'Weighted' Average System Clearly Corrupt?
It's somewhat amazing to me that a filmmaker such as myself can hold an online screening for my indie documentary (in my case 'No Joke') in conjunction with having our film festival premiere (this past week @ NXNE) as means to promote viewers to provide feedback and reviews of the film (good or bad) and yet after 13 votes with an arithmetic mean of 8.3, median of 9, the current rating sits at 2.9. Clearly this system to root out corruption is horribly corrupt in itself. Why, just because several votes and reviews come in over a short amount of time, that is reason to disregard them as 'suspect?' Just because we have ASKED people to review and vote on the film does not mean that we have asked them to review and vote UNFAIRLY. We have NEVER asked any viewer to give an inflated vote or review. To be treated as such is an absolute insult. It's difficult enough to find the energy and finances to complete a indie production such as 'No Joke' but at the very least one should be able to expect that after the years of work their work will be treated and judged FAIRLY. In regards to IMDB, this obviously isn't a reality. So, many thanks IMDB for FAILING dismally to give the people who took the time to review and vote on my film a fair chance for their collective voices to be heard. Please enjoy the countless dollars I have pumped into your company on continued frivuloucities as it's fairly obvious that you are not using them to design a review and rating system that works. Shame on you!