# Men Are Sabotaging The Online Reviews Of TV Shows Aimed At Women



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

I thought this was a pretty fascinating look at how men and women behave different when rating on IMDB. When online ratings on sites like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are used to prove a title's worth or even worse if network executives use them to decide what type of content to make, this could be problematic.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer



> When you rely on the wisdom of the crowd on the internet, you risk relying on the opinion of mostly men.2 Seventy percent of IMDb TV show raters are men, according to my analysis, and that results in shows with predominantly female audiences getting screwed.





> For a show with the IMDb average gender breakdown of 30 percent women and 70 percent men, men rated the show 0.5 points lower than women did, on average. When a shows raters split evenly by gender, 50-50, men rated the program a full 1 point lower than women did.





> Men gave their top 100 an average score of 8.2 but gave the top 100 female-skewed shows a mere 6.9 average ratings. Shows with more than 10,000 ratings are inherently popular and yet men thought the programs in that group that skew female were below average.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

"For a show with the IMDb average gender breakdown of 30 percent women and 70 percent men, men rated the show 0.5 points lower than women did, on average. When a shows raters split evenly by gender, 50-50, men rated the program a full 1 point lower than women did."

really ?
what a stupid statistic 
so men didn't like a show that was specifically NOT designed for them ?
shocking /sarcasm

here you go 
Men Don't Watch TV Shows Aimed At Women Unless Women Force Them To


----------



## TheDewAddict (Aug 21, 2002)

Bad title - it makes it sound like men are purposely going out and finding shows targeted to women and giving them low ratings instead of it just being a matter of a gender imbalance when it comes to the number of people doing the ratings, as well as the genders rating things differently.

So, if I were to watch a show aimed at women, say 'Private Practice', and then decide to rate it on IMDB, should I be thinking "Well, I don't like this, but I imagine women might, so I'll give it an 8?"


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

See, it's always the guy's fault.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

As of my post, 80% of those posting on this thread are men, 100% of whom disagree with the article.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

OK, so 70% of the ratings on IMDB are from men but maybe 70% of TV viewers are men too because women are, you know, too busy doing the cooking and the cleaning  (relax, it's just a joke... I couldn't resist. But that's about as scientific of a conclusion as the article's title is.)

What I found interesting in the article is many of the very top rated shows are rated evenly by men and women; and women actually like Firefly more than men do. Maybe the lesson for TV producers is to target gender neutrality so as to not limit yourself to half of the population.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

So if 70% of those who rate shows are men, then that tells me one thing, women just aren't bothering to review. So how can you blame men for deciding what's on TV?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Maybe IMDb should include a breakdown on each show, showing how men and women voted after showing the combined rating. Heck, if IMDb collects other demographic data, provide a complete breakdown. Nielsen provides data by age range, for example, plus an overall rating.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

And for women who cares about IMDb rankings, before you suggest that (or "force") your boyfriend, husband, or male relative/platonic friend watch a show that attracts more female viewers, find out if they like to rank shows on IMDb.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Women fought for the right to vote, it's not the fault of men if they don't use it for TV shows on IMDB. 

Basically, the story breaks down to: Of the people who can be bothered to rate a TV show on IMDB, 70% of them are men, and men tend to rate shows aimed at women more harshly than women rate shows aimed at men.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Men are terrible as 5,000 years of civilization and online comments sections prove.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

I tried slogging through the quasi-analytical piece to understand the author's attempt to correlate gender with viewing preference and ratings on imdb.

I confess I did not make it through the entire piece. But the author's agenda was abundantly clear early on, and using graphs and statistical terms did not disguise specious methodology.

However, I can point out two things:

First, whoever would think that men have a tendency to prefer shows that are geared to men? Shocker! It might seem self evident, but appears to be a surprise to the author.

Second, I question just how reliable the numbers regarding gender are. Supplying biographical data on imdb is optional, and self reporting info of this sort on an internet site may not be truthful.

I mean come on, don't we all know someone (or know _OF _someone) who deliberately input misleading personal data on a website, either out of privacy concerns, or a sense of humor. This isn't US Census data, folks.

But sure. The author finds that men like certain shows, and women like certain shows. I question, however, how that translates into "...screwing... female audiences."

As a guy, I refuse to guilted into giving female-aimed shows and movies preferential treatment by rating those more favorably. I prefer what I prefer.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

The point is not just that men rate more, but they are more likely to rate things not for them, and rate them harshly. Women also sometimes rate things targeted for men, but they still don't judge them as harshly. Women know it's not for them so don't watch and don't rate. Men know it's not for them so they trash it. (See: Ghostbusters trailer dislikes.)


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

This really is a lot of crap about nothing of consequence.

Imdb ratings... Really? Seriously, who cares? It may be fun to make your opinion heard, but it means nothing.

I have never made a decision on what to watch by looking at the ratings. I might read some comments and reviews, but even then, I find the trolls and fanboys(girls, too) get too strident sometimes.

How is this affecting the female viewing population, which is the author's particular high horse. No production decisions are made based on imdb ratings. No show has been cancelled, or conversely, greenlit, because of imdb ratings. 

Because really, if any entertainment business decisions are made based on the imdb ratings, then that business deal deserves to flop.

The ratings are really nothing more than some unscientific popularity contest, and any attempts to make it mean more than that are silly.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> The point is not just that men rate more, but they are more likely to rate things not for them, and rate them harshly. Women also sometimes rate things targeted for men, but they still don't judge them as harshly. Women know it's not for them so don't watch and don't rate. Men know it's not for them so they trash it. (See: Ghostbusters trailer dislikes.)


But is that really all that surprising? How many guys have sat through episodes of shows like Grey's Anatomy or The Bachelor because their wife/girlfriend wanted to watch? They don't like the show, but they like spending time with their significant other. So if they're the type to rate things online, they may decide to take out their frustration of having to sit through a show they didn't like, rather than risking the confrontation of actually telling their SO that they don't like the show and don't want to watch.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

MikeCC said:


> But sure. The author finds that men like certain shows, and women like certain shows. I question, however, how that translates into "...screwing... female audiences."


Yeah, it's just a sensationalist article title designed to get attention and clicks and judging from this thread it worked. It's a wildly huge jump to a conclusion that a certain segment wants to hear.

Oh, and I pay much more attention to Rotten Tomatoes than to IMDB. They pay attention to levels of statistical certainty.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> But is that really all that surprising? How many guys have sat through episodes of shows like Grey's Anatomy or The Bachelor because their wife/girlfriend wanted to watch? They don't like the show, but they like spending time with their significant other. So if they're the type to rate things online, they may decide to take out their frustration of having to sit through a show they didn't like, rather than risking the confrontation of actually telling their SO that they don't like the show and don't want to watch.


Don't women get dragged to The Revenent or have to sit through Entourage when they'd rather watch New Girl? And if women are more willing to sit through and be open-minded about content aimed at men, why can't men do the same about content aimed at women? It is very odd how reactive men are, as if sitting through a drama about women is torture, but women are more willing to see a wider variety of content without reacting this way.

It does matter, because in spite of the scoffing studies do consider these types of things as factors in decisions around the content to make. And if content aimed at women is always rated lower, you end up with studios making decisions like not picking up a series because it's aimed for women (although CBS denies it, that was reported for why they passed on Drew).

I think it reveals an interesting pattern and if it is showing up in online reviews, it is going to show up in focus groups, in writer's rooms, and in executive offices. And likely in critics's review and there's no reason to think it also isn't happening on other places like Rotten Tomatoes.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

I do see how it could be a problem, but I don't blame the people that are rating things. Maybe the men sincerely dislike Sex & the City more than the women dislike Entourage. (Just an example, I happen to like both of those.). I'm not sure how to actually fix that. 

It seems like maybe there's an opening for a review site ran by women for women.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> Don't women get dragged to The Revenent or have to sit through Entourage when they'd rather watch New Girl? And if women are more willing to sit through and be open-minded about content aimed at men, why can't men do the same about content aimed at women? It is very odd how reactive men are, as if sitting through a drama about women is torture, but women are more willing to see a wider variety of content without reacting this way.


I didn't realize New Girl was aimed at women. It's primarily a show about guys and the one girl who moves into their apartment and becomes part of their lives.

But I agree that men should not be so reactive. But you're always going to have men who feel like their masculinity is threatened when they are "forced" to watch a female-centric show. If a guy shows up to work and his buddies ask him what he did last night, and he says "I watched Grey's Anatomy with my girlfriend," he's likely to get razzed for being whipped, etc. So I think that insecurity drives a lot of the negative reviews.

On the flip side, I don't think women have those same insecurities. If a woman shows up to work and tells her female coworkers that the previous evening she watched "24" with her boyfriend, I think the coworkers are much less likely to make fun of her for watching a male-centric show.

So if you figure that over 2/3 of all IMDb ratings are written by men, and men are more likely to be insecure about watching and liking content that is aimed at women, then it's not the least bit surprising that there are more negative reviews of those female-centric shows, written by men. Is it right? Of course not. Is it surprising? Of course not.

Now as to whether content companies are actually basing their production decisions on such self-selecting, non-scientific, and biased data, I'd be very surprised if that's the case. I think what's more likely is that TV execs know that their shows are primarily a means of delivering commercials to viewers, and advertisers will pay more for males 18-49 because they watch less TV and are therefore harder to reach, so if they're making a decision between two shows, one that skews male and one that skews female, and everything else is equal, they'll probably opt for the male-skewing show just because of the potential for higher ad revenue.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Better keep this out of the Transgender thread!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Zevida said:


> Don't women get dragged to The Revenent or have to sit through Entourage when they'd rather watch New Girl? And if women are more willing to sit through and be open-minded about content aimed at men, why can't men do the same about content aimed at women? It is very odd how reactive men are, as if sitting through a drama about women is torture, but women are more willing to see a wider variety of content without reacting this way.
> 
> It does matter, because in spite of the scoffing studies do consider these types of things as factors in decisions around the content to make. And if content aimed at women is always rated lower, you end up with studios making decisions like not picking up a series because it's aimed for women (although CBS denies it, that was reported for why they passed on Drew).
> 
> I think it reveals an interesting pattern and if it is showing up in online reviews, it is going to show up in focus groups, in writer's rooms, and in executive offices. And likely in critics's review and there's no reason to think it also isn't happening on other places like Rotten Tomatoes.


Men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Maybe this is just how males and females perceive things. It's cultural and it's natural. How many times have we seen where strong women are considered "b*tches" and strong men are applauded. It's how it is in this culture and I don't think it's done on purpose to skew one show over another. Is it right? Who's to say? Heck, if what this article is saying is true, then ABC would be showing drastically different shows


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

It's a pretty tough to equate men rating shows designed for women badly to men trying to sabotage the reviews for shows designed for women. Without any sort of study involved in whether there's any real motive behind the men's ratings of the shows other than "well, I didn't like it, so there's no reason to give it a high score", you just can't make the connection. All it really shows is that men tend to rate things they don't like worse than women tend to rate things they don't like, and I'd probably argue that *that* fact is something that's shown up quite a bit in studies. So basically all it really shows is there's gender bias in how people rate things in general. Maybe the real answer is that women should be more honest in how they rate shows they don't like. Or maybe there's something about shows that appeal to men (at least as determined by the author, and quite frankly their selection there is dubious at best) for some reason women also tend to like? I know the article specifically called out Battlestar Galactica and seemed to be horrified that women might rate it decently, but I know my wife liked it. For that matter she liked the Shield too. I wouldn't be surprised that if she was asked to rate them, she probably wouldn't rate them as highly as I would though. And when the example of how extreme it can be for women's shows is Sex and the City, well, guess what, there's a lot of men around that have never quite understood the fascination that women had with that show. I know there's a fair number of men out there that honestly like it, but there's a lot that would probably sooner run a drill bit through their eyes than watch it. Is it wrong if they review the show badly when that's their honest opinion? Or have we reached the political correctness stage these days where one has to review something highly, just because it might not be designed for their sex, and it might actually appeal to the other sex, and god forbid that you give an honest evaluation of something, because, well, it's not "right".

Now, are there some men that probably do indeed go in and downvote a show simply because it's a women's show? Probably. There's probably some women that do the same thing for men's show, although historically I'd say that's probably a smaller percentage. Is either group large enough to really make a difference on these polls? Debatable, and there's just not enough info there to tell.

(As for the whole ghostbusters thing mentioned upthread, well, I'd tend to be one of those that think that the idea of remaking ghostbusters with an all-women lead team is a stupid idea. But my main reason is that I think the idea of remaking it in the first place is stupid, and an indication of how brain-dead hollywood is these days. Then to top that off, they decided that their gimmick for the remake was that they 4 main parts would be cast as women. They're doing it because it's news that they're doing it, and not necessarily because there's any real story-driven reason for it. And then, when the ratings for the new movie aren't great, they'll complain that it's because the cast was women, when the real reason quite honestly could be that the movie just doesn't capture the magic of the original, because there was no reason it needed remade in the first place. But even without the gimmick, my guess is that the ratings would have ended up so-so, because again, it's a stupid remake that didn't really need to be done.)


