[HN Gopher] The case of fake IMDB credits
___________________________________________________________________
The case of fake IMDB credits
Author : HelenePhisher
Score : 320 points
Date : 2022-08-07 15:08 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (peabee.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (peabee.substack.com)
| squeebie23 wrote:
| I find it interesting that nowhere in the article did the author
| write the name of the actor / musician he's referring to, it's
| only highlighted in pictures. Maybe trying not to add to this
| guy's SEO?
| miyuru wrote:
| The fake musician thing mentioned in the article is also used to
| get verified accounts in Twitter, Facebook and Instagram as well.
| technothrasher wrote:
| I looked my own name up on IMDB and found that I had starred in a
| soft-core gay porn movie. I was intrigued, but somewhat
| disappointed that I didn't remember any of it. Also disappointed
| that it seems to have been the start and end of my illustrious
| film career.
| hackernewds wrote:
| There could be others with the same name as you?
| technothrasher wrote:
| By Jove, Watson, I think you've cracked the case!
| xaxaxb wrote:
| I stopped IMDBing long ago and switched to Metacritic, which is
| what I currently trust for anything entertainment-related.
| russfink wrote:
| More likely is that this guy used a service. Or, he could start a
| service. Or he is the service, and this profile is his calling
| card.
| entropie wrote:
| Maybe part of a scam, like Geo Slam who pretends to be a top
| notch Hollywood producer which lots of connections to get money
| (and vacations, and...)
|
| Strg+f, german investigative journalists, made a nice story about
| that case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KV8i2Q1TXU (german,
| should have english subtiltes)
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| Wait. You're saying I can make myself an actor in a major motion
| picture? Hold my beer.
| squarefoot wrote:
| IMDB lost all my respect many years ago when they made clear with
| their actions that they support fake reviews. When the problem
| started to grow beyond the occasional vandalism, they still had a
| very effective discussion section in which users soon began to
| expose fake reviews. Their response? Of course remove the
| discussion section! IMDB today has some use for their database
| only; but they lost any credibility on everything else.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| Yes their ratings used to be quite useful but it's the clear
| that people have been gaming the system for quite some time
| now.
|
| I'm amazed to have just found out that they're owned by Amazon
| (from other comments here). I can't believe I never realised
| that.
|
| I guess that the increasingly meaningless ratings and reviews
| should have been a massive clue...
| [deleted]
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Comment sections on many websites across the net got scrapped
| around the same time. Ostensibly because some people use them
| to say nasty things, but really I think it's about keeping the
| masses consuming rather than creating. The corporations prefer
| that creation of content and narratives be restricted to an
| elite few, while the masses dutifully consume. At the end of
| the day it's about protecting their bottom line.
| dvt wrote:
| > I think it's about keeping the masses consuming rather than
| creating.
|
| Not really sure I see this. Twitter, TikTok, Instagram,
| YouTube, etc. base their entire _business model_ on the
| masses creating content. Sure there 's a Pareto distribution
| when it comes to creators vs consumers, but the platforms
| certainly make money from (and encourage) both.
| misnome wrote:
| Right, it seems much more likely that if it isn't your
| primary business model, it's just not worth the hassle?
| [deleted]
| rapind wrote:
| > I think it's about keeping the masses consuming rather than
| creating.
|
| No, it's about moderation cost and preventing discussions
| that can hurt their brand or partners or customers. Also SEO
| spam whackamole.
| nostromo wrote:
| For prominent news sites, controlling the narrative was a
| big motivation in removing comments.
|
| Many journalists were open about how they didn't like how
| comments would question the data or conclusions in their
| articles. There were too many heckling comments from the
| peanut gallery so they closed it entirely.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| For controlling the narratives comments would be great:
| rank agreeing comments up to show that many people share
| the view.
|
| However the reality is that moderating comments is a
| pain. Too many people writing the most crazy stuff. It
| doesn't take many "passionate" commentors to ruin a
| section. One has to simply browse through Facebook
| comments on any popular topic.
| sizzle wrote:
| Someone should build a dead simple extension that adds
| comments back to every website.
| bragr wrote:
| There's a reason wikipedia classifies IMDB as an unreliable
| source. Apparently Michael Madsen has a real problem with people
| adding him to films in production in an effort to get financing.
|
| https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Michael-Madsen-Hates-IMD...
| leephillips wrote:
| That's hilarious. Wikipedia classifies IMDB as unreliable
| because...anyone can edit its pages.
