Unfair Rating Scale

  • 3
  • Problem
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • Solved
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: Old thread

Our film, Chasing Shakespeare, has not yet been released and suddenly the rating dropped from 8.5 to 4.4 without notice! This is like throwing paint on a blind man, it isn't right. How can this get resolved as it is HURTING our image prior to our release with our distributer. HELP! I have been told that this was due to IMDB trying to fix another problem with vote bombers....that isn't our problem. We have an award winning film that has been sweeping film festivals, we DO NOT DESERVE THIS!
Photo of Norry Niven

Norry Niven

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 3
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
At 100 votes, the weighting kicks in. You're looking at the votes with weighting applied. They keep details of weighting secret so people can't as easily rig voting. But it kind balances the votes on new films. Most, at the start, end up all or most votes as 10's which can't possibly be right. Over time, real votes will balance that out. Actual votes are also displayed if people want to see them.

But, that's why there was a jump at 100. The site had a problem with users finding titles with mostly or all 10's and throwing 1's on to even it out. So now the weighting was moved to those with 100 or more votes so those early votes counted evenly.

What you told probably referred to the recent shift to only use weighted rating after 100 but weighting has been going on for a long long time...which means they have a lot of data on this and the weighted score is probably more reflective of how voting will go, more than showing every film with scores of 9 or 10 which couldn't possibly be right. Every single film made couldn't possibly be that good.

I notice one of your reviews shows that it's not available to be seen so he/she pasted in someone else's review, but rated it a ten. If he/she hasn't seen it, how could he/she give a ten?? This is the kind of thing that weighting addresses.
Photo of Norry Niven

Norry Niven

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
That review was from a private screening go local press, it had been seen, just not publicly yet. At this point it's been seen by thousands of festival attendees.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Then why didn't he just review it rather than paste in someone else's work, which is not appropriate? You'd think, if he's "press" he'd know better. I still think his review and rating is highly suspect and at the least, completely inappropriate.

He even, by the way, called it a "preview." He clearly had not seen it and his rating of ten should not count. And, he says it has not been screened...so, either he's lying or you are.
Photo of Norry Niven

Norry Niven

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
RETRACTION! I said that IMBD's arbitrarily dropping our score was like throwing paint on a blind man. What I should've said is that it's more like throwing paint on a blind man and then kicking him off a bridge. It's unfair!
Photo of Christian and proud

Christian and proud

  • 272 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
If your film is good enough in time the rating will rise. If not, it won't. The world does not revolve around the IMDb rating. Be proud of your film. Promote it. Display it. The praise will come if deserved.
Photo of Norry Niven

Norry Niven

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
True but the film industry does revolve around IMDB and we're in that world, it's the first thing that comes up on a search for any film and our first review on the web is a 4 stars out of 10, an arbitrary rating system at IMDB has already slammed our film before it has been released. Again, it's not fair. I, We are VERY PROUD of our film, VERY, that's not the issue here, IMDB has a flawed system that has us 8.5 one day and 4.4 the next, that is so wrong that it stands out as a crime against the art form itself. Praise has already been bestowed on the film in the form of winning every festival it's been included.
Photo of Christian and proud

Christian and proud

  • 272 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
As I said, if the film is good enough, the rating will rise. It only has 100 votes. Many of these votes are clearly stacked in the film's favor. The ratings weighting has recognized this (as it does at 100 votes), and adjusted the rating accordingly.

It could be that your film is a 4-5/10 film and up until now had a falsely inflated rating.

There is no crime here. No conspiracy, (other than perhaps the suspiciously high ratio of 9 and 10 votes). As I said previously, your film will settle on its true rating when you get 500-1000 votes, (if it hasn't already).
Photo of Norry Niven

Norry Niven

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you very much for your discourse. The rating system is flawed, our audiences have spoken as the film (baed on IMDB's own festival award record) has won (THREE AUDIENCE FAVORITE AWARDS) - and for that alone IMDB should reverse their rating for our film.....again.....it isn't fair. It's like giving a fine wine a bad review (of 40) before it's been released on the public but has been given a 90 review by wine critics. It'll go on the shelves as having a 40% rating while reviewers have given it a 90% rating. Please, can you tell what's fair about that?
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
A wine's score is not based on the maker's own rating, along with those from the crew who made it.

I just noticed the inappropriate "preview" and ten rating came from you...how fair is that?

