Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 8 released June 27th)
Polls: 2010s (Results), 1974 (Jun 28th), 2019 awards (Jul 11th)
Challenges: Canada, Low Rated, Director
Film of the Week: Il ferroviere, August nominations (Jul 31st)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2D: Estonia vs Spain (Jul 5th), Match 2E: Georgia vs Ukraine (Jul 16th)

Share your IMDb bell curve

User avatar
greenhorg
Posts: 343
Joined: Jun 12, 2012
Contact:

Share your IMDb bell curve

#1

Post by greenhorg » December 19th, 2015, 10:13 am

I am not a top 1000 voter on IMDb right now, but if current trends continue I may become one in the next several years. And (as I'm pretty sure it says in the bible), with great power comes great responsibility, so I'm feeling some ambivalence about my IMDb ratings, and the rating philosophy I've used lo these many years.

I'd like to see how you rate movies, and I'd like to know the reasoning behind your ratings.

Your IMDb bell curve is on your profile page. It shows what your rating distribution looks like. Here's mine.

Image

If you highlight the bars you get percentages. Here are mine.

1: 3 (0%)
2: 11 (0%)
3: 31 (1%)
4: 263 (5%)
5: 2,414 (48%)
6: 1,690 (34%)
7: 433 (9%)
8: 94 (2%)
9: 31 (1%)
10: 15 (0%)

OK, first of all it's obvious I don't have a sexy, curvaceous textbook bell curve. In fact it looks like my ratings are flipping you off. 82% of my ratings are 5s and 6s. Only 6% are 4 and under (which I mark as dislikes on icheckmovies), and only 12% are 7 and higher (which I mark as favorites).

Here is how I try to apply the ratings (Please don't quibble over the examples)

1: Garbage. Incompetent, maximally amateur film-making. Example: Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)
2: Terrible. Not respectable or professional. Example: The Terminators (2009)
3: Bad. Unwatchable, and either not respectable or professional. Example: Batman & Robin (1997)
4: Below Average. Unenjoyable, although relatively respectable and professional. Example: Twixt (2011)
5: Low average. A movie that is watchable but not particularly rewarding, memorable, or meaningful to me. Example: Biloxi Blues (1988)
6: High average. A rewarding, mostly enjoyable movie. Worthy of a rewatch. Example: The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
7: Above Average. Very memorable, personally meaningful, and worth owning. Example: Raising Arizona (1987)
8: Good. More so. Groundhog Day (1993)
9: Great. More so. A Face in the Crowd (1958)
10: Best. Most so. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)


I try to reserve the lowest spaces for literally incompetent movies and not just movies that bore me or don't share my tastes, which typically can't go lower than 4. The single most important and common decision is between 5 and 6. Most movies are average, and are not particularly memorable or have much of an effect on me. If a movie is professionally made, and I can appreciate it on a technical or intellectual level, but it does not have an emotional or aesthetic impact on me, I will give it a 5 and no lower. (This includes many movies that people love, but that have no resonance with me whatever (e.g. The Rules of the Game (1939)). I wrestle with 7s more than any other rating, since the barrier between 6 and 7 is the most consequential. 6s typically evolve into 7s more organically after rewatches. There is definitely a category above 7, but the distinction between 8s, 9s, and 10s feels the most arbitrary.

If I could start over (and unfortunately I don't think it is possible to re-rate 1000s of movies I barely remember.) I would probably combine 2 and 3 into one rating and 8 and 9 into one rating, which would allow me to split 5s and 6s into four different ratings. My opinions are stronger toward the middle, so I've reserved way too much space at the extremes. Doing this would actually create a fairly textbook bell curve:


1: 0%
2: 1%
3: 5%
4: 24%
5: 24%
6: 17%
7: 17%
8: 9%
9: 3%
10: 0%

It would take a long time, and a lot of re-watching but this might be possible if I had some sort of script to mark which movies I've re-rated with the new system. Otherwise movies rated under the old and new systems will be impossible to mentally disentangle.

Anyway, what do your ratings look like? What's your philosophy?
Last edited by greenhorg on December 19th, 2015, 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30556
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#2

Post by mightysparks » December 19th, 2015, 10:46 am

Image

Percentages:
1: 90 (1%)
2: 146 (2%)
3: 235 (3%)
4: 1432 (20%)
5: 2110 (29%)
6: 1665 (23%)
7: 820 (11%)
8: 502 (7%)
9: 167 (2%)
10: 52 (1%)

My rating descriptions probably don't differ much from anyone else's, aside from the fact that I only give minor points for 'competency'.

1 - Nothing of any value whatsoever, pains me to watch. Examples: Juno, Demon Island, The Night of the Hunter
2 - Slightly less pain than a 1, may have a single redeeming feature. Examples: Tokyo Story, The Twilight Saga: New Moon, Night Train to Mundo Fine
3 - Awful and painful, but a few redeeming features. Examples: La belle et la bête, Dead Hooker in a Trunk, City Lights
4 - Not good, possibly offensively boring, but may be technically competent. Examples: Magnolia, Stalker, The Slumber Party Massacre
5 - Mediocre in every aspect, could be boring, probably technically competent, but most likely I just don't care about any of it. Or, could be mildly amusingly bad. Examples: Hatchet, Vertigo, Eegah
6 - Decent, watchable. Some films are 5s but more technically competent. Could possibly rewatch. Examples: Maniac Cop, Metropolis, Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies
7 - Very good. Splits into half here, some 7s which are good, but I don't and 7s which I love, but maybe not give me a strong emotional response.
Examples of 1st 7s: Onna ga kaidan wo agaru toki, Persepolis, Razorback
Examples of 2nd 7s: We're the Millers, Sai yau gei: Daai git guk ji - Sin leui kei yun, Ascenseur pour l'échafaud
8 - Excellent, almost perfect. Strong emotional response. Examples: Le corbeau, Les enfants du paradis, Face/Off
9 - Perfect, basically a 10 without super tingly feelings. Examples: Das Boot, The Last House on the Left, Koyaanisqatsi
10 - Perfect, seen it a million times and still get the same experience. Super tingly feelings of like seriously how is this even a real thing it is so awesome. Examples: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, House of 1000 Corpses, The Room

