Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Some Netflix Users Have Rated 50,000 Shows

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the suckling-at-the-boob-tube dept.

Movies 134

An anonymous reader writes "Netflix has released some statistics about its users, showing that more than one percent of its customer base has rated 5,000 shows or more, and a few hundred users have rated over 50,000. A reporter for The Atlantic tracked down a few of those extreme users to find out why they do it. Mike Reilly, a producer, heard about the Netflix prize, and wanted to test the limits of the movie recommendation algorithm. Lorraine Hopping Egan has rated about 6,500 movies, but she still uses word of mouth when trying to decide what to watch."

cancel ×

134 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Evidence (5, Funny)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605046)

FTA:

Several hundred Netflix members have rated more than 50,000 filmed entertainment programs. 50,000! To watch all those at a pace of one movie or TV show per day, it would take 136 years.

More evidence that Immortals walk among us.

Re:Evidence (1)

nebaz (453974) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605100)

Movies haven't even been around 136 years. Being immortal wouldn't help. Being able to split yourself in two or three might. Or having more than one tv in the room.

Re:Evidence (5, Insightful)

pablodiazgutierrez (756813) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605128)

Or watching more than one show per day. Or having watched them in the past, long before Netflix was around, and rating them in their system.

Re:Evidence (2, Insightful)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605196)

Or not watching them and just randomly assigning a score (or assigning it based on what you think it would be)

Re:Evidence (5, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605294)

Or botting [wikipedia.org] the whole stinking thing.

That's my odds-on favorite theory on how you can rate 50k items.

Re:Evidence (0)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605324)

Interesting. I just noticed that the title doesn't agree with TFS or TFA. 5K, not 50K.

I still say botting.

Re:Evidence (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605352)

5k is a lot more plausible for a serious film/TV buff, especially if they went through rating things they'd seen long before Netflix. Probably a mix of bots and real users, at that level. 50k, OTOH, seems pretty much bot-only territory.

Re:Evidence (1)

KillaGouge (973562) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605414)

Does it say how many people where using the account. My wife and I share one Netflix account, but we both rank movies.

Re:Evidence (2, Funny)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605460)

Yes, there are 10,000 people using each of those accounts

Re:Evidence (2, Interesting)

Ramze (640788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606694)

I've rated about 3600 titles... but honestly, you don't have to watch an entire movie all the way through to give it a one star "I Hated it" or two star "I didn't like it". Sometimes I'll play a low rated movie for 15-20 minutes or so just to see if it's an under-appreciated gem -- or I'll play a 3 star movie and skip around waiting for it to pick up, then close out and rate it w/ 2 stars because I didn't enjoy it.

5,000 titles isn't that impressive when you consider every TV show, documentary, and movie you've ever seen in your whole life. I rated over 2,000 titles my first day or two of Netflix just to seed the algorithm with my preferences. If I had rated every children's show (Barney for example) with one star instead of simply clicking "not interested", I would easily have over 4,000 rated by now & it's only my second month of Netflix.

My guess is most people just don't bother to rate things b/c of the time involved in clicking the ratings for each one. I swear, rating over 2,000 titles was like playing whack-a-mole for hours.

Re:Evidence (2, Interesting)

Spacezilla (972723) | more than 3 years ago | (#33608556)

I've rated about 3600 titles... but honestly, you don't have to watch an entire movie all the way through to give it a one star "I Hated it" or two star "I didn't like it".

It feels like I have seen hundreds of movies where a brilliant ending changed my impression of the movie from "huge waste of time" to "OMG, that was very clever, I'm going to be thinking about that for a long time!".

Re:Evidence (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#33609346)

I rated over 2,000 titles my first day or two of Netflix

One of those occasions when OCD is a blessing rather than a curse, I suppose.

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605588)

Doesn't necessarily have to be botting. Instead of giving a movie/show a star rating, you can also select "not interested" which still counts as having rated the movie/show. While still quite extreme, this could be ab explanation.

Ideas (2, Interesting)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606820)

They could have watched enough of something to know they didn't like it, and giving a low rating.
They could be channeling opinions from friends.
With some botting thrown in for good measure?

