Cheaters (Wizbang)

Never prosper. I know who it is and it's been fixed.

If you think it will help your favorite site by padding votes or hacking you are wrong. I'll be lopping off the cheaters votes and banning addresses. I am watching the vote logs and zapping cheaters votes.

Yesterday I saw the rise in Lessig, LGF, and Scripting News and figured they were moving together. This was not exactly the case.

Scripting News rocketed up 5000 votes in short order. I combed through the Scripting News vote logs and didn't initially see any issues. It appeared that LGF and Lessig fans tried to match the Scripting News gains illicitly. Lessig, LGF, and Kottke were all docked due to heavy vote fraud from individual address. Lessing (5K), LGF (3K), Kottke (500).

That was not the end of the story. Checking the referral logs showed where all the Scripting News votes were coming from. He benefited from some underground hacking games and did not earn the votes I though he had. He wasn't involved, but I found the little twerps who where doing it. There were lots of other mirrors like memepool.com who were carrying similar code.

Pete Holiday was able to come up with some code to block the kind of direct link "magic" vote fraud that was happening. Things should run smoother now. Serious thanks to Pete!!!

The moral of the story is earn your votes the old fashion way: beg for them.

Update: There are 19 categories (if I remember correctly) and the voting problems have only occurred in the Best Overall Blog category and only with the sites mentioned. The illicit votes have been removed and the poll code has been modified to disable the cheating. None of the other polls were affected.

In the Best Overall Blog category all of the aforementioned sites are aware of the situation, and none of them are encouraging people to game the system. With the vote totals corrected and the polls more secure the contest will continue. It turns out that I don't have to guess about totals when removing votes.

Some have called for the contest to end. To this I say "no". Aside from wanting to stage a competition, I also wanted to give non A-list bloggers a chance to get some new readers at their sites. Numerous sites (even when complaining about the Weblog Awards) say that they've found some new blogs of interest in the Weblog Awards.

Comments (62)

I guess it's not really sur... (Below threshold)

1. Posted by Matthew Stinson | December 6, 2003 8:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Matthew Stinson:

I guess it's not really surprising that people wound up cheating on the poll given what TTLB had to deal with recently in Ecosystem gaming. It's still sad.

P.S. What are the odds that someone will claim your poll was "hacked"? Heh.

Posted on December 6, 2003 20:23

That's why I hate these pol... (Below threshold)

2. Posted by Geoffrey | December 6, 2003 9:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Geoffrey:

That's why I hate these polls. There are so many free proxy servers out there now, even if you ban the IPs it doesn't help.

Posted on December 6, 2003 21:42

That sounded bad. What I m... (Below threshold)

3. Posted by Geoffrey | December 6, 2003 9:44 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

That sounded bad. What I meant was, the IDEA is fun, but people take it too seriously. As a result, you can't get an truly accurate feeling for general concensus.

Posted on December 6, 2003 21:44

Ummm...before I ban them, d... (Below threshold)

4. Posted by Matt | December 6, 2003 9:55 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Matt:

Ummm...before I ban them, did they change the results in my favor?

Just kidding, They're obviously liberals with a very relative morality (Wait, just like the idiots that screwed with TTLB).

Posted on December 6, 2003 21:55

...out of curioisity, how d... (Below threshold)

5. Posted by Pete | December 6, 2003 10:08 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Pete:

...out of curioisity, how do we know they're liberals?

I mean... credit where credit is due and all, but blind accusations and misinformation are the tools of the left... let's try not to lower ourselves to that.

Posted on December 6, 2003 22:08

Looks like 'Dive into Mark'... (Below threshold)

6. Posted by Egfrow | December 6, 2003 10:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Egfrow:

Looks like 'Dive into Mark's' website is trapping the referer link from the wizbanblog site voting list in the poll. When a person clicks on his link from his website it re-directs the user directly to a vote for his site. This is outright cheating and completly BS. This site should be removed from the running.

Posted on December 6, 2003 22:57

IF you click on his link fr... (Below threshold)

7. Posted by Egrow | December 6, 2003 10:58 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Egrow:

IF you click on his link from the poll you will cast a vote for that site instead of being directed to that site for 'Dive into Mark's'

Posted on December 6, 2003 22:58

Scripting news just jumped ... (Below threshold)

8. Posted by Egfrow | December 6, 2003 11:00 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Scripting news just jumped to over 5000 votes from under 1600 in just 15 minutes. WTF?

Posted on December 6, 2003 23:00

Exactly, WTF? I've noticed ... (Below threshold)

9. Posted by alphasheep | December 6, 2003 11:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

alphasheep:

Exactly, WTF? I've noticed the jump too. Someone already tried once earlier today. The site should be removed. I eman, tough luck for the site itself. Perhaps the site owner should have explained to their readers that cheating is conterproductive.

Posted on December 6, 2003 23:10

I hope I'm not screwing up ... (Below threshold)

10. Posted by Denita TwoDragons | December 6, 2003 11:16 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Denita TwoDragons:

I hope I'm not screwing up on my voting...I selected all of them, then hit one of the "Vote" buttons. Then I thought "Maybe I'm supposed to do that for ALL of them"? Now I'm trying to go back and do it by individual category. I hope it's not showing me as trying to vote twice...

