People search for intelligence in cosmos. Can one find it on IMDb?

An impatient visitor can jump right now for the intelligently-reordered "canonical lists of films" made by other people, or to the lists of best films according to intelligent calculated grades. You will be able to return to this page when needed (the lists have links back to this page).

How to choose which film to watch, and how not to choose?

Would you like to listen to what people on the streets say? If you are satisfied by that, then probably you do not need to continue reading this page...

The opinion of trusted (and tested) friends works much better - but it usually comes drop by a tiny drop, so this may be used only sparingly. There is a major collection of film reviews and ratings on IMDb; would not it be wonderful if this information was as useful as opinions of your trusted and tested friends? As experience shows, the apparent answer is "No way": the opinions of individual reviewers go over the whole range, and it looks like without knowing these people first, one cannot decide which people deserve more attention than the others.

What about averaging the opinions of reviewers? At least it is going to be "a fair" grade: every film is judged by the same rules as any other film. Unfortunately, the same problem as in the justice system results: when one can ensure fairness, there remains only very little expectation of "justness". The people you would like to hear are hidden by the opinions of the majority who you would like to ignore (but do not know how). The vivid example of this is the "IMDb Top 250" movies list: it is constructed by averaging the grades. Inspect the results: there is a certain amount of good movies there, but there is also a major amount of movies in the "better skip this" category.

This is the famous "designed by a committee" syndrom. Quite often a result of balancing opinions of several well-meaning wise people is much worse than what any one of these people would do alone.

The good news:

What to do?

Second, one can extract a numeric grade for a film. Again, it is a "fair" grade, so it is not always "just"; but according to my observations, films with high grade very often are at least highly watchable. (It is the low grades which are more often wrongly-low - but again, not very often so.) This "intelligent grade" turns out to have very little correlation with the average IMDb grade...

Given that, one can solve a mass-problem: take a large collection of films, and order them using that grade. If one starts with large enough collection, one gets a lot of films with high "intelligent grade."

Combining two sides:

What I wanted to do next is to enable other people to enjoy this two-strikes approach. So I took some well-known "lists of best films", and (re)ordered them using the "intelligent grades". The films in these lists are equipped with links to "intelligent reviews" (and with tons of other info about the films). So this combines the opinions of critics (or laymans) who created the original lists with the opinion of the "intelligent slice" of IMDb contributors.

Additionally, I took a list of "all more or less notable films", and took the best films according to the "intelligent grade". This gives the second half of the lists below. These should be "the absolutely the best films according to the "intelligent slice" of IMDb contributors.

The dark side of the moon.

First of all, the algorithm to choose "the intelligent slice" of IMDb contributors is based on what I observed about people on IMDb. So, although it is "a fair algorithm", it carries traces of my opinions on what is intelligent and what is not. Your opinion will undoubtfully differ from mine, so this "slice" may work for you not as good as it works for me. In short: the "intelligent grade" may be not good for you. (There is little I can do about it right now.)

Second: to have a trustful numeric grade, one must start with a large enough pool of opinions about a film. It turns out that good films do not necessarily win a large popularity on IMDb; so the pool for a good film may be quite shallow, and the resulting numeric grade may be subject to significant statistical flukes. A greedy viewer (like me) would not want to miss these good films; so one should better not omit films with shallow pools.

The problem comes from two factors: the fraction of films which deserve high "intelligent grade" is very low; and majority of films have shallow pools of of opinions. So it turns out that the legitimate high-grade films with a deep pool of opinions are "contaminated": they are crowded by large amount of high-grade-by-a-fluke shallow-pool-films.

This happens if one considers films with deep pool together with films with shallow pool. The solution: we use a new measure, "robustness", which reflects the size of the pool of opinion; we provide ordered lists separately for higher-robustness films, and lower-robustness films. This avoids the "contamination" issue; now one should only be aware that the grade in the lower-robustness lists is not as trustful as in higher-robustness ones.

Third, there is a small but noticable fraction of "false negative" calculated grades given to "obviously worthy" films (inspect the end of the Top250 re-ordered list). I suspect that the algorithm I use cannot distinghuish a "worthy but controvercial" film from a non-worthy one. Again, I do not know a remedy for this dark side.

(Re)ordered lists

First of all, one can inspect whether you like the "intelligent" grade better than the "normal", averaged IMDb grade. Compare the list of Top250 sorted by IMDb grade with the list of Top250 sorted by the "intelligent" grade.

What if you do not see the improvements? Then you can still try to inspect the links to "intelligent reviews"; do you find them useful? Even if you do not find these reviews appropriate, you still can use the additional information the lists are instrumented with. Anyway, I would like to hear your feedback on these issues.

Lists of films ordered by the "intelligent" grade