IMDB/Amazon Starmeter involved in meter rigging, a year-long investigation reveals

By jes. on March 10, 2014

annawLOS ANGELES (Herald de Paris) —  There is nothing like waking up in the morning and being blackmailed. This is essentially what is happening to thousands, and possibly millions, of hard working entertainment industry profesisonals, who woke up to find their “Starmeter” ratings on had lowered by thousands, sometimes millions, of points. The higher the number the worse the ranking. In other words, 1 is good, and 10 Million is bad.  What’s driving these changes is even more concerning than the numerical changes, themselves.

IMDB is short for Internet Movie Database.  For more than 15 years, IMDB has attempted to list all the credits in movies and television, to partial success.  Initally, was a simple site not run by conglmerates with their own advertorial or promotional agendas.  Since that time, however, has been bought and sold and bought again by Warner Brothers, and now Amazon, with a clear bias towards certain movies.

IMDB already collects fees from industry professionals through a portal called, where professionls can manage their personal profiles on IMDB.  Also visible on the public site is something called a STARMETER ranking.  This seemingly innocuous ranking is an attmept to quantify the popularity of entertainment people into some sort of ranking system.  To many, the starmeter rankings are irrelevant, but if you put something out there in the public domain for long enough, some people, like first time film investors, new producers, or new casting directors, begin to take it seriously.

ScreenHunter_04 Mar. 10 18.37

Click to enlarge

In the spring of 2013, one of our contributing editors, who is also a known and award winning entertainment professional,  received a rash of email offers from companies like Direct Image PR and Star Boost Media,  offering to lower her starmeter ranking (remember, a lower ranking is better here).  Why would these all come at the same time?  A simple “whois” search on the internet revealed that regardless of their claims, all of these companies went online beginning in the spring of 2013, just before the mass emailing of registrants on IMDB and IMDBPRO began.  All these companies claim no affiliation with IMDB.

This proliferation of companies offering to better your starmeter ranking directly coincides with a decision made internally, at IMDB’s parent company, Amazon.  Shortly before these ranking companies emerged, Amazon made the decision to end its long standing relationship with CMGI Tabulations Inc., and now tabulates the starmeter rankings internally, using an algorithm nobody will talk about.

Curious, last year our contributing editor, Anna Wilding, signed up for one of these services to see how these new companies were able to manipulate Amazon’s new, and seemingly impenetrable new algorithm, and how it affected her own starmeter ranking.  Anna has been ranked by IMDB’s starmeter rankings for 15 years.  In that time, her ranking has been relatively consistent, ebbing and flowing organically between 90 000 to 5000 with Ms. Wilding’s film projects and presence in the media, as evidenced by the graph only available to IMDBPRO’s paying customers.  Ms. Wilding’s graph had not gone below 100 000 in all those 15 years.

Screen Capture_01 Mar. 10 18.18

Click to enlarge

The one week test yielded a temporary gain in starmeter ranking.  But, when Ms. Wilding stopped her payments to this company a week later, the sample ranking company hounded Ms. Wilding, relentlessly, with request after request on PayPal.  When she refused to pay what amounted to hundreds of dollars, her ranking immediately went up (up being bad).  This morning, the starmeter scam hit a new level.  Ms. Wilding awoke to find her starmeter ranking had fallen from its average of around 35,000 to an all-time low of 5,000,000.  Accompanied with this drop was a Google search claim from a company called, asking for $999.00 to restore someone’s ranking.  Apparently many IMDB users woke up in the last ten days to find this anomoly.

How, we wondered, could a third party company manipulate starmeter’s rankings?  We pulled the source code from the graph page, and found that the rankings are fed not from IMDBPRO’s own servers, but instead directly from Amazon’s servers.  And why would Amazon allow a company to use the name and logo of one of its subsidiaries, IMDB, in a third-party website and logo?  True, IMDBPROMO’s website states they have no affiliation with IMDB.COM, but IMDBPROMO registered its website in 2013, and updated their database on March 10th, the same morning Ms. Wilding’s starmeter soared off the charts from 90,000 on March 9 down to over 5,000,000 this morning.

To make matters even more confounding, Ms. Wilding’s starmeter ranking remained relatively consistent even while she was out of the country for two years.  This year, with increased visibility and publicity in Hollywood, and espcially with the media gernated during Oscar season, Ms. Wilding’s ranking should, organically, be lower, not higher than ever.  There is no question that these rankings were artifically mainpulated.  Thus, the starmeter ranking system makes no sense, and should now be ignored.

