Talk:Rotten Tomatoes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rotten Tomatoes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 31 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Websites: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

Versus Metacritic

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Metacritic's way of averaging reviews and giving a total score is a superior system to Rotten Tomatoes, in that Metacritic does not simply categorize things into negative/positive, but rather, a true numerical value? So in other words, Metacritics system seems more accurate and less prone to accidents (also, rotten tomatoes lacks a middle-ground for reviews; there is no "mediocre"), and is thus superior -- would anyone else agree, or am I missing something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.6.222 (talk • contribs) .

It falls in line with the thumbs-up/thumbs-down manner of judgement. Rotten Tomatoes simply determines the percentage of thumbs-up (or, in their case, "fresh tomatoes") reviews amongst all the reviews collected for each movie.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Metacritics way of averaging reviews and giving a total score is a superior system to Rotten Tomatoes, in that Metacritic does not simply categorize things into negative/positive, but rather, a true numerical value?

Not necessarily. In particular, under Metacritic's system it is possible for a single reviewer to bias the aggregate score by giving the movie a rating more extreme than they believe it actually deserves. For example, say that the Metacritic rating for a given film is a 4, and a new reviewer believes that it deserves a 6. They could either give the film a 6, shifting the average to (say) 4.2, or give it a 10, shifting the average to 4.6, and closer to the value of 6 that they feel it truly deserves.

The same problem applies to user ratings on IMDB, only more so, because they don't have so much of a reputation to protect as a professional reviewer, who would lose credibility if they gave ridiculously extreme ratings. Nonetheless, Rotten Tomatoes bypasses this problem by only permitting the reviewer to give a single positive or negative vote, and I believe that this makes it a superior system. I was mildly surprised that there wasn't a note to this effect in the article, but I suppose that the explanation is a bit on the lengthy side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.185.68 (talk • contribs)

More than 43

According to the current page, there are only 43 films that have garnered a 0% freshness rating, but this is not true. There are 43 action/adventure films that have garnered a 0% freshness rating. In reality the number is much higher, with more than 120 in comedy alone. Did the person who originally wrote that make a mistake or am I just missing something?

Critics Consensus / Audience Says

Hello! Jeff Giles here. I appreciate the longtime shout-out on RT's page; it's given me numerous smiles over the years. Just sticking my head in to say thank you, and also to note that as of 5/16/24, I've been dismissed and my nearly 19-year tenure with Rotten Tomatoes is over. I did write the majority of the film CCs (and all of the ASes) between probably 2010 and 2024, but that won't be the case going forward.

Thanks again!

How to remove the (needs update) tag?

I edited this page to change a statement that was likely to become outdated, however the tag for that is still there. Can someone remove it? IHaveNoIdea25 (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mistaken. I added the tag because of the information posted above which suggests the longtime writer is no longer writing the review summaries. You changed this to say he still writes them as of June 2024, which appears to not be true. And we do not have a source to confirm the opposite either. So leave the tag until we have a source to confirm as much. Οἶδα (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]