Score bombing of unreleased title by 2 "top 1000s voters" & "Non-US users"

  • 16
  • Problem
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • Not a Problem
Archived and Closed

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

*Another* "Top 1000 voters" & "Non-US users" had appeared today on The Carrington Event. I am in US and this film is not available to public. This dropped the 3.0 score to 2.1. This film is *not released* and not available. How did they see it? They didn't. They are score bombing. I'd like both scores removed and it looked into. And who gives a film with 30 votes a 1 anyway? Only someone that bombs it. The absolute toughest critic might score it a 6. it's a good flick. Anyway I've put in request to have it listed as in "post-production" i hope this resolves it for now. But I'm sure I'll have to complain in the future when they return to bomb the title for whatever reason.
Photo of Rob Underhill

Rob Underhill

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 16
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
The bigger question is: If it is in post-production how has it got 25 ten star votes?

Some regular IMDB users will see that kind of voting pattern and assume someone behind the film is gaming the system in order to artificially inflate a film's early rank when the low number of votes mean someone can have a major effect on the score. If they suspect that is happening then they may throw in a 1 star vote to try and give some balance back to the vote.

I don't think this is the right response, as any kind of gaming the system like this will rapidly get diluted as more people see the film, but I'm pretty sure that is the reason as there is a suspicious voting pattern for that film. The fair thing to do is for IMDB to clear all those votes until the film is actually completed and released.
Photo of hülya hanife şahin

hülya hanife şahin

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Write a comment...
Photo of Scott

Scott

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Okay so explain to me how my film, a film seen by no more than 250 people worldwide and only seven votes has 2 out of 7 people score bombing it? Why would they have any desire, especially a top 1000 voter, to go out of their way to give this film 1 star when they obviously have never seen it. What is the purpose of this score bombing.
Photo of Rob Underhill

Rob Underhill

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Simple. It had preview screenings. Yes, with folks that will be biased for it. But actual reviews. And like you say it is an "early rank". This has 30 votes. Not 1000s like a released film. I totally agree with clearing all votes on it. But I do not agree with the heavy weight a 1000s voter can have on films. And it really really looks like they are trying to "teach a lesson" by casting the 1s votes.
Photo of Matt Richards

Matt Richards

  • 5 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I currently having this problem. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2118626/r...

It's bullshit. These counter votes occurred all in 2 days. I've got 19 votes all between 7-10 (Rating was around 9)then suddenly 5 votes give it a 1 and my rating is now 1.2??? The film has screened at over 16 festivals internationally.
Photo of Believe Again

Believe Again

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Ohh! We got same problem. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2338138/
Soon after we announced premiere (not premiere yet), 2 "Non-US users" voted 1. After we announced the international festival report, 2 of "top 1000 voters" voted 1 again. our film rating drop 1.2 from 7.8.
The vote was made once. obviously, it's harassing vote. Stalker?
Photo of Rob Underhill

Rob Underhill

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Another *great* example. See Remnants (2012). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1800367. Four--count it--four "top 1000s voters" gave it a "1" score. REALLY? Clearly they are allowed to leverage there power to just knock down scores. Upcoming films do not get 1000s of votes. Remnants is also unreleased BTW. (and this is not my film)
Photo of MoviePeep

MoviePeep

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I might clarify Remnants is not only unreleased, but after showing at festivals and being sold, it was retooled and reshot and unless you were in the movie or a financial backer, you have not seen the new version.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
In that other example you give there is, again, a suspicious pattern of voting an, yes I agree that some are probably trying to teach someone a lesson, even if they justify it to themselves as correcting a balance (which, admittedly, can be important, especially if a film won't get a lot of viewers - I've bought DVDs on the back of a good IMDB and Amazon ratings and reviews, which were clearly faked to give a much more favourable impression of the film and shift a few units. Which has annoyed me). However, it really isn't worth it in the long run (a film should stand or fall on its own merits) and I believe IMDB's algorithms are designed to take this into account, which is why it is foolish to try and fix the rating by having friends and family give it 10 stars and why a few votes in the other direction from users whose votes have more weight (which is, I believe the mysterious top rank of voters, not the top 1,000) can have an undue impact, because the others votes have been compensated for.

This has been come up recently on the main forum where there is more discussion of how the voting works and it seems that IMDB will remove those 1 votes:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000041/n...
Photo of Rob Underhill

Rob Underhill

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Hey, totally there with you! But you also won’t buy a film based on 30 votes would you? Hot off the press, mostly your fan base has voted. That seems pretty normal. I’ll have a look at the thread, thanks for sharing!
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
But you also won’t buy a film based on 30 votes would you?


