Post by kevin on Feb 17, 2018 21:19:10 GMT
Why are so many of the Rotten Tomatoes lists so weird in terms of their ranking?
I just looked at their top 100 movies of all time and this is the top 20:
1. The Wizard of Oz
2. Citizen Kane
3. Black Panther
4. The Third Man
5. Get Out
6. Call Me By Your Name
7. Mad Max: Fury Road
8. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
9. Paddington 2
10. All About Eve
11. Inside Out
12. Metropolis
13. Lady Bird
14. E.T.
15. Moonlight
16. Casablanca
17. Modern Times
18. It Happened One Night
19. Singin' In the Rain
20. The Godfather
A quick look at their list shows that if their purpose is to accurately show the general critical legacy/consensus of a movie, their current technique is not really right.
I mean no matter how great you think it is, we're not going to act like Get Out is considered to be better than The Godfather by critics.
They use a bayesian average which takes into the account the percentage of positive reviews, the number of reviews and the critics who give the ratings. I don't know the exact equation, but it looks really weird that f.e. Black Panther is at #3 with 97% and 287 reviews and Boyhood is at #32 with also 97% and 291 reviews. Another thing I noticed is that the current system seems to favor recent movies a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if the top 10 would only be new movies in a few years. And the most stupid thing of all is that the average rating, the only thing about rotten tomatoes that more or less accurately shows general consensus, isn't used in any way. I mean, if you use the average rating to sort movies and then add some factor for the number of reviews you actually get a list that looks a lot like other lists of best movies of all time. I'm getting tired of people using the tomatometer (% of critics who liked it) as the most important factor. The tomatometer is one of the most useless parameters to measure a movie by. If a movie is divisive it has a low %, but that still means that it can have 50% who hate it and 50% who absolutely love it. The average rating also has similar flaws. I think your own opinion on a movie is 1000 times more important than any of these numbers, but if I had to pick one the average rating is a lot better. It's not only the case for their best of all-time list. Almost all of their lists seem very weird in terms of ranking. What do you think of these Rotten Tomatoes lists using a bayesian average?
I just looked at their top 100 movies of all time and this is the top 20:
1. The Wizard of Oz
2. Citizen Kane
3. Black Panther
4. The Third Man
5. Get Out
6. Call Me By Your Name
7. Mad Max: Fury Road
8. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
9. Paddington 2
10. All About Eve
11. Inside Out
12. Metropolis
13. Lady Bird
14. E.T.
15. Moonlight
16. Casablanca
17. Modern Times
18. It Happened One Night
19. Singin' In the Rain
20. The Godfather
A quick look at their list shows that if their purpose is to accurately show the general critical legacy/consensus of a movie, their current technique is not really right.
I mean no matter how great you think it is, we're not going to act like Get Out is considered to be better than The Godfather by critics.
They use a bayesian average which takes into the account the percentage of positive reviews, the number of reviews and the critics who give the ratings. I don't know the exact equation, but it looks really weird that f.e. Black Panther is at #3 with 97% and 287 reviews and Boyhood is at #32 with also 97% and 291 reviews. Another thing I noticed is that the current system seems to favor recent movies a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if the top 10 would only be new movies in a few years. And the most stupid thing of all is that the average rating, the only thing about rotten tomatoes that more or less accurately shows general consensus, isn't used in any way. I mean, if you use the average rating to sort movies and then add some factor for the number of reviews you actually get a list that looks a lot like other lists of best movies of all time. I'm getting tired of people using the tomatometer (% of critics who liked it) as the most important factor. The tomatometer is one of the most useless parameters to measure a movie by. If a movie is divisive it has a low %, but that still means that it can have 50% who hate it and 50% who absolutely love it. The average rating also has similar flaws. I think your own opinion on a movie is 1000 times more important than any of these numbers, but if I had to pick one the average rating is a lot better. It's not only the case for their best of all-time list. Almost all of their lists seem very weird in terms of ranking. What do you think of these Rotten Tomatoes lists using a bayesian average?