This is especially true, as other sites have been reporting, that actors nobody has heard of, and who have not been in the media at all, have topped the starmeter rankings for weeks on end.  This has all been very damaging for hard working entertainment industry professionals, who are falsely judged by these bogus starmeter rankings.

Screen Capture_02 Mar. 10 18.19

Click to enlarge

It is clear from IMDB message board complaints and complaints across the internet that hundreds, if not millions, of IMDB users are being conned, blackmailed, and fraudulently shamed into  paying mllions of dollars to maintain their starmeter rankings. And it appears that the main company benefiting from all this, through a series of shell companies, is Amazon, the very company charging IMDBPRO members, in the first place.

To date, IMDB has not been helpful to its complaining customers, basically just letting it happen, and that is questionable given that IMDB and Amazon continue to allow some of these third-tier companies, like IMDBPROMO, to operate using their name and likeness.

A message has been left with the Screen Actor’s Guild for comment and action, and it is known that law firms have received queries about class aciton lawsuits against IMDB and Amazon for directly manipulating select subscribers’ data.  There is also the matter of the questionable sale of data and information to third parties.

One thing is clear – whatever credibility and integrity that IMDB and their starmeter rankings may have had, has disappeared.  Amazon’s dirty little secret is out.

NOTE:  It was brought to our attention after publishing this article that Star Boost Media and IMDBPROMO are the same company.

CreativeCommonsLogoThe Herald de Paris publishes news in the public trust.  This article is being released with limited Creative Commons licensing.  It may be used, re-printed, or re-published, free of charge, with proper link-back attribution.


17 March, 2014
Following this article, was taken down at IMDB’s request, as reported in the Hollywood Reporter, late last week. However, other “rank-rigging” sites are still operating.  

Ellen S. March 11, 2014

If there are complete unknows rising, then it is pretty conclusive that the numbers are manipulated. It goes to show that everything is for sale nowadays. By selling ratings, they lose all credibility. Pia Zadora, anyone?

richard March 11, 2014

Thank goodness someone known had the nerve to say something.Yes, IMDB and AMAZON lose all credibility

je sved March 11, 2014

I played an unreported extra in a TV series for a week, and my starmeter ranking is 320,394 – higher than some industry professionals. Something is absolutely rotten in Denmark.

JE Sved, Publisher

Sandie March 11, 2014

Lupita Nyongo? An artificial shooting star soon to crash. Big numbers of followers on her social media sites, mostly purchased follows. Look at it this way: with her oscar, manufactured sense of style and extreme makeover, why is it that 12 Years a Slave has not increased viewership significantly. Yes that is a statement and not a question.

je sved March 11, 2014

I saw Ms. Nyongo’s performance in “12 Years a Slave” and she gave an excellent performance in a film that was, at times, difficult to watch. Does that mean all her fans are organic? Hard to say, as it is so easy to buy and manufacture web fans, and film studios have been known to buy blocks of fans/hits. That being said, I wouldn’t take anything away from her performance in this film no matter where her fan base came from. She was good.

JE Sved, Publisher

Cat March 11, 2014

IMDB is a scam. IMDB should remove the Starmeter it is so corrupted. It causes damage to artists except those in the top 500 who are placed their by their agents and studios. Total scam.

Marcus March 11, 2014

The site’s reputation has been taking water over the sides for the last year and this was the final straw for me. Canceled my membership today.

Actor Andrew D. Ford March 11, 2014

I noticed all this months ago and now reading this it’s no surprise. Part of realizing this was the fact that You can only get “Insights” to the ranking if you ARE ImdbPro and paying. Everythings for sale…why would Imdb be any different?

Mitt Romnee March 12, 2014

I tried to warn you people that with Obama in office there would be no real law except those used to foster his image as having a clue. God is my co-pilot. Michelle Obama is his. Best of luck!

BDamas March 12, 2014

Thanks, great work!!

Rick Mcleod March 12, 2014

I’m not a fan of the starmeter anyway or the voting/rating structure of actual productions (that is more flawed, since finding one of my own films had a rating of 6 stars and so wondered, who could have voted since only 2 people had seen it, myself and the editor and we voted 10 obviously for the yard work).