| theamk wrote:
| ..without public edit history, active moderators and useful
| watch tools.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Wikipedia allows anyone to audit edits and raise issues if
| things are fishy. IMDb allows edits but the history is only
| visible to admins.
| Eleison23 wrote:
| IMDb is crowdsourced and accepts user data submissions.
| https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-
| info...
|
| External users are not part of it. It's a "curated" model.
| IMDb clearly stakes their reputation on accuracy and
| comprehensive coverage. IMDb's TOS ensures that you
| relinquish all copyright claims and grant them an exclusive
| license to your content. IMDb won't cite their sources nor
| attribute contributors. They own and control everything on
| the site. Their rates for abuse and misinformation are
| unpublished. IMDb is an opaque, black box.
|
| Wikipedia has a similar model for protecting articles known
| as "Pending Changes". Anyone can submit an edit to the
| article, but the revisions and new data is held back from
| the "front page" publication until approved by someone with
| the proper user rights. Almost anyone in good standing can
| obtain those rights, and it's 100% transparent. Every edit
| is reviewable by anyone with Internet access, every edit is
| attributed and licensed under CC-BY-SA. The servers,
| editors, and bots track and tag vandalism and other forms
| of abuse with public records. Verifiability is mandatory.
| jwilk wrote:
| Wikipedia is not considered reliable either:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipe.
| ..
|
| > _Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered
| reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources.
| Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them
| directly._
|
| But, unlike IMDB, it's (supposed to be) verifiable.
| chx wrote:
| Except you can use obscure dead tree books as sources and
| no one will take the effort to check whether the book
| indeed says so. Use a book obscure enough -- especially in
| a non-English language -- and it becomes almost impossible
| to execute said check.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| It depend so. The amount of trust I want to give. By
| citing an obscure book I can judge the fact "hm, that
| book sounds obscure, why isn't there some other source?"
| and then decide how much weight I give to it.
|
| And if I don't have the book at hand I can identify the
| person who added the citation and can see what other
| edits they did to judge their domain knowledge.
| chx wrote:
| No one does this. And Wikipedia myths spread to other
| media until it's hard to pinpoint where it started.
| stordoff wrote:
| Sometimes referred to as citogenesis: https://en.wikipedi
| a.org/wiki/Circular_reporting#Circular_re...
|
| There is a list of known incidents: https://en.wikipedia.
| org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...
| throwawayaug8 wrote:
| According to Wikipedia Elon Musk is the founder of Tesla.
| That's how reliable Wikipedia is
| pvorb wrote:
| Where did you read that? I highly doubt that such a
| change will get approved.
| marak830 wrote:
| "The company was incorporated as Tesla Motors, Inc. on
| July 1, 2003, by Martin Eberhard and Marc
| Tarpenning.[13]"
|
| No, it doesn't.
| nostromo wrote:
| IMDB is just as verifiable as Wikipedia.
|
| It cites its sources. In fact, all it is a list of
| citations.
| _trampeltier wrote:
| A bit of topic. Does anyone know, why the english Wikipedia
| site about the JFK movie does not talk about what was
| fiction, what was true in the movie and what is unknow? On
| the german page about the movie, they have a lot about it.
|
| I understand there are differences in languages. But in
| this case, in english, the most important information is
| missing. So it's just a movie, all fiction?!?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_(film)
| starik36 wrote:
| I was an extra in an indie film because a friend asked me to
| help out. Lo and behold - I now have an IMDB page - presumably
| the film producer added me.
|
| Fast forward a year and now there are 5 films credited to my
| name. I had nothing to do with 4 of them. I am unclear how and
| why this is happening.
| 7speter wrote:
| I remember imdb being meticulous in its record keeping ~15 years
| ago/before it got bought by Amazon (though its quality held up
| for at least a few years after). I remember looking up details
| for kinda obscure movies and talent, and my mind being blown when
| info for either was listed. Now, it takes years to see the
| filmography of a given actor from a streaming show.
| politelemon wrote:
| Side note, I'd really appreciate if you could close off your
| opening (. I don't know where to stop reading with a lower
| volume in my head.
| 7speter wrote:
| Thanks for pointing that out. I do it from time to time and
| always try to catch myself but didnt this time.
| whutsurnaym wrote:
| Now you've added another one!!
| jffry wrote:
| ))
| jwilk wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/859/
| drexlspivey wrote:
| IndentationError: Unexpected indent
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _~15 years ago /before it got bought by Amazon_
|
| They were bought by Amazon 24 years ago now, in 1998.
| 7speter wrote:
| Guess thats the Mandela Effect in action :). It was a lot
| better for a time until maybe 2010 and went downhill.