5s and 6s are my most common ratings. The main difference between the two is that I don't like my 5s, but I may appreciate them, whereas any film that I like at all - doesn't matter what that reason is - gets at least a 6. 7s are probably my most annoying rating because that's where they separate, which is partly why I'm trying to do rewatches now and rate on a slightly different scale. That being, 7s are very good but 8s are favourites. So the 7s that I consider favourites should hopefully become 8s after rewatching them.
Last edited by mightysparks on December 19th, 2015, 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31701
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#3

Post by joachimt » December 19th, 2015, 11:02 am

Image
My rating philosophyShow
I LOVE MOVIES!! :woot:
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13522
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#4

Post by brokenface » December 19th, 2015, 11:50 am

If you imagine having seen and rating every film ever made, you might well be able to have a rating scale which would fit them neatly to a bell curve.

However given that we only ever watch a small sample of all movies, you'd only expect to keep that bell curve if you were truly selecting films at random from the entire pool. I very much doubt anyone is doing that. Surely most people are selecting movies based on some expectation of liking them (i.e. we choose films to watch based on some aspect that appeals: plot, genre, cast, director, reviews, trailers, stills, appearance on lists, etc).

Vast majority of my ratings fall in 5-8 bracket. There are many films I'd vote 4 or under on my scale but those are the kinds of films I actively try to avoid!

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20254
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#5

Post by Pretentious Hipster » December 19th, 2015, 11:59 am

I don't use imdb but I can accomplish the same thing with my RYM ratings, although it'll be 0.5-5 not 1-10.

Image

0.5 - 616 (10.1%)
1 - 406 (6.66% 666!!!!!)
1.5 - 468 (7.68%)
2 - 455 (7.47%)
2.5 - 885 (14.5%)
3 - 1507 (24.7%)
3.5 - 820 (13.4%)
4 - 639 (10.4%)
4.5 - 261 (4.28%)
5 - 32 (0.52%)

Average rating: 2.6/5, Standard Deviation: 1.13
My Rating PhilosophyShow
0.5 to 1.5 are bad films
2 is mediocre but that's when I start giving dislikes
2.5 I am on the fence with
3 is good
3.5 is great, I post screencaps on my tumblr if it gets this or higher
4 is a favourite
4.5 is a masterpiece
5 is perfect
As a bonus, here's some more stats made by RYM:

Image
My father didn’t have the skill of a professional cameraman. The result? Avant-garde cinema.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30556
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#6

Post by mightysparks » December 19th, 2015, 12:04 pm

My spreadsheet stats are slightly different from my IMDb stats, but I have decade stats toooo

Image
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
Cocoa
Donator
Posts: 1795
Joined: Jul 17, 2013
Location: Chicago, USA
Contact:

#7

Post by Cocoa » December 19th, 2015, 3:40 pm

Image

1: 17 (0%)
2: 54 (1%)
3: 350 (7%)
4: 585 (11%)
5: 889 (17%)
6: 1,233 (24%)
7: 1,115 (21%)
8: 622 (12%)
9: 143 (3%)
10: 205 (4%)

My average rating has gotten lower overall in the past year or two and my ratings in 2015 is the closest I've gotten to a bell curve, but it leans more to the right with 6-7 ratings than 4-5 ratings.
2013-2015 ChartsShow
Feature length films I watched in 2013:
1: 3 (0%)
2: 28 (3%)
3: 76 (7%)
4: 114 (11%)
5: 127 (12%)
6: 180 (17%)
7: 209 (19%)
8: 186 (17%)
9: 87 (8%)
10: 67 (6%)

Feature length films I watched in 2014:
1: 0 (0%)
2: 2 (0%)
3: 61 (4%)
4: 129 (9%)
5: 269 (19%)
6: 419 (30%)
7: 342 (24%)
8: 168 (12%)
9: 9 (1%)
10: 1 (0%)

Feature length films I watched in 2015:
1: 0 (0%)
2: 6 (0%)
3: 152 (9%)
4: 260 (15%)
5: 382 (22%)
6: 434 (25%)
7: 315 (19%)
8: 148 (9%)
9: 5 (0%)
10: 0 (0%)


Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8768
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#8

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 19th, 2015, 4:10 pm

Image

1: 1 (0%)
2: 41 (1%)
3: 75 (2%)
4: 152 (4%)
5: 251 (6%)
6: 495 (12%)
7: 1217 (30%)
8: 1309 (32%)
9: 385 (10%)
10: 115 (3%)

A bit different, but here is my rating distribution of the last 5 years from another website. Which comes closer also to my viewing habits these days.
Image
My rating philosophyShow
1,0 = Complete garbage
2,0 = Garbage
3,0 = Terrible
4,0 = Bad
5,0 = Poor
6,0 = Okay
7,0 = Decent
8,0 = Good
9,0 = Excellent
10 = Masterpiece

