why did my star meter drop from 100,000 to 2,999,990?

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 4 years ago
  • Answered
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: Old thread

curious. my star meter has hovered around 100K for the past few years.... getting as high as 33K just the other week. this week it dropped to almost 3 million. quite embarrassing as I know producers look.

I emailed in a "correction" comment to the imdb update page but have not heard or seen it fixed.

I understand a drop of a few thousand, but a drop of 2,900,000?? Yikes!

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Photo of brad

brad

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 3
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3007 Reply Likes
This has happened before as IMDB adjust their procedures for calculating the Starmeter rankings. As it is an artificial construct there is no way to get an external assessment of what it should be, so (unless there is an actual error) then it is whatever IMDB says it is.

See, for example, the links I provide in this thread to earlier discussion:

https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
Photo of Jayson Parker

Jayson Parker

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It's too bad that happend to you. I think by now your starmeter is probably fixed. I know for sure that at IMDB changed their algoritm to a more advanced one and I think it created a glitch as we saw many actors starmeter drop to a dramaticly high number.

There was also instance when other actors had been rigging their starmeter and got penalized.

I'm not saying you've done this but if you did you must stop it. Rigging is basically sending fake traffic to your IMDB page using paid cheap traffic.

I would suggest doing Article Publication and Press Release to build your online publicity. This can only bring you positive results.
(Edited)
Photo of Sheryda Dos Santos Taylor

Sheryda Dos Santos Taylor

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
There is also another reason for Star Meter rankings drop which nobody is talking about but is an absolute fact....There are honest working performers such as my daughter who took hiatus from acting to pursue her musical ambitions because she is a multi-dimensional child prodigy and loves music. In a short time she has become one of the top street performers in the world based on hourly income and hands out thousands of cards per month promoting her social media pages, one of which is her IMDb page:

http://imdb.me/ILoveRAT

When she was acting two things happened that made us aware of the corrupt Star Ranking system which should be abandoned by IMDb altogether.

1) Two stage mom's were jealous of RAT's quick rise to the top without paying her dues so-to-speak. We were told by mutual acquaintances that they started buying BOTS from Fiverr to destroy her Star Ranking and before we could even leave acting her ranking went from 50,000 (+/-) to 5,000,000 (+/-) and sure enough it was confirmed that was happening. Then,

2) I start getting spammed by emails from a person with a bot buying service soliciting me to join their program to pay for an increased Star Ranking of which I rejected only to get a really scary e-mail from another person with the same service threatening to BOT my child's Star Meter ranking into oblivion unless I used their service, in essence trying to blackmail me into using it.

Since, we were leaving acting anyway, I was not concerned with either 1 or 2 above. However, a year passed and my daughter's popularity starts to grow again and her Star Ranking goes from 5,000,000 (+/-) back down to around 50,000 (+/-) and we were pleased thinking the prior problem with the jealous stage parents and the BOT buying services attempts to blackmail us has disappeared. Then I wake up this morning to an unexplained 400,000 (+/-) drop in her Star Ranking which I believe to be very strange because of the amount of propaganda we hand out to promote her pages every week. Are they back trying to hurt our little Angel? Time will tell.

Bottom line is.....While IMDB's algorithm system is designed to prevent cheaters from falsely manipulating their Star Meter Ranking, it has also opened the door for jealous rivals and the sleaze bags at the Star Ranking buying services to easily destroy a legitimate Star Meter Ranking of anyone no matter how big or popular they are. And, it's not expensive to do it costing as little as $5 for the thousands of people offering such BOT buying services on Fiverr. And, I'm not talking about vendors on Fiverr offering services to destroy Star Meter rankings. I'm referring to the thousands of vendors offering standard Bot services to increase views/traffic to your web site. If you hate someone, then simply fork over $5 for such a service and enter the person' s IMDb page that you want to destroy. IMDb's algorithm will pick it up as the owner of the IMDb page trying to falsely manipulate their Star Meter ranking and will punish the person severely by dropping their Star Meter ranking by hundreds of thousands if not millions.  

