This is the statistics on my ratings from 1 to 10 on IMDB. Am

>>87477638
Your average should be about 1 point lower but your distribution is pretty good, OP. Don't worry about it too much. You're very close to a normal distribution, which is what you should have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

File: ratings.png (4KB, 291x170px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 291x170px

>>87477638
yes you are

>>87477717
Ok. I should also mentiion that I tend to steer away from a lot of movies that are obviously shit, so there's also that to consider.

>>87477870
Interesting that you put so many 1/10. Are these anger rates?

File: imdbmi.png (4KB, 292x176px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 292x176px

i might be autistic

>>87477929
its not that many
its like 90 out of 882

File: 123.png (13KB, 227x153px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 227x153px

>>87477870
that's a lot of shit movies anon

>>87478006
It's just that I rarely put 1/10 myself. May I ask what kind of movies you put 1/10 on?

>>87477638
If you aren't paid to review movies, I assume you mostly see movies you think you may enjoy in some way. So it's expected that your distribution will be skewed towards good ratings.

>>87478251
Yes, that's true. Like I pointed out here >>87477906

File: 1.png (356KB, 622x952px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 622x952px

>>87478178
mostly garbage

>>87477717
>close to a normal distribution
>7 mode, 6-7 median, 6.5+ mean
>that right skew
>that platykurtosis
>rates 10 as often as 1, 2 and 3 combined

"No!"

File: MAGNUM_FORCE_web_image_1_1050_591_81_s_c1.jpg (46KB, 1050x591px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1050x591px

>>87477638
Who gives a movie a 9 or 10?

>>87478404
Lmfao. I don't waste my time with such titles, so I guess that's why.

>>87478450
But look: >>87477906 >>87478251

>>87478506
under the assumption that you only watch good movies, it's impossible to say whether you're "too nice," but the distribution is not more than decently close to normal and far too few movies are rated 5 or 6 even assuming you successfully avoid movies that legitimately deserve a 4 or lower. It's also very dicey to base your ratings on the belief that the movies you are watching and rating are better than ones you haven't even seen

File: IMDb.png (4KB, 290x172px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 290x172px

>>87477638
The skew right makes sense, since people tend to see movies that they think they'll like (as you mentioned). In fact, a perfect normal distribution would be quite odd in this application.

However, I do think you're giving out 10s much too freely, OP. I have over 1000 ratings and only 6 10s (I admit that might be extreme).

File: idk.png (2KB, 265x131px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 265x131px

rate me

>>87478748
Why do you hate 1.5 and 2.5?

>>87477870
Nothing about this makes any sense. The spike in 1s, the steady rise to 7 followed by the drop, the almost equal number of 9s and 10s...

>>87478795
idk, i like the way i rate, for me there is more forms of good then bad: horrible, bad and weak

>>87478670
I mean, if I see that a movie is rated 4.5 or whatever on imdb then I won't watch it, will I? So that is a factor.

>>87477870

You're just an asshole.

>>87478945
but the average of the scores of the movies you watch should still be average, not higher than average. The scores you posted look as though you rate movies higher than average when they are rated higher than average on imdb and don't watch them when they are rated lower than average, which is a perfectly fine to spend your time but not an accurate measure of your personal taste in movies

>>87478795
it's just a display bug, the accurate numbers are below the chart

>>87479042
No, there are only 8 sets of numbers below the chart as well, He just doesn't rate anything a 1.5 or 2.5 for some reason.

File: you.png (2KB, 450x88px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 450x88px

>>87479042
nah its not, i don't use 1.5 and 2.5, the numbers below are already without those two

btw rate me

>>87478466
people who have strong convictions and care about things, but wait that's not cool I forgot

>>87478908
Idk anon, it seems to defeat the purpose of a scale if you choose to never use some of the scores.

>>87479104
fuck me you're right
>>87479158
>While filming, Jared Leto refused to rate any movies at 1.5 or 2.5 stars

>>87479042
>The scores you posted look as though you rate movies higher than average when they are rated higher than average on imdb
No, I don't rate them high because they have a high rating, if that's what you mean.
But you're right that avoiding very low rated movies will make this effect. I didn't think of this when I posted OP, hence my asking whether I'm being too nice, but it makes more sense now that I realized this.

Any model of rating which isn't a smooth bell-curve with 5 being the average is fucking disgusting.

>>87479288
The overall skew right makes sense OP, but you are still being "too nice" by giving out all those 9s and 10s.

>>87479333
Yeah that would make sense. If every fucking movie ever made had been rated. Shut up dumbass.

>>87479333
A normal distribution only makes sense if it represents a sample from a normal population. However, the movies that a person watches are not a normal population, they are a subset of movies that you were interested in enough to watch. Therefore, the chart being skewed right makes sense, but I agree that it should still be smooth.

5/10 is supposed to be average and everyone fucks this up.

