<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:s='http://snipsnap.org/rdf/snip-schema#'
    xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'
    xml:base='http://community.moertel.com/ss/rdf'>
    <s:Snip rdf:about='http://community.moertel.com/ss/rdf#start/2004-07-23/1'
         s:name='start/2004-07-23/1'
         s:cUser='tmoertel'
         s:oUser='tmoertel'
         s:mUser='tmoertel'>
        <s:content>1 IMDB movie-rating decoder ring&#xA;&#xA;\[__Update:__ ~~If you like this entry, be sure to see the more powerful Grand Unified Decoder Ring in the [IMDB Movie-Rating Decoder Ring] section of the site.~~]&#xA;&#xA;Which piece of information is more useful?&#xA;&#xA;- Spider-Man 2 has an average rating of 8.0 on IMDB.&#xA;- Spider-Man 2 is in the top 5 percent of movies ever made.&#xA;&#xA;If you keep reading, I&apos;ll show you how to turn the first into the second.&#xA;&#xA;The {link:Internet Movie Database|http://imdb.com/} is my favorite&#xA;source of movie information, but it has a failing: The ratings aren&apos;t&#xA;particularly useful for finding the best movies.&#xA;&#xA;For example, if you look up a movie on IMDB and find that it has an&#xA;average rating of 5.0, what does that mean?  Intuition suggests that&#xA;because IMDB rates on a 10-scale, the movie should be near the middle&#xA;of the pack &amp;#8211; not the greatest movie in the world, but not an&#xA;outright stinker, either.  &#xA;&#xA;Intuition, however, would be wrong.  In reality, the movie ~~is~~ a&#xA;stinker.  It is, in fact, in the ~~worst~~ one-fourth of movies ever&#xA;made.&#xA;&#xA;How did our intuition lead us so far astray?  The problem is that IMDB&#xA;movie ratings don&apos;t reliably indicate a movie&apos;s &quot;goodness&quot; with&#xA;respect to other movies.  A 5.0 doesn&apos;t really have ~~any particular&#xA;meaning~~ &amp;#8211; other than being about halfway between awful and&#xA;excellent, the two extremes on IMDB&apos;s rating scale.  Yes, we know that&#xA;a 5.0-rated movie is probably &quot;better&quot; than a 4.8-rated movie, but how&#xA;much better?  0.2 better?  What on earth does that mean?&#xA;&#xA;If we want to ascribe a more useful meaning to that 5.0, we&apos;ll need&#xA;to turn to descriptive statistics.  And one of the most useful&#xA;things to look at first is the distribution of ratings:&#xA;&#xA;{image:imdb-hist.gif|Histogram of IMDB movie ratings}&#xA;&#xA;From the histogram we can see that almost all movies are rated between&#xA;4 and 8.  If a movie is rated lower than 4, it&apos;s one of the worst&#xA;movies ever made; avoid it.  If a movie is rated higher than 8, it&apos;s&#xA;one of the best ever made &amp;#8211; almost certainly worth viewing.  Of&#xA;that much, we can be fairly confident just by looking at the histogram.&#xA;&#xA;But what about the ratings in between, the ratings in that big lump in&#xA;the middle?  How does our hypothetical 5.0-rated movie really stack&#xA;up?  To answer those questions, we must turn to the cumulative&#xA;distribution function for the ratings:&#xA;&#xA;{image:imdb-ecdf.gif|Cumulative Distribution of IMDB movie ratings}&#xA;&#xA;Pinpoint a movie&apos;s rating on the &quot;Rating&quot; axis, and then trace a line&#xA;straight up from that point until it intersects the stair-step CDF&#xA;curve in the middle of the graph.  From there, go straight left until&#xA;you hit the &quot;Proportion of movies ...&quot; axis.  Where you land on that&#xA;axis gives you the magic number that tells you how your movie stacks&#xA;up against all other movies.&#xA;&#xA;For example, for a 6.0-rated movie, we trace up from the 6 on&#xA;the Rating axis to the CDF curve and then straight left until we&#xA;hit about 0.4 on the Proportion axis.  That means that the movie&#xA;is better than about 40% of all other movies, or to look at it&#xA;another way, 60% of movies are better than our 6.0-rated movie.&#xA;Repeating the process for our hypothetical 5.0-rated movie shows&#xA;that it&apos;s at the 20% mark &amp;#8211; pretty bad.