Glitch on the ratings system

  • 3
  • Problem
  • Updated 1 month ago
  • Solved
Today an unusual number of movies had a drop in its ratings. Movies with 7.1 dropped to 7.0, movies with 7.0 dropped to 6.9 and so on. And I mean a lot of movies, which obviously points to a glitch, while there were almost no movies with crescent ratings. I know because I have a list of almost 2000 movies and I am constantly observing its ratings movements. Please, take a look and try to fix it. Thanks and sorry for my english.
Photo of Angelo Pilla

Angelo Pilla

  • 146 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 2 months ago

  • 3
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15466 Posts
  • 17688 Reply Likes
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1069 Posts
  • 1298 Reply Likes
It's been quite a while since that film was in the Top 250: https://250.took.nl/title/tt0107616   :)

Photo of Angelo Pilla

Angelo Pilla

  • 146 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
Today was the worst day of all. FIVE movies from my list of classics have fallen from 7.0 to 6.9. It usually happens with five movies a YEAR, not a day. This is terribly serious. To me it is a glitch that the technical team cannot fix. Or don't care. Anyway, IMDb is going to an end. And I mean it. Soon there will be no more classics above 7.0.
The movies:
Treasure Island (1950) 6,085 votes
Spider Baby or, the Maddest Story Ever Told (1967) 5,407 votes
Harper (1966) 7,530 votes
Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967) 5,443 votes
Up in Smoke (1978) 33,804 votes

(Edited)
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1359 Posts
  • 2191 Reply Likes
Below find the 24 drops that occurred today in my 276-title sample. I've added a column to show the number of changes since ~5Aug. I found no changes on the list yesterday. Please see my prior post for links to the spreadsheet and the lists.

Please recall that this thread began as a concern about middle-rated (7.0) films, not about the top 250 films.

Let's take the 1932 film Wonder Bar (tt0026007) as an example.
It has dropped twice since 7Aug from 6.9 to 6.7, with no change in the number of votes (536), which could be from the number of lost votes matching the number of gained votes.
On 7Aug, it had a rating of 6.9, which could have meant an average as low as 6.85.
On 14Aug, it has a rating of 6.7 (it dropped 0.1 on a day in between), which can mean an average as high as 6.749.
So it dropped at least a full 0.1 points, with 536 votes. In other words, it lost at least 53.6 "ratings points" (if the average were unweighted).
Those lost "ratings points" would need to be from either multiple voters downscaling their vote, and/or some sort of IMDb intermittent update of whose votes are counted more heavily in the weighting. ...or... multiple changes in the calculation itself???
A title with this few votes seems an unlikely candidate for the number of vote changes required to drop so much in such a short period of time. And yet there are 25 titles in my sample that have also experienced a drop since ~5Aug. 94 titles total from the 276 have experienced 116 drops.
I hope IMDb will soon explain what is happening. 
Meanwhile, I'm going to export my ratings, in case hacking turns out to be the cause.


(Edited)
Photo of sunofabeach78

sunofabeach78

  • 27 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
"So it dropped at least a full 0.1 points, with 536 votes. In other words, it lost at least 53.6 "ratings points" (if the average were unweighted).
Those lost "ratings points" would need to be from either multiple voters downscaling their vote, and/or some sort of IMDb intermittent update of whose votes are counted more heavily in the weighting. ...or... multiple changes in the calculation itself???"

I, too, think this is what's happening: IMDB is making changes to its "regular voters" basis, by removing and adding members to it, and/or is changing the calculating formula that uses to determine the weighted average.

"I hope IMDb will soon explain what is happening."

I really hope that too, but i seriously doubt it... 

Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 12714 Posts
  • 9619 Reply Likes
Hi All -

Thank you for all your additional examples and comments.

Our voting system is constantly being improved and the formulas used to calculate the ratings and charts are tweaked regularly in order to improve our ability to detect and defeat ballot stuffing and other attempts to influence the results.

Weighted ratings are frequently recalculated, so when the formula is changed, the ratings may also change even without the addition of many votes. The changes you are seeing are normal and result from this periodic fine tuning of the weighing mechanism.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1358 Posts
  • 2188 Reply Likes
Michelle - it make NO sense that titles are changing every day or every other day.
Are you saying that IMDb changes the calculation multiple times per week?
Because this sample of 276 titles has changes multiple times per week, with very little visible voting activity.
Photo of Angelo Pilla

Angelo Pilla

  • 146 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
Ok Michelle, but it looks like it isn't stopping. Too many movies are falling (and only falling, not climbing) in the ratings too fast for more than a week now. I've keep monitoring this kind of thing for five years now and it never happened something like this. Not even close. Believe me: this is not a normal thing. And if it don't stop, the site functionality is in serious risk. 
Photo of Angelo Pilla

Angelo Pilla

  • 146 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
The problem is not solved in any way.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15461 Posts
  • 17687 Reply Likes
What did I say the answer was?
They're tweaking the system!
No one pays attention to little ole me!
And I said they will never admit how, when, or what they do.
Angelo, It is not a problem. It is realignment.
(Edited)
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 754 Posts
  • 1010 Reply Likes


(Edited)
Photo of Angelo Pilla

Angelo Pilla

  • 146 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
I think that maybe it has started as a realignment, but somehow they've lost control of the whole thing, and now the site is in the brink of disaster.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7229 Posts
  • 9411 Reply Likes
"The problem is not solved in any way." The customer is always right, except for this time, I guess. The system is working to the company's satisfaction, so there is nothing more to be done.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15461 Posts
  • 17687 Reply Likes
I think I have said that already.
Angelo................The Sky is Not Falling!
They are implementing worldwide weather control.
That is bound to take a little bit of tweaking over a specific period of time.
It's not a flip a switch and it's fixed thing!
They are fooling around with the tweaks and seeing the results of those tweaks and going.........WELL THAT didn't work! Lets try this.
Give it time.
Following this during this tweaking period will just drive you nuts.
Wait for the end result when the numbers stabilize.
That may be in a day or 6 months or a year. Who knows!
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1069 Posts
  • 1298 Reply Likes
Following this during this tweaking period will just drive you nuts. Wait for the end result when the numbers stabilize.