And, this dark side to the Star Meter ranking can NEVER be remedied by IMDb unless/until they do away with their unfair, undependable, Star Meter ranking altogether which can never be counted on to gauge one's popularity at any given moment but can most definitely hurts someone's career.   

No doubt this will eventually end up in a class-action lawsuit that will ultimately force IMDb to eliminate their Star Meter ranking altogether. We probably have enough evidence to prevail in court right now because of what has happened to us in the past and what may be about to start happening again...next week will be telling. Also, common sense tells anyone who knows anything about high-tech that what I am saying here is absolutely true and that there is no way for IMDb to prevent  the destruction of legitimate Star Meter rankings by such sleazy people who have nothing better to do with their time than to try and hurt truly talented innocent people who work really hard to try and get their name known or keep their name known in hopes of furthering their career.

And, please reserve comments on the age of RAT and another child's youth lost to parents pushing their child into showbiz at such an early age. RAT is one of the few multi-dimensional child prodigies in the world and is already taking some high-school classes at age 7. She chooses what she wants to do and is easily bored. Educators have told us it's much more important to keep her active and that's what we do.  

Thank you for your time.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6431 Reply Likes
A 7 year old (named RAT) gets to choose what she wants to do?

Beautiful...see ya soon on Dr. phil!
Photo of Sheryda Dos Santos Taylor

Sheryda Dos Santos Taylor

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
How come I knew this was coming :) Could you not stay on topic?

Rita Angel Taylor = initials RAT which is what her friends call her and what she/they love as her nickname. It's the younger generation, and what they think is cool is what we go with.

FYI, RAT is one of only a few child prodigies in the world possessing multi-dimensional talents. Until you've experienced it, you will never know how to handle it. She already knows computer coding (high school level) at age 7 which she found and learned on her own via khanacademy.org. And you've NEVER seen any kid in the world that can play Piano, Guitar and sing like she can. She has a photographic memory and can learn and play songs better than most accomplished musicians in just one or two lessons. Those are God given talents that has nothing to do with us. And she's been playing less than a year. We are doing exactly what her educators and evaluators have told us to do. If you don't believe it see for yourself:

http://youtube.com/ILoveRAT

The professionals agree that they worst thing you can do is put a prodigy with kids her own age. She has the intelligence of a teenager and those are her only real friends. She typically can't stand kids her own age because she sees them as babies. Hence not all kids are born alike. We were blessed with her and we must deal with her the way the professionals advise us to deal with her. So don't confuse us with the typical stage parents trying to live vicariously through their kids. RAT was discovered in Starbucks at age 3, we didn't go looking for it. She chooses what she wants to do, and if it's within reason, we let her do it. We don't need showbiz but as long as she enjoys it and excels in it, then we are OK with it.
Photo of brad

brad

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks for responding Emperor. I read through some of the threads and they made sense but I am hoping an employee like Michelle or one of the many others framed in Green will respond with an inside comment.

As mentioned, I have fluctuated 1000's at a time but never like this and it is pretty embarrassing to have a producer or person interested in me check it out and see 2,999,999999999999!

Thanks!
Brad
Photo of Giancarlo Cairella

Giancarlo Cairella, Official Rep

  • 1108 Posts
  • 1042 Reply Likes
This variation is not unusual, especially for someone whose rank was already relatively low (e.g. below 50,000).

I can't comment on specific names or pages, and we wouldn't be able to get into details anyway but you need to keep in mind that STARmeter ranks every name in the database. So the higher your rank, the bigger the amount of activity needed to move from one position to another. As the rank gets lower/smaller, so does the amount of activity needed to change it.

In other words: it probably took hundreds of thousands of user actions for Brad Pitt to surpass Leonardo Di Caprio's rank this week, because both those guys have millions of people looking at their page and their films on a regular basis.
But for people with lower rankings, it doesn't take as much effort. If there is little or no user activity around a person's page, then STARmeter can and will drop substantially in those cases.
Photo of brad

brad

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hello Giancarlo
Thanks for the info. I totally get it about Brad Pitt and Leonardo. But my first rating back in 1998 was around 150,000. somewhere in the september 2001 period it was the highest I saw which was around 258,000. If you look at my "last year" it fluctuated around 100K going as low as 181K around june 9 2013 and as high as 33K just this past july 14th.