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605520)

If "Not interested" is included as a rating for the sake of this statistic, it seems easily doable on a legitimate level.

Re:Evidence (2, Funny)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605228)

If you watch and rate 5 movies/shows per day it only takes 27 years. That's if you don't commit suicide before then.

Re:Evidence (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605302)

Surely this is just people writing bots to screw with the system?

Re:Evidence (1)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605314)

If you watch and rate 5 movies/shows per day it only takes 27 years. That's if you don't commit suicide before then.

I once took a weekly history of film class. In one session we watched 3 buster keaton movies in a row, then a Jackie Chan movie
that lifted several scenes right from Keaton classics. By the third Keaton feature in a row, laughs were few and far between because we were literally laughed out after a couple of hours. The Jackie
Chan flick (maybe Police Story?) brought us back around, though, the fast pace, and the addition of sound/dialogue was a welcome relief.

Film class (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606832)

Not the film class I took - we often watched the movies over the span of two class sessions.
Okay, we had long films (The Seven Samurai being the longest) and a 2hr session; conversely, I guess you had short films and a 3 or 4 hour session.

Re:Evidence (0)

dwinks616 (1536791) | more than 3 years ago | (#33609428)

Hopefully this "class" wasn't at a university. Shit like this is why I can't fucking stand the "higher education" system. How in the fuck can anyone justify spending somewhere between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars to take a "class" on shit that doesn't require a fucking class? Want to learn about film history? Buy a damn Netflix subscription, a few bags of popcorn and spend a few hours on Wikipedia/IMDB researching stuff. Nearly every "educated" person I know is FAR less knowledgeable about pretty much any subject than I am. Mostly because they wasted years of their life racking up tens of thousands of dollars of debt for what could have been learned just as easily from a few bucks worth of late fees at the local library mixed with a bit of critical thinking skills and study skills. I spend 2-3 hours a day learning new things, no university required. I enjoy it, it's what I do.

I've considered taking a year to study up on law so I can ace the bar exam to lobby against universities. Take a look at a random sampling of a few hundred job postings on Monster or any other job board. Notice how every single fucking one requires a 4-year degree? How many of those postings actually need a degree? Half? A quarter? Less? One should be required to be educated enough to perform their job duties, how they attain said education should not be important. Paying tens of thousands to a for-profit organization to "learn" things at a pace of the lowest common denominator should NOT be the only way. I refuse to go to college simply because I can't stand the snails-pace they teach at. I'm capable of learning what is taught in an average quarter in a week or less, why the hell should I have to suffer though "learning" it at a pace suited for all the fucking idiot 100-ish I.Q. people there?

Re:Evidence (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606338)

5 TV shows/day is very easy. I probably do that every single day (including 'half hour' shows which are 20-22.5 minutes long without commercials..).

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605728)

Does a rating include 'not interested'? As you can rate them that way. If so I probably clear nearly 2k. I have rated about 1100 myself and another few hundred of not interested. If it includes 'not interested' then it is entirely possible their ratings are good. For example if you watch a show a long time ago and it went for say 10 seasons you could easy get 10 1 stars because you didnt like the show. There are hundreds of shows and 3-10 seasons each...

I have also rated a few dozen myself of 'walked out on'/1 star. Meaning I watch about 20-30 mins of it and thought 'what garbage'...

I found after about 500 it gets most of its recommendations right if you are honest about it.

Re:Evidence (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606224)

Or watching using VLC and hitting "]" a lot...

Re:Evidence (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#33609330)

Or watching more than one show per day. Or having watched them in the past, long before Netflix was around, and rating them in their system.

Say you watched five films a day every day(and one and a half hours times five is seven and a half hours a day) it would still take you 28 years to watch 50,000 films, so this figure is only just the right side of impossible, and it's certainly not remotely plausible.

Re:Evidence (1)

leamanc (961376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605900)

Movies haven't even been around 136 years

You're right. It's only been 132 years since Eadweard_Muybridge [wikipedia.org] made the first piece of work that we recognize as a motion picture.