I think that's the best (and only) thing to do. We'll see in a few weeks what the situation is.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1069 Posts
  • 1298 Reply Likes
Following this during this tweaking period will just drive you nuts. Wait for the end result when the numbers stabilize.

I think that's the best (and only) thing to do. We'll see in a few weeks what the situation is.
Photo of sunofabeach78

sunofabeach78

  • 27 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
"Our voting system is constantly being improved and the formulas used to calculate the ratings and charts are tweaked regularly in order to improve our ability to detect and defeat ballot stuffing and other attempts to influence the results."

So, all these years there was BALLOT STUFFING for all these great/classic movies (Gandhi, Groundhog Day, The Maltese Falcon, Jaws, Grapes of Wrath, Les Diaboliques, The Exorcist etc), so they had to have HUGE falls and be removed from the Top 250.
And they had to be replaced by Indian movies only, because as we all know, Indian movies are the only movies in the world that ballot stuffing is not happening in IMDB.
Yeah, right...

"The changes you are seeing are normal and result from this periodic fine tuning of the weighing mechanism."

Even if this is the case and it's just a "fine tuning", then how come the vast majority of all categories of movies have both rises and falls (but mostly falls, huge in some cases) and then there is ONE category, Indian movies, that has only rises, huge in some cases?

You call this "fine tuning"?? I think it's better called "FAVOURITISM".
Photo of honolulu styles

honolulu styles

  • 61 Posts
  • 82 Reply Likes
Today.. 178 changes.
Non us or uk movies go only up.
Movies in the chart for 20 years losing 15 places in a single day..but yeah it's normal.
By the way, somebody not from India has ever know the movie "sholay"? I think you heard that name only in this list. None of the critics in the world know about that.
But hey it's better than Donnie darko and jaws and a bunch of classics for IMDB.
Photo of honolulu styles

honolulu styles

  • 61 Posts
  • 82 Reply Likes
The answer from the staff confrim what I said in the past days.

The pressing buttons to make movies goes up and down with their ratings. In the top 250 it has a major effect than with other movies. I think this maneuver is meant for the top 250 to have more Indians movies throughout the chart, and then the effect of changing algorithm change the rating of other movies as well.

I mean. Before august there were 3 movies around #80 spot, Andhandhun around #160, Rang de Basanti around #220 and then usually pop up some movies from #240 to #250.
Now i think they want a perfect distribution with 3 idiots reaching #60 andhandhun and rang de basanti going around #110 and #160, gangs of wasseypur around #200 pk aroun #210 and so on.

In this way you have Indian movies around every position. All the other ratings of all other movies are suffering these changes.
When they reach the point they want, they will stop to adjust manually the chart.

I'm an engineer, i know every kind of formula. IMDB is raping numbers in this way.
Photo of Angelo Pilla

Angelo Pilla

  • 146 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
And the disaster continues. Three more movies from my list of classics have dropped from 7.0 to 6.9 only today:
The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel (1951)
The Hitch-Hiker (1953)
Testament (1983)
(there are many other drops of course, but I am only monitoring the 7.0/6.9 ones)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15420 Posts
  • 17612 Reply Likes
No disasters
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1359 Posts
  • 2191 Reply Likes
Link to my prior data post.

Among my sample of 276 titles, today 33 dropped and 1 gained.
14 of the drops had dropped previously (highlighted in yellow).
One title, Hollywood Revue of 1929, dropped from 6.6 to 6.3; it's also had the most drops. The others were all 0.1 drops.

continued (Showing My Favorite Brunette on both pieces to confirm I didn't skip something):


Links:
Spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y4PBDfYnk1rWIIC_aFoaC0g41Buo1XWbSTK4rPUVbh0/edit?usp=sharing
List of full sample:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls048810523/
List of the drops:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls048878764/
Since ~5Aug, among my 276-title sample,
110 titles have dropped, with a total of 149 drops.
7 titles had an increase in rating; 1 title increased then decreased back to the original average.

The Hitch-Hiker gained 31 votes since 7Aug.  I'm thinking film studies class.
(Edited)
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
The one thing IMDB had going for it was consistency before the Amazon behemoth took it over.  Now who knows what they're going to change next.  You might be fine with that they're doing right now with the list feature, interface, the rating feature, etc.  But just wait until they change something you've always like then you'll be changing your tune.

This latest rating "tweek" puts less faith in IMDB's features not more.  People want reliability not drastic arbitrary changes just the sake of changes.  Right now I don't believe any score on IMDB reflects anything if they finally found after decades that something was wrong or should have been improved.  Maybe Shawshank isn't even a top 10 film for all we know.  They might find some new algorithm that shows that IMDB users don't even rate it a top 100 film in a few years.  Who knows at this point its anyone's guess.  I know Rotten Tomatoes has been pretty consistent and honest with their critics average ratings at least.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
As Amazon.com subsidiary (1998–present)
In 1998, Jeff Bezos, founder, owner, and CEO of Amazon.com, struck a deal with Needham and other principal shareholders to buy IMDb outright for approximately $55 million and attach it to Amazon as a subsidiary, private company.
IMDb - Wikipedia
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 754 Posts
  • 1003 Reply Likes
I just looked at RT's top 100 movies of all time. I don't like that list either. Can I please have a #3 with fries?
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15454 Posts
  • 17636 Reply Likes
No Pickles or Onions, with Bacon please. Easy on the ice!
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7228 Posts
  • 9410 Reply Likes
They have already downgraded things that I did not like being downgraded, so I'm spent, so to speak. IMDb was rolling strong for the first eighteen years after Amazon and IMDb partnered. We could say that it is still rolling strong but yet in a completely different way from the earlier trend.
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 754 Posts
  • 1003 Reply Likes
Look at it this way, IMDB decided that the new market offered better profit than the old market.  Dec 2018 articles indicate they very much want to expand into India. It took about 6 months to cause the impact and I think what happened is "new" "regular" raters expanded causing the existing raters weights to be lowered (explains why no vote change but lower rating).

