Archived and Closed
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members.
It's somewhat amazing to me that a filmmaker such as myself can hold an online screening for my indie documentary (in my case 'No Joke') in conjunction with having our film festival premiere (this past week @ NXNE) as means to promote viewers to provide feedback and reviews of the film (good or bad) and yet after 13 votes with an arithmetic mean of 8.3, median of 9, the current rating sits at 2.9. Clearly this system to root out corruption is horribly corrupt in itself. Why, just because several votes and reviews come in over a short amount of time, that is reason to disregard them as 'suspect?' Just because we have ASKED people to review and vote on the film does not mean that we have asked them to review and vote UNFAIRLY. We have NEVER asked any viewer to give an inflated vote or review. To be treated as such is an absolute insult. It's difficult enough to find the energy and finances to complete a indie production such as 'No Joke' but at the very least one should be able to expect that after the years of work their work will be treated and judged FAIRLY. In regards to IMDB, this obviously isn't a reality. So, many thanks IMDB for FAILING dismally to give the people who took the time to review and vote on my film a fair chance for their collective voices to be heard. Please enjoy the countless dollars I have pumped into your company on continued frivuloucities as it's fairly obvious that you are not using them to design a review and rating system that works. Shame on you!
Posted 7 years ago
Dan Dassow, Champion
Emperor, Champion
Emperor, Champion
I'd like to weigh in only to say that I did review the film and that Matt did ask those who have seen it to review it. He never influenced my rating in any way though.
This is a cut and paste from his message to me:
If you would like a password to view the film for free (in exchange for maybe writing a brief, honest review on IMDB) then drop me a message and I'll fire one off to you.
So he couldn't have been more plain about just asking for an honest review. Hopefully we'll see more votes out there so IMDB will just take the votes as is. The fact that is shows a small amount of votes is enough for any website user to figure out on their own this is a small sample group, you don't need to further weight it down while showing a small amount of reviewers. Gives the impression that a handful of people rated the film very poorly which is just not the case.
This is a cut and paste from his message to me:
If you would like a password to view the film for free (in exchange for maybe writing a brief, honest review on IMDB) then drop me a message and I'll fire one off to you.
So he couldn't have been more plain about just asking for an honest review. Hopefully we'll see more votes out there so IMDB will just take the votes as is. The fact that is shows a small amount of votes is enough for any website user to figure out on their own this is a small sample group, you don't need to further weight it down while showing a small amount of reviewers. Gives the impression that a handful of people rated the film very poorly which is just not the case.
bluesmanSF, Champion
While it's nice of you to mention, it's pretty much irrelevant to the situation. Especially in light of the news that they are changing the system because of complaints such as this.
See : https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
See : https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
...and hold the phone. Why is the thread considered 'answered?' Because Dan Dassow has deemed it to be so? What is extremely interesting is that CLEARLY the same system that allows the voice of the majority to be muted by a single 'elite' allows for Dan Dassow (a rating bomb apologist) to determine that he has solved the issue. If you search 'rating bomb' on this IMDB community forum you will see Dan Dassow repeating the same pointless trip as he did above. Over-explanation is clearly a clear indicator of guilt and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Dan Dassow is the damage control that IMDB has employed to simply bore the issue into submission. Thanks Dan!
bluesmanSF, Champion
Thank you. I would have expected it to appear in the call out thread. But glad you said it. He dedicates a LOT of time and effort to help the site and its users, day in and day out. And, though it's clear the post you made came from frustration, to push it on Dan was not called for, in any imaginable way. I am glad you posted that.
Thanks for linking it.
Thanks for linking it.
No worries. I agree with you that it was uncalled for and I am going to try to have the thread deleted altogether but I am needing to have somebody with administrative rights to do that for me. Do I just need to create a new thread asking for that to occur?
bluesmanSF, Champion
Hmm, I'd say it might get deleted when seen anyways. Though, they might also, just merge all these threads on the same topic, then mark it all resolved and "archive" the whole thing, taking it off the active board. But, unfortunately, staff actions slow considerable on weekends (especially Sunday), so it might not happen until Monday. I'd say we leave it alone for a while and let it sink down the page as new topics come. They'll probably see your mentions of deleting and just do it based on what's there.