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| Poor boys from India game a system that was set up by Rich Tech
| Bros in Silicon Valley to fund their "family foundations" and
| 20-room houses in Atherton?
|
| I don't call it Outrage; I call it "Slumdog Millionaire: Part II"
| robocat wrote:
| I hate it when people create a false narrative to back up their
| prejudices.
|
| The beginnings of IMDB started in 1990 as personal files, soon
| moved to Usenet with a few people managing different
| information, then first on the WWW hosted by Cardiff University
| in 1993, and the company was then incorporated in the UK in
| 1996, and sold to Amazon in 1998.
|
| https://www.theatreartlife.com/lifestyle/history-of-an-indis...
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| OnlyMortal wrote:
| IMDB originated in Bristol in the UK. It was, so I'm told,
| started by an ex-HP staffer from the HP site in Bristol, UK and
| originally written in Perl.
|
| Unfortunately, it was absorbed into Amazon.
|
| Source: ex-HP staffer in Bristol.
| cobbaut wrote:
| IMDB originated on usenet. Someone mentioned a hot actress,
| another person made a top three of actresses... a bit later
| is was a top 100, and that is how IMDB started. Source: my
| memory :)
| hackernewds wrote:
| You're using "Slumdog Millionaire" in the same context that
| Indians here despise the movie for. Using it as a pretext for
| focusing on the poverty in India as almost a fetishized poking
| from the West (ironically by the British)
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| I haven't actually been to India, but I'm reliably informed
| that there IS some poverty there. Is that incorrect?
| svat wrote:
| As someone wrote:[1]
|
| > _Let's say I made a movie about the US where an African-
| American boy born in the hood, has his mother sell him to a
| pedophile pop icon, after which he gets molested by a
| priest from his church, following which he gets tied up to
| the back of a truck and dragged on the road by KKK
| clansmen. Then he is arrested and sodomized by a policeman
| with a rod, after which he is attacked by a gang of illegal
| immigrants, and then uses these life experiences to win
| "Beauty and The Geek"._
|
| > _Even though each of these incidents have actually
| happened in the United States of America, I would be
| accused of spinning a fantastic yarn that has no grounding
| in reality, that has no connection to the "American
| experience" and my motivations would be questioned, no
| matter how cinematically spectacular I made my movie._
|
| [1]: https://greatbong.net/2008/12/29/slumdog-millionaire-
| the-rev...
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| It would probably be a flop in India, but I'm not the
| best person to judge that.
|
| I think depictions of the US in overseas movies are
| pretty much as silly as that, though. Everything takes
| place in very rich or very poor parts of NYC or LA.
|
| As for "I would probably be accused" -- maybe in India.
| In the US it wouldn't even rate a review.
| jlg23 wrote:
| No, that is not incorrect; but there also is much more.
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| RC_ITR wrote:
| IMDb was founded in Cardiff England.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| There's a thousand Welshman looking for your blood now.
| Cardiff is in Wales.
|
| Initially was called the Cardiff Internet Movie Database (it
| was hosted at the university of Cardiff)
| wyldfire wrote:
| For the majority of my youth, I had assumed that England,
| Great Britain and the United Kingdom were all aliases for
| the same place. Thankfully I never had occasion to reveal
| this error to UK folks who might be alienated by it.
| yesenadam wrote:
| Not only _in_ Wales but is the capital. (source: am Welsh)
| RC_ITR wrote:
| I mean hot take, but the whole "United Kingdom" concept is
| sort of pointless.
|
| Either confirm to international norms, or accept that no
| one outside your borders cares.
|
| There's a reason why the only major organization that
| respects the distinction is the governing body of the
| national sport.
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| Not being from the UK:
|
| It's not really pointless. Scotland is way different from
| England, and I haven't been to Wales but I think that is,
| too.
|
| As for Northern Ireland: I don't even need to cover that
| one.
| briandear wrote:
| Except it's lying. Slumdog actually had the talent.
| superjan wrote:
| Where is the outrage you are referring to?
| [deleted]
| mkl95 wrote:
| IMDB created a Top Rated Indian Movies section to mitigate spam
| [1]. However some obscure Indian movies make it every now and
| then into the regular Top 250 list.
|
| [1] https://www.imdb.com/india/top-rated-indian-movies/
| nickphx wrote:
| What do you get for doing that though?
