How about defaulting to our preferred review sort order

@popeyereanimat  We have changed the default sort order for User Reviews based on customer feedback.  You can always change back to "Helpfulness" via the menu in the upper right hand corner near the first review:

Hope this helps. 

It seems to be a bug regarding how user reviews are sorted on default. It used to be sorted by helpful, but at the moment it’s prolific reviewers. Is IMDB aware of this issue, or have they actually changed it permanently? 

In that case, I really hope they’ll consider changing it back. These prolific reviewers often have a completely different view than the average viewer, I want the general consensus, not some negative prick’s opinion with 1-star reviews on every single movie/episode. 

I think it’s a shame that the first review the audience is going to see is a biased opinion, just because he/she have been active on IMDB for years. Thoughts?

@RaviNathan 

look at later for changes..

Chucky (2021- )
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8388390/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8388390/reference

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8388390/ratings

1,563 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 7.6 / 10
Rating    Votes
10   45.0%  704

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8388390/reviews

66 Reviews

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw7437572/

 8/10
Chucky's Back and He's Got Potential
wes-oliveira
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur49885038/ 1 Review

13 October 2021
The series bring the traditional nice, 
small town vibe with new narratives.
Pretty impressed with the doll's comeback.
Hope they don't rely on jump scares, 
fan service or nostalgia too much. 
Keep it fresh, relevant, gore and smart! Go Chucky!

18 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw7438329/

1/10
Writing so bad it hurts!
HateFakeReviews
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur107268883/ - 9 Reviews
13 October 2021
All the 10/10 reviews are obviously fake! 
The writing is beyond ridiculous, 
the dialog it so far from real it's laughable... 
Sad because the potential was there 
but is let down by every aspect! 
If you last past 20mins you are either blind and deaf 
or just really super drunk and don't care how bad it is.

56 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?

.

@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. 

@martinols122 it's not a bug. They changed it to combat review bombing from new accounts.

@martinols122 Totally agree with you, helpfulness was... well, helpful. Prolific reviewer is less relevant. Don't understand the change.

@Liam_gal What do you call review bombing please? Some users would mark reviews as unhelpful when it doesn't fit their view? Or bots as helpful/unhelpful (on a respectively positive/negative review) to promote a movie?

@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. 

@Teyss Please see https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/review-mobbing/6159d8f3c76fe86d93a26f82 

@Col_Needham Thanks for the link. Interesting and annoying (regardless of the fact I thought "Dune" was a great movie, must happen for other ones).

There is something flawed about the whole review process. For starters, approving reviews is not done seriously: some are just 3-liners basically saying "It's great" or "It's crap" (that's not a review, it's an opinion), some are not even in English. Consequence: a plethora of useless "reviews" becoming a battleground of helpful/not helpful instead of real consideration.

The selection needs to be stricter: longer minimal length, structured argumentation, decent language. Then IMDb could rank reviews based on a secret algorithm (a bit like ratings are done) mixing:

- helpfulness, possibly weighted by contribution status (gold contributor saying "helpful" or not weights more than silver than bronze than nothing),

- total votes,

- prolific reviewer,

- length of review (yes, a long review is generally better provided the selection is ok),

- maybe a secret note from IMDb staff selecting the review,

- other TBD.

An additional option would be NOT to show the rating with the review: users would actually have to READ the review before clicking on helpful or not. Would dissuade potential mobsters and definitely bots. That's just a few ideas.

@Col_Needham Just realised you are founder and CEO of IMDb, then many thanks for answering my post.

I am an active contributor (gold status, not many reviews but thorough) and really wish this community to keep on providing useful and interesting information to all movie fans.

@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.

@Teyss:  Thank you for staying on this important topic. Since IMDb changed the dropdown menu order, none of my reviews are being read unless they happen to be the only review or one of very reviews for a specific movie. I take time and effort researching and writing my reviews. If they are no longer being read, whether "helpful" or "not helpful", there isn't much sense in continuing to write them. I also agree that IMDb needs to decline more reviews that are sub-standard. As a reviewer, I will accept the consequences if the standards are tightened. My own personal opinion is that "most recent date" should be first on the drop down choices so that new writers will be given a chance at being read. If users want "most helpful", they should easily be able to make that choice as well. In either case, it is wrong to place "prolific reviewer" at the top as many of those reviews are merely cranked out without enough thought or care, and it prevents other reviewers from being noticed. Thanks again for your very welcome comments on this very important topic.