Let's just keep fingers crossed that the fix is a good one and rolls out smoothly! It's likely to hit some glitches, but hopefully it works well!
Let's just keep fingers crossed that the fix is a good one and rolls out smoothly! It's likely to hit some glitches, but hopefully it works well!
Dan Dassow, Champion
Matt,
I saw you apology in the indicated thread and accepted it.
Like bluesmanSF, I hope that the fix corrects the underlying problem and the roll out goes smoothly.
I saw you apology in the indicated thread and accepted it.
Like bluesmanSF, I hope that the fix corrects the underlying problem and the roll out goes smoothly.
Whoops, I started a new thread requesting that the offending one be deleted. I'll leave it be and hopefully it'll all sort itself out. Thanks bluesmanSF for steering me in the right direction here. I am relieved that this is working itself out. If you change your mind and would like to view the film then I would be very happy to provide you with the online screener details. My email is media@nojokemovie.com.
Anyways, take care and, again, thanks :)
Matt.
Anyways, take care and, again, thanks :)
Matt.
We realize that our film has yet to be released and has only been seen by relatively few audience members. We only ask that anyone who rates or reviews No Joke to do so once they have seen the movie and to be honest in their evaluation.
What has hurt us is not that there are less than 30 ratings but that few that count are blind bombs. Regular, registered users have given the film a 1 or 2 rating without actually viewing the film. That really is unfair.
What has hurt us is not that there are less than 30 ratings but that few that count are blind bombs. Regular, registered users have given the film a 1 or 2 rating without actually viewing the film. That really is unfair.
bluesmanSF, Champion
That's good, but not really the issue. It's not those votes or reviews that are the problem but the weighting system itself, which works poorly for films with low vote totals. You're doing the right thing by getting people to see it and vote. That said, the site has announced that they've now changed what we'll see for these films and that the change will take affect early next week. So discussing it is meaningless until we see what this change is/does.
Fingers crossed!
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
Fingers crossed!
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
I wrote my review for no other reason than loving the film. I've seen it three times and I wasn't asked to write any sort of promo for the project. I'm really kind of outraged by this weighted systems flawed logic. So all the reviews are pretty positive so something must be up? If this system represented a real human mind it be paranoid delusional.
bluesmanSF, Champion
We get it. You all decided, on Fb, to "stir shit."
But, really...why waste your time when, after many months of discussion about this, a fix has been announced??? You seem insane ranting while you don't know yet what the fix looks like. All this ranting makes the title you're talking about seem highly suspect. The only time I've seen anything like this, accounts got closed and IMDb credits removed, lists removed, users got blocked from the site, etc... Rant on...let's see where it gets you.
But, really...why waste your time when, after many months of discussion about this, a fix has been announced??? You seem insane ranting while you don't know yet what the fix looks like. All this ranting makes the title you're talking about seem highly suspect. The only time I've seen anything like this, accounts got closed and IMDb credits removed, lists removed, users got blocked from the site, etc... Rant on...let's see where it gets you.
BluesmanSF, I think that these folks do have a legitimate argument given that they did take the time to view and then review the film. Clearly I have stoked the fires a tad by informing them of the vote bombing but, again, like their reviews, their responses are completely organic. We have not asked anyone to do anything other than to express their HONEST opinion about the film, and now, the vote bombing. I think it's a tad disrespectful to make an assumption that these folks don't have a mind of their own on this thing. They're upset that their votes and reviews have (seemingly) been trumped by a voter or 2 who clearly have not seen the film and are bombing out of spite. At this point it is not really helpful to continue to attack these folks, in my opinion. Dan has been given the password to our online screener so he can make the determination for himself if the film has been a victim of a vote bomb. If my apology and subsequent agreement to let sleeping dogs lie was good enough for Dan then I would hope it is good enough for you. Cheers, Matt.
Emperor, Champion
Other people have been able to get the problematic vote removed. Obviously, it isn't open season for anyone to remove low votes, but staff have clearly looked into previous reports of this kind of activity and removed the vote if it is part of a pattern of 1 star votes.