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Zevida said:


> ...
> 
> It does matter, because in spite of the scoffing studies do consider these types of things as factors in decisions around the content to make. And if content aimed at women is always rated lower, you end up with studios making decisions like not picking up a series because it's aimed for women (although CBS denies it, that was reported for why they passed on Drew).
> 
> I think it reveals an interesting pattern and if it is showing up in online reviews, it is going to show up in focus groups, in writer's rooms, and in executive offices. And likely in critics's review and there's no reason to think it also isn't happening on other places like Rotten Tomatoes.


Oh my.

Your only point to buttress your view that imdb ratings matter, and hence the why the flawed analysis of its gender bias is important, is a citation to an onlime article that mentions imbd _*not at all*_.

And from that, you posit that somehow this is indicative of gender bias in focus groups, and oh yes, critics' reviews.

Yet the ONLY hint of a reason in the _deadline.com_ article you referred is what is written:


> I hear the pilot tested well but skewed too female for CBS schedule.


Somehow, you use this as support to show how men unfairly evaluating shows aimed at women on imdb has consequences.

Sorry. Stretching exercises are good, but you are stretching way too much here. You are basing your flawed conclusion on the deadline.com author's unsubstantiated WAG (wild ass guess.) And even if the author's speculation were true, you have no context to judge the network's business decision: what their lineup is going to be on what nights, how much they have ready to go in development, and what markets are they trying to bolster.

For example, is an apparel manufacturer acting with nefarious intent if its new summer line will try to capture more of the young boys active market? Does that mean it snubs girls? No. It sees what it hopes will be a profitable segment, and will pursue it.

I reiterate my point: imdb ratings are meaningless, and to argue otherwise is folly.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

I personally know that IMDB ratings are used by studios because I know people who work there and they have told me.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

gschrock said:


> I know the article specifically called out Battlestar Galactica and seemed to be horrified that women might rate it decently, but I know my wife liked it. For that matter she liked the Shield too. I wouldn't be surprised that if she was asked to rate them, she probably wouldn't rate them as highly as I would though. And when the example of how extreme it can be for women's shows is Sex and the City, well, guess what, there's a lot of men around that have never quite understood the fascination that women had with that show. I know there's a fair number of men out there that honestly like it, but there's a lot


The author was not "horrified" women like Battlestar Galactic, just pointing out that women highly rate a show that many would consider male oriented, but men rarely do the same. I may not like something like Battlestar Galactica, but I understand the appeal for those who do, male or female. I think it reflects a lack of empathy, or blind adherence to outdated ideals of masculinity, or inherent belief the world should be for you to be someone who seeks out to slam things that aren't for you. I think it is worthwhile to note and be aware of even small things like this because it helps uncover things we should be working to change culturally.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> The author was not "horrified" women like Battlestar Galactic, just pointing out that women highly rate a show that many would consider male oriented, but men rarely do the same. I may not like something like Battlestar Galactica, but I understand the appeal for those who do, male or female. I think it reflects a lack of empathy, or blind adherence to outdated ideals of masculinity, or inherent belief the world should be for you to be someone who seeks out to slam things that aren't for you. I think it is worthwhile to note and be aware of even small things like this because it helps uncover things we should be working to change culturally.


The fact that the author chose Battlestar Galactica as a show that skews male shows s/he is not familiar with the show at all. Just like Friday Night Lights was much more of a family drama than a football show, Battlestar Galactica was much more of a political drama with strong female characters than it was a shoot-em-up space show.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Sorry, but if asked for my opinion on something, they will get the truth. If I ruin it for a certain demographic, that's not my problem. I'm not going to lie for the benefit of a demographic.

It's not us guys' fault that not enough women bother to participate in those surveys, just like people who believe in one candidate can't point fingers for that candidate losing due to not enough supporters bothering to vote.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

It's not about asking you to lie, but just being thoughtful about when you know you inherently don't like sometching just for what it is, outside of its quality. 

I don't like country music. If I happen to hear a country song or album, I don't make a big deal of talking about how bad it was. I don't go onto iTunes and rate it one star. I think "they don't make country music for me" and so I basically self select out of critiquing that. I pretty much do the same thing with romantic comedies - even though I'm a woman, they aren't my bag. I can watch one and tolerate and occasionally enjoy a really good one. They will never be a favorite movie. I also don't go around rating it lowly. 

Maybe it's grading on a curve, which you'd see as a form of lying. But it's more like grading relative to the best of what it is - I think for genres we don't like, women still compare a title to the best of that genre. So when I rate How to Be Single I'm thinking the gold standard is Notting Hill or (500) Days of Summer, not Mad Max: Fury Road or The Matrix (two of my actual favorite movies), and I'm rating it relative to that.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Maybe us guys just like to say "we like it" or "we don't like it" and leave it at that. We're not being asked to evaluate how it rates vs. others in its genre, nor are we being asked to evaluate it as if we were looking at it through someone else's eyes. We are being asked for our own opinions.

It reminds me of the meme that compares men and women by depicting men as a piece of electronics with a simple on-off switch and women with the same electronics with a zillion knobs on it.

If business decisions are being made primarily on the basis of what men think, the only men at fault are those who do so and fail to fully understand the statistics on which those decisions are based. The rest of us guys who simply are giving our opinions shouldn't be blamed for being over-represented in the survey.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

BTW there are other metrics that studios can use besides IMDB, and indeed existed before there was an IMDB. It's called sales and rental figures. If people think a movie sucks, they'll tell everybody, and sales/rentals will tank. That should make it less susceptible to the "man influence."


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

MikeCC said:


> I mean come on, don't we all know someone (or know _OF _someone) who deliberately input misleading personal data on a website, either out of privacy concerns, or a sense of humor. This isn't US Census data, folks.


Am I reading this correctly? You think people don't screw with census takers?

ROFL!


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Zevida said:


> I personally know that IMDB ratings are used by studios because I know people who work there and they have told me.


Oh. Okay. I believe you. You know people, and they told you.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Nothing in this thread is surprising. Not the study in the OP, not any of the responses. I can't believe no one has busted out #notallmen yet.



Zevida said:


> Don't women get dragged to The Revenent or have to sit through Entourage when they'd rather watch New Girl? And if women are more willing to sit through and be open-minded about content aimed at men, why can't men do the same about content aimed at women? It is very odd how reactive men are, as if sitting through a drama about women is torture, but women are more willing to see a wider variety of content without reacting this way.


Exactly.

I don't like movies like "The Notebook". So I don't watch it, and I don't rate it. And if I did watch it because someone else wanted to watch it with me I still wouldn't rate it. (Unless I was pleasantly surprised by it.)

It's like the person who rates a recipe for banana pudding 1 star and starts off by saying they hate bananas. That doesn't make it a bad recipe for banana pudding and you're unfairly skewing the ratings.



gschrock said:


> Now, are there some men that probably do indeed go in and downvote a show simply because it's a women's show? Probably. There's probably some women that do the same thing for men's show, although historically I'd say that's probably a smaller percentage. Is either group large enough to really make a difference on these polls? Debatable, and there's just not enough info there to tell.


Shades of "gamergate" and the absurd quantity of hate mail female public figures get. Sam Bee's latest episode had a great piece on this. Also her "real or fake" mail segments.



MikeCC said:


> Oh. Okay. I believe you. You know people, and they told you.


I know where she works and roughly what she does. Lots of other people here do, too. I've got $10 that says she's the most qualified person in this thread to discuss this.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Unfortunately it isn't shocking that men are more immature overall for things like this. 

If network executives are relying on IMDb ratings though, they are even dumber than I thought. I can understand relying on the TV ratings from Nielsen, etc., and I realize those aren't perfect, but they seem a lot better than some IMDb user submissions.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> If network executives are relying on IMDb ratings though, they are even dumber than I thought. I can understand relying on the TV ratings from Nielsen, etc., and I realize those aren't perfect, but they seem a lot better than some IMDb user submissions.


It would be like relying on an online poll to give you an accurate reflection on anything. At best I can see them being used as another data point in a sea of data points, but it should be way down on the importance scale.


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

Zevida said:


> Don't women get dragged to The Revenent or have to sit through Entourage when they'd rather watch New Girl?


As someone whose wife just made him sit through 7 (8?!) seasons of Entourage, nearly one a day for months, and who would have probably preferred to be watching New Girl, I heartily object to your offensive stereotype. 

But seriously, I think you have a fair point. It seems weird that guys feel the need to be so vocal about shows they don't like, where women tend to be more ambivalent about it.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I don't care what you guys think, I got all misty eyed during the Grey's Anatomy season finale. I give it IMDB 11 stars.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Robin said:


> Nothing in this thread is surprising. Not the study in the OP, not any of the responses.


What makes this offensive to me, and I'm sure lots of guys, is yet again it's "our fault." The mere act of simply giving our opinion, one that is requested, is somehow oppressing women, even though the real problem is that women (by choice) are under-representing themselves in these surveys. So I'm supposed to compensate for that somehow.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

RonDawg said:


> So I'm supposed to compensate for that somehow.


Yes. By not reviewing things that don't appeal to you in the first place.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I've never rated anything on IMDb so I can't say for certain if this is the case, but my guess is that many people rate everything they see because it will then analyze what the user likes and doesn't like, and can then recommend new content that the user is more likely to enjoy. So by not rating something that the user watched and didn't like, the user is artificially skewing his/her own profile away from where it should be.

Obviously this doesn't excuse the types of poor reviews with unnecessarily mysoginistic language, of which I'm sure there are plenty, but I suspect there are a fair amount of 1-star reviews on female-skewing shows that are simply there to keep the user's ratings profile as accurate as possible.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

RonDawg said:


> What makes this offensive to me, and I'm sure lots of guys, is yet again it's "our fault." The mere act of simply giving our opinion, one that is requested, is somehow oppressing women, even though the real problem is that women (by choice) are under-representing themselves in these surveys. So I'm supposed to compensate for that somehow.


Maybe some men are not perceptive enough to realize what types of shows they like and dislike? I'm not a fan of soap operas. I could watch soap operas and give them all 1 star reviews, but some of them are probably good soap operas. So I'd be skewing the reviews because it's a genre I don't care for. Worse yet, I could just give them 1 star reviews without even watching them, which is what I suspect how many of the 1 star reviews are rated.

Basically, I think it should be an obvious concept that if you don't generally like a topic or genre, you should realize you're not a good judge of any shows in that genre, and it seems like men are more apt to do that.

I wouldn't want a vegetarian rating BBQ restaurants, or my wife rating direct-to-DVD superhero cartoon movies - and she doesn't want me rating novels with vampires.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I've never rated anything on IMDb so I can't say for certain if this is the case, but my guess is that many people rate everything they see because it will then analyze what the user likes and doesn't like, and can then recommend new content that the user is more likely to enjoy. So by not rating something that the user watched and didn't like, the user is artificially skewing his/her own profile away from where it should be.
> 
> Obviously this doesn't excuse the types of poor reviews with unnecessarily mysoginistic language, of which I'm sure there are plenty, but I suspect there are a fair amount of 1-star reviews on female-skewing shows that are simply there to keep the user's ratings profile as accurate as possible.


Is that how IMDb works? I've never rated anything either, and don't have an account there, so I didn't even know it had a suggestion system.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> Is that how IMDb works? I've never rated anything either, and don't have an account there, so I didn't even know it had a suggestion system.


Like I said, I don't know for sure, but I know that's how Netflix works and it seems like that would be a big mistake by IMDb to not use a user's reviews to help suggest content the user would like. Especially since Netflix only has a fraction of all content, while IMDb in theory has nearly everything.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Robin said:


> Yes. By not reviewing things that don't appeal to you in the first place.


As mentioned earlier, sometimes we're "persuaded" to watch movies and TV shows that don't appeal to us initially, but agree to do so for peace-keeping purposes.

If I like it, I'll review it positively. If not, I will give it a negative review. If it means fewer chick flicks get made, again NOT MY PROBLEM!

I won't leave a negative review for a movie I've never seen, just like I won't leave a negative review for a product I've never used.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

So, back to the food analogy. Let's say you find broccoli very unappealing. You are in a restaurant you've never been to, and are "persuaded" to eat a broccoli dish. Not shockingly, you don't like it. Would you leave a review on Yelp, Urban Spoon, etc. and criticize the broccoli dish (and give the restaurant a low rating)?


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

BrettStah said:


> Is that how IMDb works? I've never rated anything either, and don't have an account there, so I didn't even know it had a suggestion system.


Seems like you guys should do some research for us. Sign up and let us know? What shows will you review first?