Re:Evidence (1)

mestar (121800) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605574)

"one movie or TV show per day, it would take 136 years"

Yes, but if you watch 136 movies or shows per day, it would only take one year.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=multimonitor+setup&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=E6GSTLnyL4bJswbYstH3CQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CDIQsAQwAw&biw=1006&bih=558 [google.com]

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33606142)

I think you meant:

http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-images/ClockworkOrange.jpg

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33606858)

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that clicking "Not Interested" counts as a rating. I think that that's what the bulk of my ratings are.

Re:Evidence (1)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607064)

Yeah, at a mere one per day. But if they are watching TV shows, at about 25 minutes each, you could easily watch and rate a good 10-12 shows per day. Double that if you truly had no life.

So for 50000 shows, at 10 a day, that's 5000 days, or under 14 years.

And NetFlix has been around for... oh wait.

Re:Evidence (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607790)

A shame that Netflix only has titles that were released after Netflix was created... Oh wait.

Re:Evidence (1)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607808)

Hah. Yeah. That was my other thought. People could just as well be posting reviews for movies they've seen in the past, and not rented off Netflix.

I review a *lot* of things on Amazon.com, but I don't think I've ever reviewed something that I didn't buy from them. Doesn't mean that others don't though.

Re:Evidence (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607472)

Watching all those movies back to back would take approximately 8.5 years alone. There's no possible way anyone could do that and still have enough time to post to Netflix about it! It has to be either bots randomly rating movies with accounts, or users rating movies based primarily on their title, synopsis, and whether they are likely to want to watch the movie or not.

oops (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605058)

5,000, not 50,000

Re:oops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605264)

@AnonymousCoward the 50,000 number is correct #!informative.

stuff that matters? (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605062)

where did it go? the stuff that mattered used to be around here somewhere.

anyone see it?

Re:stuff that matters? (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605094)

check in the couch, between the cushions.

Re:stuff that matters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605120)

I think it's in the ads. they're pretty phenomenal!
Posting anonymous, since I'm an Apple user, and generally think they make decent products.

Re:stuff that matters? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605290)

wtf?

Re:stuff that matters? (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606044)

There are ads on /.? when did they add those?

*notices he has the "thanks for your positive contributions" box checked*

Re:stuff that matters? (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605202)

I suggest you go through the archive. /. really hasn't changed that much in the 11-12 years I've been here.

Re:stuff that matters? (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605292)

Sure Slashdot has changed. Back then, people wondered when Slashdot would publish some news for nerds and stuff that matters. Now people wonder when Slashdot stopped publishing news for nerds and stuff that matters. Totally different.

Re:stuff that matters? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606960)

2005 was the Year Of The Slashdot Desktop.

Re:stuff that matters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33606806)

It changed a lot.

AC's always wrote the best comments.

But now, nobody reads these -- it was very different back then.

And off my lawn! Kids these days... *spit*

Re:stuff that matters? (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605792)

Obviously it's because because all of these TV addicted young people have such short attenti

Re:stuff that matters? (1)

CmdrPorno (115048) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605818)

It's stuffed in your sofa cushion, along with the remote to your Netflix-enabled device.

Re:stuff that matters? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605936)

The door is over there. You can ask for a refund too, I'm sure.

Re:stuff that matters? (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606446)

It went the way of the MindMouse(TM)

Re:stuff that matters? (1)

Mjollnir (324074) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607128)

Listen, kid. Back in the day, we had nothing but Jon Katz, glorious MEEPT!, and hot grits down our pants.

And we liked it. You younguns don't know how good you got it.

Now get off my lawn!

cmenedes0101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605064)

Title says 50,000 article says 5,000?

Re:cmenedes0101 (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605184)

As per TFA: "Some" have rated 50,000. 0.01% of users have rated 20,000 or more. 1% have rated 5,000 or more.

Some simple math... (2, Interesting)

nebaz (453974) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605080)

Assuming we rate 50,000 movies at 2 hours a movie, this comes out to approximately 11.4 years of straight time. (i.e. no sleep). This does not include the amount of time to rate these items. I know tv shows are less than two hours, but if these ratings are for a series, as opposed to a simple episode, then even more time will be needed.