As for the starmeter, I don’t use it, I may look up the populatiry of an actor/actress, but even that doesn’t mean they are good at what they do, the best way is to watch their acting and see if they have any recommendations. I only use IMDbPro for contact access to agents, but now the subscription has gone up to $19.99, I have doubts on it’s worth/value for such a monthly payment anyway.

Karen March 12, 2014

I had a feeling about this. I just cancelled my membership.

Janice LEWISON March 12, 2014

Yes, odd how no name actors get to top and people who have legitimate credits have to jump through so many hoops to get legitimate credits listed. I do not put too much stock in IMDB.

Bill Thompson March 12, 2014

The only people who care about the star ranking are actors. Not one casting director, director or producer cares what your star ranking is.

The entire IMDb web site is irrelevant. It’s also a sham in regards to how a movie gets listed. They own Withoutabox and if you want your unreleased film to show up on IMDb, you simply register for one “IMDb qualifying” film festival – ie, a film festival that pays Withoutabox (IMDb) a percentage of the submission fee.

So you pay IMDB, via Withoutabox, you get your movie listed.

The whole thing should be shunned and ignored.

JE Sved March 12, 2014

Rick, the whole point of this is that the starmeter system, which ranks the popularity of an actress/actor, is a corrupted service, and should not be used or relied upon.

JE Sved, Publisher

Actress March 12, 2014

I have incorrect credits that I did not supply to IMBD and I MUST purchase imbdpro in order to correct false information. It’s outrageous. IMBD should be ignored.
SAG member

none March 12, 2014

You can do this with 80 lines of code. Pretty simple. Not rocket science here.

JE Sved March 12, 2014

We don’t usually publish comments from anonymous IP addresses, “None,” but your comment makes the point – the starmeter is too easy to manipulate.

none March 12, 2014

I will show you your evidence —
But doing it right is another story —
IMDB Deserves it.
Let it be known —

## The Lemur —

use strict;
use warnings;
## I like pretty colors
use Term::ANSIColor;

# Lets help poor Anna Wilding’s rank
# We must fix it for her —
my $Master_Proxy_List = “./ProxyList-2014-06-21.tsv”;
my @Target = (

## Be smart: Forge the UserAgent request.
my @UserAgents = (
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/32.0.1667.0 Safari/537.36’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_9_0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/32.0.1664.3 Safari/537.36’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 6_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10A5355d Safari/8536.25’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_8) AppleWebKit/537.13+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1.7 Safari/534.57.2’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/24.0.1290.1 Safari/537.13’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2) AppleWebKit/537.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/24.0.1290.1 Safari/537.13’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_2) AppleWebKit/537.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/24.0.1290.1 Safari/537.13’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_4) AppleWebKit/537.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/24.0.1290.1 Safari/537.13’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_3) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_2) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_8) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_8) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11’,
‘Mozilla/6.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:16.0.1) Gecko/20121011 Firefox/16.0.1’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:16.0.1) Gecko/20121011 Firefox/16.0.1’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; Win64; x64; rv:16.0.1) Gecko/20121011 Firefox/16.0.1’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_8) AppleWebKit/537.13+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1.7 Safari/534.57.2’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_3) AppleWebKit/534.55.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1.3 Safari/534.53.10’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; MSIE 9.0; WIndows NT 9.0; en-US))’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 9.0; en-US)’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 7.1; Trident/5.0)’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0; SLCC2; Media Center PC 6.0; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8; Zune 4.7)’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0; SLCC2; Media Center PC 6.0; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8; Zune 4.7’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.3; ko-kr; LG-L160L Build/IML74K) AppleWebkit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.5; en-us; HTC Vision Build/GRI40) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; fr-fr; HTC Desire Build/GRJ22) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-us; T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide Build/GRI40) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/7D11’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/535.24 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/19.0.1055.1 Safari/535.24’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64) AppleWebKit/535.24 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/19.0.1055.1 Safari/535.24’,
‘Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_2) AppleWebKit/535.24 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/19.0.1055.1 Safari/535.24’

