Really? I find the opposite problem. Ratings are inflated and even utter trash on IMDB is 6 or 7 out of 10.
I think part of the problem is that the scale is not used properly. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would consider 5 to be average. Most movies seen are average. Average is well worth watching. 5 is a decent rating as far as I am concerned. I’ll even watch a 4 or a 3 if someone tells me that some aspect of the movie was worthwhile. But most people seem to treat the scale as if they only are willing to watch 8 and above, and that anything below a 7 is trash.
It would be much better if there was a site to input your ratings and for it to match you to users and critics similar to your taste. I used to use Last.FM like this for music but haven’t found anything similar for movies or TV. Ratings alone are useless because critics and users alike will swing all over the scale for the same movie. Tastes need to match.
Might I add, a 10 scale is too granular for most people. It should be on 5. Most people have their scale start at 5 and go above. The only time they will go below is to give a 1 to a movie they hated.
Yeah I think this is an issue in general with any kind of 1-10 scale! People tend to think 7+ is good. I don’t think people recognize 5 as average or they see “average” as less than what it actually means - I’m with you that most media is average and that doesn’t mean it’s not worth checking out.
Anyone who creates a scale needs to be super clear about what each interval means lol because I think they get misconstrued all the time.
I do miss the old IMDb review/chat boards though. Before everything just moved to reddit, it was fun to go on there and just talk to people about certain movies. Was so good for when a movie had a confusing/open ending to share theories and stuff. Didn’t get trolls when forums were all separate!
A LONG time ago back when Netflix first started its rating system was its major speak. I recall articles saying that even if you did not pay for the service, you should make an account just simply to use its rating system to decide your next watch (and then go get them at Blockbuster or something:-P). My, how things have changed in the meantime…
That seems counter-productive, since Netflix was far cheaper than paying per movie at Blockbuster. I used to use Blockbuster the opposite way, going there to browse for movies to order from Netflix. I do miss being able to browse at a physical store.
The real ones had blockbuster deliver by mail, then returned those discs in store same day so to prompt the next delivery. I think it was a buck cheaper than Netflix at the time, too. Yargh
Same as Google ratings. Like it? 5 stars. Hate it, 1 star. No nuance. If it’s below 3.5 stars, absolute garbage. In Japan they somehow treat the rating system as intended. 3 stars is a solid, ok experience. 5 is exceptionally hard to achieve
Google using Rotten Tomatoes for rating is kinda funny for me cuz imdb have its own problems for rating but i never hear people say something like “if a movie is rated high on RT its probably bad” about imdb
I agree with you, but the problem is, IMDb collates ratings from thousands of people, each of whom have their own scale. I might have the same opinion about a movie, but I rate it as a 5 because it was completely average, and the next person who feels the same gives it a 7.
I would love to use a service that asks you a series of questions about a movie and generates a rating based on that. That way, if you’re honest about your answers, the ratings should match. Questions like “was the acting good?” with answers like “the acting was exceptional,” “the acting was bad,” and “the acting didn’t make me think about it at all.” But if you ask if the movie was good? If it’s a movie about a working man being pushed to the breaking point and he dies, the rich man is going to like that a lot more than a working man.
Then you have review bombing. I think the best example of this is Fullmetal Alchemist. FMA fans believe that no anime should be rated higher than FMA, so if something starts to get popular, they will organise a review bombing of it. Don’t get me wrong, Fullmetal Alchmist was a good anime, but it was also kinda trash. The first series in 2003 did 20-odd episodes, caught up with the manga, then they decided to write their own ending/second half. In 2009 after the books were done, they did a remake, but the first episode was original (not in the books), the next nine summed up the first half of the books (because the 2003 series already covered that), and then the next 50-odd episodes cover the second half of the books, so you have one where the pacing is good but the story goes off the rails (IMO, in a good way, I like where they took it), and another one where it’s more true to the books (except that random ass first episode) but the pacing sucks. To top it all off, the lead actor was accused of sexual misconduct a few years ago and has basically been cancelled online. It’s still an awesome series, but is it so good that nearly 20 years later, nothing can be rated more highly?
I just joined a site called criticker that aims to fix this via data normalization. It can adjust ratings to the way you rate and base them on people who rate like you as well. Although its database is a bit lacking and all ratings are public.
Also FYI on 1 to 10 5.5 is average, 5 is below average.
