Weighted avareage completely out of place

  • 1
  • 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

I have a question about the weighted average of my video.
I can understand that the weighted average is different from the arithmetic average, but in this case, in this of my movies:
is amiss.
There must be a misstake.
5 people gave me 10
2 people gave me 9
2 people gave me 8
1 people gave me 1

Arithmetic avarage is 8.5.
I repeat, I can understand the fact of the avarage media, but is unacceptable that only one low vote can give a weighted avarage of 2!
Even if that vote was given by the pope or president Obama the avarage still obviously inappropriate! :D

Also in this of my movies happen the same things

these things can deface my work, as well as being unfair in any point of view, or any type of weighted average.
Please check it.
Photo of Carlo Jack Trevisan

Carlo Jack Trevisan

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • disappointed

Posted 6 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
It is a common problem, see this thread:
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
This has many threads going about this subject. Top Voters have more weight and it seems there is a top 1000 voter going around looking for films with very few votes, most of them 10's and trying to equalize them by voting a 1. They should either lower the weight, substantially, of these people, or disable this person's voting capability (or, at least, take him off the top 1000 list).

That said, if one vote of 1 should be looked at, shouldn't the majority of votes being 10's also be looked at? All of these folks with the same problem have, what would be considered, the best films ever made. Sure, that doesn't make the guy voting one vote of one right, but...

see: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000041/n...

(I almost pasted in a link to my 3 year old daughter singing gang-nam style..and, no, I didn't teach it to her...been trying to teach her "Imagine" by John Lennon...it's not taking-if only he'd added a verse about monkeys, or princesses..)

or: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...

You might want to post about your titles on those threads (this one might be moved to be added to the getsatisfaction thread), because staff seems to be taking notes and making corrections, while they are, HOPEFULLY, coming up with a good fix for this.

That said, most films start out with a lot of 10's and voting evens out as the number of ratings gets larger. So, the best thing to do is get your film seen and rated. Most people know better than to trust just a few votes. If I do a search and want ratings to be a factor, I don't even waste time with anything less than 1,000 votes. If looking for a little unknown film to watch, I know I am taking my chances with a low or high score. There's little chance it's accurate with as few ratings as your film is showing. No offense meant. I am generalizing.

Good luck. I hope they fix this soon.
Photo of Carlo Jack Trevisan

Carlo Jack Trevisan

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you for explanation.
I agree that a top voter must have more important then a common voter, but here is crazy and anti-democratic.
(sorry for my english I hope this word exist! :D)

I also understand that there is a top voter that put low the avarage of a little movie, cause a little movie can have a little amount of fans, that love it.

But is so silly that the avarage go down to 2... People who can find it think it must sucks.

So there can be two solutions:
1) a movie that take less then (for example) 1000 votes, isn't ranked toghether with the "bigs"
2) the 1000 top voter go to make something that make the movie's avarage go to a 6. Wich can means that the movie is common, nothing special, nothing bad.

Do you agree with me?

what's going on with your doughter and gangam style? xD)
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
I agree with you, totally...and understand your English perfectly. It's better than some natural born English-speakers I know!

I agree, and think, and hope, they reduce or remove the weight of the Top 1000 Voters (or at least the one or maybe a few others who think they matter more than the rest of us!).

I certainly think, if you can do it, getting it seen more will help even things out, in the mean time.

I don't know about gang-nam style...it just makes her want to dance! So, my 3-year-old daughter..sings, "hey, sexy lady...op op op op opan gang-nam style!"

We all get "moved" in different ways, I guess!
Photo of Carlo Jack Trevisan

Carlo Jack Trevisan

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
fantastic! :)
happy easter!
Photo of Gordon Michaels

Gordon Michaels

  • 17 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Here is another report of malicious tampering by a TOP 1000 voter that is not addressed by IMDB. It would be trivial to identify the 3 to 4 dozen voters (all of whom are TOP 1000 voters) who are score bombing, and to give their votes zero weight. Yet, they are accorded more weight than a normal voter because they are voting a score of 1/10 for thousands of films.

I am asking IMDB staff to recognize that this is either
(1) the result of automated voting software driving dozens of accounts from supposedly independent voters
(2) a coordinated attack on the IMDB by multiple people using dozens of accounts to injure the ratings of new films.

Films with 101 votes, or even 10,000 votes are not immune from the effects of a coordinated malicious attack that scores the films 1/10 -particularly when the scores of 1 are given supernatural weight in the averaging algorithms because they come from accounts that have attacked thousands of films in this way.

IMDB staff could trivially identify which of the TOP 1000 accounts are being used to score bomb every new film and simplify disqualify all scores from these accounts from being factored into weighted averages. If IMDB won;t safeguard the integrity of their scoring process from coordinated malicious attacks and automated voting software, then they shouldn't publish the scores in the first place. It is a breach of trust.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.