| shmde wrote:
| The person doing it gets money and the person taking the
| service gets fake verified clout.(could lead to future gigs,
| shows)
| edent wrote:
| "Don't you know who I am? Google me!"
|
| Works equally well in job interviews, dates, and getting in to
| clubs.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| I just put "2006 Times Person of the Year" on my resume
| goldcd wrote:
| I think Subhankar has a good future ahead of him writing copy and
| press releases for startups.
| TedShiller wrote:
| You can see the same effect on Quora
| sharmin123 wrote:
| wenbin wrote:
| This kind of happens in the podcast world as well.
|
| Many people/companies create fake podcasts and submit to all
| podcast directories / apps. The main purpose is to do blackhat
| SEO - links in the rss feed will be syndicated to podcast
| directory sites / apps.
|
| In fact, any "directory of something" sites will be gamed if user
| created contents are allowed, e.g., directory of movies /
| podcasts / local businesses / books...
| xwdv wrote:
| Will a knowledge panel on google help you get verified on various
| social networks? Or does anyone here have connection$ for getting
| verified on social networks?
| dav_Oz wrote:
| I remember the imdb-ratings on movies from India were also
| absurdly high, I brushed it off as a cultural thing back then;
| but unfortunately [0] the rigging seems to be norm on imdb across
| the board (not limited to India).
|
| [0]https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/the-
| kashmir...
| rurban wrote:
| Indian fake ratings are a big thing, but from my own experience
| collecting good ratings, I can attest that keeping fakes out if
| the system is a big effort, and it cannot be done manually. I
| implemented a complicated but fair statistical system to keep
| fake ratings out from my site. But I'm only doing the top 3
| film festivals, not all the crap. The manual blacklist is still
| huge.
|
| In the west the biggest offender is A24 btw.
|
| And to be fair to the Indian movies: The top Indian movies are
| usually better than the best western movies. But we didn't have
| top Indian movies for almost over a decade now.
| yes_no wrote:
| hackernewds wrote:
| This seems like one of the widest tangents to an unrelated
| (even if important) topic I've seen on HN :)
| hef19898 wrote:
| Hoenstly, the recent trend of specifically created accoubts
| posting shit like that under everything even just remotely
| India related is troublesome. Especially since it either to
| paint any, slight criticism as being anti-Hinu and anti-
| Modi or to paint Indians as victims of cololianism (true,
| but no excuse to do whatever you want and usually used
| totally out of cont!xt) or those evil Muslims (using the
| same made up shit Islamophobs in the West use). HN is no
| place to spread propagabda of any kind, would be nice to
| keep it that way.
| guesswho_ wrote:
| humaniania wrote:
| After Amazon bought IMDB it became more about advertising for
| movies and less about being a database. Same thing as when
| Warner Bros and Universal Studios (via its parent Comcast)
| bought RottenTomatoes. Now everything brags about it's RT
| rating when it's coming from 2 movie studios...
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| RT at least still has viewer ratings. You predictably can't
| sort by them but it's at least an indicator if the reviewer
| and viewer score are on completely different heights.
|
| And you've got trakt.tv now too, not sure if anyone owns that
| cobbaut wrote:
| > After Amazon bought IMDB it became more about advertising
| for movies and less about being a database.
|
| Yes, but several years later, since Amazon bought IMDB back
| in 1998!
| tyingq wrote:
| >less about being a database
|
| I do really like the "X-ray" feature in Amazon Prime, which I
| assume is partially powered by IMDB. I miss it when using
| other services like HBOMax, Netflix, etc.
| [deleted]
| nick9847 wrote:
| Is the Apu trilogy good for real?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I'm very proud to say we did show that in the Google Cinema
| Club, and in fact we had a professor from UCSC who specializes
| in Ray films come and show it and answer questions. He knew Ray
| personally.
| mrwh wrote:
| It's been many years since I last saw it, but I remember the
| first film in particular as being wonderful, yes. Hopeful and
| sad and luminously shot.
| abruzzi wrote:
| yes, but 'Distant Thunder' is my favorite from the same
| director.
| js2 wrote:
| https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-apu-trilo...
| leephillips wrote:
| It's a classic series of Bengali films, widely adored.
| jwilk wrote:
| > the edits are not reviewed effectively either
|
| But when I tried to fix typo in the cast list of a movie, my
| submission was rejected:
|
| > _Your contribution has been declined. We have been unable to
| verify your contribution. Unfortunately we were unable to accept
| your submission as we were unable to verify the information
| provided._
| tyingq wrote:
| I wonder how many people have successfully bootstrapped acting
| gigs this way. Perhaps not the guy in the example, as his various
| poorly written bios expose him. But surely there are people that
| are better at this game.