Gilmore Girls?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

SullyND said:


> Seems like you guys should do some research for us. Sign up and let us know? What shows will you review first?
> 
> Gilmore Girls?


Ha! My oldest daughter loves that show.

But I'll stick to being a consumer of reviews... I rarely leave them anywhere.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

BrettStah said:


> Maybe some men are not perceptive enough to realize what types of shows they like and dislike? I'm not a fan of soap operas. I could watch soap operas and give them all 1 star reviews, but some of them are probably good soap operas. So I'd be skewing the reviews because it's a genre I don't care for. Worse yet, I could just give them 1 star reviews without even watching them, which is what I suspect how many of the 1 star reviews are rated. Basically, I think it should be an obvious concept that if you don't generally like a topic or genre, you should realize you're not a good judge of any shows in that genre, and it seems like men are more apt to do that. I wouldn't want a vegetarian rating BBQ restaurants, or my wife rating direct-to-DVD superhero cartoon movies - and she doesn't want me rating novels with vampires.


You (and Robin) make it sound like us guys go out of our way to slam something we've never seen, or to go see something we know we'll hate just for the purposes of giving a poor review.

While I'm sure there are people of both genders that do this, I don't think it's a problem big enough to bother dealing with. Life's way too short to waste my time like that.

The big problem is that the contributors to these surveys are men by a factor of over 2:1. Meaning, women aren't choosing to participate. But of course is that male privilege thing again 

Studio execs (admittedly, mostly male) who make greenlight/red light decisions based on a very flawed methodology (that they should know is deeply flawed) without consulting other metrics like sales figures are idiots. If a "chick-flick" or similar TV show is popular, I find it hard to believe they would yank it just because us Neanderthal males gave it a bunch of one-stars.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

RonDawg said:


> As mentioned earlier, sometimes we're "persuaded" to watch movies and TV shows that don't appeal to us initially, but agree to do so for peace-keeping purposes.
> 
> If I like it, I'll review it positively. If not, I will give it a negative review.


Why?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I guess I do think there are people who are mostly men there who would do that. My opinion of how awful people (mostly men) behave anonymously is pretty low though. 

I do agree it would be helpful if more women rated shows there. Some may shy away due to past experiences they've had online though. 

I do agree about the studio execs... They seem to be idiots in general.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SullyND said:


> Seems like you guys should do some research for us. Sign up and let us know? What shows will you review first?
> 
> Gilmore Girls?


Here's what I found on IMDb:

http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?personalrecommendations

Short answer: yes, they provide suggestions based on the ratings you've given to other shows. So for people who obsessively curate their watched/rated lists, they would be doing themselves a disservice to not provide a low rating to a show they watched and didn't like.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

RonDawg said:


> As mentioned earlier, sometimes we're "persuaded" to watch movies and TV shows that don't appeal to us initially, but agree to do so for peace-keeping purposes.
> 
> If I like it, I'll review it positively. If not, I will give it a negative review. If it means fewer chick flicks get made, again NOT MY PROBLEM!
> 
> I won't leave a negative review for a movie I've never seen, just like I won't leave a negative review for a product I've never used.





Robin said:


> Why?


Why shouldn't he?

If he's seen it, his opinion is just as valid as yours or mine.

Now, if he's not a fan of the genre, it would be helpful for him to state so in the review.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Why shouldn't he? Because if he's not a fan of the genre then he's skewing the ratings senselessly.

The knowledge that IMDb offers personalized ratings changes things substantially. In that case it makes sense to rate everything and no sense for anyone to depend on the data.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

If a studio is targeting a show to a particular demographic, it is their job to filter out the ratings accordingly to determine whether that show is meeting their criteria of a success. Perhaps they might also want to see how it rates in other demographics to see if it has more widespread appeal than they had originally thought, so it is beneficial for everyone to give honest opinions of shows they have watched.

It doesn't make sense for people to self-weight their own responses. That would just skew the data even more.

If IMDB was a site dedicated to peer reviews from fellow filmmakers on the quality of different aspects of movies and shows, such as writing, effects, lighting, etc., then I could see the criticism here. But the reviews on that site are simply for people to give their personal opinions. If studios are abusing this data, that's their problem, not the reviewers'.

IMDB makes it easy to see the breakdown by demographic. For example, here is the breakdown for New Girl. The data is there for those who care.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

JYoung said:


> Why shouldn't he?
> 
> If he's seen it, his opinion is just as valid as yours or mine.
> 
> Now, if he's not a fan of the genre, it would be helpful for him to state so in the review.


To me, if I am looking at reviews of a sci-fi show haven't watched yet, I really only care what people who like sci-fi shows think about it. Why would I care how someone who dispises sci-fi shows thinks about it?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Robin said:


> Why shouldn't he? Because if he's not a fan of the genre then he's skewing the ratings senselessly.
> 
> The knowledge that IMDb offers personalized ratings changes things substantially. In that case it makes sense to rate everything and no sense for anyone to depend on the data.


Well that is an excellent point. I think I agree.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> To me, if I am looking at reviews of a sci-fi show haven't watched yet, I really only care what people who like sci-fi shows think about it. Why would I care how someone who dispises sci-fi shows thinks about it?


And if IMDB was catering to genre fans, you'd have an argument.
They're not, though.
They're serving the General audience.

BTW, if someone says, "Normally, I despise Sci-Fi but I loved this movie", that's useful data too.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

It would be handy if IMDB had a "not interested" that could be used instead of a low rating. But still, if you are always rating dramas, action, and sci-fi I don't think you are going to get romantic comedy suggestions if you just don't rate it vs. if you give it a 2.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> Well that is an excellent point. I think I agree.


Thanks.  


JYoung said:


> BTW, if someone says, "Normally, I despise Sci-Fi but I loved this movie", that's useful data too.


Yep, and I think I addressed that earlier.

Useful: "I normally hate bananas but this banana pudding was amazing!"

Not useful: "This banana pudding was awful. But then, I hate bananas."

Actively harmful: "This banana pudding was awful." (Minor detail of hating bananas omitted.)


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Robin said:


> Why?


Because as I said earlier, I refuse to lie about my opinions just because women are oh-so-oppressed when it comes to women's entertainment, that's why.

If women are so worried that my opinions as a man are skewing the poll and ruining *their* choicest then *they* need to make their opinions better known, rather than expecting us men to lie.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

JYoung said:


> Why shouldn't he? If he's seen it, his opinion is just as valid as yours or mine.


Not according to some.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

what exactly is "women's entertainment" ??


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

jsmeeker said:


> what exactly is "women's entertainment" ??


Apparently it's whatever us guys are giving crappy reviews to and thus oppressing women's choices for.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

BrettStah said:


> To me, if I am looking at reviews of a sci-fi show haven't watched yet, I really only care what people who like sci-fi shows think about it. Why would I care how someone who dispises sci-fi shows thinks about it?


And why should my preferences weigh into it? It's none of your business what movie genres I like.

If only bought Kenmore appliances in the past, does that mean my opinions on a Samsung or LG don't count? A traditionally-Ford buyer can't give his opinion on a Chevy or Toyota that he recently rented?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

is this like Yelp where people give a place 1 star because the place is closed on some day of the week when they wanted to dine there?


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Robin said:


> Useful: "I normally hate bananas but this banana pudding was amazing!"
> 
> Not useful: "This banana pudding was awful. But then, I hate bananas."
> 
> Actively harmful: "This banana pudding was awful." (Minor detail of hating bananas omitted.)


The depends on the reason for which you are using the data. If you want to start a banana pudding store in a certain area, then it behooves you to know how many people would and would not be willing to buy it regardless of why. It doesn't matter if your banana pudding is the best in the world if most people in a given area don't like bananas.

On the other hand, if people in a certain area like bananas more than average, and you are looking to start a store in that area, you should use data collected from that area as opposed to the national or worldwide average. If you don't, however, it's not the fault of those who don't like bananas that you used the data incorrectly to come to the wrong conclusions.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> is this like Yelp where people give a place 1 star because the place is closed on some day of the week when they wanted to dine there?


It's like people giving a restaurant 1 star because their delivery took too long even though they loved the food. Personally, I like to give vegetarian and vegan restaurants 1 star for not having meat dishes on the menu.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Or like people who can't stand driving two-seaters due to lack of space giving a crappy review of a two-seater, complaining about the lack of space, that they rented one weekend.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> is this like Yelp where people give a place 1 star because the place is closed on some day of the week when they wanted to dine there?


It's an Internet-based movie review site, so there are going to be thousands of reviews with all different kinds of motivations. Some people will rate a show poorly simply because they don't like one of the actors or filmmakers. Some will rate a show poorly because they saw it while on a date which didn't end well. Some will rate a show poorly because they're immature idiots who get some kind of sick satisfaction out of trolling. And some will rate a show poorly because they truly didn't like the show.

That's why it would be ridiculous for studio execs to use IMDb ratings (or any general online ratings) as a gauge for how to run their business.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

This is why, in the statistics community, self selected polls aren't worth the paper the results are printed on.

The Nielsen ratings folks, the folks Studio execs actually listen to, and not to IMDB, know how to do statistically significant polls.

--Carlos V.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I'm really not big fan of user review sites where there are number or star or letter or whatever ratings to begin with.

You should see how crazy those Internet people are.


Bunch of nut jobs


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Zevida said:


> It's not about asking you to lie, but just being thoughtful about when you know you inherently don't like sometching just for what it is, outside of its quality.
> 
> I don't like country music. If I happen to hear a country song or album, I don't make a big deal of talking about how bad it was. I don't go onto iTunes and rate it one star. I think "they don't make country music for me" and so I basically self select out of critiquing that. I pretty much do the same thing with romantic comedies - even though I'm a woman, they aren't my bag. I can watch one and tolerate and occasionally enjoy a really good one. They will never be a favorite movie. I also don't go around rating it lowly.
> 
> Maybe it's grading on a curve, which you'd see as a form of lying. But it's more like grading relative to the best of what it is - I think for genres we don't like, women still compare a title to the best of that genre. So when I rate How to Be Single I'm thinking the gold standard is Notting Hill or (500) Days of Summer, not Mad Max: Fury Road or The Matrix (two of my actual favorite movies), and I'm rating it relative to that.


If I am asked to rate, using the author's example, Sex in the City, I will give it my honest rating: 3/10 stars. It has nothing to do with feeling empathy for some demographic or other, but giving my opinion on something if asked. I don't like fish or seafood, and if asked to rate a fish dish will give it 1 star, because I can not stand the taste of fish. It would never even occur to me to think, well someone must like fish so I shouldn't offer my opinion just because I don't like it. If I only rated shows I liked, then the shows I don't like would have higher ratings and the studios might make more shows that I don't like instead of shows that I would enjoy. I don't rate the show comparing it to the "best" of that genre, I rate it more or less on how much I enjoy watching it. I would definitely not base my rating of How to be Single by comparing it to Notting Hill. That just doesn't make sense to me. I would rate it on how much I enjoyed the film.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's an Internet-based movie review site, so there are going to be thousands of reviews with all different kinds of motivations. Some people will rate a show poorly simply because they don't like one of the actors or filmmakers. Some will rate a show poorly because they saw it while on a date which didn't end well. Some will rate a show poorly because they're immature idiots who get some kind of sick satisfaction out of trolling. And some will rate a show poorly because they truly didn't like the show.
> 
> That's why it would be ridiculous for studio execs to use IMDb ratings (or any general online ratings) as a gauge for how to run their business.


Exactly.

I still highly doubt that any entertainment exec in this day and age would use IMDb ratings to reach any business decision. A decision maker who does deserves having the whole thing flop. Its beyond ludicrous and stupid; using data like that puts the livelihoods of people attached to the project at risk.

Flawed data used to make a flawed decision results in a flawed outcome.

But hey, according to some on this thread, that's because men are mean to "women's entertainment." If only men would change their ways. If only the sabotaging men would do a behavioral shift, then things would be better in the entertainment industry.

Perhaps I have a better suggestion: let's view the IMDb ratings for what they are, _and not what they aren't_. Let's assume there is a built in bias, for whatever reason.

And then, for God's sake, don't use this internet poll data to make project decisions. Commission a real poll. Arrange for controlled studies, and real focus groups. Get reliable data.

Don't try to get by on the cheap by using IMDb info. Those that do, deserve what they get.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Flop said:


> I don't like fish or seafood, and if asked to rate a fish dish will give it 1 star, because I can not stand the taste of fish. It would never even occur to me to think, well someone must like fish so I shouldn't offer my opinion just because I don't like it.


