Its standards are mostly unknown, but Metacritic makes it easy to compare professional and user reviews side-by-side. Given the correlation coefficients just mentioned, there is a pattern between Fandango and IMDB to a greater extent than is for Fandango and the metascore.
Something like 20 percent for an F would be more appropriate. You are confusing this with the "sleep on it" expression that advises people not to write anything important immediately after an experience from which they are still emotionally charged.
It states that filters are used to avoid ballot stuffing ; the method is not described in detail to avoid attempts to circumvent it. IMDbPro offers members the following: detailed contact and representation information; IMDb profile management tools; exclusive STARmeter rankings that are determined by page views on IMDb; a casting service to post breakdowns and apply to roles, a mobile optimized website and more.
If audiences rated it above 3.
Note that all these likelihoods can be quantified in principle, but this would require a lot of data, and would have the potential to turn this article into a book. The Critics Consensus, present for most movies, is a great summary of why the movie received its score.
Generally, this is how a normal also called Gaussian distribution looks like: A normal or Gaussian distribution of movie ratings means that there are a few low ratings, a lot of average ones, and a few high ones.
The bulk of the values is still in the average area, which makes the IMDB rating worth considering further for a recommendation, although is clearly hard to rival the metascore, with that skew.