Post the details and a link to your film in the main thread:
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
and over on the main thread for this on the IMDB forum (calmly):
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000041/n...
No guarantees (and if they are working on a fix they might not be following this up now), but it is your best bet for getting this fixed.
Post the details and a link to your film in the main thread:
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
and over on the main thread for this on the IMDB forum (calmly):
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000041/n...
No guarantees (and if they are working on a fix they might not be following this up now), but it is your best bet for getting this fixed.
Will do. Thanks for his Emperor.
Peter, Champion
On the other hand, Giancarlo has said that individual votes can't be removed: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
Really? Ugh. That's too bad. I just spent half an hour writing a new thread to ask for precisely that. Oh well, the IMDB vote bomb journey continues, I guess....
Emperor, Champion
It is interesting that he says it, but people here and on the IMDB thread have had these votes removed. I don't know what the process is or if they are still doing it, but it that is the eventual outcome.
There is no point starting a new thread if there are already threads on a topic already on here - it has been flagged up here and could be flagged up on the main threads for this. If staff are/were monitoring them they'll see them, whereas a separate thread will just disappear. The system here really encourages people to take a collective approach, as it helps get your voice heard (and, as they are working on a fix, it has also got results).
I just spent half an hour writing a new thread to ask for precisely that.
There is no point starting a new thread if there are already threads on a topic already on here - it has been flagged up here and could be flagged up on the main threads for this. If staff are/were monitoring them they'll see them, whereas a separate thread will just disappear. The system here really encourages people to take a collective approach, as it helps get your voice heard (and, as they are working on a fix, it has also got results).
Good advice and heeded. Thanks Emperor....
UPDATE: In the 24 hours since I began to publicly call attention to the inital vote bomb of my film 'No Joke' (and the problematic IMDB voting system in general) we have had 2 more. I am publicly asking IMDB staff to determine if these 2 new voters (and the original) even were in the same city as our film festival premiere last week. If not, then I respectfully ask that these users immediately have their accounts suspended as they clearly have not seen the film and have done such out of spite.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Airplanes...look into it. I am thousands of miles from my home postal code. Should all my ratings be thrown out? Funny how you state your 10's can have their opinion, which might be wrong, but someone giving any less is a ballot-stuffer who hasn't seen your fine film. Incredible.
Further, it's possible to not have a postal code entered...or a wrong one entered.
Didn't some of your voters watch it over the internet? Should those be removed if their postal code doesn't match yours?
Only 14 of your voters even list a country, let alone a postal code. Pinpoint the others, Einstein.
But thanks for the lesson, Chief.
You have 28 votes, and only "5" is not represented. Your votes are about as evenly distributed as could be possible considering the first few are usually 10's (and usually not from IMDb regular users or voters).
Further, it's possible to not have a postal code entered...or a wrong one entered.
Didn't some of your voters watch it over the internet? Should those be removed if their postal code doesn't match yours?
Only 14 of your voters even list a country, let alone a postal code. Pinpoint the others, Einstein.
But thanks for the lesson, Chief.
You have 28 votes, and only "5" is not represented. Your votes are about as evenly distributed as could be possible considering the first few are usually 10's (and usually not from IMDb regular users or voters).
(sigh.)
Your argument is that MDB has no way of determining the location of a voter? They do. As mentioned earlier there is something called Geotargeting via IP Spidering. Each and every visitor to IMDB will be tracked and as much info from the visitor will be lifted, down to the size of the display of their monitor. This is used for marketing, analytics, and fraud prevention among others. IMDB is owned by AMAZON and to even suggest that they wouldn't take advantage of your personal info for monetary gain via geo-targeted marketing is laughable. All IMDB would need to do would be to check the IP spidering info of the voters who have given the film a gutter rating. If their location at the time of the review was outside, say a 500 mile radius, pretty safe to say they weren't in Toronto and therefore did not view the film.
It's called Geotargeting. Maybe you should look into that.
As for your assertion that the votes are spread out evening just because most of the numbers have been used? Man, you keep digging bigger and bigger intellectual holes for yourself. Obviously in your world, if there are 10 basketball players, 7 of which are ten feet tall, 3 are nine feet tall, 6 are eight feet tall, 5 are seven feet tall, 2 are 6 feet tall, one is four foot tall, 2 are three, 1 is two feet tall, and 1 is one feet tall this makes the average height of all the basketball players...5 foot?