@frank_wiener_fe4dw90cmuqbe Thanks for participating to this debate and for your helpful insight. Yes it is important because if sub-standard reviews are on top, real fans like you or me will stop both reading and reviewing. I agree on everything except maybe on "Review date" by default: I like to see useful reviews on top, not the latest ones which could be inferior.

We can almost all roughly agree on what a good review is: something argumented with nuance, structure and insight, regardless if we approve or not. The trick is how to identify them? So far IMDb didn't find the solution and to be honest I don't have an easy one either. The main issue is the sheer volume of movies and also reviews published, which could be limited with a stricter approval process as you suggest. 

To be continued as they say in the movies. 

Teyss: I would certainly accept a dropdown menu with "most helpful" at the top. It's a challenge to get to the top of the heap, but I've done it a few times. This is subjective on my part, but the best movies inspire the best user reviews. Thanks again for your valuable contribution.

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! 

@martinols122 : Thanks for your important contribution to this conversation about the IMDb change in the order of the dropdown menu so that the category of "prolific reviewer" appears first. I agree about "most recent" as that category tends to give me the widest, least inhibited views of a film. I do also look at "most helpful" because my experience is that category is where the best written reviews are located. No offense to "prolific reviewers", but while the number of reviews they have written may be impressive by itself, those are not necessarily the "most helpful" reviews.  In many cases, they are the SAME reviewers for all of the movies of my interest, which is "unhelpful". As I've said in my other comments on the topic, the newer, unestablished reviewers deserve to be read if they have "helpful" ideas. If they are thrown on the bottom of the heap, they will never be read, which is unfair and "unhelpful". Thanks again for helping to draw attention to a very important matter.

@Teyss 

I’d settle for reviews 1) written in complete sentences, 2) spell-checked, and 3) (mostly) grammatically correct. I say “mostly” because everyone makes mistakes. There’s a huge difference between a mistake or two versus someone who isn’t even trying.

As far as length - I think that is tricky. Less than 3-4 sentences (depending on sentence length) doesn’t provide much information. I’ll read a paragraph or two if I haven’t seen something, but more than that I find to be too much. I’m just trying to get a sense for whether I will like something, not have everything broken down. I have read some wonderfully-written long reviews with a ton of detail; I feel like these belong on a discussion site, or somewhere where they are more likely to be appreciated. I’m not saying they don’t belong on IMDb, just that they might be more likely to be read and appreciated elsewhere (assuming there is an elsewhere). Hopefully there is an elsewhere and they are posted both places.

Now you have me wondering about the difference of review versus opinion specifically for IMDb user reviews. I’ve always considered them to basically be the same thing on IMDb. I’ve thought of them as “Did you like this [x]” and “why or why not?” (I don’t think I’ve written more than 2 or 3 reviews in the 15+ years I’ve been on IMDB.)

I’ve never understood the reviewers that just write, “It’s great” or “It’s crap.” There’s a rating system to “say” exactly those things.

For your last point, how would you know a user had read a review? You can’t do it by length of time. People read at different speeds. People could also just leave their phone open and ignore it until the required reading period was up - just like with ads.

@MysteryTW Thanks for your articulated contribution. I didn't say we could check a user read a review, just that without showing ratings they would have to actually read the review before assessing as "Helpful" or "Unhelpful" instead of blind clicking only based on rating. Unless of course the title is obvious such as "Great" or "Crap", but that generally doesn't happen for elaborate and nuanced reviews. And bots would definitely be useless then.

As for long reviews, there isn't really another place than IMDb for us non-professional reviewers since it's the most accessible, most user-friendly, most read site on this planet. I personally enjoy long reviews with thorough insight even if I don't agree with the content, gives me another POV on the movie.

Thanks again. I feel I am discussing with real movie fans here instead of an anonymous bunch just using a website to promote their ideas whatever they are.

@frank_wiener_fe4dw90cmuqbe

You bring up many good points here. My main concern about the decision to switch to prolific reviewers is that it is much easier forindividuals with a specific agenda to reach out with their opinions, but also potentially influence the audience, both in a positive and negative direction.

Some of these reviewers write posts with very little content, while others who have spent time writing longer posts with more depth and understanding remain "invisible" in the crowd due to the new system. However, I would like to point out that I see some advantages with the scheme, including that it can contribute to more activity and engagemement on the platform.

