Imdb pro

I never know what it means either. But, as I understand it, the Starmeter rating is given to everyone who is entered on the system (this probably includes the writers, directors, and crew listed as well - I'm never quite sure - but, as actors, we tend to forget the fact that IMDb is by no means only a directory resource for actors' listings - its a directory for everyone involved in the world of movies).

The ranking is given initially on the basis of decisions so arcane I have never yet been able to work them out - I *think* your rating is decided on the basis of things like how highly rated the projects you have featured in are riding within the general consensus of the industry, what sort of ranking your co stars in a film are obtaining (and, let's be honest, it may be the case that you shared the screen with Tom Cruise or it may be the case that you were one of 3,000 extras standing in a street scene in a film Tom Cruise was in - both will be acceptable on IMDb if you were credited - calling other actors your 'co stars' is, therefore, a relative term!), and so on - but no-one I have ever asked appears to know for certain.

What can be said is that IMDb - as I never get tired of mentioning- started as a fan site, so there is meant to be a correlation between the Starmeter ranking and how 'hot' a property you are considered to be in terms of...whatever indices IMDb is using to decide that. Some maintain that things as simple as the number of hits you get from internet searches run on you increase your rating - because this shows you are of more interest to the public at large, and this may well be true - but I don't think it's the only reason ratings go up.

By and large, if there is an upsurge of interest in a project you have been listed as appearing in, an upsurge of interest in someone who you have appeared 'alongside' because of another project, an upsurge in the number of hits your profile is receiving, an upsurge in interest in the general genre of one of the films you have taken part in, an upsurge in interest in the work of a writer whose words you have performed, sales of one of your projects to a new distributor, or, frankly, I don't know what, then I *think* your rating goes up. And when that surges dies down, then it tends to fall as rapidly.

Equally, it's my understanding that everyone (as I say) is listed on the Starmeter when they are first flagged on the system - so shifts in the system are calibtrated, somehow, against all other shifts in the system. Therefore, I'm also of the opinion that *you* don't have to achieved anything personally for your rating to go up - it's enough for the person just ahead of you in the ranking to have a very bad week, fall precipitously from a higher ranking position, and your rating will rise in response because everything is relational to everything else.

I know that on IMDb Pro you can call up the graphs of all this, but even then, I wouldn't say you learn vast amounts about what's *actually* going on.

When all this is summed up, it sounds so *insanely* complicated that I have no idea how IMDb actually regulates the ratings, and perhaps it is much simpler than even I have been assuming: something like you are entered at a very basic entry level rating, and then the database can calibrate the relative popularity of films and other actors you have worked with and offsets these against your rating. I assume someone who is doing extremely prevalent work rises very quickly. I don't imagine they have a round the clock team of researchers whose every waking hour is devoted to discovering what's 'hot' and what's 'not' for every film on their database. I mean, they are supposed to list everything ever filmed for broadcast in the last hundred odd years aren't they? They cover both films *and* TV. They're an international database, and they have thousands and thousands of people logged on the system, so it cannot be calibrated except in regard to some very broad categories.

True, computers are able to do amazing things with analysing and graphing algorithms that ordinary human beings couldn't conceive of doing in a similar amount of time (or, indeed, ever) - and that must be part of it...but truly, who knows? I am waiting for someone to enlighten me!

• 12 years ago
• 21

It is indeed the media coverage the movie you are credited with is gathering, awards, finances etc, as well as the coverage for everybody else in said movie (i.e your rank is affected by the rank of everybody in the project).

However your Starmeter for people not yet in the upper echelons of "fame" is also affected greatly by the direct traffic to your page via click-throughs, which is kinda pointless as it's not based on anything generated by the industry itself.

However, as Lee says: "and, let's be honest, it may be the case that you shared the screen with Tom Cruise or it may be the case that you were one of 3,000 extras standing in a street scene in a film Tom Cruise was in - both will be acceptable on IMDb if you were credited"

Which renders Starmeter somewhat meaningless, as a string of extra roles in blockbusters will gain far more rank than leading roles in unknown projects, which is a shame, as that goes totally against the point of a ranking system.

I do still love IMDB though.

• 12 years ago
• 22

I assumed that was more or less the truth of it Mark, though I am still not really sure what's responsible for gauging how the prestige of a given project rises or falls. I can imagine that it may just be tagged in relation to certain processable indices, so if the fact that an award has been gained is entered by the production team on the film's profile, say, then the database can tweak the values accordingly. And it may also be able to recognise other very concrete 'tags', like an award being mentioned, the increase in the values of other films actors featured in *this* one have been in etc. I can't conceive how it can work out whether e.g. 'Inception' is more popular this month than it was last month without just basing that 'assumption' on things like counting the number of relevant page hits, or tracking the relative values of the actors involved in it, because IMDb is surely only correlating the numbers. Equally, it seems a bit of a chicken and egg situation; if Daniel Day Lewis has his ranking rise personally, then the ranking of every film he is in also rises in response, but his personal ranking may only have risen in the first instance because he was in *another* film directed by Martin Scorsese, whose personal ranking has just risen and so on.

I have always noticed that, unless a listing of credits is given a very firm designation of listing by the production company concerned i.e. it must be placed in alphabetical order, then the order in which names appear in it seems to shift up and down with regularity. To my frustration, IMDb does not appear to offer the (let's face it, sensible) option of just allowing the production company to list the cast in...oh...the order of importance that the people behind the project consider the characters to rank in (you know, the order of cast list as it appears at the end of every film or TV programme). That would appear to *dictate* to IMDb who is most prominent in a film, and, bearing the vestige of its fan site origins, it doesn't allow that! Instead, the listing of cast appears in a way that reflects where they rank on Starmeter.

Now, this is all well and good if you have appeared as the lead in a low budget film in which Harrison Ford took a thirty second cameo - you will probably concede that he should still take precedence over you in an IMDb billing, because his presence may be more likely to sell the film for you (or perhaps because it's only just!). But when, in effect, some of the supporting artists are listed about fifteen places higher than co star leads, you know that something isn't right. This is why IMDb, even as a directory, leaves a hell of a lot to be desired, and why you may seriously question the competence of any casting director who is interested solely in the ranking and not in the billing for any given film!

And as you point out so astutely, Mark, it is perfectly possible to be a background artist in hundreds of big budget films and rank higher on IMDb than someone who appears regularly as the lead in every small scale indie they have ever shot, because the ranking of the film, and the other names involved, is what affects your own rank. It really is pretty crazy!

• 12 years ago
• 23

Why not use my golden rule for the Star rank meter

1. When your ranking goes up - It reflects ones popularity accurately

2. When your ranking goes down - Ah, it's soooo misleading,

3. When your ranking is at an all time low - Star ranking meter!? Utter drivel!

• 12 years ago
• 24

Hi there,

I have recently joined and I need help starting up! I have added everything to pictures and credits but they are not showing up?

Need help!

• 12 years ago
• 25

It can take up to 3 days for your profile to be activated. x

• 12 years ago
• 26

Catherine, the only way you can get your credit ammended from 'voice' to your lead character name and have your singing credit added is if the producer/director responsible for the film and it's listing contacts them. It can take quite a while though as far as I understand, but it can be done.

Hope that helps.

• 12 years ago
• 27