What they did is a common occurrence for companies when they try to expand into a new market that is different than their current market. Maybe it will be good for imdb, or maybe it'll be like when Starbucks wanted to expand into Australia and it failed miserably.

There are other top 250 lists, so one just needs to find one that fits them. Perhaps imdb will do something with their top's lists to help accommodate those that have been their loyal customers.
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled IMDB ratings issue.

Hello, there seems to be an issue with some titles on the IMDB.  See below.  The title was a 7.1 user rating as you can see by the arithmetic mean but is now a 6.1 just a few days later.



Other titles with a strange ratings discrepancies:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019788/ratings?ref_=tt_ql_op_4
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0006333/ratings?ref_=tt_ql_op_4
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0004181/ratings?ref_=tt_ql_op_4
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0018618/ratings?ref_=tt_ql_op_4
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0004707/ratings?ref_=tt_ql_op_4
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0018440/ratings?ref_=tt_ql_op_4
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0012675/ratings?ref_=tt_ql_op_4
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024067/ratings?ref_=tt_ql_op_4

And many others.  Not sure if something was accidentally deleted or added to the rating algorithm.  I believe this was a recent change/glitch.  Seems to be on a lot of silent films but other films as well.

Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
After looking at some of the titles that Chris (merge-)posted immediately above, and the most-changed titles in my sample list, I'm satisfied that IMDb is on the right track with the ratings adjustments they're making. 

I'll keep tracking my sample list, and will report back if anything happens to dissuade me from this conclusion.
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
The arithmetic mean is 1-2 points higher than the actual rating.  Whatever new filter they're using is way too drastic and I bet they're being way too exclusive now with voters.  I'm not sure how some films going down 1-2 points means they're "on the right track".  I'm wondering what "vote stuffing" data they found to apply their new filter.  Silent films in general for example looks like they took a huge hit.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
20% of the votes are 10s on Mickey (1918). That seems a bit odd. I rated the film sometime in the past, and did not have the 10 urge. (I've put it in my to-watch queue; I happen to be in 1914 for silents right now. It might take me a year to get to 1918 at the rate I've been adding to that list.)

Frankly, just having over 1000 votes on a 1918 title is rare. I know it's Mabel Normand, but there are only seven 1918 films with 1000+ votes in all of IMDb, shorts included. And Mickey is the least popular of those 7. (Coincidentally, it's also the 7th film when you rank all her titles by votes. Some of the higher-voted titles star Chaplin.)

The percentage of 10s is a lot higher on some of the examples you posted.
And the histograms are not Normal-looking. The 10s are a spike, and the likely-true mode is at/near the new weighted average.

10s don't have to be as sinister as vote-stuffing. I've seen users who only rate films 10, as though this is the only way to mark it Seen. At least they didn't choose the other end of the spectrum.

If you read other posts in this thread, the ones NOT about the Top 250, you can see we've been tracking films rated 6.9-7. If you look at the histograms of those which changed (not silent films, btw), they share the same trait as your titles.
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls048810523/?sort=user_rating,asc&st_dt=&mode=detail

I did some recalculation of the average for those films, omitting the 10s and the 1s. I got close to the new weighted average on most of them. The fact that I didn't get exactly the new W.A. is good; it means IMDb is being more sophisticated than what I did.

I'm glad to have seen your post, and looked at the distribution of votes on films that have dropped ratings. It made me realize that IMDb is on the right track. Hopefully they can also find and adjust the films that _have_ been vote-stuffed, but where the honest votes are also high.
(Edited)
Photo of sunofabeach78

sunofabeach78

  • 27 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
Another common thing about these movies is that they are (very) old. And it's strange why IMDB targets this category of films, because imo are the less possible for vote stuffing, contrary to newer films that have big fan base and are more prone to it.

About the 10 voting, if that's the case, shouldn't they treat all the movies the same? You say that the 20% of 10s of "Mickey" is odd. Then how about movies like "Sholay" or "Chak de! India" or "Drishyam" and others, which have 36% of 10s, but instead of falling they had big rises and entered the Top 250? No vote stuffing here?

How about movie "Eskiya", with 40.9% of 10s? Instead of dropping, it had a rise of about 40 positions in the last 3 weeks! Again, no vote stuffing here?

And how about movies like "The Maltese Falcon", "Jaws", "Groundhog Day", "Les Diaboliques", "The Grapes of Wrath" and many others, which have totally "normal-looking" and balanced histograms? Why this huge fall?

It would be great if IMDB finally started to deal with vote stuffing so efficiently, but i'm afraid this is not the case here...
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
sunofabeach78,
You're adding another layer of data to the topic, which is the ranking of titles against each other. I have no comment about that. I've always found the Top 250 useless, because the films that make it there are mostly not to my taste. 

I just looked at Sholay, and its histogram looks fairly Normal, given that the mode is 10, and there's no room to go higher. In other words, it looks roughly like the right half of a bell. If there is vote-stuffing there, as I said in my post just above, 
Hopefully [IMDb] can also find and adjust the films that _have_ been vote-stuffed, but where the honest votes are also high.


Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
I agree sunofabeach78.  Good post.  There definitely seems to be a strong bias against older Hollywood films.
Photo of sunofabeach78

sunofabeach78

  • 27 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
You find Sholay's histogram "fairly normal", but Mickey's one odd???
Imo Mickey's is less odd than Sholay's. At least it hasn't have a 36% of 10s, which is a percentage close to movies like Schindler's List or Pulp Fiction and higher than movies like The Matrix, Fight Club and many others! 36% is no way normal.
Anyway, in Mickey's case, even if its histogram is odd (again, less odd than Sholay's and others), the drop from 7.1 to 6.1 (still dropping, 6.0 at the moment) seems TOO much.

