Quote# 65047

[about the IMDB ratings about Expelled)

Because of the apparent blackballing of the film by people who had never seen it, it is difficult to tell what actual viewers of the film thought. Removing the almost obligatory '1' ratings under the above assumption 1600 voters on the IMDB website gave it a 8.5 rating on a scale from 1 to 10.

conservapedia, www.conservapedia.com 45 Comments [8/27/2009 12:55:51 PM]
Fundie Index: 42
Submitted By: Wautd

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


They actually have the brass balls to complain about possible "vote-boting?" I like the fact that they just adjust the rating by removing all the bad ratings. Cute trick.

8/27/2009 12:59:15 PM


They actually have the brass balls to complain about possible "vote-boting?" I like the fact that they just adjust the rating by removing all the bad ratings. Cute trick.

edit - sorry for the repost.

8/27/2009 1:01:36 PM


So then why don't they set up their own vote bot to give it 10 ratings?

8/27/2009 1:08:25 PM

Reverend Jeremiah

Perhaps you can ask IMDB to remove the ratings on all Christian movies so as to make it appear that Christian movies are very popular and wanted in our society...sort of like Youtube Christians who closely moderate comments, or just shut them off alltogether. Regardless, they still shut off the rating because they cannot control it.

8/27/2009 1:15:29 PM

From the IMDb site:

Weighted Average Ratings

IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it.

The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective. The result is a more accurate vote average.

Sorry, conservapedia, this isn't the Olympics and you can't summarily throw out the lowest/highest scores. Further, the IMDb already uses filters and algorithms to ensure the "purity" of the user rating system. So the low rating for the film is the actual expression of the voters' disdain for it.

8/27/2009 1:16:12 PM



8/27/2009 1:29:09 PM


I watched it after downloading it from the pirate bay.

This film sucks in a variety of different manners. There are propaganda films with less bias. It seems to be edited by a drunken ape. The film is best used as an example of how not to make a documentary.

8/27/2009 1:29:21 PM


And all the people who never read/saw Harry Potter, and bomb it with 1 ratings without seeing it are...what now?

8/27/2009 1:56:19 PM


I don't need to watch the whole thing to know it's pure bullshit. The SMELL alone is enough. It deserves a '0' rating, but IMDB won't allow that.

8/27/2009 2:04:54 PM


Watched it, I'd at least give it a 2 though for the good laughs.

8/27/2009 2:05:08 PM

Philbert McAdamia

Rate this movie from 8.5 to 10,
bearing in mind a low score WILL SEND YAS TA HELLL!!!!
and be honest. Jesus thanks you.

8/27/2009 2:12:37 PM


A not-so-little-known fact: The admins at Conservapedia delete articles and restore them to reset their view counters. They do that if they get hit by a clickbot.

All that accomplishes is that it demonstrates that the view counters are demonstrably being manipulated on the both sides of the debate and should therefore not be trusted at all.

Same for your IMDB ratings. If you can't trust them, don't use them at all. Especially if you arbitrarily fudge the results instead of fixing the problems - killing all 1-votes will also eliminate those people who did see the film and thought it was shit.

8/27/2009 2:27:12 PM


If (and I'm not saying it is) it is fair to remove the "1" ratings, would it not be equally fair to remove all the "10" ratings? Of course, that would probably put the rating back down to where it really belongs.

8/27/2009 2:31:40 PM


Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. And if we removed all the votes for Obama, he would have lost elections.

8/27/2009 2:34:30 PM


aaa said: The film is best used as an example of how not to make a documentary.

If they were smart they'd sell it to film schools for just this reason. It's likely the only way they'll make a profit on it.

8/27/2009 2:35:29 PM


What is even more apalling is the rest of the Conservapedia entry linked to the quote.

Poor, poor ID "scientists" working so hard to give the world their message, but those ebil scientific academics are repressing & persecuting them...

8/27/2009 2:39:18 PM

Doctor Whom

It didn't work out our way! Waaaah!

8/27/2009 2:46:36 PM


What the fu- Oh, its conservapedia.

8/27/2009 2:49:44 PM

Doubting Thomas

So, by claiming that anyone who gave it a 1 never saw it? Very scientific. Basically, you're saying that except for the people who thought it totally sucked, everyone liked it.

8/27/2009 2:52:45 PM


Look on the bright side Rotten Tomatoes ended up giving it a 10.
Although that was percent.

8/27/2009 3:28:26 PM


Only the people that agree with me actually count! Yeah!

8/27/2009 4:00:55 PM


Yeah, and if we throw out all the liberals, Rush Limbaugh gets an 8.5, too.

8/27/2009 4:26:23 PM


Creationists doing what they do best: ignore all evidence against you.

8/27/2009 5:19:09 PM


This is cool. Look, if we remove all of the negative ratings, the Phantom Menace was actually a terrific follow up to the original Star Wars trilogy!

Who knew?

8/27/2009 6:07:46 PM


Even more amazingly, if you remove all the 1-9 votes you get a perfect 10.0!

But seriously, just about the only people who watch it are Atheists looking for a laugh or want to keep an open mind, see what it's like, etc. (will obviously vote 1star) and Christians who just take it in without questioning it who'll vote 8-10. And AFAIK, IMDB have an anti - votebot system in place unlike Youtube.

8/27/2009 6:19:46 PM

1 2 | top: comments page