I only give 1s and 10s after a rewatch. For a 1 something has to be garbage every time I watch it, for a 10 it has to be a masterpiece every time.

allisoncm
Posts: 16543
Joined: May 11, 2011
Contact:

#9

Post by allisoncm » December 19th, 2015, 7:02 pm

1: 357 2% Example: Cannibal Holocaust
2: 537 3% Example: 8 ½ Women
3: 603 4% Example: The Cat's Meow
4: 945 6% Example: Cobra Woman
5: 2,404 16% Example: Mallrats
6: 6,200 40% Example: Champs-Élysées (1896)
7: 3,254 21% Example: Le coup du berger
8: 766 5% Example: Chair de poule
9: 187 1% Example: Camille Claudel
10: 68 0% Example: Crimes and Misdemeanors

(Halfway through, I realized there were a lot of C's, so I looked for titles that began with "C" for examples)

User avatar
greenhorg
Posts: 343
Joined: Jun 12, 2012
Contact:

#10

Post by greenhorg » December 19th, 2015, 8:45 pm

6: 6,200 40% Example: Champs-Élysées (1896)
7: 3,254 21% Example: Le coup du berger


This is most similar to me, with a strong default rating in the middle.

I haven't seen 8 ½ Women, but I think Peter Greenaway is a true artist and one of the best living directors. I don't dispute anyone's ratings, but this touches on a key rating philosophy issue, which I was also curious about. Mightysparks has Juno as 1 star, and Tokyo Story as 2 stars. These are no doubt accurate reflections of her enjoyment of these movies, but is this how movies should be rated? Is it fair to rate movies solely on subjective enjoyment or personal taste? Isn't there a somewhat objective dimension to both art and craft? For example there are tastes and fashions in cinematography, acting, music, writing, but these are also complex skill-sets that give the artist greater control over his work. Bad art is a matter of taste, but to a larger extent it seems like bad art is actually from a mismatch between the artist's vision and their level of skill/practice/discipline to meet that vision. There is a difference between a folk artist who has taken years to develop a unique primitive style, and a teen Deviant Art mediocrity who makes badly proportioned attempts at anime characters.

This is why I leave a prescribed floor for incompetence. I don’t watch many movies with actors and directors in over their heads, but there are a lot of them, and it strikes me as unfair to lump the works of professional casts and crews in with the truly talentless pikers. The difference isn't always meaningful, but it is meaningful.
Last edited by greenhorg on December 19th, 2015, 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

allisoncm
Posts: 16543
Joined: May 11, 2011
Contact:

#11

Post by allisoncm » December 19th, 2015, 10:11 pm

Peter Greenaway's films scratch away at my soul and my sanity. I chose a Peter Greenaway film for the 2/10 representation, because I've rated almost all of his films 2/10, because they nearly all make me feel horrible. I understand he has a following and that's good for him, but his films irk me.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30556
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#12

Post by mightysparks » December 20th, 2015, 3:55 am

greenhorg on Dec 19 2015, 01:45:52 PM wrote:but is this how movies should be rated?
Yes. How else can you rate something? I'm rating on my personal enjoyment of ALL aspects of the film. I don't care if they can competently hold a camera and record dialogue, my respect for them having made a film is a given based on the fact that I'm watching it. There is no difference in quality to me between Tokyo Story and Night Train to Mundo Fine, except that Tokyo Story for some reason is considered good. I'm not going to give extra points because of how someone else feels about it. That would be wrong and wouldn't reflect my opinion, which is what a rating quantitatively represents. If I give a 1 to something that is widely considered crap, no-one questions the rating, but if I give it to something that is widely considered good then people start questioning it. The only way to rate something objectively is to take into account other people's OPINIONS, which means there is no way to rate objectively. I do give extra points for films if I appreciate technical aspects, but don't particularly like anything, as mentioned. I hated Magnolia, for example, but I loved the cinematography which means it got a 4, rather than a 3. That's as 'objective' as I can be, but it's still based on my personal enjoyment of everything about the film.

You give a 1 to Manos for being poorly made, but if someone gets enjoyment out of it then why should they give it the lowest possible rating? How does that rating express how they felt about the film? Ratings end up being even more meaningless in that case since they end up representing nothing. Film is not just about the 'craft'; it is also an experience. I rate based on the experience and how that experience was crafted. If a 'poorly made' film is still entertaining, then that is still a good film in my eyes. Assuming poorly made means obvious incompetence like Manos, rather than just unpleasant like Juno.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7605
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#13

Post by xianjiro » December 21st, 2015, 12:17 am

Well, my rating 'philosophy' took it's cue from the American school system where 70% is considered average - and since I was largely watching 'better' films, it seemed like as good a way to start as anything. So, from 7 stars, I add and subtract based on perceived problems and strengths of a given film. Honestly, most commercial released films have a given level of competence built into their making from the get go, so IMHO it's hard to say they deserve fewer than 5 stars. I consider things like acting, writing, cinematography, design, message, believability, and the like. Things that catch my attention in a bad way :angry: result in losing stars - no set system per say, but if there's one wooden lead player, I might dock half a star. Lots of stilted dialogue in a piece meant to be naturalistic might cause the loss of a whole star. I generally don't dock something two stars for a single problem (like improbable or unbelievable storyline).

