Ratings don't seem relatable

I've been playing random people but it seems to me once you go past around 1350 you get guys all the time who's previous rating got to 1500 to 1600 

im at 1430 trying to get better ratings but I feel it's full of sharks who keep sinking down to low levels slitting lower level players throats on their brief blips into lower levels. 

Is this somethinc people are aware of? 

In essence 50% of the time you're not playing a guy at 1350 but instead a guy who is regularly around 1500 who's just on a blip? 

Ratings fluctuate, especially in faster time controls. It happens in OTB chess too; I made it up to 1648 and have fallen back down to 1554 (USCF) over the last few tourneys I have been in.  A lot of different things can impact ratings and how well one plays any particular set of games.

There is another use for the word shark, it means someone who is of a higher level and beats weaker opponents. 

Ergo my writing was correct. You merely exposed yourself as boorish, rude and a jerk. 

A shark would be someone who pretends to play weakly in order to encourage weaker players to risk their money.

Since no money is at stake here, and nothing of value to gain, there are no sharks.

And hence, no reason for you to insult those who have tried to help you.

Ratings fluctuate, but if you play a lot of different players in a lot of different games, it'll average out. Don't worry about that.

Oh my god it's just jerk city on here. And I thought IMDB was bad.

Yeah, just ignore them - anyways, the opposite also holds true. There are high rated players who may be overrated temporarily due to a winning streak they went on yesterday, but are back at their "real" strength when playing you.

What's IMDB?

The forums are no place to be sensitive. Especially when your question is essentially "it seems like all these players are taking advantage of my king!". If you wanna burn trolls you need a little more fire than that.

Consider that some people are much better in certain kinds of positions than others.  For instance, I play open positions far better than closed positions.  Many play middlegames much better than endgames.  Sometimes it even comes down to openings, that is, many 1400-rated players know the 1.e4 type of positions very well and and know the corresponding middlegame plans, but they have no such experience when it comes to 1.d4 type of positions and thus play much worse in these middlegames.

In my view, ratings are best viewed over time, so "My rating increased by X over the last month," or, "I won 5 games against players 1400+ in January and I have 7 wins so far in February, so I'm improving."  This is generally more useful and productive than worrying about the rating of any one person in any one game.

I would wonder what the point is, but then again I've played enough Halo to know that people will purposely assassinate their own ranking so they can get paired against worse players and then just annihilate them.

But like Martin said, they definitely fluctuate. Mine got pretty high because I beat a 1700-rated guy twice because he timed out on daily games. 

Current ratings and your seek rating ranges are all that matter (from a rating perspective anyway).

You play nothing but blitz. Blitz ratings can fluctuate by hundreds of points. Just yesterday on another site I went from over 1800 to below 1700 then back up again.

Your rating is now 1332, down from 1512.

You are now one of the sharks you were complaining about.