changing given ratings

[lata]

I noticed that today one picture at first got 6 times 7/7 ratings,

but they all disappeared in the next 2 hours! What the hell is the

matter?! Someone voluntarily hacking or something else fubar?

[anthony_m1]

Bots have struck! There's been problems of images receiving automated scores and the system removes them.

[bobatkins]

I wonder if the site wouldn't be better off if Brian delayed all ratings by 12 hours, so that when abuse is detected and ratings removed the forum wouldn't fill up with complaints because nobody except system administration would be aware of it happening

[mottershead]

Ratings *are* delayed for accounts which have just started rating, except for subscriber accounts. But the bot guy has figured this out, creates a bunch of accounts, rates a photo or two with them, then leaves them dormant for a few weeks, so that when they become active, they don't look like new accounts.

[bobatkins]

I was rather thinking that maybe *all* ratings should have a 12 hour delay before being published on the site, so that whenever anyone looked at ratings they would see them as they were 12 hours ago - but after any corrections which were made during those 12 hours.

 

This would mean that when one of the "sleeper" accounts activated itself, if you caught it during those 12 hours nobody except the system administration would see any trace of it happening.

 

It's no fun to abuse a system if you can't see any effect of your abuse.

 

Ratings are not so urgent that they need to be seen in real time.

 

There may be other solutions to the problem, but they are probably best not discussed in public since I'm sure the Phantom raters avidly read every word in this forum in order to figure out what's going on and devise ways around the road blocks you set up.

[zhua]

I don't think a 12h delay would do so much good. First of all, Brian or other admins would have to watch the system 24 hours and then hurry to do something about each new abuse. Secondly, some people like myself do like real time systems better, especially to see the first ratings a few minutes after I posted a new picture. How about this solution: Ratings will only be published if the rater has already posted 100 (or any other minimum number of) ratings.

[bobatkins]

I suppose this is an "I want it NOW" culture. People can't wait to get their numbers, even if they are skewed sometimes. Like "fast" and "food", "instant" and "accurate" don't go together well in this context.

 

Delaying ratings from anyone who hasn't already given out 100 ratings could be a partial solution I guess, though ratebot ratings would still appear live and cause confusion once the ratebot sleepers had slowly given out their requsite 100 4s and 5s.

[zhua]

Confucius say: "Patience is the virtue of the reactionary" (or maybe it was Mao who said that).

 

After 100 ratings, you might run an algorithm to discover machine ratings, based on discrepancy from others' ratings, trend of discrepancy and even on the timing of ratings and discrepancies... Something that is now being implemented manually by moderators who review newby ratings: "As a measure against abuse, ratings from very recently registered members are not counted in the overall averages and totals until the moderators have had an opportunity to review them".

[lata]

If you know who the botter is, can't you take legal action?

[a. a.]

Hello everybody

 

 

I had some ideas in a bit far from the above topic that ultimately might be able to help the whole rating situation as well.

 

 

Please feel free to have a look at:

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ERDc

[mottershead]

I don't know who the botter is. He uses a wide variety of proxy IP addresses, but he has slipped up a few times, and a few times I have been able to persuade the admins of the proxies he has used to give me their logs. The few times I was successful at this, it was because the admin did not know that he was running an open proxy, and was grateful enough to me for letting him know that I could get my hands on the logs. Most admins running open proxies either know perfectly well that is what they are doing and blow me off, or are leery of getting involved, or are in some country where I can't contact them or speak to them.

 

But from my few successes so far, I do know his real IP address during various periods, his ISP, and approximately where he lives. His ISP won't tell me who he is. I am building up enough evidence to involve the FBI so that the ISP will be required to disclose who it is and I can either file a criminal complaint or sue the guy. But it is a slow process. Writing scripts to put ratings on photos on a web site where people rate photos isn't something that is apt to sound all that criminal to the FBI. But the same person has done more stupid stuff, in which the FBI might well take an interest.