| netsharc wrote:
| Why even bother with getting an acting gig where they'll figure
| out you can't even act? Just fake the fame (is it fake if
| Google says it's real?), and get free meals, etc (hah, I guess
| Instagram was the platform for this a while ago).
|
| There are people like the fake heiress Anna Sorokin who faked
| being wealthy, who's even getting movie deals after being
| caught, but never admitting to being wrong (this statement not
| checked for accuracy, I just noticed an interview where she
| seems to be claiming it's all been a misunderstanding). The
| world's a funny place.
|
| A Formula 1 racer got his career started when he got himself a
| lift with 2 bosses of 2 different teams - each of them thought
| he was friends with the other guy. He talked his way into a
| driving job, but of course, once there, he had to show he could
| race.
| cubancigar11 wrote:
| Seo is a fair play and I don't see why we are so quick to blame
| young people. It is Google that should be blamed for making
| themselves more important than they deserve to be.
| Mo3 wrote:
| This is not SEO, it's fraud and deception.
| NoSorryCannot wrote:
| A lot of what is labeled and sold as "SEO" might as well be
| diet fraud. Plagiarism, false advertising, astroturfing,
| etc. It certainly isn't just letting the Google bot know
| what your website is about.
| tyingq wrote:
| I agree, though I think it's fair play to try and do
| things that the Google algorithm likes...but are not
| directly related to quality.
|
| Say somewhere in the bowels of their ML pipelines,
| features that get scored include things like _" has a
| favicon.ico and it's unique and not seen elsewhere"_.
| Well, then doing that isn't really fraud to me. It's just
| adding "proxies for quality" so you aren't dinged for not
| having them.
| cubancigar11 wrote:
| Ummm, this is SEO? Because it is a hack from google's algo?
| This is exactly my problem with the "hackers" here and the
| article's author - conflating the action with content. He
| finds an unscroupolous usage of that hack and generalizes
| without any effort that all of it is fraud.
|
| It is not okay to glide over the 'young people' part and
| generally not being empathetic to those trying to beat the
| market. If it is fraud, which is a crime, are you
| suggesting these people should be sent to jail? Because if
| not then you shouldn't use the that word. Words have
| meaning.
| theamk wrote:
| I would love to have a way to punish people for
| submitting knownlingly bad information to publicly
| editable databases like IMDB (note I don't care about
| Google, it is IMDB that should be protected)
|
| Jail is too much, but it woukd be nice to have a fine of
| some sort, because "poisining the well" for everyone is
| really not cool.
|
| (in practice any such system would be abused a lot, so we
| are probably better off with status quo.. but in the
| ideal world we'd punish those people)
| cubancigar11 wrote:
| Right. We can achieve heaven if we just punish every sin.
| Not trusting almighty Google's algorithm is just too much
| sacrifice the good people are making.
|
| Promoting publicly editable database as authoritative is
| high bar we must achieve at the cost of just banning
| juvenile behavior.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Making up lies about yourself to make yourself look better
| than you really are is "fair play"?
| nslzk wrote:
| I'll never get tired of saying that we need two separate
| internets, one for the west and another for the east.
| gameshot911 wrote:
| That's an intriguing idea... I'd be interested if you care to
| expand upon it!
| nslzk wrote:
| Well that's the gist of it... make it so easterns can't
| access western websites and other internet services and vice
| versa.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| What outcome did you have in mind?
| joostshao wrote:
| it harmful for indian film growth, evently. it is also happen in
| china, with real account to post a high score to bad movie,
| somebody can get money from this event.
|
| create fake data by fake account or sub account, someone even
| have no watch the movie in theater, just post low score, it make
| people angry
| croes wrote:
| Reminds of this "Man fools security to backstage at a Peking Duk
| gig by changing the band's Wikipedia page to describe himself as
| a family member"
|
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3345074/Man-fools-s...
| walrus01 wrote:
| Now imagine where he could get to if he had a high-vis vest and
| a clipboard
| Strom wrote:
| A great strategy but has its limits. Just a few weeks ago
| some guys tried a rather good version of this strategy in
| Estonia to sneak into a Rammstein concert. Not only did they
| have high-vis vests, but one of them also had high-vis pants,
| both of them had working gloves and they were carrying a
| ladder. [1]
|
| It didn't work out though, they didn't get past security. I
| think one of the major flaws in their attempt was that they
| arrived too late, thousands of regular people were already on
| the premises. They should have come early in the morning.
