21–30 of 141 posts
For more information on the war, read the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971
Who would pay attention to ratings from a single unreliable source. For me the best place are meta sites that gather from many related sizes.
I prefer the IMdB's ratings system over, say, meta-site Rotten Tomatoes. At Rotten Tomatoes they rated Seth Rogen-vehicle "Neighbors" as 100%, last I checked. Meaning only: no reviewer at that point had said it was awful. And yet, I saw it and it was awful. At IMdB, I can see that it rates as 7.6/10.0, and also that teenager voters loved it (9.0/10.0), where older viewers hated it (5.0/10.0). Far more useful informat…
Maybe a solution could be weighting the vote according to the user history: a user leaving a single vote on a single movie shouldn't be as influential as an user that voted on a wider range of movies over time
If someone only gives 10s or 1s to everything, their vote of 10, should probably have less weight, than someone who distributes their votes more evenly.
Luckily, IMDB also shows Metacritic ratings next to their own user ratings. I take those into account before I make my decisions on what I'm going to rent/stream. Far too often do you find a movie (usually a somewhat recent release) that's just flat out terrible despite having a > 7 score on IMDB (and usually a Metacritic score in the 30's or 40's)
It's interesting that so many people gathered solely to express "we want this guy dead, not imprisoned." I wonder if there's more context?
Data analysis by Eugene Bialczak. Also, a disclaimer: the author wrote much of the IMDb Trivia App.
Who would pay attention to ratings from a single unreliable source. For me the best place are meta sites that gather from many related sizes.
I prefer the IMdB's ratings system over, say, meta-site Rotten Tomatoes. At Rotten Tomatoes they rated Seth Rogen-vehicle "Neighbors" as 100%, last I checked. Meaning only: no reviewer at that point had said it was awful. And yet, I saw it and it was awful. At IMdB, I can see that it rates as 7.6/10.0, and also that teenager voters loved it (9.0/10.0), where older viewers hated it (5.0/10.0). Far more useful informat…
Each site has its own user base, and those users have their own biases. A review from Rotten Tomatoes will vary greatly from those of sites that include only noteworthy critics or only crowdsourced opinion without the "community" aspect. Some communities will be more critical, while some will be less. Like most online reviews, the criteria for rating is completely subjective; one user gives it a 10 because it had their favorite actress in it, while another user gives it a 5 because there was a scene they didn't like. What's awful to you may not be awful to me, and crowd-sourced data or aggregate generalized polling isn't a great way to distinguish that.
Maybe a solution could be weighting the vote according to the user history: a user leaving a single vote on a single movie shouldn't be as influential as an user that voted on a wider range of movies over time
The most obvious effect is movies that drop in the rankings 30 days after release; people who just saw a movie give it 10/10 and then stop participating, so 30 days later they are no longer considered 'active' and their vote stops contributing to the overall ranking.
Bollywood movies are kitsch. Generally they don't deserve any rating.