Who made this decision?

I just used Advanced Search to find the 17 movies that have 20,000 - 24,999 votes and a score of 8.1 or better.

There were 17 films that fit this criteria.

I looked at the number of votes from Top 1000 voters as a proxy for the "regular voters" whose votes determine the Top 250. Nine of the 17 had 361 such votes or fewer and would clearly be extreme long-shots to make the Top 250 once you exclude the non-regular voters (Underground, Tae Guk Ki, The Cove, Departures, The King of Kong, Lagaan, My Sassy Girl, Senna, Rang De Basanti).

The other eight films had between 476 to 588 votes from Top 1000 voters, and all but two had scores of 8.2 or higher. In order of raw score:

Ikiru, 8.3, 24153 votes, 476 Top 1000 votes

The Wages of Fear, 8.3, 21496, 563

Diabolique, 8.3, 23689, 580

Judgment at Nuremberg, 8.3, 22955, 588

The Best Years of Our Lives, 8.2, 24467, 558

The Battle of Algiers, 8.2, 22004, 518

Fanny and Alexander, 8.1, 23805, 495

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, 8.1, 24097, 553

Rank of these films among *critics* in the top 1000 of all time at TheyShootPictures, on order: 83, 180, 576, unranked, 131, 74, 75, 148. So with one or two exceptions, they are also regarded by critics as slam-dunk all-time classics.

Someone really thought the IMDB Top 250 would have more credibility and usefulness if it excluded these 8 films and included Jurassic Park, Papillon, 3 Idiots, Big Fish, Castle in the Sky, The Untouchables, Arsenic and Old Lace, and The Help instead? Seriously?

Put another way, when it takes an 8.0 to make the Top 250, how can a film that has been seen by more than half the Top 1000 voters (more or less) and grab an 8.2 or higher (for the most part) be considered unworthy?

Please pass this on to the powers that be. The vote minimum needs to be dropped back down to 20,000. Otherwise, it's just an embarrassment to the web site.

I just used Advanced Search to find the 17 movies that have 20,000 - 24,999 votes and a score of 8.1 or better.

There were 17 films that fit this criteria.

I looked at the number of votes from Top 1000 voters as a proxy for the "regular voters" whose votes determine the Top 250. Nine of the 17 had 361 such votes or fewer and would clearly be extreme long-shots to make the Top 250 once you exclude the non-regular voters (Underground, Tae Guk Ki, The Cove, Departures, The King of Kong, Lagaan, My Sassy Girl, Senna, Rang De Basanti).

The other eight films had between 476 to 588 votes from Top 1000 voters, and all but two had scores of 8.2 or higher. In order of raw score:

Ikiru, 8.3, 24153 votes, 476 Top 1000 votes

The Wages of Fear, 8.3, 21496, 563

Diabolique, 8.3, 23689, 580

Judgment at Nuremberg, 8.3, 22955, 588

The Best Years of Our Lives, 8.2, 24467, 558

The Battle of Algiers, 8.2, 22004, 518

Fanny and Alexander, 8.1, 23805, 495

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, 8.1, 24097, 553

Rank of these films among *critics* in the top 1000 of all time at TheyShootPictures, on order: 83, 180, 576, unranked, 131, 74, 75, 148. So with one or two exceptions, they are also regarded by critics as slam-dunk all-time classics.

Someone really thought the IMDB Top 250 would have more credibility and usefulness if it excluded these 8 films and included Jurassic Park, Papillon, 3 Idiots, Big Fish, Castle in the Sky, The Untouchables, Arsenic and Old Lace, and The Help instead? Seriously?

Put another way, when it takes an 8.0 to make the Top 250, how can a film that has been seen by more than half the Top 1000 voters (more or less) and grab an 8.2 or higher (for the most part) be considered unworthy?

Please pass this on to the powers that be. The vote minimum needs to be dropped back down to 20,000. Otherwise, it's just an embarrassment to the web site.