anonymous
18 Jan 2005
Reply
People who have more than 10 anonymous votes of *10* on their poem should not be included on the damn best poems list. It can't be the best if no one who actually has interest in this site is voting. And yes, I suspect their just voting for themselves or pumping in votes
23 replies
I like to think more of the place as "poetranker" - The poet is ranked inversely by the number of anonymous tens.
I have spoken to at least three people who have quit using poemranker, giving as the primnary reason, the unfairness of anonymous votes. I must agree. These self-promoting and enemy stomping votes must stop.
Only to be replaced by people creating even more accounts and making it harder to see which the 'fake' votes are.
Is there no way to restrict each IP to one account or something?
Some folks validly share a computer/ip. Some networks look like one ip, when it's really several people behind a firewall.
Anonymous votes _are_ limited to one per IP, so the "stuffers" do have to go to some effort to do their stuffing. resync the cablemodem/dialup, for instance, per vote...
Anonymous votes _are_ limited to one per IP, so the "stuffers" do have to go to some effort to do their stuffing. resync the cablemodem/dialup, for instance, per vote...
It just seems that there has got to be some way to keep these idiots from getting mad at you and plastering your poem with a bunch of anonymous 0s. Or, at the other end, from keeping the Best list flooded with crap because people think their Ode to being a virgin deserves 20 anonymous 10s.
I agree, in theory. I just have no idea how to go about it.
The ideal would be that there was enough 'signal' traffic that the 'noise' traffic would fade away.
Well, I suppose the ideal would be no noise whatsoever, but I'm not _that_ optimistic.
The ideal would be that there was enough 'signal' traffic that the 'noise' traffic would fade away.
Well, I suppose the ideal would be no noise whatsoever, but I'm not _that_ optimistic.
There's always going to be noice because the world is filled with idiots. My suggestion would be to restrict voting somehow. Sy, you have to be logged in to vote, as with leaving comments. You could get around multiple accounts by requiring more information at signup. Make people give you a valid email that they must use to confirm their password. Once that email address has been used, no more usernames can be placed on that address. Of course, people will find ways to get around it (like multiple email addresses) but I think it would make things a little better. At least it would make it a little harder to make a bunch of alter-egos. I don't know how you'd go about doing all this, of course.
Requiring a valid email is simple enough--something I've done with every site _since_ poemranker, I think. I learn my lessons slowly. ;) But even so, if you've got your own domain, you've got an infinite number of addresses, essentially. And creating accounts on hotmail, etc, is also simple enough. Also, I'd more strongly like to leave the site open to the casual browser.
Of course, it is still simple to create multiple accounts. I think that the casual users are not going to put that much effort into cheating. There are some on here who are just bored enough to do it, but oh well. Maybe do the 'valid email thing' and restrict user names to 2-3 per IP. There's not going to be that many people living together that are going to be using the Ranker. It's not like poemranker fans are starting up colonies.
I know of one colony that's behind a firewall at work. So they all look the same. Not a huge colony, but larger than 2-3.
Then there's "limit by ip" that's awkward for people with dialups/cablemodems. They've got a different ip every time they connect (though over time, there will be overlap from the same service provider), and that's the sort of folk we're already dealing with with the "anonymous" 10's.
I appreciate your thoughts on this, but my take is that it's a fair amount of effort for something that I don't see as helping, and I do see as potentially hurting.
On the other hand, I do need to vet the emails. Those are getting annoying (bounces, etc).
Then there's "limit by ip" that's awkward for people with dialups/cablemodems. They've got a different ip every time they connect (though over time, there will be overlap from the same service provider), and that's the sort of folk we're already dealing with with the "anonymous" 10's.
I appreciate your thoughts on this, but my take is that it's a fair amount of effort for something that I don't see as helping, and I do see as potentially hurting.
On the other hand, I do need to vet the emails. Those are getting annoying (bounces, etc).
I see your point. Well, anyway, There has to be something you can do, but I'm at a loss as to what it is. ;0=)
Still, all that said, you could prohibit anonymous votes.
All that said, I feel that simply prohibiting anonymous votes will do no good, and will do some harm.
Is it not startlingly obvious who the main culprits are by viewing the "best" list? How Lydia Evelyn and CLS got to the top of the chart with 40 anonymous 10's and there is still a debate over restricting anonymous votes I do not know but sugggest you are all smoking too much weed. Just get rid of these proto-twats whose lack of a maturity harness has led to the whole concept of having a centre for excellent poemes ruined. There was a stage a few months ago where the whole top 20 poems was written by these two christian sluts, have you any idea how many potential users have been deterred from joining on reading that the best this site had to offer was the garbled ravings of a couple of paraplegic virgins? Well no, neither do I, but I suggest you remove all the anonymous 10's from their poemes or alternatively have an anonymous 10 as a purely decorative vote which holds no sway over the best list, only registered users have meaningful votes.
Except that would do nothing for pseudonymed votes, i.e., most of the repeat votes. That's the whole fucking point.
Don't you think it would be a lot less gay to simply NOT give a bunch of credit to a deeply-flawed utterly-subjective ranking system dependent on a bunch of poetry-illiterate kissasses like Shuushin for its very survival? Is there nothing else you can use to measure the worths of your existences?
And yes, I am aware that I've got bunches of anonymous and pseudonymed CLS 10s. That's because she loves me.
And yes, I am aware that I've got bunches of anonymous and pseudonymed CLS 10s. That's because she loves me.
LoL - I love being famous.
Users potentially associated with the ip "64.222.164.125" by login, vote, and comment:
Shuushin (ips by user)
Everyone (ips by user)
Everyone 64.222.164.125 0 January 26, 2005 8:55 PM PST
I do hope you'll shut the fuck up now.
Shuushin (ips by user)
Everyone (ips by user)
Everyone 64.222.164.125 0 January 26, 2005 8:55 PM PST
I do hope you'll shut the fuck up now.
As I tried to tell you once already - your conclusions are wrong. This should not surprise anyone who has actually read some of your blatherings (I usually get about half-way through).
I haven't made any conclusions, just cut and pasted lines from nentwined's [IP sneakiness] page. In short, the feeling I get is that your conclusions are a big pile of bummy and utterly, pathetically predictable. This, incidentally, is not a conclusion, so fuck you.