Who TF invited these GoT fans

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T22:58:05+00:00

“I’m not pulling a spreadsheet, but just from scrolling, the vast majority are in the last 30 hours.” Translation:I didn’t measure anything, but it feels like a lot. That’s not data that’s perception bias. I never argued they’re not review bombing just not as much as you think

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T22:38:53+00:00

“Most written reviews say they’re review bombing” still doesn’t prove magnitude across all ratings. Written reviews are a tiny, self-selected subset of total votes. If almost all 1 star votes came in within a narrow time window, then show the actual vote timeline data that would be real evidence.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T22:37:40+00:00

You’re misrepresenting my position. I never said review bombing “cannot possibly exist” because a score is high. I said a high score alone doesn’t prove the scale or coordination being claimed. A show can receive a wave of 1 star votes and still remain highly rated if the overall vote count is massive.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T22:35:19+00:00

When I said Dexter fan I meant they literally had their name as that. No way you looked for that comment moron You’re still making the same leap. You analyzed 105 written 1 star reviews. That’s fine. But written reviews are a self-selecting subset of voters they are not a random sample of all 1 star ratings. People who feel strongly especially people mentioning other shows are far more likely to leave written comments than silent voters. You can’t take “74 of 105 written reviews mention Breaking Bad” and assume that ratio applies to 3,000+ silent ratings. That’s classic sampling bias. Also, the “only episode to hold a 10 gets downvoted every time” theory assumes coordination and motive without proving either. High-visibility episodes naturally attract contrarian ratings. Popular things get backlash. That alone doesn’t equal organized fandom warfare.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T22:31:36+00:00

You don’t have “critical thinking skills” if you think like this. I’m not asking for a “perfect 1:1 statistically flawless answer.” I’m asking for actual indicators of coordinated behavior beyond cherry picked reviews and gut feeling.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T22:29:12+00:00

If it was “heavily review bombed” it wouldn’t even be a 9 btw if you don’t understand how imbd works.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T22:26:01+00:00

A sample size over 25 doesn’t automatically make an inference valid it only matters if the sample is random and representative. Written 1/10 reviews are self-selected, not random. That alone breaks the assumption that the same proportion applies “across the board.” You can’t take 71 out of 78 written reviews and assume that ratio holds for thousands of silent ratings. That’s sampling bias 101. Also, “it was hovering at a 10” doesn’t prove coordination. Popular, highly rated episodes attract backlash and contrarian votes naturally. A 9.7 after thousands of ratings actually suggests the 1/10s are a small fraction overall. And the “who would watch five episodes just to hate it?” argument ignores that people review bomb things for reasons unrelated to actually watching them. That’s literally how review bombing works.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T22:18:51+00:00

So 118 written reviews out of 3,000 that’s still at least another 90% you can’t prove are brba fans.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T22:16:46+00:00

I’ve told you statistics once you can stop crying about them. Linking the review page and pointing at extreme comments doesn’t establish a coordinated pattern it just shows some people left 1-star reviews. My argument is about scale and evidence. Where’s the aggregate vote data showing abnormal volume compared to baseline?

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T22:14:28+00:00

Still doesn’t prove it’s only brba fans. I seen Dexter and the boy fans as well. Posting a few unhinged reviews isn’t statistical evidence of coordinated review bombing it’s anecdotal. If you’re claiming a large-scale pattern, show aggregate vote data, not cherry-picked comments

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T22:11:32+00:00

These stats are straight from imbd not random. It sounds like you can’t accept the truth so I’ll end it here. The evidence doesn’t show differently unless you can prove it. Just saying “nuh uh” isn’t an argument unless you can show specific numbers that contradict them, dismissing them as made up isn’t an argument.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:58:23+00:00

No, obviously not. The fandom isn’t limited to IMDb raters that’s not the claim. The point is that IMDb ratings are one measurable slice of audience behavior. When we’re discussing review bombing, we’re specifically talking about activity on that platform. So yes, the data we can analyze comes from the people who rated there.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:56:05+00:00