Take also a look at Eskiya's histogram. Do you find that normal, too? Does it justify constant rising with no alerts for vote stuffing?

And take a look at "Maltese Falcon" and the others, their histograms look very balanced, how can their fall be explained?
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15454 Posts
  • 17636 Reply Likes
I don't think it was bias against. I think they were artificially propped up as personal favorites of Col's.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
You claim the Mickey (1918) fell from 7.1 to 6.0, but that's not accurate. You are comparing the current weighted average to the current arithmetic mean. The data I presented in several posts in this thread was comparing the weighted average from day to day. I was not tracking Mickey (1918), so I don't know how far it dropped since 7Aug or any other time.

Elsewhere someone claimed the voting practices in India might be different than in the US or the UK, that they're more generous. Perhaps they even abstain from registering a negative vote. I certainly don't tend to vote reviews Unhelpful (unless they're clearly for the wrong title).

Again, you seem to be tracking rise/fall in comparison to other titles, which was not the topic of this thread. The weighted average and the arithmetic mean for The Maltese Falcon (1941) are equal (8.0). The fact that almost 2000 people give it a 1 is sad, but some people like to downvote highly praised films. (Citizen Kane has a similar spike at 1.) How its weighted average has changed in recent days, I don't know. The 276 films I'm tracking all had weighted average of 6.9-7.0 on 7Aug. 

New invariably replaces old. It's a sad fact of life for older people who have their favorites. I was crushed when I realized that young people don't know who Cary Grant is. It still makes me sad. I didn't extend my survey to learn who they did know, if anyone from the Classic Hollywood era. I can only hope there's a resurgence of high quality old films somewhere with a broad audience.

But I kinda understand that people who haven't been exposed to such films from an early age don't embrace them when they're older. I don't like many silent films. My childhood exposure to them was horrible Keystone Kops film clips re-edited into mockery. I never saw the good Chaplin/Keaton/Lloyd/Fairbanks films presented in full, well restored and re-timed to smooth out the movement the way we have them now. They always looked ridiculous in an un-funny way. I've been trying to catch up with the silent era from time to time. Young people now likely find older films slow and tired, lacking the pace and special effects they love.  Hopefully they'll broaden their perspectives. Until they begin to appreciate the different style of storytelling, expect them to cast low votes for the ones they see.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15454 Posts
  • 17636 Reply Likes
Archie Leach Rules!
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
Mickey did drop from 7.0 to 6.0 basically overnight.
(Edited)
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
FYI for those interested you can also find some cached websites on google from a few days ago https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YidX5206QQkJ:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016690/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016690/reference
In fact when you google movies they still have the old ratings on the website preview.  I believe Mickey went from a 7.0 to 6.5 then quickly down to a 6.0.  It took a few days still its a pretty drastic change.  Overall it seems like the lower number of voted films got hurt the most.  I do believe ballot stuffing should be repressed but this latest definitely looks like it was skewed against older and less voted Hollywood films.
(Edited)
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
But Chris, it's unreasonable for the film Brown of Harvard (1926) (the links you provided) to have 55.3% votes at 10. It's a silent film starring William Haines. Do you really think 757 people think this is a perfect film (or wonderful, or whatever adjective you associate with a 10)? I sure don't. So someone has been voting 10 for old films that don't deserve it, and IMDb is making appropriate adjustments. 


The screenshot below is from the Google cache link, which says saved on 13Aug2019. Yup, IMDb has had a busy week for this topic. I, for one, am glad to see this adjustment. I would hate to go chasing this film based on the arithmetic mean of 8.3 (or the earlier wtd avg of 7.3), only to find out it's really a turkey. Here it is online, and it looks worse than 6.4 to me (just sampling a few segments):
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x41zzbe
The person posting the video advertises it as a John Wayne film, but his role is Yale football player. I'm sure he's gorgeous and delightful to see in motion, but that wouldn't earn the film a 10 from me. 

Chris, you keep bringing data that gives me great comfort that IMDb is doing the right thing!
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
I only used that as an example to find these on cached websites.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15454 Posts
  • 17636 Reply Likes
And, I agree with bdereos , a horde of older titles have been over rated for years. The realignment is necessary and was long overdue.
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
I get it and maybe even perhaps this wasn't done nearly enough if this is the case.  I thought this was something that was done more periodically or something they could identify bots, spammers, etc and calculated right away.  The pattern though still suggests that older films are targeted first so perhaps they haven't gotten to other films yet.  
(Edited)
Photo of sunofabeach78

sunofabeach78

  • 27 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
The movie mentioned above, Brown of Harvard, is a good example of IMDB doing a good correction. This is how they should deal with cases of vote stuffing.

But the point is that they should treat all movies the same way. Old or new, U.S/non-U.S, English or non-English language etc. At least this is what they should be doing, if they want the database to be FAIR and ACCURATE.
Instead, we see in the last weeks certain categories of movies being targeted (some fairly, some not) and other categories of movies, stuffed with 10 voting, instead of correction they get promoted! I 've already given examples above (Eskiya etc) and unfortunately there are many more.

And seriously, they should do something about this JOKE of voting here:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7738784/...
Arithmetic mean 9.3, Weighted average... 9.3!!
This a shame on IMDB's database.
Photo of sunofabeach78

sunofabeach78

  • 27 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
The movie mentioned above, Brown of Harvard, is a good example of IMDB doing a good correction. This is how they should deal with cases of vote stuffing.

But the point is that they should treat all movies the same way. Old or new, U.S/non-U.S, English or non-English language etc. At least this is what they should be doing, if they want the database to be FAIR and ACCURATE.
Instead, we see in the last weeks certain categories of movies being targeted (some fairly, some not) and other categories of movies, stuffed with 10 voting, instead of correction they get promoted! I 've already given examples above (Eskiya etc) and unfortunately there are many more.

