The review approval system is a nightmare. Why does the site prioritize low quality reviews?

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 4 months ago
  • Answered
I am in the process of leaving IMDB right now, because only about 50% of my reviews get approved these days.  There is never any explanation as to why.  I have gone over the guidelines, and I can't see how my reviews break any of the rules.

I have a degree in English and wrote book and film reviews for small local publications when I was in my 20s as a hobby.  My reviews are basically professional quality.  They do not respond to other reviews, are not grammatically incorrect, etc.  If I go off-topic at all, it's only if a film is a book adaptation, or a remake, in which case I may say something like, "This improves on the book" or "This can't hold a candle to the original film."  But that is only a small part of the review and not, I think, off-topic.  I understand my reviews are lengthier than most and maybe not everyone has the patience to read them.  But they are not low quality reviews.

Meanwhile when I'm looking for a movie or show to watch, I look at the reviews and struggle to find helpful ones.  A lot of reviews do not even mention the movie.  They refer only to other reviews, they're political rants, or they're one sentence deeming the movie is "awesome" or "sucks" with no explanation.  I write my reviews hoping to help others looking for relevant and thorough reviews, but IMDB won't even publish them.

So I am going to look for another site, maybe start a blog, or something.  Ultimately I write reviews for fun, and don't care about an audience.  I'm just really frustrated because I spent the last few days writing reviews and most of them were declined.  I was only posting on IMDB with the hope someone would find my reviews helpful.  I'm starting to think the IMDB staff is too lazy to read longer reviews, and that's why so many of the approved reviews are the short and low-quality ones.
Photo of Laura

Laura

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
  • fed up

Posted 5 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Generally I find that reviewers that write long reviews inevitably violate in almost every case the need to share the reasons why they are making a particular judgement about an actor, writer, or director of the movie. That violates the policy of interjecting your personal views with relation to social issues and current topics. It is such a fine line that is crossed, that most do not realize that they crossed it. Plus in a long review you may have inadvertently inserted just a single word that could also violate several policies. Again innocently enough, but none the less a violation. I do not write overly long reviews. But I never write short reviews either. What I have never written was a rejected review.

You can post your latest rejection here. Full Text.
Those of us here can help you with why it was rejected.
But be warned!!!
You may not like the answers.
Please take the replies as not attacking, but guiding you to avoid rejections.
Post or not the text.
Cheers
:):)
Photo of Laura

Laura

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
>making a particular judgement about an actor, writer, or director of the movie

This is so vague I'm not sure what it means.  The only thing I say about creative talents behind movies is whether I think they did a good job or not.  That's what a review is for, no?

>social issues and current topics

Pretty much any movie featuring women or minorities has a ton of one-star reviews ranting about "SJWs" or whatever.  Why are those accepted?

>You can post your latest rejection here. Full Text.

No thanks.  If I want to publish my own content I'm saving it for a site that appreciates it.  But I'd like to know why most of the reviews for this show were accepted.  The majority just compare it to another show or complain about politics and claim it's "virtue signaling."  Others basically say "show boring."  There is at least one saying Natalie Dormer was only hired because she looks good in a leather dress, which I think is "making a particular judgment about an actor" (?).  I only found three that were remotely helpful:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10361016/reviews?ref_=tt_urv

Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Then this post is not a problem as you have labelled it.
Saying that you have not violated any portion of the review guidelines is presumptuous.
Since you desire no criticism and only wish to complain about IMDb's editorial staffs decisions, then you can listen to the replies only from IMDb here.
You had a chance to have another user/contributor try and help you. "ME" But refused said help.

Post your contribution number for the rejection and get IMDb's "Help"!
You can find that 18 digit number here at,
https://contribute.imdb.com/contributions/history
(Edited)
Photo of Laura

Laura

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I already left the site.  Why would I be interested in getting my reviews approved now?  I don't want my reviews on the site.  I wasn't asking for anyone's "help."

I had a question when starting this thread, not just a complaint.  That was why there are so many low-quality reviews on the site.  To me it seems like the obvious answer is, the staff just rejects reviews above a certain length, probably because they don't have time to read them, and approves shorter ones fairly haphazardly.  That would explain the absence of long reviews and large number of short and rule-breaking reviews.  
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Your complaining again
Photo of Jaime

Jaime, Employee

  • 716 Posts
  • 983 Reply Likes
Hi there

Thanks for your post.

If you wish to gain any feedback please provide submission references.

Thank you in advance.
Photo of IMDbmember

IMDbmember

  • 188 Posts
  • 329 Reply Likes
I assume no one working for IMDb reads most of the reviews submitted to or posted on the site--just the ones flagged for whatever reason--sometimes stupid ones, often inconsistently.  Longer reviews naturally provide more opportunities to raise one or more of those flags.  But, I'm just basing that on my experience.  It doesn't mean they'll be rejected, of course, as I can attest having written quite a few reviews of around 1,000 or more words.

Still, I agree the end result is that the site prioritizes short and low-quality reviews.  IMDb's big face lift a while back, including to the review section, with the scrolling, the removal of length minimums, emoji, etc., cemented it.  They've also since changed their approval system in ways I sometimes find mysterious and frustrating.