Can you sort the reviews by Helpfulness again?

@nobody  Thanks for the suggestion. This is how the IMDb iOS app already works — it remembers your last choice and it is “sticky” across titles.  

Unfortunately it is harder than it should be to add the same functionality to the old IMDb web software, which is one of many reasons it is being replaced. This will be easier once the user reviews are on the same technology as the main title pages. 

In the meantime, you could install a browser plug-in which will rewrite the appropriate IMDb URLs and add the parameter?sort=helpfulnessScore to the end of links. 

Hope this helps. 

@Col_Needham I don't understand this change. Helpfulness was the most relevant criteria. If you want to avoid "review bombing" as mentioned below (if I understand correctly what it is), then maybe "Total helpful votes" is best: many users found that review helpful, disregarding how many did not. IMDb would then need to ensure there are no bots boosting a review (e.g. to promote a movie), for instance based on IP address. 

@Col_Needham : I also don't understand the change in the user review dropdown menu, and I just don't buy your response that "user feedback" motivated the change. As I have stated in other posts here, a "prolific reviewer" is not necessarily the "best reviewer". Since the change was incorporated into the dropdown menu, my reviews are simply NOT being read as they were before the change. If they're not being read, there is no point in my taking the time and effort to write these reviews as I take great care in my research and in the composition. I believe that the first choice in the dropdown menu should be "most recent date" as that alone will serve to level the playing field as to chances that reviewers will be read. If reviews are sub-standard, as many of those published are, then they should just be "declined" by IMDb. As a reviewer, I am willing to face the consequences of IMDb's judgment on review quality and hopefully improve as a result of the rejection. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

I always look at the most recent reviews first. Sometimes I’ll look at helpfulness if the most recent reviews aren’t helpful. Typically though, the most helpful reviews are also the oldest oldest/older reviews. For ongoing tv series, I find older reviews less helpful. I never look at prolific reviewers. I forgot that was even an option, lol. I use the iOS app, so my chosen setting is remembered.

MysteryTW: Thanks for the response. As a broad generalization, I find "helpful" reviews to be among the best written. I still like to read the most recent so that I can get a wider range, especially for many artsy type films where the "most helpful" all seem to belong to the same elitist film society, and they dare not stray from what is expected of them, regardless of how they really feel about a film. Otherwise, how could so many "most helpful" reviews give 10 and 9 ratings to some of the dullest, overly long films on the face of the earth? It's not possible. In these cases, I turn to "most recent" so that I get a better mix of opinions that are not necessarily written to please the "elitist film society". Also, the new reviewers deserve to be read and not ignored if they have something important to say.  Thanks again for the feedback! 

@Col_Needham​ 😀

We have changed the default sort order for User Reviews based on customer feedback.

? ?

.

@frank_wiener_fe4dw90cmuqbe 

This you ??

frankwiener
IMDb member since February 2014
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur50944569/

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur50944569/ratings  - 1,750 Titles

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur50944569/reviews -   199 Reviews
- - -

some of the "most prolific"

MartinHafer
Sun Jun 8 2003
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur2467618/

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur2467618/ratings - 26,655 titles
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur2467618/reviews - 26,899 Reviews
 
TheLittleSongbird 
Fri Jan 30 2009
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur20552756/

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur20552756/ratings - 19,217 titles
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur20552756/reviews - 19,228 Reviews
  
bkoganbing 
Sun Jun 15 2003
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur2483625/

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur2483625/ratings  - 17,610 titles
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur2483625/reviews - 17,625 Reviews

Michael_Elliott
Sat Nov 25 2006
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur13134536/

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur13134536/ratings  -         11 titles 
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur13134536/reviews - 16,428 Reviews

Leofwine_draca
May 2000
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur0482513/

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur0482513/ratings - 19,474 titles
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur0482513/reviews - 16,184 Reviews
.

@ACT_1

Yup. That's me. No, I don't crank out 10 reviews a day. Many of the "most prolific" reviewers get a very low "helpful score", which speaks for itself. IMDb apparently isn't focused on the depth or the care taken by reviewers. So be it. Since IMDb's dropdown menu change, now set at "prolific reviewers", very few people are reading my reviews, so why take the time and effort to research and write them?

@frank_wiener_fe4dw90cmuqbe 

There was some chat here about Short reviews :

Make sure reviews are reviews again (minimum of 50 words instead of 50 characters)
marco
Sat, Jan 27, 2018
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/make-sure-reviews-are-reviews-again-minimum-of-50-words-instead-of-50-characters/5f4a7b3e8815453dbacfe95a

.

My reviews are always more than 50 words and rarely get rejected by IMDb editors/censors. I am Jewish, and my few reviews of movies that are centered on Jewish topics always take a long time to pass. One review on "Gentleman's Agreement", a movie that I did not like very much, took as many as three or four attempts before finally being accepted. Same with "Avalon", which I did not like very much either. I am a TCM devotee and almost always review classic movies. No new material as I generally don't care for new movies or tv shows--certainly nothing produced in the 21st century. 