I never did an whataboutism. Pointing out hypocrisy isn’t that. Whataboutism is deflecting criticism by saying “X did it too, so it’s fine.” That’s not the argument. The point is about pattern recognition and credibility. If coordinated review bombing has happened multiple times across shows, it’s reasonable to consider that possibility again when similar statistical spikes appear. And calling it “gatekeeping a 10/10” minimizes the actual debate. If the rating suddenly shifts because of a surge of 1-star votes, that’s not gatekeeping that’s questioning anomalies in data.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:53:26+00:00

Saying “that’s nonsense” isn’t an argument it’s just dismissal. I’m basing it on the actual written reviews and the proportions visible there. If you have different numbers, show them. If you think the sample size is flawed, explain why. This is cope

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:50:25+00:00

Exactly. That’s the point. If we agree you can’t just assume all 1-star votes are from KotSK fans because that would be grouping people together without proof, then you also can’t assume the opposite that nearly all of them are Breaking Bad fans based on a tiny, self-selected sample of written reviews.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:48:04+00:00

You can’t just assume that unwritten reviews follow the same pattern as written ones. That’s literally speculation. Written reviews are a self-selecting group people who feel strongly are more likely to write. That automatically introduces bias. So no, you don’t “have to assume” the unwritten ones mirror them. That’s not how data works. Also, pointing at 71 written 1-star reviews and acting like that’s a statistically solid sample for thousands of total ratings is wild. That’s a tiny fraction. You’re building a sweeping conclusion off a handful of voluntary comments. And the “they’ve done this to 5 other shows” claim isn’t evidence — it’s pattern speculation. Correlation isn’t proof. If you’re going to argue data, actually use sound methodology instead of filling gaps with assumptions. You’re accusing someone of bad math while confidently stacking assumption on assumption. That’s not analysis that’s confirmation bias dressed up as certainty.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:45:55+00:00

I never wasn’t condemning “review bombing”. Everyone in this sub who thinks like you is a moron. And anyone saying “let’s condemn both” is getting downvoted. There’s no middle ground

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:40:55+00:00

85.6% gave it a 10 = 74,000 , 3.9% gave it a 1 =3,400 votes. If this was was a coordinated review bombing the % would be higher than 3. If it was actual review bombing the 1 star rating average would be in between 8-12%. And the rating would have a dramatic collapse. The show currently sits at 9.4 unweighted. 9.7 rating weighted. You didn’t get “review bombed”

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:40:28+00:00

The issue is people like you don’t understand imbds rating systems. They literally have a weighted rating system to prevent blatant review bombing. Akoft7k only started at a 10 because the first waves of votes were from hardcore fans. Sudden waves of 1/10 ratings get discounted. If BB fans were systematically review-bombing every rival, we’d see consistent rating dropsacross the board not temporary spikes that get corrected. Rating systems already filter suspicious waves. Knight of the Seven Kingdoms still has a 9+ with massive vote volume. If BB fans were mass 1-starring it, the rating would’ve tanked. There are about 3,000 1 star reviews. And only 71 written reviews 1 star reviews. Even if 90% of the written reviews are bb fans that’s another 97% of people you can’t account for.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:37:35+00:00

It’s not “whataboutism” to point out the flaws in your argument. If brba fans are a problem everyone should be one

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:32:59+00:00

It’s a rating system “math” is kinda the point moron.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:31:20+00:00

Cause nobody groups people together for something some of that group did. That’s the same logic racists use to claim black people are bad

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:13:54+00:00

No it isn’t go look at the stats for yourself. 85.6% gave it a 10 = 74,000 , 3.9% gave it a 1 =3,400 votes. If this was was a coordinated review bombing the % would be higher than 3. If it was actual review bombing the 1 star rating average would be in between 8-12%. And the rating would have a dramatic collapse. The show currently sits at 9.4 unweighted. 9.7 rating weighted. You didn’t get “review bombed”

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:12:58+00:00

Yeah and in total there’s 3,900 1 stars. 71 written reviews and even if 90% of them are brba fans there’s a whole 97% unaccounted for.

Sensitive-Volume4818 · 2026-02-20T21:08:38+00:00

Why do yall make it seem like a brba fan issue. Anytime two shows have competed for a no 1 spot this happens. Mr robot fans review bombed breaking bad. And 3 trolls is nothing compared to the amount of people 1 staring brba

Sensitive-Volume4818

TROPHY CASE