My goal is that roughly eight of the stars count for eight parts of good film I've mentioned above. To get a single star (since IMDb offers no lower rating) a movie would have to have no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and frankly, this is something I find very difficult to argue for. To date, my only single star movie is The Lord of the Rings - I don't believe I'd give it such a low rating if I were to see it today, but it probably wouldn't rate above 5 stars.

Conversely, to get 10 stars, I am less looking for perfection - every movie has errors or some discernible problems if you watch closely enough. To go from 9 to 10, the film has to move me significantly and emotionally in some way. To date I've awarded 10 stars to 103 titles (out of either 9337 titles ranked on IMDb or 9589 titles ranked in my spreadsheet and includes features, documentaries, shorts, and series).

Here's a screenshot from my spreadsheet:


Attachments:

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7605
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#14

Post by xianjiro » December 21st, 2015, 10:55 pm

Ran across a collection of zombie movies on DVD - wow, some of these are real stinkers! I'm so glad I didn't try to distribute my stars across the ten point scale when starting out or I'd be needing negative stars today.

Yes, if we are working off lists like those on iCM, then most of the movies will be on the right side of the bell curve. If we want better bell curves, then we need to adopt more 'worst of' lists? LOL. No thanks!

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
ChrisReynolds
Donator
Posts: 2564
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

#15

Post by ChrisReynolds » December 22nd, 2015, 2:49 am

Here's mine:
Image
1 (1%), 2 (4%), 3 (10%), 4 (15%), 5 (18%), 6 (18%), 7 (15%), 8 (11%), 9 (6%), 10 (2%)

Standard normal distribution, but of course it's distorted by the fact that I seek out films that I expect to like so the peak is pulled towards the high end.

If I was just watching every single film that came out, I would expect it to follow a Poisson distribution more like the one below, when you think of the sheer volume of rubbish that gets released all the time - the sort of stuff that plays on late night TV channels to fill space or ends up in the lower reaches of the netflix screen.

Image

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30556
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#16

Post by mightysparks » December 22nd, 2015, 3:59 am

Out of curiosity, I did a rating distribution for all the films I watched before I found the top 250:

Image

vs now

Image

So since I started exploring 'good' films, I've been slightly less frisky tehe

I mostly watch stuff that's supposed to be good but I have no idea if I'll like anything until I watch it. Occasionally I watch stuff that actually sounds interesting to me, but that's just as hit and miss as stuff that I don't think sounds interesting. I really don't get the 'I only try to watch movies I think I'll like' thing, because I never have a clue.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
greenhorg
Posts: 343
Joined: Jun 12, 2012
Contact:

#17

Post by greenhorg » December 24th, 2015, 9:54 am

A lot of shorts that I've watched at icheck to boost my rankings are pretty terrible, and deflate my curve (Seriously fuck you, Wavelength). I think there are 150-200 official shorts by Brakhage alone. Hollis Frampton also has a lot. Those are almost always a slog.

Another ratings suck are all those 15 second to 1 minute clips from the 1800s. I don't even know why the hell those need to be rated or how I'm supposed to evaluate them. Oh look, some people stepping into a carriage. 10 stars!!!
I give them my default 5, since there's nothing wrong with them, but I might as well be rating random people's home videos of their children running through sprinklers or opening birthday presents.
Last edited by greenhorg on December 24th, 2015, 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31701
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#18

Post by joachimt » December 24th, 2015, 10:15 am

I've given a lot of those early shorts my default 6/10. I can clearly see the difference when I compare my IMDB-ratings to my MovieMeter-ratings. On IMDB my most given rating is 6/10, but on MovieMeter (where shorts are not allowed on the site at all) my most given rating is 3.5/5 (which equals 7/10).
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 4000
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#19

Post by Fergenaprido » December 24th, 2015, 3:16 pm

greenhorg on Dec 24 2015, 02:54:21 AM wrote:A lot of shorts that I've watched at icheck to boost my rankings are pretty terrible, and deflate my curve (Seriously fuck you, Wavelength). I think there are 150-200 official shorts by Brakhage alone. Hollis Frampton also has a lot. Those are almost always a slog.

Another ratings suck are all those 15 second to 1 minute clips from the 1800s. I don't even know why the hell those need to be rated or how I'm supposed to evaluate them. Oh look, some people stepping into a carriage. 10 stars!!!
I give them my default 5, since there's nothing wrong with them, but I might as well be rating random people's home videos of their children running through sprinklers or opening birthday presents.
I feel the same about both categories of shorts. My default rating hovers around a 7 though.

One new ting with imdb's layout change is that you can now mark a film as seen without rating it. That's the only useful thing I found in the change, and I'm tempted to start using it.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30556
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#20

Post by mightysparks » December 24th, 2015, 3:53 pm

I give those shorts my default rating of 5 as well. I only give 6+ to films I actually enjoy, so there's no point giving them anything higher. But a 4 or less suggests it offends me in some way, and they don't do that either.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7605
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#21

Post by xianjiro » December 24th, 2015, 10:15 pm

Fergenaprido on Dec 24 2015, 08:16:56 AM wrote:
greenhorg on Dec 24 2015, 02:54:21 AM wrote:A lot of shorts that I've watched at icheck to boost my rankings are pretty terrible, and deflate my curve (Seriously fuck you, Wavelength). I think there are 150-200 official shorts by Brakhage alone. Hollis Frampton also has a lot. Those are almost always a slog.