Re:Some simple math... (3, Insightful)

pablodiazgutierrez (756813) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605136)

Who says you have to watch something to rate it? Are you the one who actually reads links in Slashdot?

Re:Some simple math... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607112)

Some people don't RTFA. Some people don't RTFS. A rare, special few don't read the parent comment for their post.

Re:Some simple math... (0, Offtopic)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 3 years ago | (#33608950)

It's often a lot easier to get modded (at all) when your post is within the first 20-30 posts on a page. If that means responding to a parent when the comment really has nothing to do with what the parent said, so be it.

PS: I've been getting 15 mod points very frequently lately. As in, I had them some 2 days ago, gave away about 7 or 8 until today, and bam, 15 again. The FAQ only mentions about getting 10 mod points when we're part of the 1% of moderators who get 'em or something. What's with 15? Has been going on for a couple of months now.

Re:Some simple math... (2, Interesting)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605372)

I often rate movies I have seen in the past 30 years, including many movies I never finished watching. I also rate series based on if I have watched them, dismissed them, or plan to watch them. I'm not sure how the metric of "how long it would take to watch everything rated" matters anymore than "how long it would take to meta-rank every subdomain of .com"

Re:Some simple math... (1)

corerunner (971136) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605394)

...because it's impossible for anyone to rate a movie they saw before Netflix was around

Re:Some simple math... (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606136)

this comes out to approximately 11.4 years of straight time

I've been watching movies and TV for four times that long, so I would only have needed 6 hours a day to reach that benchmark. And, believe it or not, there are actually people in the world who are even older than I am! :)

Of course, you don't necessarily have to watch an entire movie to decide you don't like it--especially with the Netflix rating system, where the primary purpose is to encourage it to suggest other things you might like, so giving low ratings to things you'd never even consider watching isn't at all unreasonable.

It takes 50000 ratings to get Netflix working.. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 3 years ago | (#33608692)

I have something like 3000 items rated and my experience is items average a lot less than two hours. I have a lot of 20 minute show episodes rated. Also it's important to note that more than one person use a single account and with steaming you can pump through shows pretty quickly.

My theory is they had to rate that many movies to get the stupid Netflix rating system to make suggestions for them. I was well into 1000+ ratings before it'd even occasionally try. Horrible system.

50,000 or 5,000? (4, Informative)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605114)

To end the confusion, here's what TFAhas to say about it:

Several hundred Netflix members have rated more than 50,000 filmed entertainment programs. 50,000! To watch all those at a pace of one movie or TV show per day, it would take 136 years.

But those users are just the extreme end of a broader behavioral pattern. About a tenth of one percent (0.07%) of Netflix users -- more than 10,000 people -- have rated more than 20,000 items. And a full one percent, or nearly 150,000 Netflixers, have rated more than 5,000 movies. By contrast, only 60 percent of Netflix users rate any movies at all, and the typical person only gives out 200 starred grades.

Please note that... (2, Informative)

Dalzhim (1588707) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605116)

The "more than one percent of its customer base" has rated 5000 shows and not 50 000. In TFA, 50 000 is only displayed for an "elite rater".

Re:Please note that... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#33609378)

In TFA, 50 000 is only displayed for an "elite rater".

Where "elite" means "insane" or possibly "lying".

Nothing new here, move along... (4, Interesting)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605152)

This is typical where you give people the choice of rating something. Same goes for music. People on a music torrent tracker rate every single torrent uploaded, even without ever downloading it - just because they don't like the artist,. and make sure nobody else does either.

Or they do the opposite and rate every single song by his "best" artist a 5/5, even if the song is total shite.

This is more of an internal social conflict rather than some mathematical dillema, it's just people being people (and by people, I mean dicks).

Re:Nothing new here, move along... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605204)

Hopefully their recommendation system doesn't take into account raters who fall more than 2 standard deviations outside the mean.

Re:Nothing new here, move along... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605358)

Hopefully their recommendation system doesn't take into account raters who fall more than 2 standard deviations outside the mean.

Exactly... extreme outliers are the easiest to discard.

