Fair enough. In this case, three episodes have aired out of a guaranteed ten (and possibly more of the show is renewed). If you've watched them all, you've seen 30%. Rating it now is akin to rating a two hour movie you saw 36 minutes of. If it is renewed for a second season of ten episodes and you watch no more of it, your rating is for only 15% of the episodes or just 18 minutes of a two-hour movie. To use Sutter's past show as an example, there were 92 episodes. If you rated the show after only three episodes, your rating is based on only 3.2% of the series, the equivalent of judging a two-hour movie by it's first three minutes. I think that we can agree that rating a movie you've only seen three minutes of is dishonest. The same applies to the equivalent length in shows, particularly serialized shows.
There is no perfect system. I'm sure people rate movies they haven't seen and even episodes they haven't seen. But IMDb should at least pretend they care about the honesty of their ratings by acknowledging that this show and any other show presently airing are impossible to rate as a whole.
reply
share
Final_Hitokiri
9 years ago
If you've watched them all, you've seen 30%.
You can usually tell if you're enjoying a movie or not 1/3 of the way through it.
But IMDb should at least pretend they care about the honesty of their ratings
They do. There's nothing wrong with being able to rate an entire show versus individual episodes.
If you rated SOA based on the last 3 season episodes individually, just based on the board discussions and feedback, the entire rating of the show would have gone down significantly.
reply
share