Another ratings suck are all those 15 second to 1 minute clips from the 1800s. I don't even know why the hell those need to be rated or how I'm supposed to evaluate them. Oh look, some people stepping into a carriage. 10 stars!!!
I give them my default 5, since there's nothing wrong with them, but I might as well be rating random people's home videos of their children running through sprinklers or opening birthday presents.
I feel the same about both categories of shorts. My default rating hovers around a 7 though.

One new ting with imdb's layout change is that you can now mark a film as seen without rating it. That's the only useful thing I found in the change, and I'm tempted to start using it.
That's interesting - I'm still using IMDb's reference view (don't like the new format at all). Might have to investigate. Thanks for mentioning it though. I am guessing there are things in my spreadsheet that are currently NR (no rating) that I might be able to check as seen now but have no clue what I'd rate them [and no interest in rewatching if I could even find them].

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3767
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

#22

Post by Lammetje » January 1st, 2016, 11:25 am

Image

My average rating is now 6.84 (down from 6.93 exactly one year ago).
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

Image
OldAle1 wrote:stupid double post bullshit crap shit fuck
More memorable quotesShow
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:Active topics is the devil. Please use the forums and subforums as intended and peruse all the topics nicely sorted by topic, not just the currently popular ones displayed in a jumbled mess.
maxwelldeux wrote:If you asked me to kill my wife and pets OR watch Minions, I'd check the runtime and inquire about sobriety requirements before providing an answer.
flaiky wrote::o :satstunned: :guns: :down: :facepalm: :yucky: :mw_confused: :pinch: :ph43r: :ermm: :sweat: :folded: tehe :cowbow: :think: :finger: :rip:
monty wrote:If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. iCM ain't for sissies.
mightysparks wrote:ARGH. RARGH. RARGH. DIE.
Kowry wrote:Thanks, Art Garfunky.
Rich wrote:*runs*

User avatar
greenhorg
Posts: 343
Joined: Jun 12, 2012
Contact:

#23

Post by greenhorg » January 2nd, 2016, 1:53 pm

I decided to merge 2s and 3s and 9s and 10s on my rating scale like I discussed. This gives me more rating space to work with in the center of the bell curve. This means primarily going through all the films I've rated as 5s and 6s (82% of my ratings) and deciding if they are "low 5" or "high 5" ("low 5s" will now be given a 4, and "high 5s" will stay the same) and "low 6" or "high 6" ("low 6s" will stay the same and "high 6s" will be given a 7). My favorites and dislikes are all the same, and those ratings are simply pushed up or down. My disliked films are now 3 and below, and my favorites are now 8 and above.

This just feel right. There is variation in my opinion in the center that I wasn't adequately expressing and I was making meaningless arbitrary rating differences at the tails (i.e. I feel pretty much the same about the films I was giving 9s and 10s).

But very time-consuming! I have to remember my feelings about the ~4000 films I've rated as 5 or 6. So far I've re-rated all my TV shows (~300 shows) and 50% of my short films (~500 films). After those are done it's time for TV episodes and documentaries, and then the big films. I'm doing it in alphabetical order, so it's easy to remember my place and what I've already changed.

Short films are relatively easy to re-evaluate since I can find most of the ones I don't remember on youtube for a quick mental refresh. Feature films are probably going to be a bitch, since I can't instantly pull up the ones I don't remember, and I'm certainly not going to download hundreds of 1 GB movies, just to jog my memory.
Last edited by greenhorg on January 2nd, 2016, 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PUNQ
Posts: 458
Joined: Jan 01, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#24

Post by PUNQ » January 3rd, 2016, 3:22 am

I don't have anywhere to store my ratings image, but mine differs from most others with the emphasis on 3s & 4s dimming out a lot towards the high ratings. The reason for that is that I'm not critical as to what I watch, ending up with many stinkers, and there is quite simply more bad films being made then great ones.


1 = 1,685 (9%)
2 = 2,966 (16%)
3 = 4,267 (23%)
4 = 3,844 (20%)
5 = 2,674 (14%)
6 = 2,156 (11%)
7 = 993 (5%)
8 = 225 (1%)
9 = 65 (0%)
10 = 21 (0%)
- The Western 2016, 2017, 2019 & 2020 Asian 2016, War 2019, 1940s 2019 and Unofficial 2019 CHALLENGE WINNER!
- The ICM First-Check Master!
- Member of ICM's 25,000 Checks Club!
- The guy with the most reviews on Letterboxd!
- And now the guy that's added the most movies to Criticker!

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13522
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#25

Post by brokenface » January 3rd, 2016, 3:45 am

How do you maintain enthusiasm for watching films when it seems the chances of finding something you rate highly is so tiny? Doesn't it make you want to be more critical in what you choose to watch?