I also hate fish and seafood and I would never rate a fish dish as 1 star. I am not qualified to rate it because I fundamentally dislike what it is, and it's unfair to people who do like fish. If asked, I'd say I don't like fish, but I'd abstain from giving a rating or participating in a discussion (what online reviews essentially are) of the dish. I think this is a fascinating difference in behavior.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

MikeCC said:


> I still highly doubt that any entertainment exec in this day and age would use IMDb ratings to reach any business decision. A decision maker who does deserves having the whole thing flop. Its beyond ludicrous and stupid; using data like that puts the livelihoods of people attached to the project at risk.
> 
> Flawed data used to make a flawed decision results in a flawed outcome.
> 
> But hey, according to some on this thread, that's because men are mean to "women's entertainment."


Of course it's not the only data point, but it is one data point among many.

Also, I searched the thread and can't find where some on the thread said men are "mean." Could you point me to those posts?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Why are people ordering or eating fish dishes if they don't like fish?


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Why are people ordering or eating fish dishes if they don't like fish?


Well, when you're in London with cow-orkers and they want to go to the fancy French restaurant and order the tasting menu which includes a fish course, you go along with it and at least taste the fish to be polite even though it tastes like a fish tank.

Huh, the other time I ate seafood recently was also due to coworkers and also overseas, though in this case was fried shrimp at a night market in Taiwan. In that case, it mostly just tasted like the fried breading.

In neither case would I offer an opinion on the dish. Also, I should stop letting my coworkers pressure me into eating seafood!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Unless there's some food rating site that asks you to rate every meal you eat and then provides you with custom recommendations of other meals you would like based on the meals you previously rated, then all this talk of rating fish is irrelevant. People rate movies on IMDb so that they can get accurate recommendations. If they didn't rate the shows they didn't like, the ratings wouldn't be accurate.


----------



## Jayboy3 (Jan 2, 2010)

My wife watches Lifetime movies and they are terrible


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Zevida said:


> Well, when you're in London with cow-orkers...


wow, you must really hate your co-workers


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

RonDawg said:


> Because as I said earlier, I refuse to lie about my opinions just because women are oh-so-oppressed when it comes to women's entertainment, that's why.
> 
> If women are so worried that my opinions as a man are skewing the poll and ruining *their* choicest then *they* need to make their opinions better known, rather than expecting us men to lie.


Who's asking you to lie? Or is that your interpretation of "don't go out of your way to rate things of a genre you dislike in the first place"?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jamesl said:


> wow, you must really hate your co-workers


Hi, are you new here?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Unless there's some food rating site that asks you to rate every meal you eat and then provides you with custom recommendations of other meals you would like based on the meals you previously rated, then all this talk of rating fish is irrelevant. People rate movies on IMDb so that they can get accurate recommendations. If they didn't rate the shows they didn't like, the ratings wouldn't be accurate.


Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

On the other hand, there are tons of shows and movies there, way beyond what any single human could watch. I'm sure their recommendation system doesn't rely on each person rating everything. Hypothetically if I was using IMDb for recommendations and I rated everything that I watched accurately, except for the TV shows and movies that were "forced" upon me (those times when everyone else in the group I happen to be in chooses a particular show or movie to me watch, so I go with the flow to not be cantankerous), I'm going to guess that the recommendations system would be just fine.

It seems like a bad way for a recommendations system to work. What if it recommends a show or movie that I definitely don't want to ever see? There's no way to let it know it screwed up except to give it a bogus 1 star review?


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> Why are people ordering or eating fish dishes if they don't like fish?


Apparently, I, as a man, am required to eat dishes I don't like to keep the peace because my wife likes fish and she's too fragile to handle me eating something else. At least that's what I'm gathering from the stereotyping going on in this thread.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

The Netflix suggestion system includes a "not interested" option for rating movies and shows. Just sayin. 

I've always laughed at the IMDb recommendations.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> It seems like a bad way for a recommendations system to work. What if it recommends a show or movie that I definitely don't want to ever see? There's no way to let it know it screwed up except to give it a bogus 1 star review?


IMDB has you covered:









(Picture instead of a screen shot to capture the hover text.)



IMDB said:


> You are recommending a movie that I really do not want to see. How can I make it go away?
> Click on the 'no' button.


They also specifically state you should rate what you love:



IMDB said:


> How can I improve my personalized recommendations?
> To improve your personalized recommendations, find and rate the movies that you love.


http://www.imdb.com/help/search?dom...=1&file=personalrecommendations&ref_=hlp_sr_1


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Zevida said:


> . . . even though it tastes like a fish tank.





jamesl said:


> wow, you must really hate your co-workers


I was more curious about how she knows what a fish tank tastes like.

Fresh water? Salt water? Inquiring minds what to know.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Seemed like a decent sample size (shows with 10,000+ ratings). I can buy the phenomenons:
- Men give shows 1+ points lower ratings. But I don't really care about just 1 point.
- Men give more shows the lowest rating (1). But I would have also liked to see stats for giving the highest rating. I feel like the majority of ratings I see on say yelp and amazon are either the top or bottom.

I think the article describes an slightly interesting phenomenon. But it does a poor job of presenting evidence for motive, which I think is important if they're going to cite motive for a click baity headline.

I give the article 1 out of 10 stars.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom (Dec 17, 2015)

Yup, I think their take away is flawed. One could easily conclude that women artificially rate shows too high.

The only real item to note is people rate things differently based on different tastes. Go figure!


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

David Platt said:


> Apparently, I, as a man, am required to eat dishes I don't like to keep the peace because my wife likes fish and she's too fragile to handle me eating something else. At least that's what I'm gathering from the stereotyping going on in this thread.


Really? That's your takeaway?  No one said that. If you don't want to eat fish, don't eat it. If you do have to eat it to be polite, as everyone in life ends up from time to time doing something they wouldn't prefer, don't slam the dish or the restaurant.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Zevida said:


> Also, I searched the thread and can't find where some on the thread said men are "mean." Could you point me to those posts?


That seems are trifle disingenuous, don't you think?

Let's review what has been said about men, okay?

From the online article you cited to begin this thread, we can see that author lament that men's actions result in:


> female audiences getting screwed.


Also in post 13, you claim


> [men] are more likely to rate things not for them and rate them more harshly. ... Men know its not for them so they trash it.


Later, in post 34, we see:


> ...men are more immature overall for things like this.


And then there's post 39:


> [men] review things that don't appeal to [them] in the first place.


And of course, post 41:


> Maybe some men are not perceptive enough to realize what types of show they like or dislike.


Did you or anyone else use the word "mean"? Of course not. But the entire tone of the complaints about men's voting behavior boils down to seeing men as mean. 

They screw female audiences.
They rate women's interests more harshly
They trash things that aren't for them
They are more immature
They rate things that aren't for them
They are not perceptive enough to know what they like or dislike

Perhaps men and women view things differently. A shocker, eh? But why would this be a male problem?

Maybe women are too passive, or too lenient about evaluating things. Why is this thread about a male flaw? Perhaps this illustrates a sad female shortcoming, and until that shortcoming is addressed, the perceived rating bias will continue.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Zevida said:


> Really? That's your takeaway?  No one said that. If you don't want to eat fish, don't eat it. If you do have to eat it to be polite, as everyone in life ends up from time to time doing something they wouldn't prefer, don't slam the dish or the restaurant.


Ha, no. I didn't make my point clearly enough.

I was being sarcastic about the thing I've seen guys assert in this thread, that as men they're forced to watch shows their wives like to 'keep the peace' or whatever. Personally, i watch the shows I want to; my wife watches the shows she wants to. The shows we both enjoy, we watch together. It's never even crossed my mind to do things otherwise.

I'm completely on your side in regards to the article.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

David Platt said:


> I was being sarcastic about the thing I've seen guys assert in this thread, that as men they're forced to watch shows their wives like to 'keep the peace' or whatever. Personally, i watch the shows I want to; my wife watches the shows she wants to. The shows we both enjoy, we watch together. It's never even crossed my mind to do things otherwise.


I guess that's my disconnect in this thread too. Why is anyone watching stuff they don't want to watch? When I want to watch something my husband doesn't I watch it without him. Vice versa for him. There's plenty out there we both like that we watch together.

Same with my kids. I don't watch Dora with them and then whine about how insipid it is. Instead we watch Phineus and Ferb and laugh ourselves silly.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Robin said:


> I guess that's my disconnect in this thread too. Why is anyone watching stuff they don't want to watch? When I want to watch something my husband doesn't I watch it without him. Vice versa for him. There's plenty out there we both like that we watch together.
> 
> Same with my kids. I don't watch Dora with them and then whine about how insipid it is. Instead we watch Phineus and Ferb and laugh ourselves silly.


That's how we watch TV too. We have shows we both like, then shows we like separately. For movies it is a little different, since we usually go to them together. But if she picks a movie I accurately predict I won't really like, I am not going to review/rank it online anywhere.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Robin said:


> I guess that's my disconnect in this thread too. Why is anyone watching stuff they don't want to watch? When I want to watch something my husband doesn't I watch it without him. Vice versa for him. There's plenty out there we both like that we watch together.
> 
> Same with my kids. I don't watch Dora with them and then whine about how insipid it is. Instead we watch Phineus and Ferb and laugh ourselves silly.


This post also explains a lot about modern American politics. 

Of this whole ratings topic, I like Roger Ebert's take:



> I cringe when people say, "How could you give that movie four stars?" I reply, "What in my review did you disagree with?" Invariably, they're stuck for an answer. One thing I try to do is provide an accurate account of what you will see, and how I feel about it. I cannot speak for you. Any worthwhile review is subjective. If we completely disagree, my words might nevertheless be useful or provocative. If you disagree with what I write, be my guest. If you disagree with how many stars I gave it, you can mail your opinion to where the sun don't shine.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Robin said:


> I guess that's my disconnect in this thread too. Why is anyone watching stuff they don't want to watch? When I want to watch something my husband doesn't I watch it without him. Vice versa for him. There's plenty out there we both like that we watch together.
> 
> Same with my kids. I don't watch Dora with them and then whine about how insipid it is. Instead we watch Phineus and Ferb and laugh ourselves silly.


I dunno. My brother saw Fifty Shades of Grey because his wife insisted on seeing it and she has sat through a lot of movies that the kids and her husband want to see.

I've seen a fair amount of movies where the genre may not generally interest me because the premise sounds interesting, I like one of the actors or the director, someone I know is involved in the production, or a friend has recommended it to me.
And these days, I'll usually go ahead and read at least the trivia section of the IMDB entry because I'm that kind of guy.

I'm also having difficulty with the "you don't like the genre so you shouldn't be allowed to voice your opinion on it" attitude.

If they went into it with at least a somewhat open mind, they still have a valid opinion.

Now a "I didn't like the banana pudding but I don't like bananas" opinion doesn't get weighted as much as others in my mind because but it's still a valid opinion.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Robin said:


> Who's asking you to lie? Or is that your interpretation of "don't go out of your way to rate things of a genre you dislike in the first place"?


I'm going to make this simple: I will rate a movie based on how I feel about it. Not "on a curve" (Zevida) or "compared to others in its genre" (Brett). Asking me to do so, when I don't want to do so, is asking me to lie. It would be like me asking them to revise the way they rate something.

It's also a lie because the real reason for others wanting me to do so is because it might affect the future availability of movies that are more likely to appeal to women. I don't care if it results in movies less likely to attract a female audience. NOT MY PROBLEM.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

JYoung said:


> I dunno. My brother saw Fifty Shades of Grey because his wife insisted on seeing it and she has sat through a lot of movies that the kids and her husband want to see.


That's the part that seems to zoom over many here who think that us men are going out of our way to see a movie we know we will hate, and then slam it afterward.

*We're not going out of our way to see these movies.* Often times we will be on a date, or going out with friends, or relaxing at home, and "persuaded" to watch these movies. I have put the word "persuaded" in quotes more than once in this thread for a reason: it's not 100% voluntary on our part.

I've mentioned, and another poster has mentioned, that we often do this to keep the peace. It's simply not worth a fight, and ruining an otherwise nice night out, just to assert oneself on a movie choice. If there are women here who think the relationship with the men in their life is truly 50/50, good for you. But I would also bet that if given the opportunity to anonymously post their feelings on the internet about that, some of those same men likely would not respond with 50/50.

Do some men give a crappy rating as a form of revenge against being forced to watch something they knew they'd hate? Perhaps. But I don't think that's a real problem.



> I've seen a fair amount of movies where the genre may not generally interest me because the premise sounds interesting, I like one of the actors or the director, someone I know is involved in the production, or a friend has recommended it to me.


Sometimes I'll come across a movie I wouldn't otherwise watch because I was "persuaded" to do so, or else I was on an airplane and nothing else was on. One movie I thought I'd never watch EVER, simply because the title didn't lure me in at all, was _Fried Green Tomatoes._ But one day I was sick and laying on the sofa and watching TV. After whatever I was watching had ended, _Fried Green Tomatoes_ came on. Unfortunately I didn't place the remote close enough for easy reach and I really didn't want to get up to change the channel. So I watched it, and I liked it, especially the part where Kathy Bates takes out her parking lot rage 



> I'm also having difficulty with the "you don't like the genre so you shouldn't be allowed to voice your opinion on it" attitude.


