I have a question about the rating system.
Why isn't this amazing movie with a rating of 8.1 in the Imdb Top 250??
I don't understand the complete rating system, I hope that somebody could answer me that question.
I don't know all the science of it, but I'm certain that number of ratings has much to do with ranking. So, a movie with a perfect 10 rating based on the scores of 500 people may not end up on the top 250 - which regularly has movies rated by many thousands of people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sub Specie Aeternitatus
Only the votes of the top voters are considered for the top 250. Criteria and numbers are unknown.
shareHere's the exact formula...
weighted rank (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C where:
R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)
v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)
m = minimum votes required to be listed in the Top 250 (currently 1250)
C = the mean vote across the whole report (currently 6.8)
Sample it, Loop it, Shoot it and Eat it.
Well if I understand it correctly, the 8.0 rating that NIA currently has is the 'weighted average' ie using the formula. However if you compare the weighted average of the top movies in the top 250 (as seen on their individual pages) and the average which appears on the top 250 list there is a slight difference. For example Best of Youth has a weighted average of 8.7 but on the top250 it gives it as 7.8. This is because for the top250 only the regular voters are considered to stop vote rigging.
In other words whilst NIA has a weighted average overall of 8.0, when just using the votes of the regular voters it probably has a weighted average of around 7.7, which does not qualify it for the top250 list.
The weighted average is already in these values.
Take a look at this german movie:
http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/ratings
Arithmetic mean is 8.7
Weighted Average is 8.5 (without fight votes and all that)
Put that in the formula and you get 8.3 which is the value in the Top250.
Another example is the movie with the most fight votes of all:
http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/ratings
9.1 weighted average instead of 8.6 arithmetic Mean.
... is around #411, with a "standardized" rating of 7.6.
"I am Mr. Snrub ... yes, that will do ..." Honga-Hula!
There are several other art house and foreign movies where people ask the same thing. Such as "Andrei Rublev" which got an 8.2, and "The Magdalene Sisters" which got an 8.0 but did not get into the top 250. "Revenge of the Sith" got an 8.0 and is ranked #245 and people are really complaining in the "Sith" board about it although I really enjoyed the movie. I think that it has something to do with the number of people who voted. 68,511 users voted for "Sith" while some of these art house movies such as "Andrei Rublev" got only 3,515 votes, "The Magdalene Sisters" got 4,884 votes, and "Nowhere in Africa" got 3,041 votes.
sharePeople don't like reading subtitles.
shareMaybe people should learn to read before watching movies... But if children start watching TV at the age of 0.01 and that's all they ever do, you can't expect they have learned something during school years. And, considering the fact that most of the voters are American who - most of them (as they admit) - have troubles with subtitles, you can't expect good rating for a movie like this: they either don't understand it (so they'll give bad marks) or, more often, won't watch it at all (and won't give any mark, so the total number of rating won't be big enough to give movie a real chance).
shareThis is not in the top 250 because there are at least 250 films better than this.
- It is the exception that confirms the rule -
This is surely one of the possible explanations.
And it is quite possible that there are at least 250 films better than this. It's a pity that most of them are not on top 250 either.
I agree. Haven't seen this yet, just wanted to give a possible explanation to a pointless question. If I enjoy a film, I don't really care what others think of it. I can make up my own mind without others telling me what to think.
- It is the exception that confirms the rule -
Everybody can make his own list and there is no way a list that would satisfy everybody could ever be created. One can be disappointed (in fact, I really believe that one the major reasons is what I've said before; but if Americans decided to watch that movie and solve the problems of reading, it still doesn't automatically mean they would like it and give it better ranking), but has to know that any marking is a subjective matter.
Besides that, I suggest you to watch the movie and decide if it could get on your own top list. I found it great and I also feel a bit sad, not because it is not on top 250, but because it didn't get chance to be there at all, because of not enough people having seen (and rated) it.
What is amazing about it? It is a fairly humdrum ordinary film, albeit anti-German and historically inaccurate.
share