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30556
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#26

Post by mightysparks » January 3rd, 2016, 3:54 am

I mostly choose stuff that's considered good or that I think I will like and I still have trouble finding stuff I like, so being more critical isn't always that useful :P And film is more than just about finding something you like. Although part of it is the quest to find something great.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8768
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#27

Post by Lonewolf2003 » January 3rd, 2016, 11:15 am

mightysparks on Jan 2 2016, 08:54:46 PM wrote:I mostly choose stuff that's considered good or that I think I will like and I still have trouble finding stuff I like, so being more critical isn't always that useful :P And film is more than just about finding something you like. Although part of it is the quest to find something great.
Yes, but what I gather from PUNQ posts in different threads is that he is very into keeping completley up to date with current releases and watching every movie from one particular year. That is a very uncritical way to pick movies and you're bound to end up with a lot of stinkers and mediocre ones. Being a bit more selective could help PUNQ. Especially since he seems to be pretty harsh in his ratings and not even like all those mediocre movies a bit.
Last edited by Lonewolf2003 on January 3rd, 2016, 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30556
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#28

Post by mightysparks » January 3rd, 2016, 11:20 am

Lonewolf2003 on Jan 3 2016, 04:15:53 AM wrote:
mightysparks on Jan 2 2016, 08:54:46 PM wrote:I mostly choose stuff that's considered good or that I think I will like and I still have trouble finding stuff I like, so being more critical isn't always that useful :P And film is more than just about finding something you like. Although part of it is the quest to find something great.
Yes, but what I gather from PUNQ posts in different threads is that he is very into keeping completley up to date with current releases and watching every movie from one particular year. That is a very uncritical way to pick movies and you're bound to end up with a lot of stinkers and mediocre ones. Being a bit more selective could help PUNQ. Especially since he seems to be pretty harsh in his ratings and not even like all those mediocre movies a bit.
Yeah, but I am being critical and I still watch mostly 'stinkers and mediocre' ones. I used to watch stuff at random and I found that more rewarding and entertaining than being selective, but I can't go back to doing it that way for some reason :shrug:
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8768
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#29

Post by Lonewolf2003 » January 3rd, 2016, 11:27 am

mightysparks on Jan 3 2016, 04:20:18 AM wrote:
Lonewolf2003 on Jan 3 2016, 04:15:53 AM wrote:
mightysparks on Jan 2 2016, 08:54:46 PM wrote:I mostly choose stuff that's considered good or that I think I will like and I still have trouble finding stuff I like, so being more critical isn't always that useful :P And film is more than just about finding something you like. Although part of it is the quest to find something great.
Yes, but what I gather from PUNQ posts in different threads is that he is very into keeping completley up to date with current releases and watching every movie from one particular year. That is a very uncritical way to pick movies and you're bound to end up with a lot of stinkers and mediocre ones. Being a bit more selective could help PUNQ. Especially since he seems to be pretty harsh in his ratings and not even like all those mediocre movies a bit.
Yeah, but I am being critical and I still watch mostly 'stinkers and mediocre' ones. I used to watch stuff at random and I found that more rewarding and entertaining than being selective, but I can't go back to doing it that way for some reason :shrug:
I was talking about being selective in the way of selecting movies you think you will like, not in the way of selecting critical acclaimed movies. And i know you are special that way, because you even have a hard time predicting your own taste and selecting movies that way. But I'm guessing for PUNQ that will be easier like it is for most people.
Last edited by Lonewolf2003 on January 3rd, 2016, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PUNQ
Posts: 458
Joined: Jan 01, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#30

Post by PUNQ » January 3rd, 2016, 3:21 pm

Difficult to explain how my mind works in this regard as it seems to differ from most others. I actually find pleasure in the 'stinkers' too. They are a lot easier to watch then the major works which has so much to digest and exhausts one with impressions. The lesser films are usually simply entertainers (to various degrees) and relaxing in a way. That sort of 'downtime' is needed for someone like me who marathon watch a lot, watching full years top to bottom.

There is always the thrill of seeing lesser-known films with familiar actors. That's especially true with the 30s when everyone seemed to do at least half a dozen films a year. By that way, watching those programmers make the movies feel closer to soap operas and the excitement of the familiarity factor that comes with following a series.

Plus I've never been scared of using the full ratings scale. The lower portion is there to be used too. While it may look strict, I'm already satisfied with a movie with a 4/10 rating. Those films are naturally nothing super special, but pleasing enough to not feel very disappointing. 3/10, then it's starting to test my patience, but still that rating is more for lack of impression. In one eye and out the other, easy forgettable sort of film.
- The Western 2016, 2017, 2019 & 2020 Asian 2016, War 2019, 1940s 2019 and Unofficial 2019 CHALLENGE WINNER!
- The ICM First-Check Master!
- Member of ICM's 25,000 Checks Club!
- The guy with the most reviews on Letterboxd!
- And now the guy that's added the most movies to Criticker!

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8768
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#31

Post by Lonewolf2003 » January 3rd, 2016, 3:32 pm

PUNQ on Jan 3 2016, 08:21:12 AM wrote:Difficult to explain how my mind works in this regard as it seems to differ from most others. I actually find pleasure in the 'stinkers' too. They are a lot easier to watch then the major works which has so much to digest and exhausts one with impressions. The lesser films are usually simply entertainers (to various degrees) and relaxing in a way. That sort of 'downtime' is needed for someone like me who marathon watch a lot, watching full years top to bottom.

There is always the thrill of seeing lesser-known films with familiar actors. That's especially true with the 30s when everyone seemed to do at least half a dozen films a year. By that way, watching those programmers make the movies feel closer to soap operas and the excitement of the familiarity factor that comes with following a series.

