Ratings: Give the regular voter weighting to the regular reviewers

  • 15
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • (Edited)
This was suggested by Surendra Mohan but needs its own thread as it could be very useful:https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi... there is a concern that the weighting given to regular voters is being used for evil by a number of users by adding 1 star votes to films with a small number of votes, that they presumably think has a suspicious voting pattern, hoping to "correct" for any possibly "vote stuffing":https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/tags... highlights a problem with the system - the weighting "rewards" people for being able to hammer in as many votes as possible. While a lot of the regular voters are film and TV buffs merrily consuming media by the bucketload there is a small minority abusing the system, either just chasing the Top 1,000 Voter status (which you can see when you check your votes, even if you don't get a badge for it) or because they think they are some kind of champion, protecting poor old IMDB from nasty vote stuffers (even if I suspect that the algorithm already corrects for this, so the regular voter weighting leads to a double whammy downgrading of the weighted averageI believe that the weighting is still important, as it gives the votes of the most knowledgeable voters more significance which would help give a consistency to the ratings of films. So I wouldn't want to just get rid of the weighting but the score bombing is a problem that needs fixing.As the title says, the suggestion is to give the weighting to Top Reviewers or regular reviewers (the equivalent number people with the highest number of reviews, in the way the regular voters seems to be a larger group than the Top 1,000 Voters, even if it is the latter than gets flagged up on the voting breakdowns, which allows us to see if the 1 stars are coming from regular voters). This would have the effect of:* Rewarding the people who take the time and effort to write reviews explaining their ratings.* Making these votes visible through the person's review history, which has the effect that it can keep people honest (if, for example, someone tried to game the system to get their weighting back by adding in reviews copy and pasted from elsewhere, it' be easy enough to spot and report) - as I've argued for other suggestions:https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...* It would also remove the incentive for people to just hammer in these 1 votes - it no longer gets you the weighting and no longer has as much impact in cases of perceived vote stuffing.So win, win, win - the triple winner.Some have suggested only allowing people to rate films when they review them (as is done on Amazon) or at least only have them count if you have a review but I don't think that'd be very useful here (it'd be no more help in addressing the score bombing than this suggestion), it would cause a riot from users, it'd undermine the idea of the wisdom of crowds that powers the IMDB rating and it might actually make vote manipulation easier (as we see from the score bombing, in most cases you can only influence a score when the votes are low).There are a few things that need to be fine-tuned:* Should the weighting apply only to ratings where they have also added a review? or:* Should the weighting apply to all of the ratingsHowever, I'm sure staff can figure that out - the former would encourage more reviews but the latter would make the weighting work better if the aim is to try and get more consistency in the voting across a range of film and TV. Personally, I'd be fine with the second option, but if there was evidence of abuse it could be switched to the second one.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 15
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13727 Posts
  • 14178 Reply Likes
This is a great idea. I will have to think about the details to refine the idea.

One possibility I've considered suggesting is that users can only rate a film 1 or 10 if they write a review. If the review is simply random text, other user could report the review and have the rating and review deleted.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
Interesting idea, but I suppose all this would do is make people post 2 and 9 stars instead ;) It might end up slightly skewing the results and I wonder if film-makers will come on here complaining that their fans now can't vote 10 for their films because they are the very best thing ever!!!
Photo of Bilal

Bilal

  • 62 Posts
  • 34 Reply Likes
"One possibility I've considered suggesting is that users can only rate a film 1 or 10 if they write a review."

I don't like this idea. IMDb Registered users can cast a vote (from 1 to 10) on every title in the database. If you make something like that, nobody will use IMDb anymore. Just you should replace Top 1000 voters with Top 1000 Reviewers.
Photo of Norry Niven

Norry Niven

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This is all very, very frustrating for us, our film dropped half based on these weird changes. It has NOT been released yet either and our score went from 8.5 to 4 in one day with no new votes...very, very frustrating.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
It changed after votes hit 100, which is when "weighting" now kicks in. It just didn't show until it refreshed on the page. It would'nt change without that vote moving from 99 to 100.
Photo of Victoria Masina

Victoria Masina

  • 36 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I love the idea. It seems the fairest compared to anything else. It's a reward and compliment for people who take the time writing reviews and are serious cinephiles, and it would be easier to determine whether a voter has watched the movie or not. I don't understand the complaints of the few nay sayers and their abusive remarks regarding a new system for voting, especially now with the changes - in particular this Bilal individual who replied to a comment of mine in another thread that my movie is very bad etc. - not because he has seen it, because he hasn't, but just because he can't stand the thought of having to "allow" the average score. It's not like people suddenly compare the little films with the big ones! We understand it's a completely different league. You can see that on the amount of voters. It's the same with any other product. I take a product with a thousand or more reviews way more seriously than one with a handful. I also don't understand the weird need to be a Top 1000 voter and troll films in order to make that happen - what kind of deranged power trip is that? lol
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Yes, it's still relevant because this new change only affects the view while a film has low vote total. It's still a good idea overall.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
Good point.
Photo of Victoria Masina

Victoria Masina

  • 36 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Not to display votes till there are 100 accumulated would be a way to go, but then a lot of films will never get there. Maybe blockbusters and low budget and rather unknown films should be judged in different categories, then people like Bilal or whatever the name was can't complain about the new system. It could be done by simply giving the stars a different color. If there would be a color system in place then people would understand immediately the differences and the trolls don't need to get their panties up in a bunch. Let's say the big blockbusters will keep the yellow stars. Smaller indie films with low vote count could be red and shorts could be blue. We can even add green for documentaries.That prevents people from comparing scores cross-category and should satisfy everybody's concerns.
Photo of Believe Again

Believe Again

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I like your idea - change the star color. Like you said, we can't compare big blockbusters and smaller films or shorts.
Photo of Victoria Masina

Victoria Masina

  • 36 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Maybe we should put it in the suggestion box, well, make it a separate thread as an idea. I think Emperor should do this. I'm on IMDB for over 7 years but new to this get-satisfaction bb. Emperor would have more people being interested in taking a look at the suggestion and discussing it. :)
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13727 Posts
  • 14178 Reply Likes
Emperor,

I've liked your idea since you suggested it. It addresses a fundamental flaw with the current Top 1000 voters, providing an incentive to simply vote for a film rather than watch and thoughtfully rate it.

In addition to the Top Reviewers, we may also wish to consider the Top Contributors as part of that group. It would be reasonable to expect that someone who spends time to research, update and correct the data in IMDb would also rate films with due diligence.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
I've liked your idea since you suggested it.


Although, strictly speaking it isn't my suggestion - I just reposted Surendra Mohan's idea as it seems a good one.

Not having ever posted a review (which I will have to rectify) I don't really have a dog in this fight, which is why I can be a little more subjective on this.

In addition to the Top Reviewers, we may also wish to consider the Top Contributors as part of that group. It would be reasonable to expect that someone who spends time to research, update and correct the data in IMDb would also rate films with due diligence.


Yeah I'd be up for that (again never having troubled the Top Contributors slot, and if not this year then I never will, I don't have a dog in this fight either) - they are clearly know their onions and would be expected to provide a carefully considered vote.

If so it might be an idea to reduce the weighting, as you would be doubling the number of people given weighting (although what about the crossover between the two groups?) - this actually might be also considered an argument for this, as it does seem like the weighting given to Top Voters might be a little too much (I think another idea was to reduce the weighting for Top Voters, and this would have the benefit of also doing that).