This, but what is even worse starts with the whole premise of this thread: women aren't participating as much as they should regarding their opinions on this thread, *possibly* causing the studios to not make as many movies that they would like. So rather than implement the obvious solution (encourage women to make their voices more well known), they go for the ridiculous: asking us men to not be so harsh in our ratings.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

RonDawg said:


> This, but what is even worse starts with the whole premise of this thread: women aren't participating as much as they should regarding their opinions on this thread, *possibly* causing the studios to not make as many movies that they would like. So rather than implement the obvious solution (encourage women to make their voices more well known), they go for the ridiculous: asking us men to not be so harsh in our ratings.


I don't see anywhere in the article where it's making any suggestion like that.

It's observational, without offering any real proposal for a fix other than 'be aware of the problem.'


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

David Platt said:


> I don't see anywhere in the article where it's making any suggestion like that.


The author may not have said that outright, but the article's title strongly implies that it's all our fault by "sabotaging" things for women in regards to movies they like.

However, others in this thread have wanted me to attenuate any potentially harsh ratings by "grading on a curve" or "comparing it to others in its genre."


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

I wonder why women don't participate as much as they should? Do you think it's because they get shouted down by men chanting #notallmen?


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

MikeCC said:


> Perhaps men and women view things differently. A shocker, eh? But why would this be a male problem?
> 
> Maybe women are too passive, or too lenient about evaluating things. Why is this thread about a male flaw?


Because it's all our fault! Did you not get the memo?

Seriously, men and women due perceive things differently. That's why it's important for both to *equally* have their feelings known, not for one to try to think for the other.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

I think it comes down to that no one ever rates anything between 2 and 4 these days. 

Clearly we should more to a 2 or maybe 3 point system since 5 points of reference is too complicated for most. 

But then again it's the Internet and there is no middle ground any longer with everyone's echo chamber.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Robin said:


> I wonder why women don't participate as much as they should? Do you think it's because they get shouted down by men chanting #notallmen?


No. No, I don't think they "get shouted down" by men, chanting #notallmen or otherwise.

I wonder, if women don't participate as much as they should, why some are suggesting that this is because it is the men's fault --- that somehow men should change their behavior.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I don't think I encouraged you or anyone to compare it to others in its genre. My point is that if there is a genre of show or movie that you (generic you, both men and women) despise, and you find yourself in a situation where you watch something in that genre, maybe don't rate the show/movie at all. It goes back to the example used earlier - if you hate bananas, and then eat some banana cream pie and hate it, maybe don't hold that against the pie maker.


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

smark said:


> I think it comes down to that no one ever rates anything between 2 and 4 these days.
> 
> Clearly we should more to a 2 or maybe 3 point system since 5 points of reference is too complicated for most.
> 
> But then again it's the Internet and there is no middle ground any longer with everyone's echo chamber.


It's weird, but I very rarely rate anything a 1, and only a little more often a 5. If I'm reading reviews I tend to discount heavily anyone who gave something a 1 (film, product, whatever), unless they give a really good reason for it. It seems often those reviews are made in anger, and lots of times for things the producer isn't all that responsible for.

I wonder if part of the discrepancy with reviews is also whether you think of them as completely subjective or having an objective component? There are lots of movies that I haven't enjoyed watching, but were nonetheless good films. I don't regularly give star ratings or anything, but if I was to review it I'd probably give it a good rating but explain why I didn't enjoy it. Other people seem to think of the review more purely as an up or down vote on whether they liked the movie, which is totally fine, just different than how I think if them.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

smark said:


> I think it comes down to that no one ever rates anything between 2 and 4 these days.
> 
> Clearly we should more to a 2 or maybe 3 point system since 5 points of reference is too complicated for most.
> 
> But then again it's the Internet and there is no middle ground any longer with everyone's echo chamber.





dylanemcgregor said:


> It's weird, but I very rarely rate anything a 1, and only a little more often a 5. If I'm reading reviews I tend to discount heavily anyone who gave something a 1 (film, product, whatever), unless they give a really good reason for it. It seems often those reviews are made in anger, and lots of times for things the producer isn't all that responsible for.
> 
> I wonder if part of the discrepancy with reviews is also whether you think of them as completely subjective or having an objective component? There are lots of movies that I haven't enjoyed watching, but were nonetheless good films. I don't regularly give star ratings or anything, but if I was to review it I'd probably give it a good rating but explain why I didn't enjoy it. Other people seem to think of the review more purely as an up or down vote on whether they liked the movie, which is totally fine, just different than how I think if them.


I'd like to point out that the IMDB ranking system is 1 to 10 Stars.


Glancing at my ratings, I rarely rank anything at 1 Star.
Even Pixels got 2 stars.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Studios will make movies that make money. They are going to be reluctant to make movies that don't make them money. I don't care who goes on and rates things on IMDB because movies that are scored highly but don't make any money are not going to be made with any sort of regularity and the reverse of that is true as well.
As far as ratings go, I would also think that Cinenascore grades are also looked at much more closely than IMDB ratings as you are getting better demographic information and you're getting it from people who have actually seen the movie.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

BrettStah said:


> I don't think I encouraged you or anyone to compare it to others in its genre. My point is that if there is a genre of show or movie that you (generic you, both men and women) despise, and you find yourself in a situation where you watch something in that genre, maybe don't rate the show/movie at all. It goes back to the example used earlier - if you hate bananas, and then eat some banana cream pie and hate it, maybe don't hold that against the pie maker.


So if I happen to come across a movie I didn't think I would like (again, _Fried Green Tomatoes_) I'm also supposed to withhold comment even if I do like it? How is that supposed to improve entertainment choices for women? Especially since (according to the article) a male's vote has 2.3 times the power (70/30) of a woman's. Holding back my positive vote means another man's rating of "poor" skews it further towards that side.

Perhaps filmmakers should make more movies that appeal to both genders (e.g. _An Officer and a Gentleman_) and if they do decide to make a film that heavily favors one over the other to expect ratings to skew accordingly.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Robin said:


> I wonder why women don't participate as much as they should? Do you think it's because they get shouted down by men chanting #notallmen?


First, there isn't any way to comment on someone else's IMDb review, so no, women aren't being bullied into not writing reviews.

Second, I think the type of person who obsessively tracks and maintains lists of every movie watched and reviews them all to provide the most accurate personal recommendations is much more likely to be male. I'm not saying there aren't some women who do that, but most of the women I know would find something like that to be a complete waste of time. That type of rigid, obsessive behavior just seems inherently more male to me.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

RonDawg said:


> Perhaps filmmakers should make more movies that appeal to both genders (e.g. _An Officer and a Gentleman_) and if they do decide to make a film that heavily favors one over the other to expect ratings to skew accordingly.


I'm pretty sure that's a Chick flick.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> I don't think I encouraged you or anyone to compare it to others in its genre. My point is that if there is a genre of show or movie that you (generic you, both men and women) despise, and you find yourself in a situation where you watch something in that genre, maybe don't rate the show/movie at all. It goes back to the example used earlier - if you hate bananas, and then eat some banana cream pie and hate it, maybe don't hold that against the pie maker.


But if the pie maker is trying to decide if he should make another banana cream pie or a key lime pie, he needs to know if people hate bananas.

That's the more useful information to studios in a lot of situations. Should I green light this romantic comedy or this period drama? I want to know the potential audience for both.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

JYoung said:


> I'm pretty sure that's a Chick flick.


And that's a lesson to studios: if you want us Neanderthal men to watch a chick flick, disguise it as a war/action/bro movie


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

But, if there is a segment of people who actually love bananas but because they are an underserved market it seems like there is less opportunity, even though that's actually not the case at all. Women buy more pies (aka more movie tickets), even though they largely aren't made for, made by, star in, or are targeted to them.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Zevida said:


> But, if there is a segment of people who actually love bananas but because they are an underserved market it seems like there is less opportunity, even though that's actually not the case at all. Women buy more pies (aka more movie tickets), even though they largely aren't made for, made by, star in, or are targeted to them.


But if the majority of women who love bananas settle for key lime and buy it anyway, it's a win-win. The pie maker is still getting money from a portion of the banana lovers and also getting money from the banana haters.

To address the literal problem of movie reviews, would a movie review website made exclusively for women work? Seems like that may be an underserved market.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Unrelated to the 538 article, I really hate bananas.
The texture is gross. The taste is gross. And I hate the smell, especially when people drop banana peels in the trash cans right next to me.

I would give bananas 0 out of 10 stars. Or 1 if I'm not allowed a zero.

I don't really care much for Key Lime pie either.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> But, if there is a segment of people who actually love bananas but because they are an underserved market it seems like there is less opportunity, even though that's actually not the case at all. Women buy more pies (aka more movie tickets), even though they largely aren't made for, made by, star in, or are targeted to them.


Sounds like the banana lovers need to start making their opinions heard rather than relying on the banana haters to tone down their banana bashing.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sounds like the banana lovers need to start making their opinions heard rather than relying on the banana haters to tone down their banana bashing.


The metaphor is getting a bit too Fellini-esque, isn't it?

But your point is well taken.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Where does one draw the line between not liking a film because it wasn't targeted at him or her, and not liking a film because it did a poor job of being targeted at him or her?

If someone likes science-fiction movies in general, but didn't like Interstellar, was it because Interstellar did a bad job of appealing to science-fiction fans or because it was targeted at a more specific science-fiction audience that didn't include the person in question? Should the person rate the movie, or assume that any movie that he or she wouldn't give at least 5 stars to was not meant for him or her?

Should only young girls be allowed to rate Twilight? What benefit would it be for studios to only get that data? If they wanted to just see the ratings given by girls under 18, then could easily see it here. And if they assumed others were only rating it if they enjoyed it to a minimum degree, then that would cause them to perceive the ratings as actually being lower than the numbers indicated.

For example, the Twilight ratings show that women 30+ rated it the same as those under 18, giving it an average of 6.4. Only those 18-29 gave it a 5.8. If they assumed that everyone was rating accurately, then it would cause them to conclude that Twilight appealed to a broader female audience. But if they assumed that older women were only rating it if they were willing to give it at least 4 stars, then they would conclude that the averages were artificially inflated, and thus in reality actually lower than 6.4.

Another interesting thing of note is that while there was a significant gender disparity in the number of ratings given by men over women 30+ for Twilight, there was far less between people 18-29. And amongst those under 18, females dominated. So perhaps this is also a generational issue, as younger women are more likely to be involved in this kind of social media.

Ultimately, though, people should not be tailoring their feedback based on how they expect others to use that feedback. Doing that leads to even more bias in results than what is already there. It is the responsibility of consumers of that data to filter that data according to their needs. If someone wants to make a movie meant for women, it doesn't seem that unreasonable to expect them to look at what movies have been highly rated by women.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sounds like the banana lovers need to start making their opinions heard rather than relying on the banana haters to tone down their banana bashing.


I think the key to giving a historically suppressed population a voice is both that population speaking up more AND the historically favored population being aware of the consequences of their dominant voice and making an effort to ensure all voices are heard equally.

Just because a historically suppressed population has learned to live with being underserved - because they had no choice! - doesn't mean it is the right thing to continue to cater to the historically favored group.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> I think the key to giving a historically suppressed population a voice is both that population speaking up more *AND the historically favored population being aware of the consequences of their dominant voice and making an effort to ensure all voices are heard equally.*


That's great where it's applicable, but in the case of IMDb user ratings, there is nothing preventing women from writing as many (or more) reviews than men. What do you suggest men on IMDb should be doing? Not rating movies they don't like? Grading those movies on a curve?



Zevida said:


> Just because a historically suppressed population has learned to live with being underserved - because they had no choice! - doesn't mean it is the right thing to continue to cater to the historically favored group.


How is IMDb catering to men? Any user, male or female, can write as many reviews as they want. If women don't take advantage of that, and therefore there are more reviews by men, are you suggesting that IMDb should do something to fix this? Are you suggesting men should stop writing so many reviews and wait for women to "catch up?"


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> ...
> 
> How is IMDb catering to men? Any user, male or female, can write as many reviews as they want. If women don't take advantage of that, and therefore there are more reviews by men, are you suggesting that IMDb should do something to fix this? Are you suggesting men should stop writing so many reviews and wait for women to "catch up?"


perhaps IMDB should put up a "choose your gender" list 
like one of those "are you over 18" confirmations that some websites have

then they could count reviews by males at 1/4 their value 
so if a man gave a movie a 8 star rating that would be counted as a 2 star rating

but ratings by women would count their full value

:down:  

HA HA HA


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Zevida said:


> I think the key to giving a historically suppressed population a voice is both that population speaking up more AND the historically favored population being aware of the consequences of their dominant voice and making an effort to ensure all voices are heard equally.
> 
> Just because a historically suppressed population has learned to live with being underserved - because they had no choice! - doesn't mean it is the right thing to continue to cater to the historically favored group.