Plus I've never been scared of using the full ratings scale. The lower portion is there to be used too. While it may look strict, I'm already satisfied with a movie with a 4/10 rating. Those films are naturally nothing super special, but pleasing enough to not feel very disappointing. 3/10, then it's starting to test my patience, but still that rating is more for lack of impression. In one eye and out the other, easy forgettable sort of film.
I get what you mean with stinkers being enjoyable also, I just don't rate movie I personally could enjoy a bit so low. To me a movie that is nothing super special, but pleasing enough to not feel very disappointing is a 6.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30556
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#32

Post by mightysparks » January 3rd, 2016, 3:48 pm

Yeah, as mentioned above if I get any type of enjoyment out of it, it gets a 6. Seems silly to give an enjoyable film lower than '50%'.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3767
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

#33

Post by Lammetje » January 3rd, 2016, 4:21 pm

PUNQ on Jan 2 2016, 08:22:00 PM wrote:I don't have anywhere to store my ratings image, but mine differs from most others with the emphasis on 3s & 4s dimming out a lot towards the high ratings. The reason for that is that I'm not critical as to what I watch, ending up with many stinkers, and there is quite simply more bad films being made then great ones.


1 = 1,685 (9%)
2 = 2,966 (16%)
3 = 4,267 (23%)
4 = 3,844 (20%)
5 = 2,674 (14%)
6 = 2,156 (11%)
7 = 993 (5%)
8 = 225 (1%)
9 = 65 (0%)
10 = 21 (0%)
Holy shit, that's a lot of low ratings! :lol: I'm pretty sure I would have changed my viewing habits long before I had gotten to 1,685 1/10's.
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

Image
OldAle1 wrote:stupid double post bullshit crap shit fuck
More memorable quotesShow
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:Active topics is the devil. Please use the forums and subforums as intended and peruse all the topics nicely sorted by topic, not just the currently popular ones displayed in a jumbled mess.
maxwelldeux wrote:If you asked me to kill my wife and pets OR watch Minions, I'd check the runtime and inquire about sobriety requirements before providing an answer.
flaiky wrote::o :satstunned: :guns: :down: :facepalm: :yucky: :mw_confused: :pinch: :ph43r: :ermm: :sweat: :folded: tehe :cowbow: :think: :finger: :rip:
monty wrote:If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. iCM ain't for sissies.
mightysparks wrote:ARGH. RARGH. RARGH. DIE.
Kowry wrote:Thanks, Art Garfunky.
Rich wrote:*runs*

User avatar
PUNQ
Posts: 458
Joined: Jan 01, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#34

Post by PUNQ » January 3rd, 2016, 4:23 pm

A 6 is more a film well worth re-watching for me.

I don't think of % or thumbs up/down, but the best way I can probable explain it is that my own 'emotional meeter" is a slow starter. As a introvert I guess I'm a natural 3/10, therefore a 4 gives a good feeling :)

EDIT: Just to clear up, most of those 1's are typical 1800s/early-1900 films showing a street or some people for a few seconds. I just can't justify giving them any higher rating. What if a movie shows 2 or 3 or even 10 streets during a film, do I multiply the rating because of it?! :P
Last edited by PUNQ on January 3rd, 2016, 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- The Western 2016, 2017, 2019 & 2020 Asian 2016, War 2019, 1940s 2019 and Unofficial 2019 CHALLENGE WINNER!
- The ICM First-Check Master!
- Member of ICM's 25,000 Checks Club!
- The guy with the most reviews on Letterboxd!
- And now the guy that's added the most movies to Criticker!

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 8643
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#35

Post by sol » March 16th, 2017, 10:43 am

Image

As I have managed to refine what I watch over time and avoid stuff that I do not expect to like, the vast majority of films that I see receive one of the following five ratings from me:

8/10 - I absolutely loved it
7/10 - I thought it was very good
6/10 - Good/worthwhile but nothing special
5/10 - Didn't particularly care for the film
4/10 - Disliked the film

Generally speaking, films only attain a 9 or 10 from me these days if they stack up well to a re-watch. I have only given out one 9/10 so far for a first time viewing this year and last year, I only handed one first time viewing a 9/10 too. There were, however, at least a couple dozen films whose ratings I bumped up to a 9 or 10 last year, and this year I have already bumped up one film to a 10.

I have given out a handful of 3/10s and 2/10s over the past few years, but it is not really a common occurrence. I would really have to be disappointed by the quality of film for it to reach such depths with me.

Oh, and speaking of being able to refine what I watch to the point of generally only watching films that I expect to like it, it is interesting that the only three 4/10s that I have given out so far this year have all been for films that I watched for the Canon Doubling - the only exercise out there that gets me to explore tons of films outside my comfort zone.

Attachments:
Last edited by sol on March 16th, 2017, 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1933
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#36

Post by matthewscott8 » March 16th, 2017, 10:57 am

I guess this thread is a good example of why the IMDb ratings for movies are meaningless. IMDb asks for people to vote 10 for a movie if they think it is excellent and 1 if they think it is poor, and then everyone comes up with their own system, so the amalgamated results mean nothing. One man's 6 is another man's 10. One man's 1 is another man's 5.