And seriously, they should do something about this JOKE of voting here:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7738784/...
Arithmetic mean 9.3, Weighted average... 9.3!!
This a shame on IMDB's database.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
sunofabeach78
Have you seen the film Peranbu (2018), to which you linked above?
What makes you think it's unworthy of 9.3 from 10,237 voters?

10 of the Top 1000 voters weighed in at 5.4, but 10 votes aren't very persuasive to me, especially since I don't know what films those 1000 voters like. (Now THERE'S an idea for a list/query: films rated 7.0+ by our Top 1000 voters. Or is that what the Top 1000 checkbox means in ATS? No, you just get 1000 films when you check it and do nothing else.)
Photo of sunofabeach78

sunofabeach78

  • 27 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
bderoes,
Are you serious now???
Really???

A few hours ago, you said that "55.3% of votes at 10 for Brown of Harvard is UNREASONABLE" (which btw i agree, as i already said above). You said that you "sure don't think all those 757 think that is a perfect movie".

Yesterday, you found a 20% of votes at 10 for Mickey, "A BIT ODD".

And now, after seeing this 84.3% of votes at 10 for this title, no worries? A "bit odd", maybe??

As i said, this is a shame for IMDB's database. It's a blatant example of serious vote stuffing and they should really deal with it.

Some consistency couldn't harm, i think.
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
Yep.  Nobody denies vote stuffing happens but it should apply to all films not just ones that Amazon prime...  errr...  I mean IMDB excludes to want to sell on their on demand service.  Which Pernabu just so happens is available on prime video.  *gasp*

If I weren't too lazy I love to look into my hypothesis that Amazon Prime movies get mostly immune to this latest "adjustment".
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
Chris - don't get too cynical too soon (Amazon promoting their "product.") Peranbu is only offered as a Prime perk video, not a video for rent (both in the UK & the US), and the US doesn't offer the film on dvd/blu either. Amazon also offer lots of old public domain Hollywood films as Prime perks, but those usually have dvd options (ala Alpha Video or Mill Creek); most of those films have mediocre to poor ratings both on IMDb and on Amazon. Examples: 42 films on this list are on Prime (according to IMDb links, which are flawed), and 36 have ratings under 7 (5 of them under 5!)

sunofabeach78, yes, I'm serious. I'm not saying that vote stuffing is impossible on Peranbu. Its histogram looks odd, yes, eyebrow-raising, yes. But I knew nothing about Peranbu and asked if you did.  No reply to that. So you're concerned just with 84% 10's:



Well, I started the film, found it intriguing, and finished it when I had the time many hours later.

I have a simple (possible, likely) explanation for why there are so few votes below 10: most people who would rate this film badly won't even sit through enough of it to vote. This is not a popular film with mass appeal (only 10k votes for a release 1.5 years ago). But someone who is receptive to the subject, and can tolerate a story told slowly with little dialogue... is probably going to find this amazing. The title-page review last night was this one, and they described its appeal very well, especially in this paragraph:
There have been so many movies made already and the typical challenge is to be able to say anything at all that is new. Peranbu comes across as if it is unaware of any such challenges. There is so much that the movie says. Filled with insights, the movie is impossible to ignore.
Last night I rated it 8; this morning I bumped it to 9. I will want to see it again, armed with questions about the lead character, searching for clues. I don't recommend it to everyone, but it is very good. (If I were a more generous rater, it would be another 10 from me, but among 5000+ votes, I've only awarded 15 titles that prize.)

So the moral of this story is that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Peranbu might be the only film on IMDb that actually earned its unlikely histogram. Thanks for suggesting it.

Peranbu also illustrates why IMDb needs to be careful about not squashing votes just because the histogram looks suspicious.

(Bonus moral: not all vague reviews are counterfeit. It's very difficult to describe the appeal of this film. Reading some of the Amazon reviews before viewing made me skeptical, but re-reading them after makes me nod in understanding.)
Photo of sunofabeach78

sunofabeach78

  • 27 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
The issue here is not what you or i think (rate) about the film. It's how IMDB deals with these cases. Which is a blatantly obvious case of a fan base (the lead actor's here) starting a campaign to over-promote and over-rate the movie of their local "idol". The load of laughable "reviews" is just a hint for this (rarest of the rarest, wonder in film history, god of acting, megastar and so on...).

The 84% 10s is anything but normal, it's absurd. The Shawshank Redemption has "only" 55% 10s.
Even if it's a "great" movie, the distribution of the votes should be between 8, 9 and 10, just like all other great movies out there.

If you find this 84% normal, then i 100% disagree. But anyway, the important thing here is how IMDB deals with it. Arithmetic mean=9.3 and then, Weighted average=9.3 for a movie with this histogram? If they can't or, even worse, don't want to deal with it, then i think we are on the wrong path here.
(Edited)
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
So the next question becomes: HOW to deal with it.

Since it's highly probable that a lot of people really like the film for legitimate reasons, how would/could IMDb weed out the "stuffed" ballots in a case like this? Which/how many of the 8.6k 10's should be suppressed? And what would be the effect?
Deleting 1000 10s brings the arithmetic mean to 9.27 aka 9.3
2000...9.2
3000...9.1
4000...8.9
5000...8.7
6000...8.4
7000...7.9
8000...7.0
I see no reason to believe that 8000 of the 10.4k votes are simply stuffed. (Perhaps the individual voters' records might suggest something.) But because the average can't change much without drastic action, "correcting" _this_ film would be far down my list of priorities, were I managing the voter cleanup project.

By the way, another 10 was recorded since I took the screenshot above this morning (and my shift from 8 to 9 is recorded now too.)

Perhaps IMDb needs to validate "real people" as voters included in the IMDb weighted average, and connect multiple IMDb accounts to ensure no one casts multiple votes.

I wonder if anyone has written their PhD dissertation on this topic (how to make public voting fair and accurate), including valid statistical methods for identifying and dealing with the situation. 
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15454 Posts
  • 17636 Reply Likes
Just did a check of the titles from the middle east. Except for 1 title, all the others had as their #1 voting block a 10. And by a wide Margin! The 7-10 voting pattern is opposite of all the other titles. 7 or 8 being the highest tallied, 9's are less and 10's are even lesser. Indian Voting is backwards. 10's have the highest, and slide progressively less to a 7. There are also literally no 2-6 votes on almost all titles. 1 Votes are usually higher than 2-6. 

