A data science investigation of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Fandango
medium.freecodecamp.org
A data science investigation of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Fandango
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: A data science investigation of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Fandango
#2So, the question I would ask is does Metacritic include reviews of movies that are not in IMDB, or vice-versa? That could definitely skew the scores.
The second question I would ask is whether or not there is a relatively simple transform that could make the IMDB and maybe even the Fandango scores more uniform in their distribution, over the same set if movies?
Re: A data science investigation of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Fandango
#3[deleted]
Re: A data science investigation of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Fandango
#4Cinephile here and I cannot follow any ranking for a non popular movie and for blockbusters I can't either. I don't buy that you can have a good ranking for everyone. You should separate in different clusters. For example, Wonder woman score at Metacritic? 76. Are you kidding me?
BTW this is my shared ranking: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ojCTmnu8-uIXxnas142M...
EDIT: changed 7.6 to 76 based on the comment below.
Re: A data science investigation of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Fandango
#5Fandango, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB and Metacritic are owned by content distributors/creators, Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes are owned by Comcast/Time Warner, Amazon owns IMDB while CBS owns Meta-critic.
It's no coincidence the accuracy of ratings sites have deteriorated over the past few years, one of the most glaring violations of trust has been Rotten Tomatoes pre-certifying movies as "Fresh" and keeping it so despite aggregated reviews which would contradict a "Fresh" rating. And the even more troubling trend of "Sponsored" movies like Step receiving the certification.
It should come as no surprise the number of newly released Certified Fresh Films is increasing despite the quality of films at the box office decreasing
Re: A data science investigation of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Fandango
#6Cinephile here and I cannot follow any ranking for a non popular movie and for blockbusters I can't either. I don't buy that you can have a good ranking for everyone. You should separate in different clusters. For example, Wonder woman score at Metacritic? 76. Are you kidding me? BTW this is my shared ranking: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ojCTmnu8-uIXxnas142M... EDIT: changed 7.6 to 76 based on the comment…
Typo? Wonder Woman is 76 on a 0-100 scale.
Re: A data science investigation of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Fandango
#7I'm not sure that the justification for normality applies when considering that movies across different historical periods may be regarded as having a different average quality. Therefore the distribution across historical time would not be stationary.
That said, I've always preferred metacritic's scores over the others.
Re: A data science investigation of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Fandango
#8Another pitfall to be wary of in analyses like these is that imdb's ratings change over time. New releases typically have inflated scores that regress over time. Ideally, this sort of analysis shouldn't use anything under a year or two old, so using only movies from 2016 and 2017 puts this particular study off to a really bad start.
Re: A data science investigation of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Fandango
#9I did a similar analysis a year and a half ago in which I found that yes, IMDb movie ratings are not uniform while RT/MetaCritic are, but that's only part of the story. All forms of movie ratings are actually poor predictors of box office success (especially with Indies/Documentaties; I'd love to look at rating/BO data again while faceting by genre of movie) (full blog post: http://minimaxir.com/2016/01/movie-revenue-ratings/)
The Four Point Scale (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourPointScale), while a problem from a utilitarian point of view, is still practical from a consumer psychology point of view, which is why the popular ratings systems won't change easily.
Re: A data science investigation of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Fandango
#10Cinephile here and I cannot follow any ranking for a non popular movie and for blockbusters I can't either. I don't buy that you can have a good ranking for everyone. You should separate in different clusters. For example, Wonder woman score at Metacritic? 76. Are you kidding me? BTW this is my shared ranking: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ojCTmnu8-uIXxnas142M... EDIT: changed 7.6 to 76 based on the comment…
Clearly the less mainstream your tastes are, the less useful a mainstream rating is going to be. A site can, as Netflix tries to do, adjust ratings based on expressed individual preferences but it's marginally effective in my experience.
For myself, it's fairly rare that I find myself way off from the critical consensus. I'm more likely to not care for big box office action films but, then, these aren't usually at the top of critics lists either.