This is why approval voting is better than score voting, or rather, score voting quickly becomes approval voting anyways so might as well not overcomplicate matters 🙃
True, I was thinking about this some other time too. I think more granularity in votes doesn’t really solve that though, you need some way of weighting approvals. Like determining whose approval matters most.
If the point of a rating is to be used as a predictor for how much you might enjoy a movie, then it might be worth switching to a three star system and weighing the star choices of other reviewers higher or lower based on how many previous movies you rated similiar to them.
90% on RT means that 9/10 reviewers didn’t hate it but they could all have rated it a 6/10.
The wannabe professional reviewers on RT are the absolute garbage. Anything big and you’ll find multiple Nobody McNobodyface from Nowhereton Gazette giving anything top score because they gave a boner for the lead actress.
i guess I’m my mind “quite good” is better than “good”
like “quite” is a synonym to “very” in this context as I understand it. maybe to a lesser degree, but it’s certainly a positive modifier. i would use a similar scale if those two were swapped.
maybe that’s just my dumb american vocab or something, but i would be very confused by that scale as it stands.
I rely on Letterboxd for a glance on rating curvature but that too has become untrustworthy for anything just released big and blockbustery that fortunately isn’t really my thing anyway.
When I see something I really like I go check out the other productions by the people involved. Director and writer mainly, also producers and sometimes actors if they seem to be character actors that pick what projects to be in.
Really? I find the opposite problem. Ratings are inflated and even utter trash on IMDB is 6 or 7 out of 10.
I think part of the problem is that the scale is not used properly. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would consider 5 to be average. Most movies seen are average. Average is well worth watching. 5 is a decent rating as far as I am concerned. I’ll even watch a 4 or a 3 if someone tells me that some aspect of the movie was worthwhile. But most people seem to treat the scale as if they only are willing to watch 8 and above, and that anything below a 7 is trash.
It would be much better if there was a site to input your ratings and for it to match you to users and critics similar to your taste. I used to use Last.FM like this for music but haven’t found anything similar for movies or TV. Ratings alone are useless because critics and users alike will swing all over the scale for the same movie. Tastes need to match.
I have both problems or I am counter-cyclical to IMDb. Anyways. My algorithm now works like this:
IMDb > 5 = potentially good movie
IMDb <=5 = trash
Rotten Tomatoes > 70% = potentially good movie
Rotten Tomatoes <= 70% = potentially good movie.
Might I add, a 10 scale is too granular for most people. It should be on 5. Most people have their scale start at 5 and go above. The only time they will go below is to give a 1 to a movie they hated.
Yeah I think this is an issue in general with any kind of 1-10 scale! People tend to think 7+ is good. I don’t think people recognize 5 as average or they see “average” as less than what it actually means - I’m with you that most media is average and that doesn’t mean it’s not worth checking out.
Anyone who creates a scale needs to be super clear about what each interval means lol because I think they get misconstrued all the time.
I do miss the old IMDb review/chat boards though. Before everything just moved to reddit, it was fun to go on there and just talk to people about certain movies. Was so good for when a movie had a confusing/open ending to share theories and stuff. Didn’t get trolls when forums were all separate!
A LONG time ago back when Netflix first started its rating system was its major speak. I recall articles saying that even if you did not pay for the service, you should make an account just simply to use its rating system to decide your next watch (and then go get them at Blockbuster or something:-P). My, how things have changed in the meantime…
Back when Netflix had anything you wanted to watch instead of the same 100 movies listed in 5 different categories each.
That seems counter-productive, since Netflix was far cheaper than paying per movie at Blockbuster. I used to use Blockbuster the opposite way, going there to browse for movies to order from Netflix. I do miss being able to browse at a physical store.
The real ones had blockbuster deliver by mail, then returned those discs in store same day so to prompt the next delivery. I think it was a buck cheaper than Netflix at the time, too. Yargh
I did the same. There was a point when Blockbuster was the better deal if you had a store close by.
Same as Google ratings. Like it? 5 stars. Hate it, 1 star. No nuance. If it’s below 3.5 stars, absolute garbage. In Japan they somehow treat the rating system as intended. 3 stars is a solid, ok experience. 5 is exceptionally hard to achieve
Google using Rotten Tomatoes for rating is kinda funny for me cuz imdb have its own problems for rating but i never hear people say something like “if a movie is rated high on RT its probably bad” about imdb
This varies a lot by place. In some countries a 4.0 is an excellent score.
