2.2 rating??

I'm heading out to it tomorrow at the Toronto After Dark festival so I looked it up and that 2.2 looks pretty nasty. With just 10 users, the result is likely not too realistic (also, people can be so cruel). I'll drop back on Friday and let you know what I think.

IMDB is the absolute worst. They continue to serve only the needs of the mega films, trying desperately to squash smaller budget films any chance they can.
158 voters give this a score of Arithmetic mean = 7.1 Median = 8, but the User rating is "5.0"?
The reason is that IMDB uses a weighted system. They give more weight to more frequent users who have been on the site longer and have cast more votes, more reviews. They are trying to prevent people from stuffing the ballot and give films high scores. But what they really do is the exact opposite. They allow those who dislike a film more power.
I heard through one person who no longer works at IMDB, that a "1" vote from a "weighted" voter, you'd have to get ten "10" votes to equal that.

The main problem is that IMDB tries to pass itself off as a professional website. This behavior is not professional.

CRAZE has been getting solid reviews, won awards, but because a select few hold so much voting power, the user rating shows this film as being less favorable and a worse movie than GROWN UPS 2.

Think about that IMDB.

Ditch the weighted system. It is not fair to smaller films, the films that don't have the mega marketing behind it. That count on word of mouth.

You're helping kill small movies.

It might had done well int the festival circuit but I can see why its rated low.

Its that man again!!

This isn't directed at the OP (Opening Post), I'm on a phone, and the discussion board feature isn't very adequate.

The rating system anywhere, by anyone, are all flawed. All of them. People in rating a film, or television series/episode rate based on one main objective: whether they enjoyed it, or not. Sometimes they will take other aspects of the film (tv etc.,) into consideration but mainly it's based on whether they enjoyed it, or not.

I can only speak for myself in how I rate but the main factor(s) for me is whether I enjoyed it and whether it was coherent. Now, there are films that are purposely abstract and for those films I take other considerations into account but the main point of whether I enjoyed it, or not is always going to be my main factor.

This website attempts to regulate nonsense ratings. I've seen members here rate everything 1/10 and/or 10/10 and nothing in between. Those ratings are purely nonsensical just for the obvious fact that no film ever made is a 1/10 or a 10/10 to begin with. All films are in between ratings. The 1/10 and 10/10 come from enjoyment or just tastes.

I've seen people who only prefer classic films, and rate classic films at about average yet disliking some and rating 3/10 or below and liking others and rating 8/10 or higher but when they watched a contemporary film almost every single rating for them were 1/10. Why? It's not their genre of films. Classic films are. They will never enjoy anything but classic films.

Some people rate films low on here for the specific reason of having their favorite film(s) make the top 250 list. And some people rate films low so they will get on the bottom 100.

The site's means of combating such ratings seems to work, in my opinion. It may have certain films suffer for it but in an averaged rating they'd still hold to the basic positions they currently hold. And I think that's the point.

Look at that satirical film against North Korea: thousands of members rated it 10/10, most of which had never even seen it. Imagine if the system that IMDB has in place currently wasn't in place: that film would be at the top of the 250 list, and no other film could knock it from its place for a long while.

But with the system they have in place it was able to show the basic rating of what it actually would be even with the massive amounts of 10/10 it received.

To give another example, a member in this discussion, as I saw on their member page rated the TV show "The Big Bang Theory" a 2/10 or 3/10. I've rated that show a 10/10. Neither of our ratings are actually realistic based on the quality (of all episodes) of the show. If we rated realistically, taking everything into consideration of every episode, and then averaging them out then, I believe, my rating would be around 7-8/10 and their rating would be around 5-6/10 in actuality.

But no one really rates that way because it takes too much effort and time. And for those who do rate that way then, if one actually thinks about it, only their ratings would be of any significance.

So the model IMDB has in place currently I think is fair and balanced if you take everyone into consideration -- not just critics, or people who think they know what is good or not because it's all just opinion, in the end.

-Nam