Two accounts under different names to argue with oneself.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Something I keep noticing about some PN forum thread topics through recent years that's made me curious about whether it's possible for an individual to create two PN accounts under two completely anonymous names in order to start a hot topic thread that allows them to argue with the other anonymous person by logging in and logging out to respond back and forth that appears to be two different people but is really the same person.</p>

<p>Is this possible and/or a frequent occurrence either in the past or not so much now due to better moderation detection?</p>

<p>This never really entered my mind in the past because I never knew the implications behind some PN member's complaints about the use of anonymous names used to post in forums until my recent issue receiving an email from an individual I never heard of who had three names associated with his account I recently posted about in PN Site Help Forum. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>This is done all the time. The alternate account is often referred to as a Sock Puppet. <br /><br />The most common use is to use the first account to pose a question ("Hey, I'm trying to find a piece of software that will fulfill my fondest wishes to do [whatever] and I need some valuable information from you experts. Please help"), and then the Sock Puppet account is used to say, "I completely understand your concern about fulfilling your fondest wishes through the use of special software that does [whatever], and I've had great luck with [some product, along with a link to it]. The OP and his sock puppet are usually just trying to boost their Google page rank, or drum up some affiliate marketing cash for steering traffic to another web site.<br /><br />It's pretty sleazy, really. The moderators here have pretty good instincts, and usually know a puppet master when they see one. There's always something ... <em>off</em> ... about the way they work the set up and the pitch. It just always seems unnatural and forced, or too stilted.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Who cares ? Almost the totality of account holders on a place like Photonet are anonymous whether they use their real name (like me) or any invented name. If two of these anonymous account holders are one and the same real person, I, at least, can manage to read and debate with both of "them" without harm done to my pride. <br>

</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Tim, sock puppets are unacceptable on photo.net. It's juvenile behavior, usually by low quality contributors, and it makes the forums look unprofessional and, as Matt says, sleazy. No site that is even lightly moderated tolerates sock puppets. Also, many of them turn out to be spammers, setting up a response that is later answered by the same person.</p>

<p>What you should do is report any sock puppet incident to the forum moderator, or any moderator if it's on Casual Conversations. It can always be reported to Bob Atkins, who can moderate on any forum. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

What Tim described is different. Not multiple accounts in support of one another but multiple accounts arguing with each

other. Whether pretend-argument or real, he doesn't specify.

 

What I didn't get was the last part about an email he received.

[William Kahn]

<p>I think the kind of staged dispute Tim refers to is something that used to happen a lot on the Off Topic forum (RIP), faux arguments started by trolls and prodded by sock puppets. I haven't seen much of that lately, but then my browsing is usually limited to the few forums I have in Unified View. In any case, he who argues with himself loses the argument... ;-)</p>

[gungajim]

<p>I also wonder about people creating secondary accounts for boosting ratings of images of photos in their primary account, for tearing down the ratings of others or mate rating purposes. Of course, if it does happen it must be extremely rare....after all everyone around here is so pure and noble :-)</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Jim, I don't think sock puppets are really needed to do the dirty work. All someone has to do is email some friends in his/her ratings posse and have them drop high or low scores, as needed. I finally gave up on ratings because I think the "number of photo views" is probably a better measure of quality - not great, just better, at least if you exclude the nudes.</p>

<p>And, hey, thanks for the "pure and noble" vote of confidence! :-))</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>"staged dispute Tim refers to is something that used to happen a lot on the Off Topic forum (RIP), faux arguments started by trolls and prodded by sock puppets."<br>

Never seen any of the sort in the Off Topic forum during, my time at least. <br>

<br>

Come on calm down ! We are not in the business of fighting insider trading here. If multiple accounts is a problem it most be a very marginal problem, and not worth the attention. Trolls can perfectly do without, anyway.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Come on calm down ! We are not in the business of fighting insider trading here. If multiple accounts is a problem it most be a very marginal problem, and not worth the attention. Trolls can perfectly do without, anyway.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Multiple accounts used for forgotten passwords are not allowed. It's the rules. Don't try to hector the staff here, it's not something that is up for discussion.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>OMG! I am the naive one here. But at least I'm not paranoid as I first suspected.</p>

<p>I didn't think I'ld get any responses on this topic because I didn't really believe this was technically possible here on this site or other sites and that people would use the internet in such a sleazy way. But I too as Matt indicated have been picking up on the "off sounding pitch of the setup" on any given topic not just on PN, but it's taken me many years of online exchanges to finally have it sink in because nothing is gained or lost (except time) when and if it happens and it sounds too complicated to pull off to believe.</p>

<p>What got me to ask this was a link in a PN thread to an old website I used to contribute "RetouchPro" but lost the bookmark and noticed when I went to update my profile there I had an old email account back when I was on dial up ten years ago I no longer have. When updated with one of my "free" email accounts, I got an administrator autobot warning that I have to provide an email from my ISP's server and not a free one.</p>

<p>I kept pondering and asking to myself the purpose of this since no other sites require it which made me think about the PN email of the individual who had multiple names and email accounts and its purpose and the light bulb disguised as my own paranoia lit up.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback. It helps me confirm now what to watch out for so I don't go down another rabbit hole discussion that leads to nowhere except to someone's site attempting to sell a new digital imaging software that accomplishes what can already be done in Photoshop.</p>

<p> </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

 

<blockquote>

<p>What Tim described is different. Not multiple accounts in support of one another but multiple accounts arguing with each other. Whether pretend-argument or real, he doesn't specify.<br>