I watch a lot of obscure/niche films which rarely attract a huge number of votes so it is tricky. However, I've been burned by this before (and also been put off films by scathing reviews that I've later enjoyed), so largely go by personal recommendations from people whose taste I trust.
Photo of Rob Underhill

Rob Underhill

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Absolutely agree--great strategy. ....I have a feeling complaining is going to attract more 1 votes haha. So I may scale all this back and work the backfield trying to get the vote removed.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
I'm afraid that sticking your head above the parapet might get it knocked off (other people have attracted more 1 votes through this) but: a) IMDB have removed some of those 1 stars when people flagged the problem b) it is only a temporary thing and when a more general audience gets to view the film the score will quickly settle out to a more natural number (water finds its own level, cream rise to the top, etc.), so it is worth flagging up as the problem of vote manipulations do need looking at. It'll soon become a non-issue for you, at least until next time.

As I said on the other thread, a lot of people can speed up the balancing out process by making their short films more widely available (upload it once it is has done the festival rounds and then let people know on the relevant IMDB forums, so you get a decent number of genuine votes coming in).

Anyway good luck, with the film and IMDB's voters ;)
Photo of Rob Underhill

Rob Underhill

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Thanks for the feedback! Great chatting with you. IMDb is a very mysterious creature. I have a hard enough time adding actors and titles to it haha
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
It gets easier once you've entered a few and got your eye in.

And a final thought on the people giving these films a 1 star vote - there is the distinct possibility that there are a handful of people who have got their Top 1,000 by looking through for films that are around their release date and throwing in a "corrective" vote if they think there has been vote rigging, as opposed to the more conventional method of... you know, watching a film then giving it a rating based on what you thought of it.

Fro that reason alone they should have their rankings stripped from them, as they are also, in effect gaming the system to give their votes more impact.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
True. It's clearly wrong. But, I find that, in most of these cases, the huge number of 10's is far more suspect than one guy giving a 1. Seriously, 25 or 29 voters gave it a perfect score, meaning it rates with the best films ever, and with a score that means it's impossible to have made it any better??? Seriously??? Take those 1's out and it's, "Step aside Shawshank, Godfathers, Pulp Fiction, et al...we've got a new top of the top 250!"
Photo of Scott

Scott

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
that one guy giving a one is extremely weighted and therefore trumps any amount of tens and that one guys is a robot giving 1000's of films a weight "1 star" every hour. figure it out man. doesn't take a genius. and who cares about a film only getting 29 votes having 25 friends support one of their friend. don't be a hater.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Hater? 25 false votes is as bad (if not 25 times as bad) as one false vote in the other direction. How am I a "hater" for bringing it up? The rating system is for rating a film on its merits, not supporting a friend. That's what Facebook likes are for...so take that there. Don't make the system here faulty by lying in support of a friend/family. You lose your footing in the argument to say 25 of your friends can lie, but one other guy can't.

Yes, weighting is a faulted system. But that other crap you said was ridiculous. You're basically saying, lying is okay as long as you, your friends or family reap benefits. If not your friend or family, it isn't right.
Photo of Scott

Scott

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
"FrontPorchFilms 3 hours ago
Those of you who are not Indie filmmakers do not seem to realize that the 9 & 10 ratings an Indie film may receive are from people who actually SAW the film at a premiere or festival. It is hardly vote stuffing when it's votes from people who SAW the film. Voting on a film you have not seen simply to "correct" what MUST be an error (again on a film you have never seen) ranks right up there with having a HUGE Napoleonic God complex. How could you possibly know a little Indie film wasn't absolutely fantastic if you never viewed it. With today's technology you do not need a huge budget to make an outstanding film.

A kind rating from someone who has viewed the film is legitimate, as is an unkind rating from someone who has viewed the film. A score bomb from a troll who has never seen the film, who is only interested in a "top 1000" ranking or "righting the world" in NOT legitimate. Indie films, especially shorts Don't have the same audience as big budget films and can't be viewed in the same way.

I prefer the way Amazon votes are cast simply because people are less likely to do things like this when a) there is effort involved and b) your name is attached to it.

Two of my daughter's films received 2 "1" rankings from the same 2 people on the same day. Neither film was playing that day or week or the week before, or the week before that. There is no way the same 2 people saw BOTH films and felt compelled to rank them each a "1" on the same day within minutes. I don't so much care to have the 1's removed, I'm fine with leaving them if the score can just be adjusted to not give the 1's more weight than a 10.

Both are multi award winning films. Made by (at the time) a 12 year old.
"ROTFL" just won against adults at the AFF and "Cardboard" just won TWO Telly Awards, so obviously the films have some merit. I have no qualms with someone not liking a film...just watch it first, please. Thx.

