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 7 years ago

  • 16
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 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 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 Matt Richards

Matt Richards

  • 5 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
^ that changed within hours of me posting. I think the best bet for IMDB is to disable top 1000 voters ratings on all titles with less than 50 votes.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Can't think of a down side to that, though maybe just disable their extra weight. I don't think it's right that the cast and crew, and maybe a small audience, could vote but any group of other user cannot. If it stops having much impact, though, they'd probably think it's a waste of time to go out looking for these films and "equalizing" the voting.

It's a shame so many folks are having to figure this out, though, just because some idiot's gotten "power" he doesn't deserve!
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Photo of Victoria Masina

Victoria Masina

  • 36 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
That's awesome news! Thanks. I'm kinda scared to get my hopes up too much lol :)

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.