« Lines that delight, lines that blight | Main | Layered donuts have excess fats and oils »

Comments

Adam Schwartz

It seems like it might be even messier than that. Have you recently watched an episode of any 1980s television show? I remember "Alf" being great as a kid, but I couldn't even get through the first episode when it showed up on one of my streaming services. So assuming I could go back in time and make ratings of such shows back then, they might fare quite well at the time but if you made me review them again now then they'd much get lower ratings.

It seems like quality (at least on a 1-10 scale) may not be an unchanging constant over time for a given movie.

Data_chefs

I just want to say that I have really enjoyed this series of posts. My concern with this kind of analysis is more ontological (?), I guess.

While IMDB data is easy to understand, and it's interesting to see patterns in ratings, technically, this isn't "movie data." It's opinion data. It's even worse with Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic data, because their aggregation and scoring algorithms move them farther from the source: actual movies.

All movie analyses that use crowdrourced rating data are resting on the flawed assumption that such ratings have some inherent, meaningful relationship to movie quality.

Kaiser

Data_chefs: You will like my next post in the series. Thanks for the note

The comments to this entry are closed.

BOOTCAMP SUMMER '19



Link to Principal Analytics Prep

See our curriculum, instructors. Apply.
Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR.

See my Youtube and Flickr.

Book Blog



Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read



Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter

Residues