>>87479333
5 isn't average. 5.5 is average.
So 5 and 6 are low average and high average.

>>87479288
it's not what I mean, but as you say it has the same effect. When you rate more movies as above average than below average, you reduce the potential that the scoring system has for expressing what your actual preferences in movies are. When your average score is higher than the average of the scoring system, most movies are crammed into the higher end of the scale and much of the scale is wasted on a very small number of movies, which are rated 1-4. In other words, you should be rating the movies you watch in comparison to the other movies you watch, not in comparison to all movies including ones you haven't seen

>>87479490
What am I supposed to rate movies I absolutely love to death? "hurr durr this must be a 7 because I need to be so objective when rating is subjective, doesn't matter if it's my all time favorite movie, it's nontheless a 7 wew"

File: 345345345.png (15KB, 438x475px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 438x475px

>tfw haven't signed into my 13 year old account since the boards closed

Feels bad

ratings don't matter

>>87479660
It doesn't make sense rating movies in the low end if I don't dislike them, does it?

I see it this way:

1-5 is the dislike-scale. 6-10 is the like-scale.
Most movies I watch are movies I end up liking to various degrees.
Those I rate lower than 6 are movies I dislike to various degrees.

File: seriously.jpg (13KB, 635x269px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 635x269px

>>87479333
I'd rather watch movies that interest me and have the average be around 6.5 than waste my time with crap movies to get closer to a 5/10

>>87479665
Whoa, don't know where this aggression is coming from, I'm answering the question that you literally started the thread with.

If you "absolutely love to death" 15% of all the movies you see, then I guess I would say that you're just easily impressed.

>>87479700
>that distribution.
What did he mean by this?

>>87479887
Yes, it does. 1-5 should not be movies you dislike, but movies you like less than average.6-10 are movies you like better than average. Average, in both cases, refers to the average of the movies you have seen and not "the average movie," which does not exist and you have not seen. Otherwise, you are creating a confusing relationship between the numerical ratings and your actual assessment of the movies

>>87479973
Most movies are 8-9

File: Screenshot_20170908-223812_01.png (17KB, 1012x432px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 1012x432px

I tend to stay away from capeshit or trash and only watch kino or well rated films

the rating scale should represent the likelihood you would recommend the movie to yourself
>1/10 very unlikely do not see
>10/10 must-see

>>87479937
Sorry anon. Those would be the 10s (4%), it also includes my favorite tv-shows btw.
9s are movies I think are really great. I don't know why I would avoid the high ratings for movies I regard really great.

>>87480001
But if they are less than average, then they are various degrees of dislikes.

>>87479887
>>87480001
I think you both make good points. I think the real issue boils down to whether you are rating on a pure 1-10 scale without context (where average should be 5.5) or rating based on the context of how movies are rated specifically on IMDb's scale, where the average movie score is considerably higher (around 6.4).

>>87480124
No, if they are less than average they are less than average. The scale doesn't have any intrinsic meaning

>>87480197
The scale has no personal meaning of a movie, but you do. You put your feelings/opinions onto the scale yourself. If it's less than average then it's on a dislike in my mind. It doesn't matter if you phrase it as "less than average" or "a slight dislike", it's still on the lower end of the scale from "hate" to "love".

>>87480124
Ah, including TV shows definitely explains some of the issue. They are subject to even more of a watch bias than movies. I purposefully don't rate any TV shows so that they don't throw off my numbers. I'm >>87478703
by the way.

>>87480321
yes it does, because "less than average" has a numerical meaning relating to the scale, while "slight dislike" is an opinion which is not in itself expressible as a number. If you watch mostly movies that you enjoy and rate them on an "objective" scale, the result will be exactly what it is - that most movies end up in the upper range and much of the scale goes unused. For that reason, it's more accurate to rate movies in relation to the average of previous ratings, whether that average denotes a movie you liked, liked somewhat, loved or slept through

>>87480442
>>87480321
I encourage both of you to read this post >>87480180
which I believe explains the real issue that you are arguing about. You aren't arguing about the same scales IMO.

>>87480442
>it's more accurate to rate movies in relation to the average of previous ratings
I do this too. I mean, it's part of the way I rate my movies.

But I don't see how I can avoid the effect we're seeing. If I don't watch that many sucky movies then it will be that way.
Unless I find some kind of new definition of what 1/10 means. To me that is a movie I really hate, and I have voted a few hates so I know in my mind what I think is a 1/10. But if I did what you're suggesting then I would have to make 1/10 something that is somewhere around in the land of slight dislike, because I rarely watch movies that I very much dislike. It just sounds unnatural doing it that way tho.

>>87480101
Pathetic

>>87480001

>Average, in both cases, refers to the average of the movies you have seen and not "the average movie," which does not exist and you have not seen.


While a truly average film can't exist, you can still imagine each element of a film being average. Like you know sort of what an average script sounds like, what average acting looks like, what average editing feels like and so on. So you can still say whether or not a film is above or below average by simply judging all these elements together.