All those titles are suspect. Not because of Vote stuffing. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. National Pride. It's simple. Our concept of a "I Like It" has a varying degree. 7-10. To middle easterners, an overwhelming majority cannot differentiate or equate a 7 as good. To them, 10 is good. There is another part of the population that grabs the 0-10 concept and knows how to apply it fairly. But the Majority DO NOT!
Photo of Péter Kaszás

Péter Kaszás

  • 16 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
I wouldn't make a big deal out of the "Peranbu" situation. If you check the Top250 for instance, you will see that all the movies start really high and there is a natural drop. The 1st 10.000-20.000 viewers of movies are usually fans, who will obviously rate their movie higher than what it's actually worth.
Once upon a time in ...Hollywood has started with a 9.2 rating as well after 9000 votes.

On the other hand, I can't believe why people have such a big problem with those 15 Indian movies there.
I check the Top250 every day and it personally makes me sad every single time I see superhero movies there. I did and I will watch all of them, because I am a great movie fan, but after the 5th Marvel movie that came out, I was like: man, it's the same thing, I've seen this before. And since then, it is always the same feeling. Can't believe how people can still be enthusiastic about these movies.
And if we talk about Indian people tend to rate their movies higher, that it is definitely the case for people under 25 globally for superhero movies. No matter what it is gonna happen in the movie, if they hear some Tony Stark, or Thor jokes and some action, they gonna rate it as 10...

My other weakness, animated "movies".
I think, that there should be a separated category for these ones. I admit that I like many of them, but seriously, Coco, in a higher position than Requiem for a Dream or Eternal sunshine of a spotless mind? Just to mention the ones close to it.
And what about the Hayao Miyazaki movies. I've seen almost all of them, but I wouldn't put in any circumstances Chihiro higher than e.g.: Interstellar, Terminator 2 or American History X. I mean how is it possible? 179.000 users rated it as 10. Which means that for these users, it is the best of all time.

Bottom line is, superhero movies and animations bother me more than those 15 Indian movies that we currently have.
Photo of Péter Kaszás

Péter Kaszás

  • 16 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
I wouldn't make a big deal out of the "Peranbu" situation. If you check the Top250 for instance, you will see that all the movies start really high and there is a natural drop. The 1st 10.000-20.000 viewers of movies are usually fans, who will obviously rate their movie higher than what it's actually worth.
Once upon a time in ...Hollywood has started with a 9.2 rating as well after 9000 votes.

On the other hand, I can't believe why people have such a big problem with those 15 Indian movies there.
I check the Top250 every day and it personally makes me sad every single time I see superhero movies there. I did and I will watch all of them, because I am a great movie fan, but after the 5th Marvel movie that came out, I was like: man, it's the same thing, I've seen this before. And since then, it is always the same feeling. Can't believe how people can still be enthusiastic about these movies.
And if we talk about Indian people tend to rate their movies higher, that it is definitely the case for people under 25 globally for superhero movies. No matter what it is gonna happen in the movie, if they hear some Tony Stark, or Thor jokes and some action, they gonna rate it as 10...

My other weakness, animated "movies".
I think, that there should be a separated category for these ones. I admit that I like many of them, but seriously, Coco, in a higher position than Requiem for a Dream or Eternal sunshine of a spotless mind? Just to mention the ones close to it.
And what about the Hayao Miyazaki movies. I've seen almost all of them, but I wouldn't put in any circumstances Chihiro higher than e.g.: Interstellar, Terminator 2 or American History X. I mean how is it possible? 179.000 users rated it as 10. Which means that for these users, it is the best of all time.

Bottom line is, superhero movies and animations bother me more than those 15 Indian movies that we currently have.
Photo of honolulu styles

honolulu styles

  • 61 Posts
  • 82 Reply Likes
You are damn right.. too Many Marvel and myazaki movies. Let's if the Will fix it As well..
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
A big determining factor is foreign nations just don't have access to entertainment from other countries or hear anything about when its released.  Which is why its important to separate countries unless its a very popular foreign film that anyone from that country can access.  There are too many on demand services that have exclusive rights that may not be available to most people around the world let alone reach any of them in theaters.  Mixing genres makes much more sense than mixing random foreign films.
Photo of sunofabeach78

sunofabeach78

  • 27 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
I, too, find some superhero movies overrated (especially the last two Avengers, Infinity War and Endgame). But as i said before, the most important thing is how IMDB treats the movies. It should be fair, correct, accurate and consistent for all the database and not promoting certain categories of movies.

The problem with the Indian movies is NOT their presence in the Top 250. The problem is HOW this happened:

During the last 3 weeks, IMDB did a "tweak", "recalculation", "fine tuning" of their ratings formula. Btw, this answers the question that there was no glitch, fault, or interference from outside: It was all IMDB's deliberate work.

During this "fine tuning", 2 changes were very clear:
1) Many old movies (mostly released before 1980) had a drop at their ratings, and
2) Many Indian movies had a rise. In some cases the rise was so significant, that they entered the Top 250. In the first 2 weeks of this "tweaking", 10 Indian movies entered the Top 250, out of 11 new entries! This is far from being normal, imo. And then, continuously all 15 of them had rises almost every day!
This is not fine tuning, this is a clear favouritism to a certain category of films. And this is the problem here, not their presence in the list.


Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7228 Posts
  • 9410 Reply Likes
You may also note that it is only a few specific brands of superhero movies that are extremely popular: the adaptations and quasi-adaptations of comic books that have been published for nearly half of a century, more or less depending on the brand. That's part of why they are so attractive.