But the voices are heard equally. More though of one are adding there voices for better or worse. There are no men (I don't think) oppressing women's right to rate IMDB movies.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

jamesl said:


> perhaps IMDB should put up a "choose your gender" list
> like one of those "are you over 18" confirmations that some websites have
> 
> then they could count reviews by males at 1/4 their value
> ...


That's the very least we should do for the reparations first world over-privileged women deserve because all men alive today are personally responsible for the Salem witch trials.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I'm sorry, but the entire premise of this thread is ridiculous/hysterical. :down::down::down:
You're welcome.


Did I just sabotage this thread with my online review?


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

You didn't sabotage it. Nothing can sabotage it.

'It's ridiculous this thread is still actively getting new posts but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.' That's what I thought to myself three days ago.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Zevida said:


> I think the key to giving a historically suppressed population a voice is both that population speaking up more AND the historically favored population being aware of the consequences of their dominant voice and making an effort to ensure all voices are heard equally.
> 
> Just because a historically suppressed population has learned to live with being underserved - because they had no choice! - doesn't mean it is the right thing to continue to cater to the historically favored group.


Okay, NOW we can see exactly the perspective you are bringing to this thread. I suspected as much, but now you are stating it outright.

You are not arguing for some sort of statistical reliability; the usefulness of the data isn't important.

What apparently _*IS *_important is some sort of righting of a perceived social injustice.

So now you don't argue that the methodology is imprecise, or the data flawed. Now you look to shift the discussion to fuzzy concepts like "suppressed population," "favored population," and "all voices being heard equally."

So if the game doesn't give you results that you like, you aren't going to try to improve the players; you apparently want to change the rules.

Is this what passes for the scientific method now?


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

Zevida said:


> The point is not just that men rate more, but they are more likely to rate things not for them, and rate them harshly. Women also sometimes rate things targeted for men, but they still don't judge them as harshly. Women know it's not for them so don't watch and don't rate. Men know it's not for them so they trash it. (See: Ghostbusters trailer dislikes.)


I didn't realize Ghostbusters was not for me. I grew up on it, so it's news to me.

Could it have been that the trailer sucked and was low brow humor all the way through - more than it included women? No, of course not. That would not be an agenda....

This entire thread seems to have a lot of sexism, but more from Zevida than anyone else. Saying things like women prefer New Girl over The Revenant or Entourage. That's generalizing tastes, and not feminist at all.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

MikeCC said:


> Okay, NOW we can see exactly the perspective you are bringing to this thread. I suspected as much, but now you are stating it outright.
> 
> You are not arguing for some sort of statistical reliability; the usefulness of the data isn't important.
> 
> What apparently _*IS *_important is some sort of righting of a perceived social injustice.


I thought that was pretty clear from the beginning - the data reveals interesting cultural and psychological behaviors about movie and TV show preference between men and women and how they choose to rate and review, which leads into questions about what types of content should be made. You can take the pov that if men are more vocal about disliking something and women are willing to see more variety and be more tempered in their dislike, that means you continue to cater to male viewing habits (basically as some here have said - not my problem if they make stuff for women, as long as I get what I want to watch). Or, you could recognize that much of the behavior is due to cultural norms that should be changed because there is social injustice, and you adjust the data to account for it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> I thought that was pretty clear from the beginning - the data reveals interesting cultural and psychological behaviors about movie and TV show preference between men and women and how they choose to rate and review, which leads into questions about what types of content should be made. You can take the pov that if men are more vocal about disliking something and women are willing to see more variety and be more tempered in their dislike, that means you continue to cater to male viewing habits (basically as some here have said - not my problem if they make stuff for women, as long as I get what I want to watch). Or, you could recognize that much of the behavior is due to cultural norms that should be changed because there is social injustice, and you adjust the data to account for it.


So your issue has less to do with the fact that men are rating more movies and that they have a higher tendency to rate movies they don't like harshly, and more to do with how that information is being used to influence what kind of content the entertainment industry makes?

As has been said many times already, the IMDb rating data is not remotely scientific and it's self selecting. So any entertainment executive who relies on that data in deciding what projects to greenlight is making a huge mistake.

It sounds like what you're really advocating for is for entertainment execs to take the IMDb data and then run some algorithms on it to equalize and normalize the voices of men and women. I'm perfectly fine with that, although I still think the underlying data is flawed and should not be used for anything other than entertainment purposes (pun intended).


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Or you DON'T adjust the data "to account for it," and instead, use the data as one way to measure change.

The data, as imprecise as it is, can be shifted through to find women's preferences, even broken down by age ranges. Simply sort out the male voting, and there you go.

That data strips away the assumed male dominated behaviors, and lets the researcher examine trends in female viewing. There's no need to somehow try "adjust" my vote because my viewing preferences as a guy are so dominant.

If, however, you think that the entertainment industry can be used to help change societal norms, that's something else, and it has nothing to do with IMDb, or any other polling. Go ahead and make some entertaining _and profitable _vehicles that help promote your point of view.

If you can develop truly entertaining movies or shows that will help shift cultural behaviors, you don't have to fudge the data to try to justify it. Because if you manipulate the data ("to account for it," as you say) all you are likely to do is continue to produce one unprofitable and unsuccessful show after another.

If you want to waste money and other finite resources in your quest as a SJW, then by all means, try to change the way the data is collected and/or presented. Make sure those results are what you want, so you can justify pouring money into a project that won't attract eyeballs.

HOWEVER, if you abandon your quixotic jousting at the data collecting windmills, and recognize the info for what it is, then you might use that info to develop projects that will be interesting to the segments of the population you want to influence.

Or not.

It's not my time and money you'll be wasting.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> So your issue has less to do with the fact that men are rating more movies and that they have a higher tendency to rate movies they don't like harshly, and more to do with how that information is being used to influence what kind of content the entertainment industry makes?


I think it is both - how do you change the cultural behavior, and until then how do you account for it when looking at the data.

Doesn't seem like most men here are interesting in changing their behavior though. If they don't like banana pie and their wife/gf forced them to eat some, they are all going to get 1 star period, end of story.

There's some interesting perspective in this thread about how an opinion has validity no matter what, which as stated I disagree with. Many of the men on the thread are arguing if they don't like banana pie then why they happened to eat it or whether they like bananas or not is meaningless, they didn't like the pie, it gets a 1 star. The other viewpoint is that there are many factors that go into an opinion and some are more valid and informed than others and your opinion might not be relevant if you hate bananas and in that case maybe it is better not to express an opinion*. But, it seems that may be the most controversial thing in the thread!

I wonder if they'd get the same result if they looked at it by race and in that case I'd certainly be in the privileged group - I don't go see movies aimed at black audiences, even when they are very good (I did finally see Straight Outta Compton, but only because it was free on a plane).

*Which is not about me silencing men, or IMDB not allowing men to do ratings, or govt censorship or anything, it's about the internal voice in our heads that tells us when we have a valid viewpoint to offer and when we don't and how that should guide our behavior.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> I think it is both - how do you change the cultural behavior, and until then how do you account for it when looking at the data.
> 
> Doesn't seem like most men here are interesting in changing their behavior though. If they don't like banana pie and their wife/gf forced them to eat some, they are all going to get 1 star period, end of story.


Well, I think most people in this thread have said they don't rate movies on IMDb. I certainly never have. But I don't see why you feel there's a need to get men to stop posting 1-star reviews. If they really don't like the movie, is that not a valid rating? Isn't some unenlightened male who would post a 1-star review on a female-skewing movie exactly the demographic that the entertainment industry should be ignoring if they're thinking about making a female-skewing project? That's not who the movie is aimed at so their opinions should be irrelevant. Any entertainment exec who is using this data for some meaningful purpose can surely filter out the 1-star reviews by males if that's creating a problem.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> There's some interesting perspective in this thread about how an opinion has validity no matter what, which as stated I disagree with. Many of the men on the thread are arguing if they don't like banana pie then why they happened to eat it or whether they like bananas or not is meaningless, they didn't like the pie, it gets a 1 star. The other viewpoint is that there are many factors that go into an opinion and some are more valid and informed than others and your opinion might not be relevant if you hate bananas and in that case maybe it is better not to express an opinion*. But, it seems that may be the most controversial thing in the thread!


I still think the banana pie analogy is flawed because it misses the reason why IMDb ratings exist in the first place. The ratings aren't there to provide an accurate representation of the general public's opinion about a movie. The ratings are there so that users of the website can rate things they've seen and then get personalized recommendations for new content they will probably like.

Therefore, you have people rating every movie they've ever seen in an effort to tailor the suggestions to be more accurate. And my guess is that if they don't like a movie and want that to be reflected in the ratings, it makes more sense to give the movie 1 star rather than 2, 3, or 4 stars, because those ratings indicate at least some level of enjoyment.

So people are probably giving 1-star ratings more often than the content deserves IF THE IMDb RATING SYSTEM EXISTED TO ACT AS AN OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT OF THE QUALITY OF AN ENTERTAINMENT PROJECT. But since that's not the reason the ratings exist and not the way many users are using them, I don't see why any of the parties involved need to change anything.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

(FWIW, I've never rated a movie on imdb, or for that matter, I think anywhere, nor do I plan on ever doing so. Part of that comes from I tend to feel such ratings are pointless anyways. That said...)

The problem I have is that there seems to be a perception that just because a movie might not have been "designed" for me, suddenly my opinion of whether it's a good movie isn't valid. If I watch a movie, my opinion of whether it's a good movie is just as valid as anyone elses opinion, even if I tend to not like something of a particular genre. I've expended the time and effort to watch the movie, my opinion is just as valid as anyone else. The reality is, I'm likely to self select and not rate a movie in some genre I don't like simply because I'm not going to bother to watch it. The rating isn't asking for "if you happen to like this type of movie, what would you rate it", but rather "what would you rate this movie". If they only want the opinions of people that like that genre, then ask for that. (For that matter, I don't go out of my way thinking "well, this is designed for women, so I'm not going to like it". I look at what's avaialble to know about a movie or tv series, ask myself if it sounds interesting, and if so, I'll watch it. At that point, I've either liked it or didn't like it.)

Personally I tend not to rate things anyways. I'm particularly sick of customer satisfaction surveys where I get told that anything other than a top mark isn't considered acceptable by management. Sorry, but that top mark is reserved for the best of the best in service, and it's highly unlikely that someone doing an average job providing me with a service has reached the point where I feel they've earned that top mark. If you design a system where anything other than a top mark is a failure, then why bother giving me anything other than 2 choices.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

There are some folks who dislike all rap music that they've ever heard. You could take a multi-platinum rap album that has won all sorts of awards, and is widely considered to be one of the best rap albums of all time, and some people will call it crap, and give it the lowest possible rating of they rate it somewhere. 

Then you could take a rap album that wins no awards, sells poorly, and is widely considered to be one of the worst rap albums ever made - and those same folks would give it the same exact rating. 

So their opinion on rap is indeed meaningless. 

The same is true for someone who hates all anime, action movies, etc. 

Now I would say that if someone stumbles across a rap song, anime, action movie, etc. that they actually enjoy, reviewing it and making it known that this is so good that even they liked it, could be useful for others to know. 

But if you hate pizza, I think it's pretty dumb if you go around reviewing pizza on yelp.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Zevida said:


> I thought that was pretty clear from the beginning - the data reveals interesting cultural and psychological behaviors about movie and TV show preference between men and women and how they choose to rate and review, which leads into questions about what types of content should be made.


How much weight do you believe IMDb ratings have on what types of content should be made? How does it compare to things like Nielsen ratings and world wide box office? 
Let's take a look at a movie that opened this past weekend, The Nice Guys. The IMDb rating is 8.0 which is pretty good. The Rotten Tomatoes rating is 90% which is also pretty good. However, it only opened to $11.3M and was given a Cinemascore rating of B-, neither of which is very good. If you were in charge of a studio, would you greenlight more movies like this or not?


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Nope. A studio will be green lighting Paul Blart Mall Cop 3 because it's all about the Hamiltons. If Sex and the City was so critically impaired by IMDB it certainly didn't stop the studio from making two feature length films where the mostly female cast and mostly male movie executives exploited a mostly female audience to the tune of ~$725 million at the box office.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> There are some folks who dislike all rap music that they've ever heard. You could take a multi-platinum rap album that has won all sorts of awards, and is widely considered to be one of the best rap albums of all time, and some people will call it crap, and give it the lowest possible rating of they rate it somewhere.
> 
> Then you could take a rap album that wins no awards, sells poorly, and is widely considered to be one of the worst rap albums ever made - and those same folks would give it the same exact rating.
> 
> So their opinion on rap is indeed meaningless.


