5 ms·

That's audience score which is being review bombed just like the IMDb ratings. So i wouldn't pay much attention to that

by pverghese 4y ago

prox 4y ago
The critics have it around 80%, so the truth is in the middle?
- effingwewt 4y ago
  I'd say not. The problem is that many 'critics' are just randoms like you and I. 'critics' giving it 8/9/10 out of 10 aren't being truthful. I love how people are all 'you can't rate a show that just came out!' but critics have done just that as well. Reading the RT 'critics'[1] we find there are a total of three critics (none of them 'top critics'. We have a 7/10, a 3.5/5 and a fresh score. Somehow that translates to an 84% score at the moment. Why are bullshit high reviews not considered 'positive review bombing'? [1] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_rings_of_power/s01/reviews https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_...
- pverghese 4y ago
  Possibly yes. The only way to find out is time. Because review bombers tend to stop after the first few days. So the future reviews will tend to be more reliable than the early reviews
- raspberry1337 4y ago
  A quick look at Rotten tomatoes top critics score of all time is a good reminder why one should take critic score with a big row of salt
  - Machado117 4y ago
    That’s basically every review aggregator ever.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Calling a review a "bomb" is just a rhetorical trick for invalidating somebody else's opinion. By all means, remove bot posts. But A slew of negative reviews from real people is not that.
- grayfaced 4y ago
  Depends. If they're reviewing it without watching it, then I'm fine with their "opinion" being filtered. We don't need to amplify twitter outrage.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Amazon/IMDB have that information, so they could have done that. But they didn't; instead they removed all the bad reviews.
    - stingraycharles 4y ago
      That’s the smoking gun to me: no way that every review lower than 6 was a bot, they’re not even pretending to act in good faith.
- oliwarner 4y ago
  Whatever you call it, a score infiltrated by people (or not) who haven't seen or care for the material has no value for me. The value of aggregate reviews is to tell if I want to watch something. Amazon might be treading a dangerous line, but it appears to be in my interest.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > people (or not) There's the dehumanizing language I'm talking about. By all means delete the actual bot reviews, but that's not what Amazon did. They removed all the bad reviews, and their sycophants online use dehumanizing language to justify it.

That's audience score which is being review bombed just like the IMDb ratings. So i wouldn't pay much attention to that

prox 4y ago

The critics have it around 80%, so the truth is in the middle?

effingwewt 4y ago
I'd say not. The problem is that many 'critics' are just randoms like you and I. 'critics' giving it 8/9/10 out of 10 aren't being truthful. I love how people are all 'you can't rate a show that just came out!' but critics have done just that as well. Reading the RT 'critics'[1] we find there are a total of three critics (none of them 'top critics'. We have a 7/10, a 3.5/5 and a fresh score. Somehow that translates to an 84% score at the moment. Why are bullshit high reviews not considered 'positive review bombing'? [1] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_rings_of_power/s01/reviews https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_...
pverghese 4y ago
Possibly yes. The only way to find out is time. Because review bombers tend to stop after the first few days. So the future reviews will tend to be more reliable than the early reviews
raspberry1337 4y ago
A quick look at Rotten tomatoes top critics score of all time is a good reminder why one should take critic score with a big row of salt
- Machado117 4y ago
  That’s basically every review aggregator ever.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

Calling a review a "bomb" is just a rhetorical trick for invalidating somebody else's opinion. By all means, remove bot posts. But A slew of negative reviews from real people is not that.

grayfaced 4y ago
Depends. If they're reviewing it without watching it, then I'm fine with their "opinion" being filtered. We don't need to amplify twitter outrage.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Amazon/IMDB have that information, so they could have done that. But they didn't; instead they removed all the bad reviews.
  - stingraycharles 4y ago
    That’s the smoking gun to me: no way that every review lower than 6 was a bot, they’re not even pretending to act in good faith.
oliwarner 4y ago
Whatever you call it, a score infiltrated by people (or not) who haven't seen or care for the material has no value for me. The value of aggregate reviews is to tell if I want to watch something. Amazon might be treading a dangerous line, but it appears to be in my interest.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > people (or not) There's the dehumanizing language I'm talking about. By all means delete the actual bot reviews, but that's not what Amazon did. They removed all the bad reviews, and their sycophants online use dehumanizing language to justify it.