It would be more nefarious if there were an organized effort to astroturf for certain films by using a cracked database of valid logins, or by creating a bunch of trial accounts, or something like that.

Re:Nothing new here, move along... (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606152)

Hopeably, their recommendation system is based on people whose ratings are vaguely similar to yours, not some absolute measure of popularity. Otherwise, all those, "based on your interest in X and Y, you may like Z" messages are horribly misleading! :)

Re:Nothing new here, move along... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33607842)

Of course it is. But I also hope the recommendation systems start using something more intelligent than "people with similar tastes also liked X"...

I use last.fm and like it for various reasons, but their recommendations really aren't that useful. See, I'm from Finland, a small country with a fairly insular music scene ,and last.fm has obviously decided that people listening to Finnish music are some secular, tightly connected sub-culture: maybe 50% of the music I listen to is Finnish, but last.fm _only_ recommends Finnish artists for me (and the music scene being somewhat small, I already know those artists). So I never find anything new there.

Re:Nothing new here, move along... (1)

twoallbeefpatties (615632) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605872)

Of course, that's standard anywhere the internet allows you to leave comments on anything. People will post to things they know nothing about just for the sake of seeing their own post counts go up or for the small fame of seeing their screennames out there somewhere, or they'll post on something that even slightly leans to their biases in an attempt to just increase the population of their side represented in the posts underneath.

Incidentally, mod me up. :V

Re:Nothing new here, move along... (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605894)

For exactly that same reason I rated you 'Interesting'. Just thought to let you know that was me.

Torrent ratings (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606856)

With torrent ratings, there may also be some confusion as to whether you're supposed to rate the artistic quality of the content or the technical quality of the torrent.

Re:Nothing new here, move along... (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 3 years ago | (#33608550)

So some small proportion of people have 50,000 favourite and/or hated films or shows?

I Rate This Article: 3 stars (3, Funny)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605208)

because I liked it

Re:I Rate This Article: 3 stars (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605564)

I rated the article 4 stars because it used an interrobang [wikipedia.org] in the article title, and that's just awesome.

Based on your interest in interrobangs (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606382)

I rated the article 4 stars because it used an interrobang [wikipedia.org] in the article title

Based on your interest in interrobangs, you may like the State Library of New South Wales [nsw.gov.au] and Propaganda Against Recreational Substance Use [drugfree.org] .

Re:I Rate This Article: 3 stars (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607672)

I rated it 1 star because I couldn't be bothered to read it. and no one else should either. ;)

How good is the netflix rating if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605246)

it takes 1000 ratings before it gets good? It doesn't get really good until you rate 5000. Therefore, it is only really good for 1% of the users.

Some people do watch at lot but... (4, Interesting)

falken0905 (624713) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605344)

I have rated 2223 items at Netflix, 99% feature length movies. Since becoming a member I have received and watched 1034 movies. I own a little over 2000 dvds and Blu-Rays. Yes, I watch a lot of movies (and obviously have no life). But, that is my main entertainment; I do not subscribe to cable or satellite tv, I am over 60 years old, and have seen a -lot- of film over the years. And no, I won't tell you where I live or how the alarm system works. So yeah, I suppose I can see how someone could have rated -maybe- 5000 movies/shows. But, 50,000? I can not quite fathom that. Perhaps someone with even less of a life than mine spends all day compulsively rating movies based entirely on their descriptions and cast lists? Robots? The studios and/or MPAA? As a side note, Netflix recommendation engine seems to have no clue whatsoever what I am likely to enjoy, probably due to my wide range of preferences. I am constantly amused at some of the stuff they suggest and have noticed that the old pre-contest engine, for my tastes, was much more likely find stuff I like and potentially rent.

Re:Some people do watch at lot but... (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605652)

I believe my rate count the last time I checked was around 1800, so I can identify with you. I've had a couple long nights where I'd just rate movies for the fun of it. My queue got quite a bit longer during that process, as I came across movies I'd meant to see but never did, etc.

One thing that caught my attention in the summary and the title was the use of the word "show." If we're including tv shows, and we're including ratings of "not interested", then how much larger does my rate count get if i decide I'm not interested in Dr. Who at all? I believe Netflix would count every disc as one rating.