@juli_n_bufarull​ Excellent points. I have yet to see a prolific review with more upvotes than downvotes. 

@Horst  Thanks for the problem report.  We are testing an updated approach to the “helpfulness” search in user reviews at the moment. Some customers are seeing the reviews in “prolific reviewer” order as has been the default for the last several months; some are seeing a new version of the helpfulness order which we are testing; some are seeing the old helpfulness order.  

What we suspect is happening is that you are in the latter group and this old order is known to have some bugs as you have reported previously (as well as, frankly, not actually being very helpful).  We will report this to the appropriate team, but the issue should be resolved soon anyway as we expect to switch to the new helpfulness order at the end of the test period. 

Hope this helps. 

@j_fulton​ 

What do you mean? Helpfulness is the right parameter... its one thing to write a review like ten years ago it's another to have that review garner 106 out of 110 points of helpfulness.

Sometimes it takes time sometimes it doesn't... but just because you are an old or a prolific reviewer should not mean that any review of yours has to be put on the top of a list even if it only got 1 out of 5 of helpfulness.

I never liked that prolific sorting anyway...  the thing is not to reward seniority or quantity  but relevance and quality... everyone stands with the same chances and its up to the readers to determine which are helpful or not. Its fair and square.

Dont get me wrong, I know some early written reviews get a quick helpfulness boost without  being top quality but ultimately the most popular reviews get to the top...

I wrote almost 2000 reviews in 12 years... many of them have good to excellent helpfulness ratings but with the prolific system, I always end up somewhere between the 30 and 50th position (depending on the film's popularity) seriously I would rather have helpfulness as the determining factor.. even if it actually lowers the visibility of other reviews I wrote. 

And one can always change the sprting anyway...

(Sorry, I meant my display name to be 'Latheofheaven' like my reviews)  😊

Well, I guess I see your point in an 'Ideal' situation.  But, what kind of chaps my bottom is that in SO many, MANY cases, people just go through reviews either indiscriminately or deliberately and automatically vote 'Down' all the positive reviews, maybe because they didn't like the movie.

I think that the relative position of your review should NOT be determined at the TOTAL whim of who votes what.  Sorting by 'Prolific Reviewer' cannot be corrupted or skewed by what OTHER people do.  It stands on the merits as to how much you have contributed.  Now, I see what you mean also.  But, I guess there is just SO damn much dishonest manipulation with the IMDB reviews and how they are 'Voted helpful' or not, that just really bothers me.  I see sorting the other way as completely free of any distortions...

@Latheofheaven​  Thanks for the feedback.  Just to clarify, we have not reverted to the old helpfulness algorithm.    We are experimenting with a new helpfulness algorithm which is designed to weigh more factors, to be more fair, and to create a better mix of reviews. This is an on-going experiment so we are not ready to make a formal announcement of the change yet. 

The new algorithm has tested better with customers over recent weeks, however, it is still being tuned. If you have any example titles where the review order could be further improved, please share them here as the team responsible are reading this thread. 

In the meantime, you can always sort the reviews by prolific reviewer order via the menu in the upper right of the reviews page (or see the advice above).

Hope this helps.

@Col_Needham 

Thanks for looking into this and trying to improve review sorting. 

If we move back to Helpfulness but now based on an algorithm, what we all need is clarity for instance with explanation ("?") next to the dropdown. So far it's not the case, just two examples below (apologies if they include reviews I wrote but it's the pages I am most familiar with).

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6304162/reviews/?ref_=tt_ql_urv

• First review according to helpfulness: "128 out of 141 found this helpful", that is 91%
• Second: 234 out of 251 hence 93%, higher in relative and absolute numbers

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041959/reviews/?ref_=tt_ql_urv

• 1. 43 out of 55 = 78%
• 2. 90 out of 110 = 81%, higher in relative and absolute numbers
• 3. 36 out of 42 = 85%, higher relatively
• 4. 56 out of 65 = 86%, higher in relative and absolute numbers

So there are other criteria, but which?

Here are again some ideas: https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/can-you-sort-the-reviews-by-helpfulness-again/61621ccf1277373b0021d353?commentId=6168bcebcd6ade3bf4184505&replyId=618b95e4203b6a57f41cc83b

And most of all, the review selection should be stricter to start with:

• More than 150 characters which is way too little for anything worthwhile. There are too many short, uninteresting reviews
• Valuable ideas instead of opinions e.g. "This movie is great/terrible"
• Better enforcement of spoiler alert since too many do not indicate it whilst they actually spoil important parts of the movie
• Other?

Thanks again for your cooperation.

@Col_Needham 

PS: thanks for liking my post, hope it helps.

Forgot to specify: if the new algorithm includes other criteria than just helpfulness (in relative and/or absolute value) then it should have another name to avoid confusion e.g. "Composite criteria", "Compound", other. The former helpfulness sorting could then also be kept in the dropdown list.