<![CDATA[I haven't seen the movie, but on the very formula that the actual list uses, the weighted average of this film is consid]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Paris, Texas

AStormOfSwords13 — 10 years ago(May 26, 2015 08:43 PM)

I haven't seen the movie, but on the very formula that the actual list uses, the weighted average of this film is considerably lower than movies that aren't on the Top 250. I used The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, a movie outside of that list, as an example to counter this movie.
Desolation of Smaug has 8.0 from 409944 users at the time I calculated this, which gives true Bayesian estimate of 7.943.
In comparison, at the same time, this movie, at the very bottom of the Top 250, had 8.1 from 41186 users. When I plugged the numbers together, I ended up with 7.685.
Am I missing something here?
Winter is coming

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/199244/i-haven-t-seen-the-movie-but-on-the-very-formula-that-the-actual-list-uses-the-weighted-average-of-this-film-is-considRSS for NodeSun, 17 May 2026 09:12:36 GMTThu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:19 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to I haven't seen the movie, but on the very formula that the actual list uses, the weighted average of this film is consid on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:25 GMT]]>NotASpeckOfCereal — 9 years ago(June 10, 2016 09:45 AM)

I haven't seen the movie, but
bzzzzzzz.
Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676775https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676775Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to I haven't seen the movie, but on the very formula that the actual list uses, the weighted average of this film is consid on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:24 GMT]]>sheetsadam1 — 9 years ago(April 09, 2016 01:01 AM)

You are correct. This should not be in the top 250. It should be in the top 25 at very least.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676774https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676774Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to I haven't seen the movie, but on the very formula that the actual list uses, the weighted average of this film is consid on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:23 GMT]]>simonreed77 — 10 years ago(January 15, 2016 07:09 AM)

Now it is! But only just.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676773https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676773Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:23 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to I haven't seen the movie, but on the very formula that the actual list uses, the weighted average of this film is consid on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:22 GMT]]>crgilbert7 — 10 years ago(October 23, 2015 11:11 AM)

And you also missed the fact that the IMDb Top 250 is also determined by the top 1000 voters and by the IMDb staff. So your calculations are wrong.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676772https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676772Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:22 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to I haven't seen the movie, but on the very formula that the actual list uses, the weighted average of this film is consid on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:21 GMT]]>shinji-ikari-1 — 10 years ago(August 25, 2015 01:48 PM)

Yeah, you missed one of the best movies created, while calculating Bayesian estimates. I feel sorry for you.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676771https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676771Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to I haven't seen the movie, but on the very formula that the actual list uses, the weighted average of this film is consid on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:20 GMT]]>bluesky84 — 10 years ago(May 27, 2015 05:33 PM)

Lol.
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676770https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1676770Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:32:20 GMT