Stan Lee had been trying to get the products over which administered to be properly-adapted for decades, and it did not really begin until the turn of the millennium, as before that point the only well-received, well-done or at least well-known Marvel adaptation was The Incredible Hulk television series starring Lou Ferrigno, maybe The Punisher starring Dolph Lundgren, neither of which (due to their dramatic tones) presented the overly-idealized superhero (and the Punisher may not be a superhero at all).

When it came to movie adaptations, DC was slightly more successful than Marvel Comics, way back before that point, with the franchises of Superman and Batman having a kind of pioneering legendary status. It's almost like the race between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, except there have been occasional official joint publications in the comic book circuit between DC and Marvel Comics, as in the one-off DC vs. Marvel Comics.

So, people are just glad to "finally" have movie adaptations for so many of the decades-old comic book protagonists (Wonder Woman, for example) as well as team-oriented superhero franchises (Fantastic Four, for example). The issue with the Marvel brand is that there are a whole bunch of these characters, and thus far only the most well-known ones have been adapted, when there are so many additional ones to address. Too much source material perhaps? The studios have apparently made a commitment to these brands (more so than genres) for the time being. One other issue is that of reboots (particularly those of movie adaptations of comic books), whether justifiable or not. Audiences might appreciate previously-unadapated material being given more attention, instead of a "new Batman", "new Spider-Man", "new Fantastic Four" and "new Phoenix" every five years. However, in come cases, these are side effects of trying to move on from standalone superhero stories to crossover/teamup franchises, such as the Justice League (who fight Darkseid) and the Avengers (who fight Thanos). So, what happens when these are over with? Ha.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
I just don't see the favoritism here. I think IMDb has just caught on vigorously in India. 

DECEMBER 12, 2018 / 6:43 AM / 8 MONTHS AGO
Movie-mad India could overtake U.S. as top user-base - IMDb
MUMBAI (Reuters) - Movie-mad Indians and the cheap data packs on their smartphones could make India the biggest user-base market for IMDb over the next five years, the Amazon-owned movie rating website said on Wednesday.
India is currently the site’s second-highest user base worldwide, but that is likely to change, IMDb founder and Chief Executive Col Needham told Reuters.
“Film, television and music, as I am learning, are such a predominant part of the culture in India, it is a lovely fit with where IMDb is going,” Needham said on the sidelines of a press event in Mumbai, where the company announced its top 10 list of Indian movies for 2018.
India is often pegged as the world’s most prolific movie market, producing more than a thousand films a year in several languages, though exact data is scarce. India is also witnessing a revolution in smartphone growth and data consumption.
Needham said this mobile revolution was the reason his site had enjoyed exponential growth of 300 per cent in terms of the trailers and film content uploaded in Indian languages. He said IMDb had gone from the fourth highest user base to the second highest in two years, second only to the United States.
“We’re growing in the U.S., but even at number 2, India is growing at a faster rate,” Needham said.
He said IMDb planned to customize more features for Indian audiences, and reach out to stakeholders in the Indian film-industry about the company’s premium product, IMDbPro.
IMDb says it has more than 250 million unique monthly visitors and a searchable database of more than 250 million data items from films, TV shows and other content globally.
Regarding changes in the Top 250 - 
According to this page: https://250.took.nl/compare/month,
comparing 20July with 20Aug, 16 films entered the Top 250, and 8 were from India, 2 from Italy, 1 each from Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, Soviet Union, Turkey, US. (Here's a capture of that page on pdf.)

Yes, 13 of the 16 losses were from the US. It's still the dominant country with 148 titles of the 250, UK 18, Japan 16, India has 14 total. (See the left column of the comparison page.)

Among the 8 Indian additions this month, the release years are: 1975, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2012. 2014.

All 16 additions have a Top250-ratings of 8.0, except for the new US film, which has 8.1. (Recall that the ratings displayed and used on the Top 250 are different than the weighted averages on the title's page.)

Here are the 16 additions, with links directly to their ratings pages:
Hong Kong, Mou gaan dou (2002) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338564/ratings
India, Gangs of Wasseypur (2012) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1954470/ratings
India, Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (2001) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169102/ratings
India, Munna Bhai M.B.B.S. (2003) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374887/ratings
India, Swades: We, the People (2004) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367110/ratings
India, PK (2014) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2338151/ratings
India, A Wednesday (2008) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1280558/ratings
India, Sholay (1975) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073707/ratings
India, Chak De! India (2007) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0871510/ratings
Italy, La battaglia di Algeri (1966) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058946/ratings
Italy, La leggenda del pianista sull'oceano (1998) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120731/ratings
Japan, Kumonosu jô (1957) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050613/ratings
Mexico, El Ángel exterminador (1962) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056732/ratings
Soviet Union, Zerkalo (1975) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072443/ratings
Turkey, Kis Uykusu (2014) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2758880/ratings
US, Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood (2019) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7131622/ratings

All their distributions look Normal: either bell-curve or truncated bell curve (when the mode is 9 or 10).
(Edited)
Photo of Péter Kaszás

Péter Kaszás

  • 16 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
@Chris, you mean people from the US don't have access to entertainment from other countries, right? Because I guess they are not really interested in movies from other countries.

But rest assured, other countries (mainly EU) do know whether a very good movie was released in Mexico, Poland or South Korea. In the era of Internet, i wouldn't say something like people don't know about movies simply because their cinemas don't play them.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15454 Posts
  • 17636 Reply Likes
Ever hear of a language barrier? Also there may also be no granted rights. I have tried to view certain UK titles only to be denied "ON" the internet, that streaming rights were not available in your location!
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
One thing that they may also be doing is purging the really old votes with accounts that haven't been active in a really long time.  Perhaps assuming either new accounts were created or they died of old age or something along those lines.  Which is why you're seeing mostly the older films shrink in ratings over newer films.
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
One thing that they may also be doing is purging the really old votes with accounts that haven't been active in a really long time.  Perhaps assuming either new accounts were created or they died of old age or something along those lines.  Which is why you're seeing mostly the older films shrink in ratings over newer films.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
Chris, 
While it's certainly possible that IMDb is purging old accounts, my 276-title sample does not support that conjecture. Only 1 title has lost votes between 7Aug and 21Aug. Lots of titles changed rating without a visible change in votes (of course, it could be that a new vote arrived to replace a purged vote). Here's a summary of changes since my last data post on 15Aug. The summary is copied from this list description: 7Aug2019 Titles that dropped since ~5Aug, which I've been updating daily.
16Aug: 3 drops
17Aug: 16 dropped; 1 rose: Gilda Live (1980)
20Aug: no changes since 17Aug
21Aug: 11 dropped; 3 rose: Night Nurse (1931), Ma and Pa Kettle at the Fair (1952), The Kettles in the Ozarks (1956)