Re:Some people do watch at lot but... (1)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605832)

Each SEASON (could be multiple discs) gets one rating......its always sad when I hate an episode of a show I like and I cant let Netflix know :(....

If you give an episode a different rating than another in the same season they all update to the new value (unless there is a trick I missed in which case let me in on the secret)

Re:Some people do watch at lot but... (2, Funny)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607884)

Sorry, if you decide you decide you're not interested in Dr Who at all, you must turn in your geek card and refrain from posting to /. - that's just the way it is.

Re:Some people do watch at lot but... (2, Interesting)

evilviper (135110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607434)

I suppose I can see how someone could have rated -maybe- 5000 movies/shows. But, 50,000? I can not quite fathom that.

Consider the possibility that you HATE show XYZ. Netflix, however, keeps recommending it to you, no matter how many times you rate a disk in the series poorly (I've seen this myself). It's not at all hard to imagine seeing two or three episodes, and rating 100 disks as 1-star. Of course that's a rather extreme example, but the point is valid, and it's certainly not hard to get from watching 5,000 shows, to rating 50,000, without any dishonest behavior.

Re:Some people do watch at lot but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33609106)

I'm about half your age at 32 and my situation is similar to yours with my current rating count at 1852. It should be noted that not only do my ratings represent my pre-Netflix movie viewing history but also my wife's. While much of our tastes overlap she has seen many titles I have not and vice versa. So my aggregate ratings count is actually comprised of 2 people's viewing history.

couple things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605562)

1. Family accounts with multiple people compulsively rating everything
2. Rating things without having seen them. I don't need to see Michael Jackson's This is It or The Princess and the Frog to know that I'll think they're shit.

Slashdot has a ratings system, too (4, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605570)

Slashdot has a ratings system, too.

You go to http://slashdot.org/firehose [slashdot.org] and look at the articles by clicking on their titles, maybe follow the links they contain to see if the summary is correct and the links work and aren't a trap or anything, then you click the + or the - and pick a category for your reasoning from the inadequate list.

The idea is that when stories like this one come up that are (a) dull, and (b) poorly written, and (c) so is the summary, you can have a voice in saying whether it's forced upon the rest of /. or just scrolls off the bottom of the Firehose, never to be seen again until the inevitable dupe is posted.

But clearly, that ratings system isn't doing a bit of good, because, dayum...

Re:Slashdot has a ratings system, too (1)

CmdrPorno (115048) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605840)

Dude, Slashdot becoming more like Digg is not something to brag about.

Re:Slashdot has a ratings system, too (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606264)

I'm going to ask if you know what the word "brag" means...

Do7l (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33605610)

users. BSD/OS is busy infighting bunch of retarded posts on Usenet are and financial Darren Reed, which

Some Netflix Users Have Rated 50,000 Shows (1)

dominious (1077089) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605696)

Has anyone read the title as: "Some NetFlix Users Have No Life"

Re:Some Netflix Users Have Rated 50,000 Shows (1)

dswensen (252552) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606098)

No. Really enjoys movies != "no life."

Do yourself a favor and don't be this guy [theonion.com] .

I'm more interested in the opposet subset (1)

neonKow (1239288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605750)

By contrast, only 60 percent of Netflix users rate any movies at all, and the typical person only gives out 200 starred grades.

Why??

Re:I'm more interested in the opposet subset (1)

neonKow (1239288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605774)

And by that I mean why do 40% of people not care to use the rating system at all?

Re:I'm more interested in the opposet subset (3, Informative)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606188)

because it's a pain to use after the fact on the computer, when watching on my PS3.

Things netflix needs: To know where credits start in a show, and ignore that you have stopped watching partway though the credits, and not offer you with "resume blah blah" when you have 3 minutes of credits left.

Re:I'm more interested in the opposet subset (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606266)

Um, perhaps you haven't noticed, but you can rate them right there at your PS3; no need to go to another machine. You can't write a review, but you can easily enter 1-5 stars.