I still decided to investigate how I as a viewer and IMDB-User get the best experience on the web site, and believe that I have found a possible solution to the problem. You mention that you personally use both recent and helpful reviews to get a broader overview of the films / series' reception, which I share your view on. It made me think of a new option for sorting reviews: recent helpful, or more specifically the "Hot" category.

With a fitting algorithm, this category will combine the best of both worlds. You will at all times receive the latest reviews with the highest support among the public, the reviews provide a timely and fresh take on the content, but at the same time reduce the opportunities to manipulate the system through bots. I'm curious about what the rest of you, and the IMDB team think about this.

That’s an interesting idea. I’m curious how it would work for older movies and tv series. I often mark reviews as helpful or not, no matter the age of the title. I don’t consider myself very “typical” however. As a title ages, fewer reviews tend to be written and of those that are written, fewer seem to be marked helpful or unhelpful. (I presume it’s because fewer people are looking at the reviews.) 

How would you define recent or latest? I’m just imagining a title with 2 reviews written the last 6 months where 1 was rated helpful and the other had no ratings. (I think your idea could be cool, so I’m just probing a little deeper.)

@Teyss 

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for clearing that up. I’m not sure why my brain went in that direction. 

Hmm, maybe there should be an additional “in-depth” category in the filters. That would make it easy to find the more insightful reviews. Going into detail typically tends to make reviews longer. IMDb could then (presumably) add some type of code so that reviews longer than [x] will show up in the in-depth category. (Length should have little to nothing to do with insight, but I’m just trying to think of an easy way it could be implemented.) The in-depth reviews would still show up in all the regular places when filtering by date, helpfulness, rating, etc.

Unfortunately, my reviews are still NOT being read since IMDb changed the dropdown menu so that it is set to "most prolific". I feel like Norman Bates after the new highway was built when motorists could no longer see the motel sign.  The dropdown menu change means that any IMDb subscribers who want to read user reviews are forced to take an extra step to get to "most helpful" or "most recent", which they are clearly NOT doing. It doesn't make much sense for me to spend the time and effort writing reviews for IMDb when they are not being read by anyone. I have no other choice but to cease writing reviews for IMDb (maybe IMDb will be happy about my decision!) and to seek another film website that publishes user reviews that are actually read and appreciated. I have recently written several comments regarding this very negative IMDb change without any real concern on the part of IMDb staff/management, so, Louie, it looks like this is the end of a beautiful relationship. So sad.

@MysteryTW: Generally, with some exceptions, I only write reviews of classics from WW2 to the Viet Nam War era. There is a certain classic movie following on this website. They are certainly a smaller group but very dedicated. Many are TCM freaks like myself. Until IMDb's horrible dropdown menu change, my reviews were read by this group but no more. 

@martinols122:  I think that your idea is a really good one. If not a new category of "hot reviews" or "highlighted reviews" of more in-depth analyses of films/shows, some other category that would resolve a real problem on this website now. I checked the "most prolific" reviewers, and I will never produce a dozen reviews per day as it sometimes takes me hours to get a review half-way to where I would like it to be. I also notice that many of these "most prolific" reviewers have more negative responses than positive ones and that many of their assembly line reviews are never even read.  In the end, the decision lies with IMDb management, and I haven't seen them even responding to these comments for the past month. I have concluded that it is not an important topic to them. C'est la vie. 

@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
.

@MysteryTW : Thanks again for your valuable contribution to a very important discussion. As to length, I too read lengthier reviews of films in which I am interested. Not to offend IMDb management, but when so many reviews are pure garbage and not rejected as they should be, it's very difficult to sort through them for the substance. Some of my reviews are wordier than they need to be, but I'm consciously working on that and re-read and edit my own reviews regularly, especially when I watch a film again. In any case, not to be the broken record that I have become, but my reviews are no longer being read while they had been read before the dropdown menu change. In some instances, it took me a long time to get to the "most helpful" category, but I did get there, which was a miracle by itself considering that readers would have to make the effort to go to the "most recent" category in order to find me at all. Sometimes this took years. Now it won't happen at all. Thanks again for responding.  

@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. 

I join the general sentiment here: I find "Helpfulness" the... most helpful (big surprise! ;-) criteria, and "Prolific" the minor one.

