It's interesting to see the differences here. On Rotten Tomatoes the movie I'm watching has an audience rating of 18%, but on Imdb its rated 5.3. Obviously imdb has way more ratings, just thought that was interesting. I'm going to need an actuary to explain that further:)
shareI much prefer IMDb's ratings. Rotten Tomatoes has the problem of choosing fresh or rotten. A fresh ranges between 60-100%. To me, a movie in the 60 percentile isn't recommendable. There's no nuance. There's also a disparity between the percent and the average score. I've seen many movies with an 80%+, but the average score is a 6.5/10. The system there is so flawed.
sharewe should test this by comparing the ratings for some specific movies....
shareI've noticed the critics and the audience scores are often really far apart on Rotten Tomatoes. Imdb is far more accurate in my opinion based on the huge voting numbers. Maybe the Rotten tomatoes voters are pickier.
The audience rating are almost always higher than the critics ratings. Something is up with that site.
shareAgreed. Anything under 60% is "Rotten" which is very misleading. I take RT with a grain of salt. I often pair it up with Critic vs. User reviews, but my go to is Imdb overall.
shareI look at both but prefer Metacritic, which also has a users rating. You don't have people trying to game the top-whatever or trash/praise a film because of political leanings. So I look at all 3 rating sites for a balanced view.
You will see some of the same critics on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.
I've generally noticed Rotten Tomato's rate films a lot lower than IMDb, I was only on that site for a short time but it seemed to me it has a very high troll count so I don't much stock in their rating system.
share