## Jump through random DarkNet exit node.
## pop out Random Proxy to the Clearnet
## We are No one.
## Drink beer.
my $Proxies = $Master_Proxy_List;
chomp $Proxies;
open (PROXY, “$Proxies”)
or die “Cannot open ‘filename’ $!\n”;
my @Proxies = ;
close (PROXY);

while ($Proxies) {
my $RandTime = int( rand(300)) + 1;
my $RandUserAgent = $UserAgents[rand @UserAgents];
my $RandProxy = $Proxies[rand @Proxies];
my $RandTarget = $Target[rand @Target];
print colored (“\nP –> $RandProxy”, ‘bright_red on_black’), “\n”;
print colored (“T –> $RandTarget”, ‘green’), “\n”;
print colored (“U –> $RandUserAgent”, ‘green’), “\n”;
my $cmd = `torify curl –proxy ‘$RandProxy’ -m 15 -A ‘$RandUserAgent’ -k -X GET ‘$RandTarget’`;
print colored (“ZzZ –> $RandTime”, ‘blue’), “\n”;
sleep $RandTime;

john March 12, 2014

SAG/Aftra should own it. And why can’t they. They have a zillion more dollars than Amazon and would rank people legitimately. Have a ranking system. Extra’s equal this many points. Under 5, over 5, principal, cast member etc…

Cat March 12, 2014

@John…or SAG just abolish it. No one should be ranked.Its subjective.Remember it also ranks crew, producers directors everyone..everyone is lumped in the same ranking system.It makes no sense.It even has people who arent in the biz on it.. I know someone on it, , a business person,who was an advisor on a movie for like one day. He doesn’t want to be on it and certainly didnt give anyone permission to use his name and likeness.This site makes millions off peoples name and likeness without permission.regardless it sucks.PS: SAG has that much money?

Manager Dugo March 12, 2014

Actors should have another way to highlight their hire-ability. IMDB seem to be a profit making business that preys on entertainment industry workers. Where the actors and studios have to pay.

If the top 500 are placed manually, then if an actor reaches top 500 naturally they are bumped back to the next open slot . They discourage clicks.
When my clients go to workshops on marketing as actors, they are told to promote imdb link to lower the number (increase ranking) with promotions we were getting over 50,000 hits on a link because one of my clients was known over the world wide because of an article that went viral. I am a manger with a boutique management agency and do not have the budget to place ads with IMDB. But my feeling was that IMDB staff did not like the fact that we were promoting our clients and tried to discourage us from promoting our client with their imdb link ‘clicking on links’

Maybe it is a side business by IMDB techs who are paid low wages, to subsidize their income, they run Starmeter booster scams…

This is similar to banks who have hackers do identity theft or access your account to buy products and then offer to sell you a protection plan to protect against theft to your account.

Manager Dugo March 12, 2014

When I say placed manually I mean that the Top 500 could be paid promotions(sold to studios, production companies and opening films) And if non IMDB promoted person reaches top 500 by marketing and pr, algorhythms work how they should but screw up the advertising system. Top agencies and studios could be paying to keep their clients on low end (500) and highly ranked while telling lower end agencies and poor hard working actors that its technical and scientific. It’s only technical and algorhythms to a point and they can manipulate the data. Are higher ups and executives at IMDB aware of this? My clients also received emails about booster services after their ranking went down. And this could be related to that or not depending if it is an inside job: when we inquired IMDB about how our client couldn’t possibly go to millions after we did a promotional campaign, they were upset at us and said we may be manipulating their system(pot calling the kettle black) and that it was wrong for us to email our clients imdb link to be clicked on by our email list.
Various people in the industry do check IMDB to see status. A high ranking means visibility of the actor and increase chances of getting work as a star. But of course stars rise & fall and working actors work steadily than stars.

Lee Vervoort March 13, 2014

IMDB has become a joke. I quit paying for a membership years ago when it increased. I’m sick of outfits like this doing what they do. It’s ridiculous, and I personally could care less what my rank is on there. It doesn’t mean squat.

David March 15, 2014

You seen that some CSA casting agents are now endorsing the new IMDB site telling actors they might get discovered if they pay $150 to be on Pro. More sleazy shit from some of the casting agents of Hollywood. What a joke it is.

sally March 15, 2014

Starmeter should be removed. People on IMDb should have opt in and opt out features if they want to be listed on this site in the first place

Peter Martin March 17, 2014

I noticed the starmeter for one of my clients going down much farther than her credits and industry presence would suggest. I did some digging and found out that a disgruntled director of a low budget film she had agreed to do but subsequently withdrew from for a network show was “gaming” her starmeter in the negative in order to “punish” her from withdrawing from her project.

