A fake user found


since I’ve been a regular old user, I care about fake users or those who check movies (falsely) just for i dont know what reason
this guy
has checked movies in a rate that even if you read the title you can’t check that much in a time. you can’t remember what you have seen. he checked 4000 movies in a day which no man can do, if he is not fake. if you check him now his ratings has been modified. but you can see his timeline if checks the time he has joined the website. now he is in top 30.
please do something about these users.
p.s: he hasn’t imported the movies because only VIP can import and he is not a vip



The user has been removed. Thanks for reporting!


Dear PotatoAgent. After some discussion among the mods Marijn has restored johnlocke. He is a new user on iCM, so it’s completely reasonable he is checking movies he has seen in the past X years. Every user (not only paying users) can import their IMDb-ratings history, so it’s not that weird to have thousands of checks in a day. Having seen lots of movies in the past doesn’t mean a user is fake.


sure. hope he is real. thanks for caring.

but my guts tell me there is something wrong with him/her.



My least-seen official check is a film checked by 18 people. If I counted correctly, johnlocke already has checked 90 films checked by 18 or less people. Including a few films seen by only seven other people besides himself. Hrmmmm.


I have checked 111 films checked by 18 people or less. 12 are only checked by seven others besides myself. Am I a fake user too?
(This is only counting official checks. My numbers are a lot higher with unofficial checks as well.)


I never gave much thought to this, but was motivated to look at my obscure checks. My most obscure official check is The Cruel Tower (1956) which only has 10 checks. I have one at 11, a couple at 12, several at 17 and 18. Maybe 10 or 12 total that are 18 and fewer checks. Although about 450 if we include unofficial checks.) Not as many as johnlocke, but I am not dissuaded from seeking out such unpopular films. I noticed that one of my favorites, Wife for a Night (1952) only has 3 checks!

But I commend PotatoAgent for working to eliminate fake users. I share his concern.


This is a false equivalency. You are a superstar ICM user who has been scouring the bowels of the Internet for obscure films for almost six years. With other superstar users’ help. johnlocke has been a member for three weeks.

And citing “unofficial” films is irrelevant. People don’t seek out those films in the same way. I’ve checked over 800 films with 18 or less checks, but that’s not because they’re so impossibly rare but because other users just aren’t interested.


I do understand your doubt, but it’s no proof his checks are fake. It is not so weird that people have seen lots of movies before joining iCM. People “work” on lists before they discover iCM. I also did. Lots of people are members of private download-sites without having an iCM-account. If half of the userbase of KG would join iCM, I expect several of them to pop up on the first page, with lots of obscure checks. On a Dutch movie-site there is a guy who has seen almost 28000 features (yes, features, excluding shorts). Imagine what happens when he imports his ratings to iCM. He will be discussed in a thread like this, although nobody on that Dutch site doubts his honesty.

I’ve sent johnlocke a message asking him about the availability of some of his checks (movies that even superstar-me can’t find). For now that’s all we can do.


Has this developed any further?


My message is still in my outbox. He hasn’t seen it, because he hasn’t logged in since two months and three weeks. If he stays absent for a few more months, we will set his checks to private. Don’t hesitate to remind me about that.


What about the top 3 jokers on this list:


This is the kind of stuff that bothers me. People checking a 100+ year old lost film. One I confronted and he said he didn’t see it, but checked it anyway to complete the list. Ugh.


I recently re-added El Apostel back to that list. Apparently some people were bothered by losing their platinum award. They shouldn’t check it though. Lundolsen and sha1tan did so shortly after I changed it. I’ll contact them. tallandy13 hasn’t been here in almost 3 years, so he won’t read my message.


Perhaps we could make tallandy13 votes private then and hopefully the other two will play fair.


What bothers me is that Simba63 is about to blow past me, and he’s NOT a cheater. :wink:

This neurosis about losing platinum awards wholly eludes me.


Haha, we may go back and forth in the standings. Being able to watch movies is always a matter of having the time for me. The challenges at the unofficial forum have really gotten me into it.

I really try and make sure my checks are accurate. I wish everyone would only check what they’ve actually seen and not be concerned with a platinum award. I guess I just feel like (at best) we should all be ranked #1 with gold on that list.


I figured you’re still in the early stage of catching up on checking off your whole life’s viewings. Or have you really seen about 50 features within the past two weeks?

I think about where I rank with certain lists (Amos Vogel, 366 Weird, Criterion Collection, 500<400…maybe the two silent-film lists or UNESCO), but I really don’t pay much attention to “awards.” If I ever do think about awards, it’s only to note whether I’m close to reaching Bronze on some list.


No really. Back in the early 1990’s I went through the task of capturing every film I’d ever seen at IMDb. I simply imported it here. If you see me checking 50 features in two weeks, then that’s a part of the addictive Unofficial iCM Forum Monthly Challenge of some sort. Also, some of those checks are probably shorts. I have had months when I watched over 100 films for a challenge, but not this year.


How about newish user JamesCameronScholar? Immediately jumps to #2 all time on the site (now down to #3 I believe)? And, perusing their checks, they have mysteriously been able to find copies of a few lost silent films, such as “4 Devils” and “The Way of All Flesh”. So unless they’re 100 years old, something’s a bit fishy…