Interesting for this video to have just come up on my feed yesterday.
I agree with you, but the problem is, IMDb collates ratings from thousands of people, each of whom have their own scale. I might have the same opinion about a movie, but I rate it as a 5 because it was completely average, and the next person who feels the same gives it a 7.
I would love to use a service that asks you a series of questions about a movie and generates a rating based on that. That way, if you’re honest about your answers, the ratings should match. Questions like “was the acting good?” with answers like “the acting was exceptional,” “the acting was bad,” and “the acting didn’t make me think about it at all.” But if you ask if the movie was good? If it’s a movie about a working man being pushed to the breaking point and he dies, the rich man is going to like that a lot more than a working man.
Then you have review bombing. I think the best example of this is Fullmetal Alchemist. FMA fans believe that no anime should be rated higher than FMA, so if something starts to get popular, they will organise a review bombing of it. Don’t get me wrong, Fullmetal Alchmist was a good anime, but it was also kinda trash. The first series in 2003 did 20-odd episodes, caught up with the manga, then they decided to write their own ending/second half. In 2009 after the books were done, they did a remake, but the first episode was original (not in the books), the next nine summed up the first half of the books (because the 2003 series already covered that), and then the next 50-odd episodes cover the second half of the books, so you have one where the pacing is good but the story goes off the rails (IMO, in a good way, I like where they took it), and another one where it’s more true to the books (except that random ass first episode) but the pacing sucks. To top it all off, the lead actor was accused of sexual misconduct a few years ago and has basically been cancelled online. It’s still an awesome series, but is it so good that nearly 20 years later, nothing can be rated more highly?
I just checked and it’s just the English dub’s VO that’s been cancelled, so who cares?
I hadn’t heard about the voice actor. I wonder if someone has done a fan dub… But yeah, review bombers are scum.
On a scale from 1-10, the average is 7. That’s how humans work. You should probably get used to it.
600% this!
I just joined a site called criticker that aims to fix this via data normalization. It can adjust ratings to the way you rate and base them on people who rate like you as well. Although its database is a bit lacking and all ratings are public.
Also FYI on 1 to 10 5.5 is average, 5 is below average.
This is why approval voting is better than score voting, or rather, score voting quickly becomes approval voting anyways so might as well not overcomplicate matters 🙃
yes but with approval rating the “best” movies are the ones which appeal at least enough to the most people.
True, I was thinking about this some other time too. I think more granularity in votes doesn’t really solve that though, you need some way of weighting approvals. Like determining whose approval matters most.
If the point of a rating is to be used as a predictor for how much you might enjoy a movie, then it might be worth switching to a three star system and weighing the star choices of other reviewers higher or lower based on how many previous movies you rated similiar to them.
I’ve always found imdb way less inflated than Rotten Tomatoes.
90% on RT means that 9/10 reviewers didn’t hate it but they could all have rated it a 6/10.
The wannabe professional reviewers on RT are the absolute garbage. Anything big and you’ll find multiple Nobody McNobodyface from Nowhereton Gazette giving anything top score because they gave a boner for the lead actress.
The scaling on IMDB is bad, 10point scales do not work 5 and below isn’t really used, unless they hate it passionately
10-7 and 1 are the only options
Ah, people.
5 is avreage? Oh so you mean 5 is absolute baseline? Like, treat 5 as 0 yes? Then anything below is basically how much you shouldn’t watch it, no?
My friends balk when I say “Welp, that was 6/10, quite a good movie” xD
i mean, on that scale a 6/10 is barely above average. I’m still looking at you funny foot calling that “quite good”
Personal scale, fully subjective:
i guess I’m my mind “quite good” is better than “good”
like “quite” is a synonym to “very” in this context as I understand it. maybe to a lesser degree, but it’s certainly a positive modifier. i would use a similar scale if those two were swapped.
maybe that’s just my dumb american vocab or something, but i would be very confused by that scale as it stands.
I rely on Letterboxd for a glance on rating curvature but that too has become untrustworthy for anything just released big and blockbustery that fortunately isn’t really my thing anyway.
When I see something I really like I go check out the other productions by the people involved. Director and writer mainly, also producers and sometimes actors if they seem to be character actors that pick what projects to be in.