|
| --
|
| [1] https://f7.pmo.ee/Rur-
| qzbdJAu0h_EKSRoidSHPFsg=/1536x0/nginx/...
| andrewfromx wrote:
| Changing a wikipedia article to get past Security is literally
| an episode of Mr. Robot Season 1.
| https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/62560-mr-robot
| Eleison23 wrote:
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Is 'to backstage' a verb?
| wyldfire wrote:
| You should read this like "man fools { security-to-the-
| backstage }" not "man fools { security } in order to
| _backstage_ ".
| chrisseaton wrote:
| But in British English 'security to backstage' would
| usually be 'security for backstage' or 'backstage
| security'.
| wyldfire wrote:
| I think that US English writers/readers would also find
| the latter the most common term for that noun phrase. I
| think the most likely explanation is that the
| writer+editor(s) did not choose the words well to
| describe the situation.
| mpclark wrote:
| This is a headline, not British English ;)
| fsckboy wrote:
| in English it's relatively common to verbify. If you figure
| out a reliable way to get backstage, you can thereafter
| backstage whenever you want.
| pigtailgirl wrote:
| -- Well you're from Cheshire - and that's the DailyMail - so
| you tell us! =) --
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| security to backstage = the security personnel protecting the
| entry to the backstage area
| waspight wrote:
| I have always wondered about the ratings. It seems to me that all
| movies below 6 is trash. Has this always been this way? One would
| imagine that a 5 star rating would be ok since it is right
| between 0 (bad) and 10 (great). I guess some kind of inflation in
| the ratings is going on, but how is such things prevented in
| these kinds of ratings over time? Is it even possible to prevent?
| duckmysick wrote:
| L'equipe, a French sports newspaper, sticks to the traditional
| interpretation of the 1-10 scale when rating players'
| performances. In football (soccer), they rate all players on
| both teams who played enough minutes, so there's at least 22
| ratings per match - 5/10 being average and 10/10 being truly
| exceptional.
|
| Since the late 80s they have given only a dozen or so perfect
| 10/10 ratings. Almost half of them was given in the past five
| years, so I guess inflation creeps up everywhere.
| zaik wrote:
| Maybe today's football players are simply performing better
| than players from the 80s?
| ScottEvtuch wrote:
| I think the false assumption you are making is that the
| "average" movie is good. There are a lot of trash movies out
| there.
| dhosek wrote:
| I tend to view 1-10 ratings differently than 1-5. 1-5 is more
| like (American) letter grades where 3 stars equals a C and is
| average. On a 1-10 rating, it's more like percentages so 9-10
| is an A, 8-9 a B, 7-8 a C, 6-7 a D and less than 6 an F. I've
| seen elsewhere that at least one aggregator does similar to
| convert between 1-10 scales and 5-star scales so I think that
| this is a common unspoken assumption of the relation between
| the two scales.
| radiojasper wrote:
| "Besides being an Actor, he tried his luck in acting and
| singing."
|
| I thought I was cross-eyed for a second, but it really says
| exactly that. [0]
|
| [0] reupload as substack URLS are daunting to say the least:
| https://jasper.monster/sharex/Ygg0w8VuhP.jpg
| personjerry wrote:
| Anyone know how to replicate this to get a knowledge panel for
| startup-building clout? Asking for a friend
| usremane wrote:
| Man creates internet.
|
| Internet helps man.
|
| Man creates spam.
|
| Spam destroys internet.
|
| Spam destroys man.
|
| Spam rules the world.
| HelipadSweeper wrote:
| ndriiu- wrote:
| ndriiu- wrote:
| bredren wrote:
| > In a world where your online clout is everything...
|
| It's a long arc, but I think we are bending away from this.
|
| It's harder than ever to convincingly be a competitive content
| creator.
|
| Going from largely Insta photos -> tiktok forced non-linear video
| editing / performance on fast trend cycles.
| chevman wrote:
| Happens everyday all day in BigCo land!
|
| You think those execs really did all those things they said they
| did?
| groffee wrote:
| "Single-handedly managed the successful upgrade and deployment
| of new environmental illumination system with zero cost
| overruns and zero safety incidents."
| cromulent wrote:
| Light-bulb changing embellishments, and also outright lying
| about their qualifications.
|
| https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/management/telstra-
| shou...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-07 23:00 UTC)