voting
After playing more than a couple of years, I thought today: only be able to vote on a shot after you solved it.
This is the only way to know if a shot is really good, instead of just put in a vote for points so you can level up.
Don't know if this has been proposed earlier, if so... I'm sorry.
Hi! Every idea is welcomed but I am afraid not being able to vote would frustrate too many players. At the moment the vote of the solvers is multiplied by 3, which is a step in your direction. However with your proposal some shots would get very few votes (and a few of them no votes at all). It would then be unfair as they could get to FF with only 1 or 2 good votes. But I have nothing else to suggest, alas!
Maybe voting like in ski jumping :)
One lowest and one highest vote is deleted, for lovering the element of unfairness.
I think trying to post shots that look interesting for people who haven't seen the movie is also part of the game.
If only people who find the movie get to vote, lots of hard to find shots will have very good scores cause of some very generous and knowledgeable players (hi bius!)
Also, the system already has a multiplier for the votes from people who know the movie (the vote counts triple I think? or is it double?)
I also don't like the idea.
To me the voting is the game. I don't play WTM to solve shots. I do solve shots but not a lot, it is not really the aspect of WTM that interests me.
I enjoy much more the uploading and voting aspect. Appreciating the beauty of some of the shots, the frame, the colors, the composition.
Not being able to vote if I don't solve or not receive votes on the shots that I upload if it has little solves, that would not be great. At least that's my opinion
This is exactly why What The Movie has left its golden age behind.
The site was meant to be a quiz for people who enjoy solving shots. These players aren’t concerned with beauty, framing, or composition—they care about the challenge of recognition and solving.
You need these people. Without them, the site becomes a closed loop of uploaders who care more about ratings, uploading, and winning Snapshot of the Day than the quiz itself. This creates a vacuum where frustration builds, as users start taking low ratings more personally than they should—because recognition, rather than contribution, becomes the goal.
But no one is really to blame except WTM itself. The system is designed this way. It rewards this behavior, treating the act of stopping a movie at the right moment as if it were a real creative achievement. Then, when users inevitably care about their standing in the competition, the same system dismisses their concerns.
The voting system isn’t the real issue here. The problem is that it’s an old website with outdated features. Nothing has changed in 20 years—you’re beating a dead horse.
@yippiekayay
Thanks for adding your comment. I am not sure I agree with everything. First with the "golden age". Of course when the game was brand new (I was there too) people were enthusiastic, which is the case with many new things. But ALL the new things get old someday, or they simply disappear. Then I don't know why it was so "golden". Of course there were more players. The shots had amazing numbers of solves (up to 1000 and more) but why? Beacause a good 80% (sometimes more) were blockbusters. Then many players probably got bored and left, though it's difficult to say why they did. And the gamame, I mean the shots posted got more diverse, and so harder. I thinks it's richer and better this way. But the easy shot button is still there if you don't want difficult shots.
I don't agree with you calling the game "a dead horse". It is still very alive to me, though different. Many movie buffs are loners and don't communicate much. Why shouldn't they be respected as much as the others?
I will take a musical example to make myself understood. Sometimes you like a singer or a band and you think it's stupid blindness from the rest of the world not to see how good your favorite band is. Then, one day, another LP is released and this time it gets to the top of the charts. But instead of being really pleased that evrybody finally shares your opinion you pretend that the band sold their soul to the devil and that they are now middle of the road. Because you have been "robbed" of the happy few" pleasure.
When you speak about "these players", I am not sure who you're talikng about. How do you know they"aren’t concerned with beauty, framing, or composition—they care about the challenge of recognition and solving", Personnally I don't know what the players or uploaders care about.
Finally, if recognition was the goal I would have stopped long ago, as well as many uploaders probably, and I don't feel frustrated (a bit angry or weary sometimes but not frustrated).
I think noone is to blame (for what, by the way?), except very faw killjoys, and I still enjoy playing.
Have a nice day everyone.
As a result of the comments, I have to agree with yippiekayay and lezard.
I was there when this all began and deleted myself multiple times, but came back - it was too much fun to play.
Should not have begon this, so sorry ... this (more than a game) should stay and not have so many dissenting (still very valid) opinions.
Of course, you don’t have to agree on what constitutes the golden age. It’s simply a term used to describe a time when What The Movie was thriving—a period that most people, including the moderators, acknowledge as significant. That doesn’t mean it has to align with your personal experience. If you prefer the current state of the site—perhaps because there are fewer blockbuster shots to solve, despite the sharp decline in active players—that’s completely valid.
However, I am sensitive to the intentions of those behind What The Movie. If they see the balance between uploaders and solvers shifting in an undesirable way, then we shouldn’t hesitate to acknowledge that reality.
To clarify, I never called the game a dead horse, nor did I suggest that one group deserves more respect than another. What I told BryanMills was that, despite numerous plans and suggestions from active players, nothing has changed in the last two decades. So, when people propose ideas about voting, expecting meaningful action, it feels like beating a dead horse. That’s very different from calling the game itself a lost cause.
As for what people care about, I’m basing my perspective on data the moderators have shared in the past. They’ve openly discussed player complaints and analyzed visitor behavior for years. This happens to be in line with my personal experience as well.
I’m genuinely glad you still enjoy playing, and I have no interest in dismissing your experience on the site. But if you believe there’s nothing to criticize, then logically, there shouldn’t be any complaints. You might not be concerned about the declining player base, and you may not consider the past to be the golden age, but the fact remains: many others do. For those running the platform and trying to sustain it, player retention should be a priority. A significant drop in active users is a clear sign that something has changed for the worse—though, obviously, not for you.
Yes, everything ages, and nostalgia can color perspectives. But maintaining a platform’s magic requires effort. I don’t look back on the early years of my life or my marriage as the golden age because we’ve continued to evolve, adapt, and grow. What The Movie, on the other hand, has remained stagnant. There were plans for evolution, renewal, and development—none of which materialized.
Again, I respect that you don’t share this sentiment. But I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss the concerns of dedicated, passionate ex-WTM players—people who were part of a larger, more engaged community—simply because their experiences differ from yours.
Just my two cents, of course.
@yippiekayay
Hey I am sorry you feel upset by my shout. When I speak about killjoys I am refering to serial downvoters, not to you. Plus, I don't dismiss your opinion, I just share mine. I am always a bit rough and passionate when I discuss things but I don't mean to accuse anyone or be unfair. Truly.
For instance, I know there were far more players, I am aware of this but I honestly don't know why they stopped playing. I do think people get "bored" much more quickly these days.
What I merely say about the "golden age" is that I beware of memory (mine included) which always tends to embellish the past. As to why the game didn't change I have no clues either.
My guess is, considering that the developpers and the modos (who are few left) have a job, a family life and so on, it is hard for them to dedicate the time required to rethink and actually change the game.
Really I didn't mean any blame or resentful critic and I do apologize if you felt it this way. I am always glad to discuss and exchange and I wish more people would exchange too. Have a nice day.
@lezard
No worries—your shout didn’t upset me at all. As far as I’m concerned, this is just a friendly discussion over a minor disagreement.
Wishing you a great day as well!