But again, this is missing the point of the IMDb ratings. Each person rates things according to their own tastes and opinions and then the website software uses those ratings to suggest other content the user might like. So someone who doesn't like rap giving a poor rating to a rap song isn't meaningless to that user. It helps that users profile so that rap songs don't end up in his suggestions.

If you want truly objective ratings from people who are mostly unbiased and mostly know what they're talking about with regards to films, then look at the Rotten Tomatoes average for the Top Critics. But that's not what the IMDb ratings are built for, nor is it how they should be used.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Zevida said:


> The point is not just that men rate more, but they are more likely to rate things not for them, and rate them harshly. Women also sometimes rate things targeted for men, but they still don't judge them as harshly. Women know it's not for them so don't watch and don't rate. Men know it's not for them so they trash it. (See: Ghostbusters trailer dislikes.)












so you're saying the majority of dislikes for that trailer are from men ?

you absolutely no evidence for that at all

and how is a sci fi comedy not for men ?


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> There are some folks who dislike all rap music that they've ever heard. You could take a multi-platinum rap album that has won all sorts of awards, and is widely considered to be one of the best rap albums of all time, and some people will call it crap, and give it the lowest possible rating of they rate it somewhere.
> 
> Then you could take a rap album that wins no awards, sells poorly, and is widely considered to be one of the worst rap albums ever made - and those same folks would give it the same exact rating.
> 
> ...


None of the analogies are perfect, but IMDB is more like Pandora than Yelp. Those people would need to rate the rap songs low to keep from hearing them.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

jamesl said:


> so you're saying the majority of dislikes for that trailer are from men ?
> 
> you absolutely no evidence for that at all
> 
> and how is a sci fi comedy not for men ?


Yes I do believe that, and I have no scientific evidence and some anecdotal evidence. It isn't so much that the new Ghostbusters is not for men but that it is also for women (by casting women leads) and that's resulted in a lot of pissed off men, which is evidenced by tweets, comments on the trailer, and podcasts I've listened to slamming the movie for pandering by casting women leads (most of which was before the trailer came out). And there's something in particular about this movie, because other movies that had terrible trailers and poor reviews don't have nearly the bad to good ratio as Ghostbusters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...re-hating-the-ghostbusters-trailer-guess-why/

http://www.bustle.com/articles/6105...ughtful-responses-to-put-each-concern-to-rest


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I wonder how much of that is due to the female cast, and how much is due to the fact that the original is a classic that still holds up and didn't need to be remade. I suspect a lot of people were predisposed to have a negative opinion of the movie even before the casting was announced.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

There was even so much backlash to the all female cast after it was announced that a few months later they announced that another version would be made. The difference? An all male cast! And the interwebs sighed in relief that all would again be right with the world. Everyone thinks that the male version will be the bee's knees.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/10/dan...ters_reboot_backlash_all_the_way_to_the_bank/


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Zevida said:


> *Which is not about me silencing men, or IMDB not allowing men to do ratings, or govt censorship or anything, it's about the internal voice in our heads that tells us when we have a valid viewpoint to offer and when we don't and how that should guide our behavior.


Yes you are advocating the silencing men, at least those with opinions you disagree with. Yes you are advocating censorship of opinions you disagree with.

Has political correctness run so amok in this country that now I can't give an honest opinion on a movie rating because *of the fear* it might cause fewer movies to be made that target women/minorities/LGBT?

Zevida, have you considered that some of these movies might just plain suck?

That said, I think you're giving way too much credence to the theory that studios are using IMDB, and only IMDB, as their methodology. It's been mentioned by others that they are using other metrics as well, not the least of which is revenue. As the saying goes, "Money Talks, BS Walks."


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

gschrock said:


> The problem I have is that there seems to be a perception that just because a movie might not have been "designed" for me, suddenly my opinion of whether it's a good movie isn't valid. If I watch a movie, my opinion of whether it's a good movie is just as valid as anyone elses opinion,


Why do you think your opinion is just as valid? I'm genuinely curious what the thought-process is. Is it because taste in entertainment is 100% subjective? Is your opinion on any topic as valid as anyone else's opinion on said topic?

I do personally think that my opinion of comedy films is not valid. I don't really like comedies (broad, slapstick, gross-out, romantic, etc.). I thought This is the End is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but I generally refrain from commenting on it because it was beloved by audiences and I know that I don't "get" that kind of movie. If I can't relate, don't understand the appeal, and generally don't like that type of entertainment at all, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on it. Why do you think I am?


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Zevida said:


> Why do you think your opinion is just as valid?


Zevida, think hard about this statement. Imagine if a man said this to you.

He's not giving his opinion on some subject he truly knows nothing about. It's about whether or not he likes a movie. You don't need to be a subject matter expert on that movie's specific genre to give an opinion on it or not.



> I thought This is the End is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but I generally refrain from commenting on it because it was beloved by audiences and I know that I don't "get" that kind of movie.


Then you're just doing yourself a disservice. If the movie is that beloved, then your opinion will be outvoted by those who do like it.

But that's your right to self-censor. Just don't ask the rest of us (particularly us men) to do the same.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Zevida said:


> There was even so much backlash to the all female cast after it was announced that a few months later they announced that another version would be made. The difference? An all male cast! And the interwebs sighed in relief that all would again be right with the world. Everyone thinks that the male version will be the bee's knees.
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2015/03/10/dan...ters_reboot_backlash_all_the_way_to_the_bank/


Well, that's one interpretation.

Another is that there's cheering because Dan Aykroyd, one of the creators of the original Ghostbusters is heading this up along with original director, Ivan Reitman.
(Although I wonder if it will be the same without Harold Ramis.)

The truth is probably somewhere in between.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Zevida said:


> Why do you think your opinion is just as valid?


When it comes to how good I personally think a movie is, my opinion is the ONLY one that is valid.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Zevida said:


> Why do you think your opinion is just as valid? I'm genuinely curious what the thought-process is. Is it because taste in entertainment is 100% subjective? Is your opinion on any topic as valid as anyone else's opinion on said topic?
> 
> I do personally think that my opinion of comedy films is not valid. I don't really like comedies (broad, slapstick, gross-out, romantic, etc.). I thought This is the End is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but I generally refrain from commenting on it because it was beloved by audiences and I know that I don't "get" that kind of movie. If I can't relate, don't understand the appeal, and generally don't like that type of entertainment at all, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on it. Why do you think I am?


The IMDB rating system is not about ratings stuff based upon the quality of the production/sound/acting/directing/etc, it is about how much I enjoyed the film or show so I can get recommendations for stuff I may also enjoy. You are stating that I am not qualified to rate my enjoyment of something simply because I was not the target market for it. You are mistaken. I am the ONLY person qualified to rate my enjoyment of anything.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> Why do you think your opinion is just as valid? I'm genuinely curious what the thought-process is. Is it because taste in entertainment is 100% subjective? Is your opinion on any topic as valid as anyone else's opinion on said topic?
> 
> I do personally think that my opinion of comedy films is not valid. I don't really like comedies (broad, slapstick, gross-out, romantic, etc.). I thought This is the End is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but I generally refrain from commenting on it because it was beloved by audiences and I know that I don't "get" that kind of movie. If I can't relate, don't understand the appeal, and generally don't like that type of entertainment at all, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on it. Why do you think I am?


I feel like a broken record here, but it all goes back to the purpose of the IMDb ratings. If the purpose was to have objective reviews written by people with some level of subject-matter expertise, there would be some level of screening before allowing people to write reviews.

However, that's not the purpose. IMDb allows all users to rate all movies because 1) it allows users to create custom profiles for their suggestion algorithm, 2) it gets users more personally involved and invested in the site, and 3) it drives more traffic to the site which allows the site to make more money.

So if you're looking for movie reviews written by people who have some level of expertise, go to Rotten Tomatoes. But at IMDb, anyone can rate any movie, whether they've seen it or not, and that's automatically going to result in ratings that aren't very indicative of a movie's quality.

But to answer the question posted above, your opinion on any movie is the most valid opinion in the world FOR YOU. It may not carry any weight for anyone else, but that's not your problem. You post the reviews you want to write, rate the movies based on your own personal enjoyment and opinion, and don't worry about whether your rating is in line with the masses or whether you enjoy that genre of movie, because ultimately, IMDb ratings are only FOR YOU, not for anyone else.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Where are y'all finding this information that IMDB ratings are intended to give you better recommendations for your own viewing?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

David Platt said:


> Where are y'all finding this information that IMDB ratings are intended to give you better recommendations for your own viewing?


http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?personalrecommendations


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom (Dec 17, 2015)

This is exactly like arguing that my Tivo Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down ratings somehow negatively impacts movies and tv shows being made, then saying because I am not in the same demographic group that you are that I must stop using the Thumbs Down functionality and I must actually rate certain items as Thumbs Up.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Zevida said:


> If I can't relate, don't understand the appeal, and generally don't like that type of entertainment at all, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on it. Why do you think I am?


Then why would women or anybody else care what the IMDB ratings score is and instead just trust their own instincts and interests of what they might or might not like in deciding whether or not to watch something? If the IMDB ratings can vary +/-0.3 either way depending on if there's a differential appeal for genders or any other demographic group, why do you assume other women aren't smart enough to adjust their expectations of what those scores mean and trust their own instincts and interests instead? And finally, why would ANYBODY hinge their decision of what to watch or not watch on a +/-0.3 differential in a single number on the IMDB site? Your presumption that that number is correlated even remotely much less completely to what TV and movie producers decide to produce in the future has no evidence to support it and is patently false. All they care about is money. They don't care about any deeper social message or meaning that you think exists in an all-female version of the Ghostbusters - all they care about is the money that you are willing to pay to see it. If a large enough group of people is willing to pay a lot of money to see a feature length version of the Ghostbusters with an entire cast of inanimate objects then that's a movie you'd see getting distribution.

And what specifically do you think is not getting produced and distributed that you presume women would enjoy because of what specific show's or movie's ratings on IMDB? An all female version of the Ghostbusters? Nope, because that's getting distributed. Sex and the City I and II? Nope, because those were already distributed. Gilmore Girls? Nope, because that's getting revived. Any others?


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Zevida said:


> Why do you think your opinion is just as valid? I'm genuinely curious what the thought-process is. Is it because taste in entertainment is 100% subjective? Is your opinion on any topic as valid as anyone else's opinion on said topic?


If I watch something, I have a right to an opinion. Other people have a right not to agree with my opinion. But I think this falls back into the usual political correctness nonsense that's pervaded the country today. There's way too many people in this country that honestly feel that you're only entitled to an opinion on something if it *agrees* with their opinion. And if your opinion doesn't match what the PC opinion is, then you're immediately labeled as a bigot, oppressing the rights of some group.

Everybody's entitled to an opinion. And guess what, nobody's required to agree with anyone else's opinion. But as soon as you try to take away my right to have an opinion, guess what, you're the oppressors, the bullies, and the bigots.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

I thought this was a good place to post this:

Trolls are doing whatever they can to bring down the 'Ghostbusters' reboot


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

SullyND said:


> I thought this was a good place to post this:
> 
> Trolls are doing whatever they can to bring down the 'Ghostbusters' reboot


Boys will be boys.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Why not make the demographics info easily available in the reviews? Seeing that 90% of men hated a movie, but 90% of women loved it is much more useful than just getting the average info.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

SullyND said:


> I thought this was a good place to post this:
> 
> Trolls are doing whatever they can to bring down the 'Ghostbusters' reboot


Couldn't be because it looks like a pile of flaming garbage that craps all over their childhood. Nah, it's probably because they are men, who hate women.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

b_scott said:


> Couldn't be because it looks like a pile of flaming garbage that craps all over their childhood. Nah, it's probably because they are men, who hate women.


Looks good on rotten tomatoes. I am going to see it on Tuesday.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

I'm not a huge movie theater person but I'm stoked for the new Ghostbusters. Will rent it as soon as it hits Redbox.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

RE: Ghostbusters....

Movies are expensive today.. Or there's, magic.....


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

justen_m said:


> Looks good on rotten tomatoes. I am going to see it on Tuesday.


Top Critics:

TOMATOMETER

53%
Average Rating: 6.2/10
Reviews Counted: 36
Fresh: 19
Rotten: 17

And these are the type of Fresh review it's getting:

"A middle finger to the screaming brobabiez. If girls can't be Ghostbusters, then here, guys can't do anything."


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Local paper review basically said it started out ok, but lost it's way part way through the movie. Too much trying to stay true to the original, and the jokes just stopped being funny - plus a lot of every joke having to be explained by the cast because god forbid someone miss it.

Basically he said it's not bad enough to deserve all the hate it's gotten, but it's not good enough to make that go away either.