What I didn't get was the last part about an email he received.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly! Antonio.</p>

<p>That last part was about an email I received through PN's email alert system that led me on an investigation attempting to identify the person I did not know on whether I was receiving spam mail or email from an actual, real PN contributor.</p>

<p>There were two different emails, two different names. A google search confirmed a third name going back when PN was just a bulletin board. I was perplexed why someone would go to these lengths of hiding their identity this way at the same time think it would be a good idea to shoot me a quick email out of the blue asking whether I knew a member's whereabouts. I rarely get emails from PN members which made me suspicious. </p>

<p>What also looks suspicious is I keep seeing threads started on topics that have been argued and resolved going back many years (usually a complaint about obscure and highly subjective issues with some piece of software by a major company very few share or experience)...and I always bite with some contrary point based on my own experience. I don't get into back & forth petty arguments that go nowhere or provide new information. It just becomes exhausting. Get into a number of these discussions over the years and you start noticing a pattern at least now I do.</p>

<p>But now I'm seeing these topics go unanswered for several days when all of a sudden a respected published expert finds he has enough time out of his busy schedule of educating photographers online on other sites chimes in out of the blue providing the same cut/paste responses I read ten years ago. Why would a professional waste their time doing this? What's the purpose? Are there ulterior motives?</p>

<p>Maybe they're hoping to heat up the discussion by posting the topic posing as a "fake" individual which got me to ask here whether it was possible technically to pull this off, not just on PN but on any other site.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I get involved in discussions that interest me and ignore discussions that don't. Tend not to worry about the motives of other folks, unless I know them personally, and even then it can be tricky territory. I tend to take Internet posts at face value. If I somehow figure out someone's arguing with himself in a forum, it could still be as interesting as some of the two-person arguments I've followed. If not, I'd probably go away as soon as possible, though sometimes I'd stay because I'm not above liking a train wreck. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Jeff, I'm not in any way suggesting to change what ever rule you have here on Photonet concerning accounts. What I simply state is the point of view that double accounts are not worth getting worked up about. If it is against some rules, so be it.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I'll cut to the chase! Maybe it's internet fatigue or the weather but this thread just ended with the most stupid response I've ever read and it's the icing on the cake on the frustration of it all...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00dEsg</p>

<p>The guy says he's on vacation and he's suppose to enjoy the outdoors. A complete waste of time responding to this thread. There are many like this I've been reading.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>So I guess what I've learned about the internet over the years is if it doesn't have .gov or .edu as part of a site's URL, everything else is just a circle jerk.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I agree, Tim :)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

We don't get much sock puppet activity of the type Tim originally mentioned - the trollish variety. Maybe a couple of times a year.

 

 

Most sock puppets are spammers. Typically they'll begin with a fake question that seems legit, using one account. Later they'll follow-up with an answer using another account, with a link to the business they're promoting. It's pretty easy to spot and they get deleted quickly.

 

 

The most entertaining example I've seen on photo.net occurred in 2011, when an intern doing SEO work for a commercial photographer

created several accounts in a single day to talk with each other, all in the interest of mentioning the photographer's name as often as

possible. While the original thread was deleted, we archived the adventure here:

"How to SEO Sockpuppet Like a ROCKSTAR! " -- http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/00Yi9O

 

 

The next most common multiple account holder was usually a legitimate member and photographer gaming the ratings system. We don't see as many of those anymore either.

 

Most of the multiple accounts I see now are members who use different logins from different machines, and locations -- work, home, school, mobile device. As long as it's not being abused deceptively for disruption it often goes unnoticed and without complaint.

[BrianS1664879711]

Some dot-org's are ok too

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>So I guess what I've learned about the internet over the years is if it doesn't have .gov or .edu as part of a site's URL, everything else is just a circle jerk.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

My site is a .photo and doesn't have that characteristic.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>As long as it's not being abused deceptively for disruption it often goes unnoticed and without complaint.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which means they're probably very good at it which is my point. On the surface it seems just like any other friendly invite to an innocent discussion with the hopes of new information to be had but ends up being a big time waster because these folks can't be pinned down to provide more specific information that moves the discussion forward and they end it with phoney, insipid made up excuses such as their wife wanting them off the computer because they're on vacation.</p>

<p>Do you know how many times I've heard that line from the parties in question in the linked thread I provided? I count so far about 4 times now. That's when I feel I've been punked in some way. Disruptive? Deceptive? Hey, it's just an innocent exchange of information. Who cares. Right?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>My site is a .photo and doesn't have that characteristic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What do you do to insure that, Jeff, considering how stealthy and sneaky some folks can be on the internet. Frankly the more I get to know how all this works little by little I'm at a loss in coming up with solutions. It looks like more work than it's worth.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Reminds me of this "rating" system:<br>

A. Talks to God<br>

B. Talks to Angels<br>

C. Talks to Self<br>

D. Argues with Self<br>

F. Loses those arguments<br>

:)</p>

<p> </p>

[gordonjb]

<p>So Tim, Andrew and Thormod are all the same person? That does explain a lot.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>So Tim, Andrew and Thormod are all the same person? That does explain a lot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Was wondering when someone was going to say something obviously snarky like that. Back at ya'...</p>

<p>At least one of the three spends a lot of time here talking about photography, posting quite a lot of their own photographs in the No Words forum and elsewhere outside their PN gallery going on ten years.</p>

<p>Can you figure which one that is, Gordon, or do I need to draw you a picture? I have that skill as well BTW.</p>