These are the 2 films which have the same 2 trolls
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2081199/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294783/"

if someone thinks your film is worth a ten, it is not a lie. i don't understand why you care so much about a film getting 7 votes of ten starts. i mean seven votes and you care that the votes are stuffed for that film? I tell you why being a filmmaker makes a difference. You have never made a film, and then tried to get work for your next film. that is why. if you do any investigative work (aka a google search on my film), the first thing that comes up is my films imdb rating because imdb itself is a weighted service. and because a robot gave my film a weighted one, all they see is a 1.7. and trust me when i say it has affected a production company or a studio's choice in interviewing me further. it just looks bad to them. they don't take the time to read these entire threads. I will not talk to you further until you make a movie and put it on imdb and have this happen to you when you are trying to get work and establish yourself. you can't relate to anything anyone is saying in here.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
Oh indeed! As I say above, the reason the 1 votes are being cast is because of the suspicious nature of the other votes. However, I suspect the algorithm is already taking this into account to some degree, but still the best thing to do would be to scrub the lot.
Photo of Shad Clark

Shad Clark

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I'm having the same exact problem! IMDb's "weighted" system is overweight and apparently in favor of negative ratings and/or Top 1000 voters.

IMDb math for my film:

20 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 1.2 / 10

Votes Percentage Rating
9 45.0% 10
5 25.0% 9
1 5.0% 8
1 5.0% 7
0 6
0 5
0 4
0 3
0 2
4 20.0% 1
Arithmetic mean = 7.7. Median = 9

IMDb's system should not assume that positive votes are a result of "vote stuffing" while assuming that negative votes are more legitimate. In all honesty, I have one vote of "7" and it counts for less -- like I would've asked someone to rate my film as "pretty okay." And in all honesty, I received all four of the low votes on the same day -- Tell me that's not a troll.

Negative reviews by Top 1000 voters should not have this much of an impact.
Photo of Matt Richards

Matt Richards

  • 5 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Photo of Antonio Tibaldi

Antonio Tibaldi

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Who did you talk to to have the top 100 removed, or to have the 1 "1" score not have so much weight? I have the same problem on 2 of my films!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2082518/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285314/

Please let me know! Thanks a lot!
Antonio
Photo of SirSimeon2003

SirSimeon2003

  • 13 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
The person who voted 1 for [S]comparse is NOT a Top 1000 Voter:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2082518/r...

See user ratings report for:
Votes Average
Males 6 1.4
Females 5 9.6
Aged 18-29 2 1.0
Males Aged 18-29 1 1.0
Females Aged 18-29 1 10.0
Aged 30-44 5 8.8
Males Aged 30-44 2 8.5
Females Aged 30-44 3 9.3
Aged 45+ 4 9.2
Males Aged 45+ 3 9.0
Females Aged 45+ 1 10.0
US users 11 2.2

IMDb users 15 2.7

Lupo mannaro (2000) has a disproportionate number of 9 and 10 votes - which is score bombing - and should have those votes removed.
Photo of Adam Watson

Adam Watson

  • 20 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Also Experiencing this. I had a nice rating of 7.7 and then BAM, two votes later it's at 2.9. Obviously the system is broken and being exploited by trolls (who haven't seen the movie). I could see if it was fairly weighted it dropping down by two points (which would be A LOT) but 5? Completely unfair. is there anyone here who could fix this? Thank you.

Los Traficantes (2012)

EDIT: To clarify I'm not against 1 votes if someone didn't like it but I'm fairly certain that this is not that case, that it's someone abusing the system to troll movies they haven't seen because they can (because the system is broken). I do have many "10" votes some of which I'm sure are by people who haven't seen the movie but the problem is that none of the "10" votes count for anything of consequence and one for two "1" votes have WAY too much weight to them.
Photo of Adam Watson

Adam Watson

  • 20 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Update that it wasn't two votes, it was just one "1" vote that knocked it down by 5 stars. If an IMDB staffer is reading this could you please investigate and remove it if it appears malicious. It's a person who is female, age 18-29, non-us, top 1000 voter who I'd bet $1,000 hasn't seen it. The movie is Los Traficantes (2012). Thank you.
Photo of Carlito Sway

Carlito Sway

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
guys, it's totally obvious what's going on here:

People are systematically giving votes of "1" to all kinds of movies IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE "Top 1000 Voter" status! Probably they even use scripts or other automatic tools for this!

