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.
Posted 7 years ago
Emperor, Champion
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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)
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.
Emperor, Champion
Emperor, Champion
Emperor, Champion
Emperor, Champion
bluesmanSF, Champion
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!"
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.
bluesmanSF, Champion
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Emperor, Champion
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.
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.
exactly the same here -> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2118626/r...
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
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2082518/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285314/
Please let me know! Thanks a lot!
Antonio
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.
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.
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!
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!
bluesmanSF, Champion
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!
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!
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.
Emperor, Champion
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.
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.
Emperor, Champion
Looks like they got rid of the top 1000 voters off my title. My score has now returned to normal.
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
Antonio
Emperor, Champion
Emperor, Champion
hülya hanife şahin
Scott