Wow. Now that's embarrassing.
Honestly man, given the weakness of your arguments, most people would come to the natural conclusion that you are not a very smart human being....at all. Like, really not smart. Me? I am still holding out hope that you'll bring some rationality to this ongoing conversation and that a solution to the vote bombing of my film can be found.
Your argument is that MDB has no way of determining the location of a voter? They do. As mentioned earlier there is something called Geotargeting via IP Spidering. Each and every visitor to IMDB will be tracked and as much info from the visitor will be lifted, down to the size of the display of their monitor. This is used for marketing, analytics, and fraud prevention among others. IMDB is owned by AMAZON and to even suggest that they wouldn't take advantage of your personal info for monetary gain via geo-targeted marketing is laughable. All IMDB would need to do would be to check the IP spidering info of the voters who have given the film a gutter rating. If their location at the time of the review was outside, say a 500 mile radius, pretty safe to say they weren't in Toronto and therefore did not view the film.
It's called Geotargeting. Maybe you should look into that.
As for your assertion that the votes are spread out evening just because most of the numbers have been used? Man, you keep digging bigger and bigger intellectual holes for yourself. Obviously in your world, if there are 10 basketball players, 7 of which are ten feet tall, 3 are nine feet tall, 6 are eight feet tall, 5 are seven feet tall, 2 are 6 feet tall, one is four foot tall, 2 are three, 1 is two feet tall, and 1 is one feet tall this makes the average height of all the basketball players...5 foot?
Wow. Now that's embarrassing.
Honestly man, given the weakness of your arguments, most people would come to the natural conclusion that you are not a very smart human being....at all. Like, really not smart. Me? I am still holding out hope that you'll bring some rationality to this ongoing conversation and that a solution to the vote bombing of my film can be found.
None of the votes should be thrown out if all were counted equally. Most of the reviews had positive ratings. These are real people that watched our film. The single vote from a top-1000 user is a 2. That is the vote that has all the bearing in No Joke's rating due to a broken weighted system. We sincerely doubt that user even watched the film but just blindly bombed it. That is just wrong. If you can't see that bluesmanSF, I feel sorry for your friends and family.
bluesmanSF, Champion
What makes you think I can't see that? I've posted hundreds of times that this is a problem. So, i can't imagine where you're getting that. I've never said anything that could, in any way, come close to saying that "top 1000" voters should have additional weight in regards to "weighted average" displayed.
They are all counted equally, by the way. Just not in the "weighted average" which is a useless statistic that should be, in my opinion, available if search, but not advertised ahead of or in place of actual votes. And, if there is to be a rating feature, no ratings should ever be removed without proof of abuse. Guessing someone didn't see a film because they rated low is not proof.
Again, why are you guys knocking yourself out posting about what might be a moot point? If anything is "wrong" it's that flooding the boards about a non-issue should be allowed.
They are all counted equally, by the way. Just not in the "weighted average" which is a useless statistic that should be, in my opinion, available if search, but not advertised ahead of or in place of actual votes. And, if there is to be a rating feature, no ratings should ever be removed without proof of abuse. Guessing someone didn't see a film because they rated low is not proof.
Again, why are you guys knocking yourself out posting about what might be a moot point? If anything is "wrong" it's that flooding the boards about a non-issue should be allowed.
What choice do we have? You keep making sweeping statements and assertions about our legitimate complaint that our film was vote bombed...but then complain bitterly that we are flooding the board by responding to them?
Wow.
What I cannot fathom is why you are so hell bent on attacking us while defending a system that you have repeatedly acknowledged is broken, hence why is it getting fixed. What on earth is the point to your continued arguments, other than needing the last word on the subject now that your feelings are a little bruised?
Wow.
What I cannot fathom is why you are so hell bent on attacking us while defending a system that you have repeatedly acknowledged is broken, hence why is it getting fixed. What on earth is the point to your continued arguments, other than needing the last word on the subject now that your feelings are a little bruised?