Both of us emailed IMDB provided some documents that suggest this sabotage was a possibility and the only response was a “canned” response and a refusal to address specifics.

Despite having several serious credits her starmeter remains in the 150,000 range FAR higher than other clients with only a few credits.

Something sinister is going on.

Having said that: NO credible casting director, producer or actors rep looks at the starmeter seriously. but the scam is targeting actors who are insecure.

My strongest reservation about anyone taking starmeter seriously is the secretive nature of how it is calculated.

What value could this rating possible have if we don’t know the criteria it is based on????

How can you have a “proprietary” criteria of measuring something as simple as internet hits?

The starmeter is a tyranny created to prey on actors.


SMayor March 17, 2014

Having had some pretty serious situations with IMDB, I know without a doubt that the star meter is rigged. I can’t even say how I know, let’s just let’s say that walls have ears and when you know people in the business, you hear a lot that is “off the record.” IMDB has no business ranking people or allowing others to rank them. It’s a FAN SITE! Be a FAN SITE! Now they are venturing into casting breakdowns. It’s all absurd and finally someone is stepping up about them!

Brian Woodard March 18, 2014

I would respectfully ask the author of this article to investigate if there is any quid pro quo between IMDBPRO and the industry professionals who are hawking the revamp of their site, implying it gives you an advantage professionally to belong.

Casting Directors, in my experience ONLY use IMDB to find people when there are unusual physical characteristics, ie: extreme height, weight, or some other set of characteristics they might not have in actors they know.

It seems suspicious to me that well regarded casting directors are lending their names to this revamped site implying they do casting via IMDB when I know for a fact they cast from their own lists and agent/manager submissions almost exclusively.

I work in a Managers office with star and non star clients and I know how casting happens. it seems unfair to imply to struggling actors that a membership in IMDBPRO is something casting directors regularly use.

Jerilyn March 28, 2014

Tremendous issues here. I am very glad to peer
your post. Thanks a lot and I’m looking forward to ontact you.

Will you kindly drop me a e-mail? April 18, 2014

Good post. I certainly love this site. Stick with

BJ Davis May 13, 2014

IMDB is a criminal entity that professes to the be the sole authority on the film and TV business. With that comes a legal and financial liability. They need to be litigated and they are being sued for these falsifications, privacy violations, civil rights violations and censoring some bio’s, resumes and credits. Making legal decisions to impact and/or to limit the right to work and income earning abilities. Should be abolished.
BJ Davis

Horacio May 18, 2014

Touche. Solid arguments. Қeep up the amazing spirit.

Lynne June 18, 2014

As a relatively “no name” actor, I never bothered to check my starmeter until it was brought to my attention yesterday.
Turns out I went down 300,000 last week.
I have been shooting, but that seems a pretty drastic drop for one week.
FYI though, I’ve not paid anybody anything and I’m not the only one.
Several of us lesser known actors have seen this happen, without knowing why and certainly without paying someone.
I’m a hard working actor, and I’m not interested in the kind of fame that comes from these false promotions. I would rather be working all the time than known all the time.

Bubble Witch 2 Saga Hack August 23, 2014

Spot on with this write-up, I actually think this
amazing site needs a great deal more attention. I’ll probably be back again to
read through more, thanks for the information!

Ray Watters September 28, 2014

IMDb starmeter is a joke. There are still pages out there, such as on Facebook (Like my IMDb and I’ll like yours) where people manipulate the starmeter for each other. It should be obvious that something is amiss when someone’s starmeter and credits just don’t seem to match.

Tim Krueger October 23, 2014

I’ve had a pro account for 7 years, initially for the added ability to include pictures from more productions. I’ve found them to be very slow. Slow to answer things that need correcting and even slow to add me to productions that I am on.
Each of the last 3 productions I’ve been on have asked me what I’ve done to piss off Imdb as they take much longer to add me than any other actors. In some cases, the other actors are new with a brand new profile that gets added right away.
I’ve declined various offers to boost my rating and have to wonder if that works against me.
Cancelling pro membership this year. This particular promotional strategy has run its course and is no longer needed. (have not looked at my rating in years but expect it to plummet now)

Leave a comment