>>87480615
as I explained in>>87478670 >>87479042 and >>87479660 it makes no sense to assume the numbers represent any specific opinion of the movies. Curving your own scores to suit the general trends of imdb users only situationally makes sense, and I disregarded this idea because OP has never mentioned it

>>87480615
I have read it.
I'm aware that IMDB scores tend to average a bit higher than the actual average on the scale. I also have noticed a relation with different genras too. For example, 6-7 is usually a really good horror movie, and 4-5 is usually still pretty decent. But a score in a drama is different, and a 4-5 is normally really fucking bad for this genre.

Anyway, I don't vote according to that stuff. I use the scale on my own personal experience of the movie, where 1 is a strong hate and 10 is a strong love.

>>87480762
I'm not saying that OP is arguing for this context, but I think it explains his stance to some degree.

>only situationally makes sense
I would argue that the situation in which it makes sense is precisely this one, where you are ratings movies not in a vacuum but within the context of a specific website database. The average score on IMDb is literally 6.4, whether it makes sense theoretically or not.

>>87481103
Here's a source for the number if you don't believe me.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-average-rating-on-IMDB-for-a-movie

>>87481103
but OP is not specifically trying to represent his taste in movies in relation to imdb's userbase, so the actual distribution of scores on imdb has no impact on how he allocates his own scores. It WOULD make sense if we could assume OP scores movies the way he does because of his experience browsing imdb, or if we could assume his reasons for rating most movies higher than average were the same as for imdb users in general, or if we could assume that he excludes movies based on imdb score in a way that relates to the rationale average users have for rating movies lower than 5, but we can't. In any case what I was originally trying to say is that it is a bad idea to curve scores in this way, whether OP has done it or not, not commenting on how to interpret OPs scores in light of the imdb average

>>87480857
I'm not saying that you are voting based on that scale consciously, but you are doing so on some level. Your right skew in ratings fits right in with what I'm talking about, where the average movie that people rate is not 5.5 but significantly higher. In other words, you (generally) fit in with the context of IMDb, whether you are trying to or not.

>>87481301
OP literally stated that he was doing exactly what you are claiming I'm assuming.
>>87478945

>>87481361
Yeah I understand what you're saying but I'm not doing that because I always think of my 1-5/6-10 scale. I've always been aware of exactly what you're talking about and I've avoided it, even pointed out the very same thing with a couple of normie-friends who I'm sure are doing what you're describing.

>>87481486
Yes, I am indeed avoiding movies that I expect will be really shitty or that I won't like.

>>87481504
I'm honestly not trying to be mean about it, but if you are consciously trying not to vote based on context then you aren't doing a very good job. Your scores fit right in to the context that I'm describing, so the results aren't functionally different.

>>87481504
>>87481656
I'm op btw, forgot to put the namefagging again.

>>87481486
You're misunderstanding. OP bases his decisions on the imdb scores, but because we do not know how these are created it is not as simple as stating both are higher than average and therefore must be higher than average for the same reason.

>>87481669
Don't worry but it's not the case. I'm quite selfaware about this phenomenon. I'm not doing that. I think we have explained the positive effect already, that I tend to avoid movies I expect to be shit. I don't want to waste my time on them. And when I do that then it's natural that the effect is what we're seeing.

>using IMDB
L M A O

>>87481692
I'm not misunderstanding your position, I simply disagree that we can't assume those things. My last post presented evidence showing that existing IMDb scores do indeed influence OP's scores, since they A) filter what movies he watches and B) give him a preconceived notion of whether a score should be higher or lower.

And OP, if you read this, I want you to know that I am not saying what you're doing is bad. In fact, I freely admit that my scores, along with everyone else's, are biased by what I see on the website. There is no way, unless you were truly autistic, that your perception wouldn't be altered by what you are exposed to. It's human nature.

>>87477638
Yes, I think that the best way to score things is the Scaruffi way.

>>87478703
It's not too bad to rate so few movies 10/10 because there's thousands of bots giving movies 10/10 everywhere

>>87481972
I agree this affect a lot of people. I'm saying I am indeed autistic about my rating. I know my state of mind. I've been aware of what you're talking about, but I treat my own average on 5.5 always like a true autist. Honestly. However, I remember a time many years ago when I would be affected by these too. But that was before I registrered and started rating myself. I think I have been quite efficient of rating most of my 1500 movies on my own 1-5/6-10 scale, in which 5 is the low average and 6 is the high average.

>>87482262
Fair enough, I appreciate the discussion!

>>87482438
When we're on the subject, why do you think the scores have averaged to 6.6 or whatever?

File: imdb1.png (4KB, 288x177px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 288x177px

>>87482201
0 10/10 ratings
and only like 20 9/10

File: Untitled.png (4KB, 303x175px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 303x175px

I mean it's not like I go out of my way to see movies I know I'll hate