These CGEF Ratings...

[:]

Is it me, or are 1-spammers at work? Every episode of the new season seems to have a lower rating each time I look. And in the reviews section, there are so many 1's..... It's either 1's (which seem like aggressive haters) or 5's (a lot being people who want to make up for the 1's). There are very few 2's, 3's, and 4's....Obviously we all know that the CGEF rating system is flawed anyway because everyone can review an unlimited number of times, but still....

It just saddens me that there are so many aggressive haters to the new futurama... makes me wonder why people can't just lighten up and enjoy the show (or at least, the new season).... We are supposed to be fans. New futurama is no way near as bad as new simpsons, not even close IMO.

So, is it just my paranoia talking, or have other people noticed this too?

[#1 :]

Maybe they are voting 1 because new Futurama is a piece of shit?

[#2 :]

Maybe they are voting 1 because new Futurama is a piece of shit?

Well I just don't agree with that

[#3 :]

Most of them are bad, but I admit there is occasionally a decent episode.

[#4 :]

IMO all of this season has been really good (except TBJE which I'd say is average/below average) but that's just me

[#5 :]

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[#6 :]

I've come to simply not care about the ratings. A 5-point scoring system giving averages in the form of a percentage makes little sense to begin with. And a 3/5 shouldn't be 50%.

But yeah, the only thing CGEF has is a large sample of reviewers. There might be one person going around rating them low, but there isn't really any way of proving that. If it is the case, then I'm sure that proper opinions will balance it over time.

[#7 :]

"Proper opinions" :P

[#8 :]

Bianca, you have never had proper opinions.  Not that Unreal speaks with authority on the matter.

[#9 :]

"Proper opinions" :P

I was talking about a hypothetical scenario. If the low scores are legitimate then I have no problem.

By "proper opinions" I meant "opinions not coming out the rear end of a troll".

[#10 :]

Somebody (I think TNUK) said on another thread a while ago that a way better way to review episodes would be to be asked what kind of fan you are (nerdy obsessive, casual fan, newcomer, etc.) before submitting a review. That way, you could get a better idea of who liked what episode. I know, for example, that all of the casual fans I've talked to love Attack of the Killer App, but you'd never tell from the reviews. And of course, have it so you can only rate once. You could retract your review and change it, but that's it.

But yeah, the only thing CGEF has is a large sample of reviewers. There might be one person going around rating them low, but there isn't really any way of proving that. If it is the case, then I'm sure that proper opinions will balance it over time.

I think you can tell it's the same guy because he keeps putting his username as his opinion of the episode, eg. FUCKTHSSHOW

[#11 :]

Or we could start using my alternative review site!

[#12 :]

Maybe they are voting 1 because new Futurama is a piece of shit?

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[#13 :]

Somebody (I think TNUK) said on another thread a while ago that a way better way to review episodes would be to be asked what kind of fan you are (nerdy obsessive, casual fan, newcomer, etc.) before submitting a review. That way, you could get a better idea of who liked what episode. I know, for example, that all of the casual fans I've talked to love Attack of the Killer App, but you'd never tell from the reviews. And of course, have it so you can only rate once. You could retract your review and change it, but that's it.

But yeah, the only thing CGEF has is a large sample of reviewers. There might be one person going around rating them low, but there isn't really any way of proving that. If it is the case, then I'm sure that proper opinions will balance it over time.

I think you can tell it's the same guy because he keeps putting his username as his opinion of the episode, eg. FUCKTHSSHOW

Speaking of usernames, I saw somebody called "PeelersWorstnightmare".  

Whoever you are, reveal yourself!

[#14 :]

Most of them are bad, but I admit there is occasionally a decent episode.

You haven't watched this season, have you?

Anyways, I agree that these CGEF ratings are falling in the toilet. I used to agree with alot of them, but now saying that this season is worse than 6 is just stupid.

[#15 :]

Maybe they are voting 1 because new Futurama is a piece of shit?

Kind of like all your posts?

[#16 :]

Or we could start using my alternative review site!

This is pretty decent, but it has a really intensive review process. The majority of people are lazy, remember. They want to tick boxes. They want to spend three minutes assigning numbers to things. They don't want to use words. They don't want to spend time thinking too deeply or typing to much.

Therefore the user base is small, and people are rarely arsed to write a full review there for new episodes.

[#17 :]

And then people should stop whining about the CGEF ratings and start getting interested in these reviews.

[#18 :]

And then people should stop whining about the CGEF ratings and start getting interested in these reviews.

Meh. I maintain that my review model would be a lot easier to aggregate meaningful information from.

[#19 :]

So, looking at many of the recent reviews on CGEF, it appears that someone is taking the names of PEELers (such as Danny, Beamer, Mr Snrub and myself) and throwing a 1/5 rating on their so-called "reviews". They also seem particularly persistent on the episodes that were generally very well-received, such as "Game of Tones" and "Fun on a Bun".

The episodes that received moderate positivity, such as "Viva Mars Vegas" and "Calculon 2.0" seem to be the ones that end up being the highest-rated (probably because the trolls aren't quite as fussed about it).

Aside from whoever that troll is, I actually agree with most of the average ratings, unlike last years episodes. There's a lot of 80%s, which I think is a somewhat accurate average.

[#20 :]

Yeah, I posted a 5/5 review for Game of Tones on one of the relatively early pages of CGEF and it was later brought to my attention that there was a 1/5 review posted later under my name (which, obviously, wasn't me).

Is there any way to stop this from happening? Registration/one review per IP address/one review per user name/etc?

[#21 :]

Good God the amount of troll votes for Game of Tones is heinous. I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that it's considered worse than Calculon 2.0, or the amount of people with usernames of people here/real versions of people here.

[#22 :]

It's probably just one or two people trolling. Especially if they're sourcing aliases from PEEL.

[#23 :]

Perhaps mod should be able to remove those troll reviews?

[#24 :]

Even if the reviews are removable, their impacts on the overall scores would probably still stick, though.