I agree about the skipping the credits part, but I just fast-forward through them, and it seems to be happy with that.

Watching Demographic (2, Funny)

lewko (195646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606082)

What's the bet that none of those reviews begin with "Me and my girlfriend watched this together..."

I've "rated" 17344 (1)

imunfair (877689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606170)

It really depends on what they mean by rated - if they include 'not interested' (aka the rating count they show on the "movies you'll love" page), then I have 17344 ratings. However, I estimate I've probably only watched about 2000-3000 movies and TV series (not all through Netflix, of course).

Why do I do it? Because I like to be able to see on my queue when things will be added/removed from watch instantly. Seems like a lot of work, but it really isn't if you sit browsing through descriptions while you watch a movie. Probably only took me a few days rating for a couple hours a day to get through the entire WI section.

They recently changed the way the WI browse genres worked - it used to not display anything already in your queue, which was nice - when they made the change I had to give everything in my queue a temporary rating to make it disappear again - slightly annoying. I like to know that when I use browse I am seeing things I haven't evaluated before.

In case anyone is curious, your DVD queue has a limit of 500 titles, and you can add an additional 500 to the Watch Instantly queue. Currently at 406 and 375 respectively. It's nice to be able to browse quickly down a list of titles I'm actually interested in, rather than all the garbage that surrounds the WI gems.

Duhhh.. 50,000... or 5,000? (0)

sotweed (118223) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606236)

The heading says 50,000, which is pretty crazy.. but all of the text refers to numbers more like 5,000....

Netflix prize vs Easy/Cheap Features (1)

npsimons (32752) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606766)

Slightly off-topic:

I haven't posted this question to the Netflix folks yet, but I can't believe no one has asked for it. If you are a Netflix person, please take this as a minor request from a customer who just wants to see you do better.

Million dollar prizes for nifty relational search algorithms are neat and all, but how about one simple thing that shouldn't cost more than two weeks developer time and would be a really nice feature: be able to sort a queue, specifically, be able to sort based on date released. Other sorting factors could be useful, but date released would be the best, especially for those of us MST3K fans for whom the series isn't numbered on the DVDs . . .

IMDB (1)

adenied (120700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606822)

I prefer IMDB for rating stuff. I have a list of about 500 movies I want to see so I don't really need more recommendations right now. I also have been very interested in short subject pieces (short attention span?) lately ranging from animated to pre-1900 Edison etc. stuff. There's a lot of DVDs of these but if I want to keep track of what I've seen and what I thought of individual "movies" I have to go somewhere other than Netflix.

IMDB is very good for this since they're about 98% complete in my current experience. There's some obscure stuff that hasn't made it in there, but often I'm surprised at how comprehensive it is. I only rate individual "films" and TV series. I don't do individual TV shows since I can remember most every movie I've seen, and TV series that I've seen, but my memory of random individual shows from mostly forgotten sitcoms from the early 1980s is poor. There's also sometimes a substantial delay in them updating with new episodes of lesser watched shows. If it's not in IMDB within an hour or two of when I watch it it probably will never get rated by me.

Even with that I'm approaching 3000 ratings on IMDB. That said, I stopped rating stuff on Netflix after about 1000 ratings and it does mention some interesting things from time to time.

recommendations (1)

jkmartin (816458) | more than 3 years ago | (#33606940)

Biggest way to improve the recommendations is to stop recommending things I already have in my queue!

Unfair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33607476)

FTA:

A reporter for The Atlantic tracked down a few of those extreme users...

Man, when I do that, they call it stalking. WTF?

the world record for movies watched is ~28k (3, Interesting)

ffflala (793437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607484)

Watching that many is certainly possible, but recalling them all seems unlikely.

World record holder Gwilym Hughes got it by watching ~14 films a week from 1953 to 2008. He said: "People think that I'm glued to the television set 24 hours a day but I'm not because I'm a member of about 10 organisations. I watch films from about 9pm until about 12. Sometimes I could set up one on the televisions in the study. It works out about 10 to 14 films a week."

His favorite movies is also one of my favorites -- Lawrence of Arabia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11066046 [bbc.co.uk]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>