Your other reviewer created his/her account then rated and reviewed your film and hasn't used the account much since. I am pretty sure votes from accounts like that wield less weight, and rightly so. Your film is a good example of why weighting is used.

And, again, the actual votes are visible. So, you're not being damaged as you think you are. If an industry professional is using ratings, as you describe, they'll certainly look at the rating breakdown and not a weighted score.
Photo of Norry Niven

Norry Niven

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Right, the actual votes are visible, we have a great film that has been incredibly reviewed. So, we'll pay more money to IMDB in order to post our awards and INDUSTRY PROFESSIONAL reviews. So at some point we're all working for IMDB it isn't fair. No need to attack us, the point is that the rating went from 8.5 to 4.4 in one day, what the heck is that all about....your comments make no sense of that. The film just opened The Montreal International Black Film Festival where Danny Glover won a Humanitarian Award and audiences and Canadian Television and Newspapers LOVED the film. It just opened the Breckenridge International Film Festival the night before last, FILMS THAT GET 4 OUT OF 10 STARS DO NOT OPEN IMPORTANT FILM FESTIVALS>>>>>>>>>> it is a flawed rating system.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
I explained why your weighted average changed at 100. Would you like me to repeat it?

You don't pay anything to have awards and reviews shown.

Yes, it's a flawed system. So is advertising unweighted voting which has inappropriate 10's cast to manipulate and influence users.

And, as I said, the raw voting is also there. If you prefer it, look there.
Photo of Norry Niven

Norry Niven

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
We do have to pay to post images through their poster service. And we both agree that it's a flawed system. Thanks.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
See also the replies on your first thread about this:

https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
Photo of Christian and proud

Christian and proud

  • 272 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
I find it interesting the "synopsis" for this film happens to be the same as the "preview/review" which gave it 10 stars.....both posted by the director.

Hmmmm
Photo of Christian and proud

Christian and proud

  • 272 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
It's always those who try and game the system who protest most loudly
Photo of sienel

sienel, Champion

  • 161 Posts
  • 224 Reply Likes
Add to that, half the voters have no demographic data and, I'm guessing have registration dates corresponding with their voting dates
New users are required to include their demographics (sex, country, DOB) when they sign up for the IMDb. Is it possible to block that info from being used from the voting demographics? Otherwise it sounds like those votes are from old, though not necessarily active, IMDb members.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Ah..I see you're right. You now have to enter the demographics when registering when you, in the past, could leave them blank. However, you can just remove them after registering. You only need a birth year if you enter a security question. If you remove all of it, including the security question, you can remove all demographic data. Of course, it would then be impossible to recover an account.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Re: "Preview/Review" He's now edited it to call it a review and took out the part about it not having been screened but still pasted in someone else's review. Still blatantly inappropriate.

Norry, reviews are supposed to be written by the user. To call yourself in the heading the author, then to paste in someone else's work is plagiarism. You wouldn't want me to erase your name from your film and put it out as my own, would you? If you want to show other peoples' reviews, you can add links to them where they are properly credited. Otherwise, if another reviewer wants his work on your page, he/she should author it and post it on your film's page in the reviews section.
Photo of Christian and proud

Christian and proud

  • 272 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
I also do not think Norry knows what a synopsis is.
Photo of Gordon Michaels

Gordon Michaels

  • 17 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Why are movies with 101 votes , or even 10,000 votes assumed to be immune from robotic voting software? Currently, every newly released movie is receiving a score of 1/10 from 2 to 4 dozen accounts that are among the TOP 1000 Voter accounts.

Based on some reports in these forums, it appears that the same 3 to 4 dozen accounts are being driven by automated voting software that votes a 1/10 on so many films that these accounts are now celebrated as TOP 1000 Voter accounts and their scores are weighted even more heavily than the scores of real people.

Exactly how many people have to complain about this corrupt voting practice before IMDB does something? It would be trivial for IMDB to identify which of the Top 1000 Voter accounts are currently scoring 1000s of movies a 1/10 and to simply disqualify these accounts from being factored into any average vote. Why isn't this being done?

I am asking IMDB to recognize that this voting pattern is a classical fingerprint of automated voting software programs. You have an obligation to your User commuity to safeguard the integrity of the data you post. This problem can be quickly remedied while you search for longer term solutions.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.