&#xA;&#xA;Since it&apos;s a pain in the neck to read the graph, I have made a small&#xA;decoder ring that is more useful:&#xA;&#xA;{code:none}&#xA;IMDB MOVIE RATING&#xA;DECODER RING&#xA;&#xA;Movie&apos;s   % of movies&#xA;rating    it beats&#xA;-------  ------------&#xA;&#xA; 4.00-         9  &#xA;&#xA; 5.00         21&#xA; 5.25         24&#xA; 5.50         30&#xA; 5.75         35&#xA;&#xA; 6.00         42&#xA; 6.25         48&#xA; 6.50         57&#xA; 6.75         63&#xA;&#xA; 7.00         72&#xA; 7.25         78&#xA; 7.50         87&#xA; 7.75         91&#xA;&#xA; 8.00         95&#xA; 8.25         97&#xA; 8.50         98&#xA; 8.75         99&#xA;&#xA; 9.00+       100&#xA;{code}&#xA;&#xA;With the decoder ring, we can turn a movie&apos;s nearly meaningless IMDB&#xA;rating into genuinely useful information &amp;#8211; a single percentage&#xA;that tells us where that movie stands within the world of movies.&#xA;&#xA;All you do is look up your movie&apos;s IMDB rating in the left-hand column&#xA;and take the corresponding percentile rank from the right-hand column.&#xA;For example, Spider-Man 2 currently has a rating of 8.0, which&#xA;corresponds to 95% on the decoder ring.  That&apos;s how I knew earlier it&apos;s in&#xA;the top 5% of movies ever made.&#xA;&#xA;I use the decoder ring all the time, and it has made it much easier to&#xA;select movies that truly are worth watching.  It&apos;s a great tool.   I&#xA;hope that you find it as useful as I have.&#xA;</s:content>
        <s:mTime>2005-07-15 16:49:29.396</s:mTime>
        <s:cTime>2004-07-23 18:13:55.699</s:cTime>
        <s:comments
             rdf:type='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag'/>
        <s:snipLinks>
            <rdf:Bag>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='http://community.moertel.com/ss/rdf#IMDB Movie-Rating Decoder Ring'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='#snipsnap-index'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='http://community.moertel.com/ss/rdf#start/2004-08-27/1'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='#tmoertel'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='http://community.moertel.com/ss/rdf#'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='http://community.moertel.com/ss/rdf#space/start/2004-07-23/1'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='http://community.moertel.com/ss/rdf#IMDB+Movie-Rating+Decoder+Ring'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='http://community.moertel.com/ss/rdf#start/'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='#snipsnap-search'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='http://community.moertel.com/ss/rdf#start/2004-07-22/1'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='http://community.moertel.com/ss/rdf#imdb movie-rating decoder ring'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='#snipsnap-notfound'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='http://community.moertel.com/ss/rdf#Programming Fun Challenge'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='#PXSL'/>
            </rdf:Bag>
        </s:snipLinks>
        <s:attachments>
            <rdf:Bag>
                <rdf:li>
                    <s:Attachment rdf:about='http://community.moertel.com/ss/space/start/2004-07-23/1/imdb-ecdf.gif'
                         s:fileName='imdb-ecdf.gif'
                         s:contentType='image/gif'
                         s:size='2731'>
                        <s:date>Fri Jul 23 18:14:38 EDT 2004</s:date>
                    </s:Attachment>
                </rdf:li>
                <rdf:li>
                    <s:Attachment rdf:about='http://community.moertel.com/ss/space/start/2004-07-23/1/imdb-hist.gif'
                         s:fileName='imdb-hist.gif'
                         s:contentType='image/gif'
                         s:size='2865'>
                        <s:date>Fri Jul 23 18:14:26 EDT 2004</s:date>
                    </s:Attachment>
                </rdf:li>
            </rdf:Bag>
        </s:attachments>
    </s:Snip>
</rdf:RDF>
