes, weighted votes - now that makes me think.... We had a big problem with small films being hammered by 1 star votes from Top Voters, I never thought about the fact that people might be doing this to get weighted votes that they can then sell - this is the final piece in the puzzle. Time to bump this thread:
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
Anyway, as you say, it should be possible to create an algorithm that roots out false reviews - IP checks, linguistic analysis and odd patterns (low number of highly starred reviews, voting on the same movies as other suspicious accounts, etc.). I think it is overdue. Luckily, now IMDB is a member of the Amazon family, they should be able to get help from the coders at Amazon, who must be working on this kind of thing already.
Emperor, Champion
Fascinating, albeit upsetting. Thanks very much for the research, I am in the process of reading it all.
Emperor, Champion
I had read quite a bit of this already (being disgruntled after being stung by fake reviews in the past it is an issue I keep an eye on), so it was fairly easy to draw everything together. Happy reading.
