What credibility or verification is given to "Top 1000 Voters" to allow their votes to carry so much weight?

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • Answered
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 few questions concerning the "ratings" system. For our film, "Valley of the Sun," our rating has decreased significantly due to the votes given by "Top 1000 Voters." Having looked further into our ratings it is obvious that these low ratings do not reflect the average rating score being given by our viewers.

My questions then are: what is the credibility of the Top 1000 Voters besides the fact that they cast a lot of votes on IMDB? Are they professional critics? How is it verified that they have seen the film? Is it necessary to allow their votes to carry so much weight that it brings our rating score down almost 3 points? Is there any way to be sure that our average viewers are being represented through our rating score?

Not to say that our film is the best ever made or that it deserves a 10/10 every time but we want to be sure we are being properly and fairly evaluated.

Thanks!
Photo of Amanda Olszewski

Amanda Olszewski

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
I'm not sure about "credibility" and the issue isn't over the Top 1000 Voters category, although votes from that group can be a sign of a wider problem.

IMDB does give extra weighting to the top voters (which is larger than the Top 1000 Voters, I suspect, but I don't know how much larger or if it is on a sliding scale) based on the assumption that they clearly know their onions because they've voted on so many films. Unfortunately, some (and it might be a small percentage) are clearly just voting 1 stars on everything which gives them the weighting without them having to go to the trouble of having seen the film - basically the assumption is invalid and I believe the system is broken.

Following the big score bombing kerfuffle recently, IMDB removed the weighting from films with less than 100 votes, but it is still a problem.

I have proposed a solution and that thread links to earlier discussion:

https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
Photo of Gordon Michaels

Gordon Michaels

  • 17 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Emperor keeps giving the same incorrect answer to every report of score bombing. What is now happening is that every new release is quickly voted on by 2 to 3 dozen Top 1000 Voter accounts and each of these accounts votes a score of 1 for every movie. Gravity now has 161 votes from TOP 1000 Voters, and 37 of those 161 votes score Gravity a 1/10.

Look, if 37 of the TOP 1000 voters were each trying to stuff the ballot box in order to remain a Top 1000 Voters, then why are all 37 giving every movie the exact same ranking - a 1/10? One would expect that some voters would give every movie a 5, or a 6 or a 7. That would be far less conspicuous. But every single voter is voting a 1/10.

This is automated robotic software in action - and each of the 37+ accounts that are using automated voting are using the same software to post votes - there is no other reason why they are all voting Gravity and other films a 1/10. The similarity of the voting makes it highly likely that the voting on these accounts is coordinated. This is not 37 idiots acting independently - this is 37 accounts using the same voting software or voting instructions.

As I have said elsewhere, if IMDB realizes that their TOP 1000 Voter votes are being corrupted by malware - by automated voting software - then they have two choices. (1) Either analyze, detect and block the use of malware and/or not factor the votes from suspect accounts into the posted vote totals, or, (2) Stop reporting the information about votes in the TOP 1000 Voter category. If these TOp 1000 Voter totals are so unimportant that they are not worth safeguarding, then they are not worth reporting to the public in the first place.

No company -including IMDB - can maintain the trust of their User community if they fail to safeguard the integrity of the information that is being posted.

And Emperor, please stop trying to wallpaper over this corrupt voting scandal.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
I'm not trying to wallpaper over anything - I've started threads highlighting this problem and offering solutions.

Neither are my answers "incorrect" - they are educated guesswork based on a close analysis of the patterns on this problem, while you seem to be offering with wild claims making things unnecessarily complicated.

If these are bots bought by the film industry to hammer down the scores of competing films, then why are they also voting 1 star on indie short films that only a few hundred people will ever see?

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.