IMDb definitely needs to do something against this! It's a good idea to have a weighed rating system and all, but there's definitely fishy stuff going on here! So IMDb staff should run some kind of scan among T1000 Voters, and if they gave irregularly high "number 1" votes, ban them and delete those votes!
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
It doesn't seem that way since most of these complaints are about someone who is already a top 1000 voter.

Further, if he/she is doing it to achieve it, but isn't aware he already is one, voting 1's wouldn't seem logical since it would draw attention.

The whole point of these complaints is that the single vote of 1 is weighted more heavily than a bunch of 10's, 9's, 8's, etc. This is what they'll need to fix. Either don't give them more weight, or get rid of the "top 1000," or...something!
Photo of Adam Watson

Adam Watson

  • 20 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
They could just reduce the "Weight" in proportion to the number of votes a title has, a single vote should NOT bring up or down a vote by 5 stars, or even more than 1.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
Well the vote might not be the only thing at work. As I've suggested, I suspect the ranking algorithm already corrects for early vote stuffing, so the 1 votes are actually over-correcting it driving the rating much further down than it would do if only one of them was at work.

I also wonder if the algorithm can cope with the U-shaped voting distribution, when it is designed for a bell-shaped curve and this might be further skewing the final rating. So it could be three factors at work coming together to destroy these scores.

The best thing the handful of corrective voters could do is delete their votes (or not do them in the first place), which will allow IMDB's systems to do their work and if there is a problem with it, then flag this up rather than using the clumsy and flawed Heath Robinson/Rube Goldberg bodged fix of a 1 vote.
Photo of Shad Clark

Shad Clark

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Self-elected corrective voters aren't going to govern themselves, so IMDb needs to take charge. The solution is easy: Defer to the real voting averages for films.

Sure, that means a lot of films are going to start out with unusually high averages. But the films with the highest averages don't even show up on any of IMDb's "Top" lists until they've had hundreds of thousands of votes. By the time a film even gets hundreds of votes, much less thousands, any alleged "vote stuffing" will have been resolved.

Bottom line is this: IMDb shouldn't assume that positive votes are illegitimate, much less skew their voting system in favor of power trolls.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
While some are trolls (they are the ones who throw in a 1 vote after someone has complained about it publicly) I think the majority think they are "helping" IMDB in their own strange ways.
Photo of Matt Richards

Matt Richards

  • 5 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Looks like they got rid of the top 1000 voters off my title. My score has now returned to normal.
Photo of Antonio Tibaldi

Antonio Tibaldi

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi, who did you communicate with to have that happen? Just on this chat or anyone in particular? is there an e-mail one can write to? Thanks!
Antonio
Photo of Adam Watson

Adam Watson

  • 20 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
My troll vote has been removed, thank you very much for listening IMDB staff, I really appreciate it and hope that the score system is improved through these interactions.
Photo of Scott

Scott

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
can you remove my troll as well IMDB?
Photo of Scott

Scott

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I've already wrote you twice about it.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
Glad it has been sorted out.
Photo of Jim Beam

Jim Beam

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Seems the "non us user" Top 1000, have been replaced by a "US" top 1000 user aged 18-29. Check your films again. They probably read this forum as well. Cut off 1 head and 2 more will grow to replace it...
Yesterday I checked my film and magically the two 1 votes were gone. Today there is another 1 from someone different. Guess I should be impressed that top 1000 "raters" are watching my little old film. lol
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
The sad thing is, they almost definitely aren't even watching the films they're rating, so there isn't even that solace.
Photo of Adam Watson

Adam Watson

  • 20 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Well I spoke too soon it seems. In the few hours that my score was back up to a whopping 9.8, I tried to change my personal vote (which is worth more now since I've been voting for tons of stuff) to get the rating to an average that reflects what people have been voting (high) but not so high as to attract troll voters. but it was too late, in the time before the score could update (seems to be a few hours) a "top 1000" "US" member voted it a "3", bringing the weighted average to 7.0. Again I would eat my hat if they have actually seen the movie. at least 7.0 isn't bad. but again it doesn't reflect what people have been voting but it just goes to show that the rating system is broken and gives too much power to top users who obviously can't use it responsibly.
Photo of GOD

GOD

  • 18 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
How about that : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2311418/r...
Do you think this is a fair rating :

Votes Percentage Rating
4076 80.3% 10
435 8.6% 9
162 3.2% 8
59 1.2% 7
34 0.7% 6
17 0.3% 5
10 0.2% 4
11 0.2% 3
14 0.3% 2
260 5.1% 1

// 80.3 % 10 Seriously ???

People how rate 1 something it s becouse they want to correcting false ratings wich is in this case ....i dont think that this Serial deserve that rating

//Sorry for my bad english !!!

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.