If you work in or around the film industry, there is a decent chance you have used the work of The Numbers：https://www.the-numbers.com/ this month, whether you realise it or not.
Its hand-researched data is the highest quality, tracking box office grosses, budgets, home video and streaming across more than 78,000 films and 236,000 people. It gets north of eight million visitors a year：https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/partners/organisations/the-numbers , and is treated as THE definitive authority by journalists, academics, filmmakers, prediction markets：https://polymarket.com/predictions/box-office , and even Guinness World Records：https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/partners/organisations/the-numbers .
And it was this GOAT status which caused the catastrophic events of March this year.
On the 5th March 2026, TheNumbers.com：https://www.the-numbers.com/ website vanished.
The site was down for over a week：https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1rqwblr/thenumberscom_has_been_down_for_a_week/ , without explanation. A week later, it resurfaced at a fraction of its former size. Gone were the historical charts, the individual movie pages, and even the much-loved Report Builder.
With only a generic “we’re rebuilding, please bear with us” message to go on, the internet responded as it always does - with confusion, anger, and conspiracy theories. One Reddit theory even suggested it was a deliberate rug pull：https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1u0b48n/so_thenumbers_clearly_did_a_rug_pull_on_their/ designed to cripple the free site to push people towards paid products.
Three months on, I spoke at length with Bruce Nash, founder and CEO of The Numbers, about what happened. He describes quite an unpleasant and eventful experience:
We got a lot of angry emails from people who are like, 'Where's this page that you used to have and you don't have anymore?'
Within his tale are a number of things that should worry anyone who runs, relies on, or simply appreciates the internet.
On Friday 17 October 1997, mathematician and former IBM software developer Bruce Nash launched a Geocities site ：https://web.archive.org/web/20171022062126/http://www.the-numbers.com/news/225810830-Numbers-Turns-20-The that tracked 300 films.
Bruce described the launch in a 20th anniversary essay：https://web.archive.org/web/20171022062126/http://www.the-numbers.com/news/225810830-Numbers-Turns-20-The (which now survives only in the Internet Archive, for reasons that will become clear):
I hit a button in an Access database, uploaded some HTML pages to Geocities, and made a brief announcement on the Hollywood Stock Exchange message boards to let people know that I was starting to analyze box office for films to help them pick MovieStocks to trade on HSX.
From those humble beginnings, Bruce and the team he built around the site turned The Numbers into the film industry's most reliable financial source.
At the start of 2026, the database tracked 78,396 movies, 178,375 theatrical release records, and 236,176 people.
During its lifetime, the challenges The Numbers has faced have changed immensely. For its first quarter century or so, the traffic was manageable and mostly polite. As Bruce puts it:
Pre-AI, we got human traffic, mostly well-behaved search engine crawlers, and a few people crawling the site for personal projects. If someone got too greedy, we could spot them and block them.
Over the past couple of years, website owners the world over have seen their web traffic change. What was initially only people browsing gave way to an ever-increasing number of bots. By 2024, automated traffic had surpassed human traffic：https://www.imperva.com/blog/bad-bot-report-2026-bots-agentic-age/ , and just last month, Cloudflare announced that bots had reached 57.5% of web page requests：https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipamajic/2026/06/04/bots-now-outnumber-humans-online-and-the-internet-was-never-built-for-this/ .
The Numbers felt this shift in two distinct waves. The first started around 2024:
We saw a big increase in crawls as AI training joined the search engine crawlers. The AI crawlers are generally less well-behaved than the search engines, which increased the management tasks for us to keep the site running smoothly.
And the second wave was stronger and more damaging:
Around December 2025, we saw another big spike in traffic which I attribute to agentic AI: a combination of AI agents that scrape sites in response to prompts, and people being able to write agents that scrape sites.
Like every data-rich site, by early 2026 The Numbers was being hammered hard by AI bots scraping its pages over and over at an industrial scale. Bruce says that only 10% of their traffic is from humans browsing the site, with the rest coming from AI bots and automated traffic.
This put enormous strain on the site, but Bruce and his team were able to take measures to mitigate the worst of it. One of the cleverest was talking to the robots in their own language:
There’s stuff on the site which is designed for an LLM to read, so that it can tell somebody ‘here’s how you licence the data’ rather than ‘here’s how you scrape the website’. It’s had a huge effect. We’re now getting probably ten times the volume of licensing enquiries.
But mitigation is not the same as escape. From December through early March, the team struggled to keep the site alive under the load. Bruce estimates that:
Around 90% of our time was spent keeping the existing site running while we spent our spare moments working on a new and improved system.
The problem was compounded by the site’s age: thirty years old, with approximately 160,000 source files serving around 2 million pages.
Then, in the early hours of Thursday 5 March, the servers collapsed.
The team scrambled to understand what had happened, initially assuming it was the sheer weight of AI traffic. It seems AI was to blame... but possibly not only in the way they first thought.
Buried in the flood of agentic traffic, the site’s logs showed something more pointed than scraping. As Bruce describes it:
Some of these used the site using legitimate URLs, others were looking for back doors, most likely so they could get to the data before it appeared on the site, or to manipulate the data presented to users.
On the advice of a friend who works in cybersecurity, the old server stayed off. For good. Restoring the backups and nursing the thirty-year-old site back online would have meant defending 160,000 legacy files against attackers who had spent months probing them.