One reviewer can be a verbose and prolific moron, but will remain still a moron. While the most voted ("i.e. "helpful") reviews will almost always contains some usefulness.

I'm waiting for the website being able to remember my sorting choice. It seems odd it cannot now just write it in a cookie, but I'm not an expert.

I have no information on why the review sorting has shifted from "Helpfulness" or most helpful to "Prolific reviewer". I have many issues but I'll keep it short.

Doing so gives way too much protagonism to a few reviewers that, as many reviews as they might have written, does not in any way make them prolific or more worthy. They certainly do have an achievement in their hands, but that should be reduced to an optional feature that you should go out of your way to select. I already know Martin Hafer and TheLittleSongibrd by name, and I don't know why I should. The fact these people have more free time to write more reviews does not make them the ultimate opinions everybody should be reading first. This is exemplified and made worst by the fact that many of the reviewers who are the most abundant can be in that position only by the fact that they write short and unsubtantial reviews a lot. Which I could dedicate myself to tomorrow to get to the top.

It completely burries good reviews posted by non-regulars, and ultimately it makes the "Was this review helpful?" feature sterile, because even though someone can sort by "Helpfulness", most users won't, as they casually see the reviews that appear first and stick to that. And the race to write a good review and have it go to the top by the will of the people now feels reduced to a very narrow group of people who use the sort features, and who wants that?

It's one of the worst, most ass-backwards changes IMDb has done in a while, and that's saying something because they are always screwing their site and retroactively correcting it. I hope this will be the case as well and this message can get to someone who has any power over it.

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

Just read the above posts about review bombing. If there's a case where review bombing is taking place then FIX IT, as you've done many times before with special cases, just do your job and fix that PARTICULAR (as in the minority, the exception) case, instead of screwing the review sorting of every single page.

Prolific reviewer reviews are not so agreed among imdb users. In fact few users find their reviews "helpful", I don't either.. their reviews are always too critical and don't represents what most people think and like.

Isn't IMDb a site where reviews and ratings are chosen based on what the majority thinks?

So what's the point of prioritizing the opinion of a small part, often not shared by everyone else?

(Honestly I think "prolific reviewer" shouldn't even be an option)

This is just one example of quite a handful where I submitted a review and it got accepted immediately, but will not show up the way it used to:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5538754/reviews/

As you see, it says 0 Reviews. But for me it says "Edit Review" nonetheless. If I sort by anything other (Review Date, Prolific Reviewer, whatever), my review is displayed correctly. But with "Helpfulness", there seems to be an issue. Also on the title page, the button "User reviews" (between buttons "Cast & crew" and "IMDbPro") is shown. It is never shown on title pages without reviews. So to me this seems to be a display issue, not a submission/contributors issue.

Does this have to do by the way with IMDb going back to "Helpfulness" as the standard selection instead of "Prolific Reviewer"?

On a side-note, this could still be the same issue like here

It would be amazing if you got to the bottom of all this and not just fix the issue for the title I mentioned above. I can happily provide you with the other titles where it is the case if needed. Right now it looks to me as if this only occurs with titles where there is just one single review, but I am not 100% sure about that.

@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. 

@nobody​ Please see the comment above:

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.

Seriously...?  Here, someone actually with some brains finally changed the review sorting order to 'Most Prolific' so that we could see the reviews first of the ones WHO CONTRIBUTE THE MOST!  The way it used to be (and apparently some Bonehead is trying to change it back) is that the review order is COMPLETELY BEHOLDEN to the whims and manipulation of how people rate the reviews.  C'Mon...  Even to the most simple minded person, it should be obvious that that way is NOT objective at all.  With the sorting as it has thankfully been for the last several months with 'Most Prolific', guess what...?  THOSE first reviews are by the people who have actually contributed the most.  How the hell could that not be the most fair way to do it?  Now, when I go to post a review, it is ALWAYS at the bottom.  Where is the incentive in that...???

Could someone with some authority PLEASE give some kind of rational justification as to how rating by how people 'vote' the usefulness of the reivews (which is EXTREMELY BIASED AND TAINTED by those who try to manipulate the votes) HOW the hell is that in any way possible better...?

Thank you!

Latheofheaven.

PS:  It's just that after busting my butt to write reviews over the last 12+ years or so, it was kind of nice to see that rewarded by my reviews showing up in the first few.

@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​ 😀

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

? ?

.

I see reviews are back to Helpfulness. Good.

@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.