Personally, to me it looks too much like a lot of comedy movies are these days, and I just don't really like that type of movie. Plus, I've yet to meet a role for a couple of the actresses that I've liked them in (largely because they tend to be in the aforementioned comedies that I've never liked), so at most I'll watch this when it hits hbo or something. 

I still think it's the product of a creatively bankrupt hollywood, and never needed to be redone. But it's definitely not the only movie that falls into that category.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

I love Bridesmaids. Because it's not trying to be something it's not.

Roeper - 1 star

http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Why not make the demographics info easily available in the reviews? Seeing that 90% of men hated a movie, but 90% of women loved it is much more useful than just getting the average info.


If you're talking Ghostbusters, the problem is people rating it without even seeing. Both scores seem pretty irrelevant.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

what are women doing out of the kitchen watching movies and tv in the first place ?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

jamesl said:


> what are women doing out of the kitchen watching movies and tv in the first place ?


Maybe they have a TV in the kitchen.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

waynomo said:


> If you're talking Ghostbusters, the problem is people rating it without even seeing. Both scores seem pretty irrelevant.


No, I am talking in general. If I look at Fried Green Tomatoes and most women love it and most men hate it, that is valuable info!


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

eddyj said:


> No, I am talking in general. If I look at Fried Green Tomatoes and most women love it and most men hate it, that is valuable info!


Agreed. Anyone that doesn't like Fried Green Tomatoes is an idiot and should be avoided. 

TOWANDA!!!


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

eddyj said:


> No, I am talking in general. If I look at Fried Green Tomatoes and most women love it and most men hate it, that is valuable info!


I wish the ratings worked like TiVo thumbs up were supposed to work. You liked this and other people who liked this also liked that.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

waynomo said:


> If you're talking Ghostbusters, the problem is people rating it without even seeing. Both scores seem pretty irrelevant.


That could be said for any movie review. Or for that matter, any product review. The only way around it is to do a rating service that will only accept input if you have actually seen the movie, or at least paid for it; something like a code on your ticket or e-ticket that you must enter.

However it also goes back to the original premise of this thread, and that is the claim that "sabotage" reviews are skewing things to the detriment of women. And I (and I'm sure others) will still refute that Hollywood is basing their future decisions solely on a rating system they know is flawed.

If Ghostbusters 2.0 turns out to be a box office smash, is Hollywood really going to care that a bunch of haters gave it horrible reviews? Again, money talks, B.S. walks.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

RonDawg said:


> That could be said for any movie review. Or for that matter, any product review. The only way around it is to do a rating service that will only accept input if you have actually seen the movie, or at least paid for it; something like a code on your ticket or e-ticket that you must enter.


Or just not accept reviews until the movie has been released publicly somewhere in the world, at least.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

I would hope eventually enough legitimate reviews would over power the false ones.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

waynomo said:


> I would hope eventually enough legitimate reviews would over power the false ones.


doesn't necessarily mean those legit reviews will be good. Most top critics are giving it a 5-6 out of 10 at best.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

b_scott said:


> Couldn't be because it looks like a pile of flaming garbage that craps all over their childhood. Nah, it's probably because they are men, who hate women.


So what if it does?

Millions of people think they know all about The Lord of the Rings because they've seen Peter Jackson's piles of flaming dog crap.

Book readers have to put up this all the time. They can just put on their big boy panties and learn to deal with it.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

murgatroyd said:


> So what if it does? Millions of people think they know all about The Lord of the Rings because they've seen Peter Jackson's piles of flaming dog crap. Book readers have to put up this all the time. They can just put on their big boy panties and learn to deal with it.


I guess I shouldn't tell you that I actually liked the film version of Starship Troopers without having read a single word of Heinlein


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

RonDawg said:


> I guess I shouldn't tell you that I actually liked the film version of Starship Troopers without having read a single word of Heinlein


 No, you shouldn't. That should never be admitted out loud.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

RonDawg said:


> However it also goes back to the original premise of this thread, and that is the claim that "sabotage" reviews are skewing things to the detriment of women. And I (and I'm sure others) will still refute that Hollywood is basing their future decisions solely on a rating system they know is flawed.


Someone's claiming "solely"?


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

madscientist said:


> no, you shouldn't. That should never be admitted out loud.


The forum software won't let me respond with just the smileys.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

Ghostbusters was f'ing AWESOME! Can't wait to watch it again.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Robin said:


> Someone's claiming "solely"?


That's been the initial premise of this thread. That us knuckle-dragging men are ruining it for women because we're skewing the results, and that Hollywood is using these results (and ignoring other metrics like box office sales and streaming sales) to make their future decisions.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

We saw Ghostbusters today too, and it was pretty entertaining. I haven't watched the original in a long, long time but there were plenty of little nods to the original that caught.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

RonDawg said:


> That's been the initial premise of this thread. That us knuckle-dragging men are ruining it for women because we're skewing the results, and that Hollywood is using these results (and ignoring other metrics like box office sales and streaming sales) to make their future decisions.


I don't think so. Nowhere was it ever claimed that they're *only* using these results to make decisions. The only place I've seen that statement is from people misrepresenting the original premise.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

If they're using other metrics (as they should be) then it doesn't matter if us men are "sabotaging" the results of online reviews, and this wouldn't be a discussion. But apparently someone (including the OP) feels that the online reviews are given enough weight by Hollywood to affect what choices women will have for entertainment in the future.

Using a different product, it doesn't matter if autojournos and car fans hate the Nissan Versa and Jeep Compass. These vehicles sell well so their respective manufacturers will continue to make them despite the poor reviews.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

"Enough weight" != "solely"


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Robin said:


> "Enough weight" != "solely"


To be honest, it seems like all you want to do is pick a fight with me in this thread.

I'm done trying to explain myself to you, because whatever I say (besides what you want me to say) isn't going to be good enough.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

You mischaracterized what I (and the OP) said and I'm the one trying to pick a fight for refuting it? Okay.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Robin said:


> You mischaracterized what I (and the OP) said and I'm the one trying to pick a fight for refuting it? Okay.


There's refuting, and then there's:



Robin said:


> Nothing in this thread is surprising. Not the study in the OP, not any of the responses. I can't believe no one has busted out #notallmen yet.





Robin said:


> Yes. By not reviewing things that don't appeal to you in the first place.





Robin said:


> Why?





Robin said:


> Why shouldn't he? Because if he's not a fan of the genre then he's skewing the ratings senselessly.





Robin said:


> Who's asking you to lie? Or is that your interpretation of "don't go out of your way to rate things of a genre you dislike in the first place"?





Robin said:


> I wonder why women don't participate as much as they should? Do you think it's because they get shouted down by men chanting #notallmen?





Robin said:


> Someone's claiming "solely"?





Robin said:


> "Enough weight" != "solely"


Seriously, it sounds like an argument a couple would have. I also find it interesting you've targeted me specifically, even though other (presumably) men have aired opinions similar to mine.

But of course when a man refutes the OP, all of a sudden she's being "shouted down"


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Actually I haven't paid any attention at all to who I'm responding to. I read on forum runner so if a post is more than a couple of lines I don't know whose it is when I flag it to reply.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

RonDawg said:


> To be honest, it seems like all you want to do is pick a fight with me in this thread.


That's a really strange stance to take, considering that you were the first one to respond to Robin. And then, a few posts later, you called her out by name in a post that wasn't even a response to her.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

The Ghostbusters reboot makes $46 million on its opening weekend.



> "'Ghostbusters' debut proves that the power of the brand, the nostalgia factor and the appeal of the female cast held more sway with audiences than the critical barbs thrown at the movie," said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at comScore (SCOR). "Audiences just wanted to go out and have a good time and as a new film in theaters it offered up something appealing and fun."


So much for men "sabotaging" female-oriented and/or female-driven movies. The studios are going to pay far more attention to that $46 million than to a bunch of mean-spirited reviews.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I think the claim is that the reviews are sabotaged. And there's probably a good argument to be made that the $46 would have been higher.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

BrettStah said:


> And there's probably a good argument to be made that the $46 would have been higher.


There's also a good argument to be made that it wouldn't have made that much money if it weren't all the attention that it got from people pointing out the haters. I personally didn't even know about it until it was mentioned in this thread, much less the reviews.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I wonder if the terminology could be at fault. The word "sabotage" is loaded, in that it implies intent. Are men purposefully sabatogeing female-oriented content, or are they simply doing that default thing where we assume everything is intended for us, and inadvertently sabatogeing the ratings? I think the defensiveness being shown indicates the latter. There's no conscious concerted effort to harm properties aimed at women, it's just that some men don't know how to react when something isn't for them. There is an entire group of people who argue that unless it's otherwise necessary to the plot, all characters should be straight white males and anytime someone makes a choice other than that they feel slighted, hell even attacked. It's more a case of loss of privilege than anything else. they don't like the loss of Privilege and take it as an attack. 

Or so it appears to me. Of course I could be wrong.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> I think the claim is that the reviews are sabotaged. And there's probably a good argument to be made that the $46 would have been higher.


What reviews are we talking about? It's 73% on RT.

I don't think it's about the reviews of the movie, it's that some MRA types think the movie shouldn't exist in the first place.

That making a female version of a movie, or having a female lead in Star Wars is Social Justice warriors running amok.

-smak-


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Those whole thing started with IMDB ratings, I thought.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

But men ARE sabotaging IMDB ratings.

There were 12,000 reviews of Ghostbusters on IMDB BEFORE anybody reasonably had a chance to see it. IE, before it opened.

7,500 were found to be male, 1,500 females.

And I'm guessing more Females actually saw it in pre-release screenings than males, because they probably were invited more to create buzz.

Males gave it 4 points lower than females on average.

That's the definition of sabotage.

-smak-


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Sabotage or no sabotage, the money it makes at the box office will be the determining factor and how successful it is deemed and whether or not a sequel is made. I can't see how the IMDB ratings will have any bearing on what decisions the studio makes in the future about that or any other project. Money is what matters.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

While $46M is nothing to sneeze it, you have to admit that it was beaten by a movie in its second week - "The Secret Life of Pets" earned another $50M, beating it. For a hotly anticipated movie like Ghostbusters, well. 

Heck, I remember reviews of Ghostbusters when they were un-embargoed last week, and it basically was "It's a flop" Come around Friday and the reviews were "it's actually decent" to "great". And half of them were all commenting about "forget the internet trolls, they certainly didn't see the movie". 

So given it's supposed to be a decent film, and yet opened in #2...


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

smak said:


> What reviews are we talking about? It's 73% on RT.
> 
> I don't think it's about the reviews of the movie, it's that some MRA types think the movie shouldn't exist in the first place.
> 
> ...


click on top critics. it's like a 58%. Hard to know what the true user reviews are as they're likely a war back and forth, super good and super bad.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

58% isn't horrible for this types of movie among top critics. Much, much better than Pixels.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

#AllReviewsMatter

/ducks and runs


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

BrettStah said:


> 58% isn't horrible for this types of movie among top critics. Much, much better than Pixels.


if we're using Pixels as a bar...... lol


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Speaking of critics, what makes one qualified to be a professional movie critic? What makes the opinion of say, the late Roger Ebert, more valid than mine? The reason I ask is I looked him up on Wikipedia and saw nothing that would stand out at me with regards to his qualifications as such, but people took his reviews seriously when he was still alive.


----------



## SleepyBob (Sep 28, 2000)

RonDawg said:


> Speaking of critics, what makes one qualified to be a professional movie critic? What makes the opinion of say, the late Roger Ebert, more valid than mine? The reason I ask is I looked him up on Wikipedia and saw nothing that would stand out at me with regards to his qualifications as such, but people took his reviews seriously when he was still alive.


At a guess, I would say
1. A degree in journalism, helping him be effective at organizing and communicating his thoughts.
2. Experience. He did reviews for over 30 years, so he's seen a heckuva lot more movies than I have.
3. Clarity. He did a good job letting people know why he felt the way he did about the movie.
4. Mindshare. He's tried and tested, so people put weight on what he wrote/said.
5. Pulitzer Prize in Criticism.

I expect at the end of the day, his writing resonated with his readers, which made him a popular critic, much how any columnist gains a following.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

b_scott said:


> Couldn't be because it looks like a pile of flaming garbage that craps all over their childhood. Nah, it's probably because they are men, who hate women.


Next you'll tell us that it's about ethics in entertainment journalism.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

This is why we need better people:

*Leslie Jones, Star of Ghostbusters, Becomes a Target of Online Trolls*


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

sleepybob said:


> at a guess, i would say
> 1. A degree in journalism, helping him be effective at organizing and communicating his thoughts.
> 2. Experience. He did reviews for over 30 years, so he's seen a heckuva lot more movies than i have.
> 3. Clarity. He did a good job letting people know why he felt the way he did about the movie.
> ...


+1


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

busyba said:


> Next you'll tell us that it's about ethics in entertainment journalism.


 Ouch but... :up:


----------