Here's the spreadsheet so you can view the change (and lack thereof) in votes.
From the spreadsheet (currently sorted by the change in wtd avg since 7Aug), we have 100 titles down, and 8 titles up.
25 of the drops had no change in votes, as did 3 of the rises.

Feel free to make a copy of the spreadsheet to play with the data yourself:
File > Make a Copy.
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
About how much longer is this fine tuning going to go on for?
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
As you can see by the official replies, no estimate has been provided. Since this thread has been labeled "Solved", I doubt that we'll get another official reply. 

I'd guess this could be a perpetual tuning. If vote-stuffers catch on and change their strategies, the calculations will need to adapt.
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
So I guess we'll never know what IMDB voters rate movies ever again. *shrug*
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1356 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
We never did know. Ratings are always weird. Your 8 is my 5, and we (presumably) gave honest appraisals at the time. Factor in the people who always vote 10, or the vote-stuffers, and it's a very unreliable bag. If you really care about the votes on a film, the histogram is more instructive than the average, however it's weighted. No one statistic can describe a data set.

It's just like ratings on Amazon. I don't just trust a 4 average. I want to read the super-negative reviews to see if there's a legitimate common complaint. (Unfortunately I often filter out the averages lower than 4, and sometimes that's caused by silly things like people complaining the package never arrived.)
Photo of Chris

Chris

  • 58 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
Yeah but we had some idea. When some films drop a full point overnight then you gotta scratch your head lol
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 754 Posts
  • 1010 Reply Likes
Is there a link on a title's page that's for the page having ratings/votes info.  The one where you add /ratings? I've looked but don't see a link so I have to type it every time which stinx.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1358 Posts
  • 2188 Reply Likes
Click on the vote count under the average rating:


and if you're using Reference mode:

which you could have found by using your browser's Find function.
Photo of MikeTheWhistle

MikeTheWhistle

  • 754 Posts
  • 1010 Reply Likes
TY. Funny, or sad, how things right in front of you get walked into. Didn't see it and I thought I clicked on everything.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15461 Posts
  • 17687 Reply Likes
Mike, It's even simpler than that. Below the 6.9 Rating is the # of votes (8071). It's a highlighted link that goes to that page.
(Edited)
Photo of honolulu styles

honolulu styles

  • 61 Posts
  • 82 Reply Likes
By the way guys..it's Sunday..nobody at works at IMDB so today there won't be any strange movements in the chart.
That's proving that is just a manual maneuver and a manual adjustment.

I was wondering to create our own site like ratings.com or something like that. Using a formula that avoid ballot stuffing or commercial driven manipulations. Only problem is become popular worldwide..
Photo of Angelo Pilla

Angelo Pilla

  • 146 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
And after 4 days or so, the tragic glitch on the ratings is back. Today the movie Nothing Sacred dropped from 7.0 to 6.9.
Please note that I am monitoring only the movies which are on my classics list and have dropped from 7.0 to 6.9.
The tragedy is way bigger than this. 
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1258 Posts
  • 1871 Reply Likes
That title must have been higher than 7.0 on 7Aug, because it's in the pool from which I pulled my sample of 276, but only the ones that were 6.9-7.0.

Nothing Sacred has a non-Normal distribution (spike at 10, while the rest is sorta Normal centered at 7), so my theory that they're tweaking the weighted average to smooth such oddities might be right. 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029322/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

I still don't think the changes are tragic. 

(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 14954 Posts
  • 17014 Reply Likes
The sky is falling. The Sky is Falling. Is nothing sacred anymore? IMDb is working on the weighted average formula. OMG, its something that has been ongoing for years.
When this formula is finally being applied system wide, it's what? A disaster. Please.
Pointing out or charting every single change in rating and having someone explain the reality for every single change you bring up Angelo has gone far past your original "Glitch" postings origin. There IS NO glitch. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Please stop this obsession over nothing.

Thanks
Photo of Angelo Pilla

Angelo Pilla

  • 146 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
Wait untill all the movies which are dropping reach the 1.0 mark to see if it is not the end of the ratings system. 
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1258 Posts
  • 1871 Reply Likes
That seems highly unlikely. 
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 14954 Posts
  • 17014 Reply Likes
Angelo. End the incessant obsession with this. It has become silly.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1258 Posts
  • 1871 Reply Likes
Ed Jones (XLIX),
If you've tired of a topic, just Unfollow the thread.
Photo of sunofabeach78

sunofabeach78

  • 27 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
Angelo, it's very sad for me, too, to see all these old titles (many classics included) having rating drops. But it's NOT a glitch, it's IMDB's recalculation. It's DELIBERATE action from IMDB. And i don't think they will reach the 1.0 rating, that is not going to happen. 
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7213 Posts
  • 9373 Reply Likes
In general, extrapolation does not always yield an accurate forecast. A hypothesis is not as powerful as a theory.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 14954 Posts
  • 17014 Reply Likes
bderoes, I never unfollow anything.

Photo of Péter Kaszás

Péter Kaszás

  • 16 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
@Ed, Oh my God, that looks something which is hard to keep up with :)
May I ask how many movies have you rated?
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 14954 Posts
  • 17014 Reply Likes
Between Netflix and IMDb over the years and different accounts around 12,000. That includes TV
(Edited)