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 8643
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#37

Post by sol » March 16th, 2017, 11:10 am

matthewscott8 on Mar 16 2017, 04:57:48 AM wrote:I guess this thread is a good example of why the IMDb ratings for movies are meaningless. IMDb asks for people to vote 10 for a movie if they think it is excellent and 1 if they think it is poor, and then everyone comes up with their own system, so the amalgamated results mean nothing. One man's 6 is another man's 10. One man's 1 is another man's 5.
I don't think that is actually the problem. Everyone out there pretty much gets that "10 = excellent" and "1 = poor", however IMDb includes eight other values that we can assign to movies, and it is how everyone differentiates between these values that causes such crazily diverse bell curves. The issue if anything is that are too many choices with ten different possible ratings; iCheckMovies makes more sense as a way to rate movies since you only have three options: "check", "like" or "dislike".
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
Cynical Cinephile
Posts: 2251
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Bosnia & Herzegovina
Contact:

#38

Post by Cynical Cinephile » March 16th, 2017, 11:58 am

sol on Mar 16 2017, 05:10:20 AM wrote:
matthewscott8 on Mar 16 2017, 04:57:48 AM wrote:I guess this thread is a good example of why the IMDb ratings for movies are meaningless. IMDb asks for people to vote 10 for a movie if they think it is excellent and 1 if they think it is poor, and then everyone comes up with their own system, so the amalgamated results mean nothing. One man's 6 is another man's 10. One man's 1 is another man's 5.
I don't think that is actually the problem. Everyone out there pretty much gets that "10 = excellent" and "1 = poor", however IMDb includes eight other values that we can assign to movies, and it is how everyone differentiates between these values that causes such crazily diverse bell curves. The issue if anything is that are too many choices with ten different possible ratings; iCheckMovies makes more sense as a way to rate movies since you only have three options: "check", "like" or "dislike".
Yeah, rating scales are vastly different. For me, a 6 is a dislike (well, more indifference than dislike). I know it shouldn't be, but I started like that 5-6 years ago and I'm in too deep to change it now. Anyway, 10 point rating scale really is too big. Do we really need 4 different points of dislike? If something failed, it failed, there's no need to contemplate how much it failed.

ICM's binary scale (it does leave an option of not choosing/just checking, so it's not technically binary) might seem too simplistic, but it saves people from meaningless time consumption. When you really think about it, you either liked, disliked or felt indifferent towards a film. That's all I need.

On a side note, I never get people that take it even further and rate something 8,79. I always ask them how they come up with those numbers, why ,79 and not ,78? What makes that difference? I never got a sufficient answer.
The truth is you're Donny, and I'm Walter. But I'm tryin', Ringo, I'm tryin' real hard to be The Dude.

:ICM: :letbxd: :imdb:

User avatar
nimimerkillinen
Posts: 2309
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

#39

Post by nimimerkillinen » March 16th, 2017, 12:16 pm

Cynical Cinephile on Mar 16 2017, 05:58:07 AM wrote:Anyway, 10 point rating scale really is too big. Do we really need 4 different points of dislike? If something failed, it failed, there's no need to contemplate how much it failed.
well, i changed my scale use to 'positive'

1 = dislike / not my thing / wasnt worth seeing
2 = there is something (kind of enough)
3 = there is something / ok
4 = decent!
5 = pretty good
6 = good
7 = very good
8 = great
9 = excellent
10 = perfect / close perfect / something like that

i feel like missing 1 or more rating tho and would prefer 1-100 rating but would be pleased 1-10 with ½s :P

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 8643
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#40

Post by sol » March 16th, 2017, 12:51 pm

Cynical Cinephile on Mar 16 2017, 05:58:07 AM wrote:
sol on Mar 16 2017, 05:10:20 AM wrote:I don't think that is actually the problem. Everyone out there pretty much gets that "10 = excellent" and "1 = poor", however IMDb includes eight other values that we can assign to movies, and it is how everyone differentiates between these values that causes such crazily diverse bell curves. The issue if anything is that are too many choices with ten different possible ratings; iCheckMovies makes more sense as a way to rate movies since you only have three options: "check", "like" or "dislike".
Yeah, rating scales are vastly different. For me, a 6 is a dislike (well, more indifference than dislike). I know it shouldn't be, but I started like that 5-6 years ago and I'm in too deep to change it now. Anyway, 10 point rating scale really is too big. Do we really need 4 different points of dislike? If something failed, it failed, there's no need to contemplate how much it failed.

ICM's binary scale (it does leave an option of not choosing/just checking, so it's not technically binary) might seem too simplistic, but it saves people from meaningless time consumption. When you really think about it, you either liked, disliked or felt indifferent towards a film. That's all I need.
Indeed --- which is why 75% of the films that I see score either a 4, 5, 6 or 7 in my books. I only really need 'dislike', 'indifferent', 'liked' and 'liked a lot' myself, though it is cool to have some of the higher ratings on hand for the films that absolutely bowl me over.
Cynical Cinephile on wrote:On a side note, I never get people that take it even further and rate something 8,79. I always ask them how they come up with those numbers, why ,79 and not ,78? What makes that difference? I never got a sufficient answer.
I don't really get how moviegoers rate movies to two decimal places either. One decimal place I can understand though if you have a really good grip on what your ratings signify. I do, and with almost 55% of films that I have seen scoring a 6 or 7 in my books, it has reached the point where I can talk about films being "strong", "solid" or "weak" 6s or 7s. I have no idea how to work out whether a 3/10 film is closer to 2.8 or 3.2 for me because I hand out relatively few 3s, but if you gave me a bunch of films that I have rated a 7, I could definitely say whether they are closer to being 6s or 8s, if that makes any sense.

All that said and done, I don't really rely on my ratings. I mostly just use them because it makes list-making easier, particularly because I keep regularly updated numbered lists of the films that I have seen from every single year. I rarely share my ratings with others since the number alone says little (a 6 signifies something different for everyone, etc). The occasions when I do post ratings are when I want to reflect how much more I like some films than others, e.g. for the FGFF, but generally words say more than numbers and there is a very good reason why I abstain from including my ratings when I publish reviews on the weekly thread.
Last edited by sol on March 16th, 2017, 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

Post Reply