The problem I have is that while a fluctuation from 33K to 181K is acceptable and makes sense... a drop from last week at 99K to this week at 2, 991,774 seems like a mistake. especially since I am involved with current programming that gets lots of attention.

So, again, I ask, where is the error. To have producers that are going to check me out for possible hire check in and see that number... its awful!

Thanks for your comments.
Brad
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3007 Reply Likes
Can you give us the link to your profile?
Photo of brad

brad

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
well unless there are more than one listing, the address to my profile is

https://pro-labs.imdb.com/name/nm0781760

Thanks!
Brad

ps. if you click on the graph of the starmeter, you can see the history.
Photo of Christian and proud

Christian and proud

  • 272 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
Not everybody has IMDb Pro, Brad. For those people that link is dead.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3007 Reply Likes
You just switch out the sub-domain for www:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0781760
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 7231 Posts
  • 9034 Reply Likes
So at least you got some extra page views today ;)
Photo of Christian and proud

Christian and proud

  • 272 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
Thanks Emperor, you crafty devil
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3007 Reply Likes
That's me.
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 7231 Posts
  • 9034 Reply Likes
I don't really understand this system, and your drop does seem strange to me, but the new Pro Labs has a search feature that shows that you are far from alone in dropping (or rising) millions of places from one week to another. You are not even among the biggest drops among composers:

https://pro-labs.imdb.com/people#prof...
Photo of brad

brad

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
thanks for showing the non pro url Emperor.

The semi positive about the non paid version of imdb is that the actual starmeter number is not displayed. someone can click on it if they desire.

going back to my issue/concern.... most of the producers that look at imdb have the paid version which shows that number front and center. thats my problem.

Im mostly interested in why the jump given that it has never jumped more than 30-50K a week. And, as pointed out by Giancarlo, what makes the number get smaller (better) is when more people are looking at my page. so in a week that music from me is being used in 3-4 of the top rated shows including Americas Got Talent, X-Factor, So You Think You Can Dance etc... usually more people are checking it out... which would lower then star number.

The funny thing is that Im writing about something that seems on the surface as vanity when what I feel it has the potential of doing is veering producers away based on some stupid number.

Imdb should get rid of it! How can we do that!

Brad
Photo of Jayson Parker

Jayson Parker

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi Brad. It's too bad that happend to you. I think by now your starmeter is probably fixed. I know for sure that at IMDB changed their algoritm to a more advanced one and I think it created a glitch as we saw many actors starmeter drop to a dramaticly high number.

There was also instance when other actors had been rigging their starmeter and got penalized.

I'm not saying you've done this but if you did you must stop it. Rigging is basically sending fake traffic to your IMDB page using paid cheap traffic.

I would suggest doing Article Publication and Press Release to build your online publicity. This can only bring you positive results.
(Edited)
Photo of John Ormond

John Ormond

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
today, 20 January 2015, Julia Ormond is at #104 on the starmeter??? but the home page shows a red graph and it says down 1587!! something... does not compute?  Can I trust ANY numbers on the starmeter?  ...as if it matters, it doesn't of course.
Photo of ljdoncel

ljdoncel, Champion

  • 864 Posts
  • 1848 Reply Likes
Hi, John:

I don't know whether it matters or not, but if there was a problem now it seems solved:
Photo of Vincent

Vincent, Champion

  • 645 Posts
  • 501 Reply Likes
Something else to keep in mind; star meter is not a ranking over time. It's only based on recent activity. If everyone on the planet looked at your page you would be #1 for a week; and if no one looked the following week you would be on the bottom at somewhere around #6,000,000

It's quite possible to jump up and down by the millions depending on why people are visiting pages related to you.

The Julia Ormond rank is a perfect example. She's popular enough to hold a pretty steady rank around 2,000 with regular traffic. You see the spike up to number 104? That was the week her internet death hoax made her popular for internet searches. When all the "OMG she's dead" traffic stopped, she went back down to her more typical range

Looking at the star meter over time may give you some vague sense of a persons consistent popularity (or lack of it); but any spikes up or down are purely based on their popularity (or lack of it) in that given time frame

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.