The team rushed up a skeleton version of the website on new infrastructure, which could at least keep delivering the latest box office figures while they took stock of what had happened and what to do next. It went live on Friday 13 March.
At first glance, The Numbers may not seem like an obvious target. It doesn’t collect credit card information, and there is no juicy customer data to flip on the dark web. It is a small, independent company that publishes how much money movies make.
How could someone expect to make money purely from having private access to their site?
In case you haven’t guessed it yet, it’s linked to prediction markets.
Polymarket：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymarket runs weekly markets on opening weekends, and names The Numbers as the ultimate source of truth: ：https://polymarket.com/event/disclosure-day-opening-weekend-box-office
The ‘Daily Box Office Performance’ figures found on the ‘Box Office’ tab on this movie’s The Numbers page will be used to resolve this market once the values for the 3-day opening weekend are final.
The sums on any single weekend market are modest by financial-market standards, typically in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, with a couple of million dollars：https://polymarket.com/predictions/box-office across live box office markets at any given time.
If you could see The Numbers data before everyone else, every single week, you would have a significant edge over all the other traders - learning the answers slightly ahead of publication would allow you to front-run the trades.
In a situation like this, it is hard to know for certain what happened. We know that the logs showed months of automated probing and scraping of the site, but what finally brought the site down, and who did it, remains an open question.
But the theory that someone used AI to develop an advantage in a prediction market is entirely plausible. The Numbers experience shows us that:
We now live in a world where a movie statistics website is worth hacking because prediction markets empower anyone to turn almost any data into money .
Hacking websites is now something anyone can do with a cheap AI subscription.
The web , as we have it, is incredibly fragile in the face of large-scale swarms of agentic AI bots.
In November 2025, Anthropic (the AI lab behind Claude) published a report on what it called the first documented AI-orchestrated cyber espionage campaign：https://www.anthropic.com/news/disrupting-AI-espionage . A state-sponsored group had used its coding tool to attack roughly 30 organisations, with the AI performing 80% to 90% of the work and humans stepping in at only 4 to 6 decision points per campaign.
The barriers to performing sophisticated cyberattacks have dropped substantially, and we predict that they’ll continue to do so.
In an earlier threat report：https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-countering-misuse-aug-2025 , Anthropic were even clearer:
Criminals with few technical skills are using AI to conduct complex operations, such as developing ransomware, that would previously have required years of training.
Meanwhile, an autonomous AI penetration tester called XBOW reached number one on HackerOne’s US leaderboard：https://xbow.com/blog/top-1-how-xbow-did-it , the ranking of the people (formerly all people) who find security holes in real companies for bounties, submitting nearly 1,060 vulnerabilities along the way.
Getting access to a thirty-year-old website with 160,000 legacy files is exactly the kind of known-flaw surface that AI tools have made cheap to probe. The expertise barrier that once protected small sites from all but the most determined attackers has largely evaporated.
Bruce and his team were relatively lucky. Despite having their entire site knocked out overnight, they were able to keep going. The Numbers has always been free to use, and the site hasn’t relied heavily on advertising for the past few years, so the outage didn’t destroy an income stream they depended on.
Their core business is tied to selling bulk data through the OpusData service, producing comp analysis reports for filmmakers and investors, and publishing the Business Report：https://www.the-numbers.com/business-report/ - all of which were unaffected by the public site going down.
But they do need to build an entirely new website, from scratch, to host those 78,396 movies, 178,375 release records and 236,176 people. Restoring the site from a backup wasn’t an option, as Bruce points out:
It was really clear that we couldn’t just put that server up again, because it would inevitably be brought down again, possibly within minutes.
That is why the site came back bare-bones in mid-March, and why features are returning gradually rather than all at once.
Right now, the team is having to reconsider what a public website even means in 2026. Bruce’s analysis is that The Numbers used to serve two audiences (human beings and search engines) and now serves roughly six: humans, search engines, LLM training runs, prompt-based AI traffic, agentic AI, and prediction market punters. Each has different needs and a different traffic profile. As he puts it:
We’ve gone from a world where running a web site meant focusing on three things (content, ads, and SEO) to about eight to ten different factors that go into every design decision.
Pretty bad, tbh. Enough that site owners such as Bruce have to question the value of something that will take so much time and money to build and defend.
Cloudflare：https://www.cloudflare.com/ , which protects a huge share of the world’s websites, publishes data on how many pages each AI platform crawls for every one visitor it sends back to the websites it crawled.
情报判断
Aioga 编辑摘要
The Numbers 于 2026 年 3 月 5 日下线，一周后以精简版本恢复，历史图表、电影页面及 Report Builder 被移除。创始人 Bruce Nash 称，AI 爬虫与智能体占总流量九成，持续压力令服务器崩溃，日志还出现针对后门的恶意攻击。
事件可能提示依赖老旧架构、又拥有稀缺结构化内容的网站，需要重新评估抓取流量治理、访问控制和安全防护。精简版恢复时多项核心功能缺失，也表明基础设施重建可能直接影响用户获取历史数据及生成报告的方式。 值得继续关注 The Numbers 的重建进度、历史图表与电影页面是否恢复，以及 Report Builder 的后续安排。同时应等待团队披露更完整的流量分类、攻击日志和技术复盘，以判断 AI 爬虫、智能体请求与恶意攻击在事故中的具体作用。
扫码直达文章详情