--TwoDragons

Posted on December 6, 2003 23:16

The "magic link" you refer ... (Below threshold)

11. Posted by Mark | December 6, 2003 11:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Mark:

The "magic link" you refer to is changed, as per your request. I honestly hadn't seen your previous post where you asked people not to do that. I see Scripting News has jumped another 5000 votes; sounds like I'm not your biggest problem today. Good luck.

Posted on December 6, 2003 23:32

Are you telling me Scriptin... (Below threshold)

12. Posted by Bob | December 7, 2003 12:21 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Bob:

Are you telling me Scripting News got 5000 legitimate votes from Dave posting a link and begging? No, sorry, I don't buy it. He doesn't have that kind of traffic. See for yourself; his stats are public. http://essaysfromexodus.scripting.com/stats/hourlyHits

Posted on December 7, 2003 00:21

i'm pretty sure they are al... (Below threshold)

13. Posted by purefiction | December 7, 2003 2:27 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

purefiction:

i'm pretty sure they are all hardcore republicans.

Posted on December 7, 2003 02:27

Confession, sorry I've chea... (Below threshold)

14. Posted by ingrid | December 7, 2003 5:38 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

ingrid:

Confession, sorry I've cheated by voting for myself - only once though (it didn't work a second time) just to see if it worked - in the hope of getting at least one vote.

My blog, started in July 2003, is a Crawly Amphibian in TLB but here it's listed in the Flippery Fish category. Not keen on this category - front runner has porn photos - so please Kevin Wizbang can you move my blog to the Amphibians?

Suppose you are all now going to rush over to the Flippery Fish category to see the porn. If you find what you are looking for: please vote for ME AND OPHELIA!!

Heh. Kevin blogged that we should earn our votes the old fashioned way: beg for them ;-)

Posted on December 7, 2003 05:38

Wait a minute. Doesn't the ... (Below threshold)

15. Posted by Rodney Dill | December 7, 2003 8:37 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Rodney Dill:

Wait a minute. Doesn't the SCOFLA (Supreme Court of FLorida) get to weigh in on who the winners are? You should leave vote fixing to the pros.

Posted on December 7, 2003 08:37

I honestly hadn't seen y... (Below threshold)

16. Posted by Pixy Misa | December 7, 2003 11:08 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Pixy Misa:

I honestly hadn't seen your previous post where you asked people not to do that.

So cheating is okay unless someone specifically tells you not to?

Posted on December 7, 2003 11:08

I'm not exactly sure how to... (Below threshold)

17. Posted by Interested-Participant | December 7, 2003 11:10 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Interested-Participant:

I'm not exactly sure how to beg in the blogosphere and it has a 'desperate loser' connotation attached to it. But, here goes, I got this big bag of Halloween candy left over and if someone votes for me, they're welcome to grab a handful. Or, is that bribery?

Anyway, I followed Ingid's advice and voted for myself also. I sure didn't want to see my site be the Marauding Marsupial who laid a goose egg.

Posted on December 7, 2003 11:10

Bob, that's the traffic for... (Below threshold)

18. Posted by Dave Winer | December 7, 2003 11:18 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Dave Winer:

Bob, that's the traffic for the essaysfromexodus site, not Scripting News. Basically that site is an archive from an old version of the site. The numbers are totally meaningless. On the other hand, it's pretty clear someone was gaming the vote.

Posted on December 7, 2003 11:18

Now if there was only a scr... (Below threshold)

19. Posted by Publius | December 7, 2003 11:55 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Publius:

Now if there was only a script or HTTP header trick to deal with hate-mongering sites who've had Kottke on their blogroll for many aeons but when they're in a contest with them suddenly incite their mindless-drone readership to vote again Kottke for the crime linking to a single article.

Posted on December 7, 2003 11:55

Dave, at least you know you... (Below threshold)

20. Posted by Kevin Aylward | December 7, 2003 12:07 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Kevin Aylward:

Dave, at least you know you're a favorite on the IRC circut :-)

Posted on December 7, 2003 12:07

Kevin,I would strong... (Below threshold)

21. Posted by Gerard Van der Leun | December 7, 2003 12:52 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Gerard Van der Leun:

Kevin,
I would strongly suggest that in light of the fact you've been gamed you dump this whole thing as terminally tainted.

Still, it has been good for traffic, hasn't it?

Posted on December 7, 2003 12:52

This is why I think online ... (Below threshold)

22. Posted by Laurence Simon | December 7, 2003 1:25 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Laurence Simon:

This is why I think online polls are garbage.

It ought to be done with PayPal boxes. Most cash wins. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

Posted on December 7, 2003 13:25

Mr. Aylward, the 2003 Weblo... (Below threshold)

23. Posted by Elmo | December 7, 2003 1:35 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Elmo:

Mr. Aylward, the 2003 Weblog Awards ARE a huge success. So many blogs. So many wonderful blogs. So many lovely people. Entertaing to say the least. Pat yourself on the back. Merry Christmas/Happy Chanukah, and a truly joyous New Year. Most Sincere Thanks, Elmo.

Posted on December 7, 2003 13:35

Lair might think it's garba... (Below threshold)

24. Posted by OF Jay | December 7, 2003 1:35 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

OF Jay:

Lair might think it's garbage, and I concur to some degree, but Kevin, have you been reading the underhandedly malicious entries tracking you back lately?

And to whom might you be un... (Below threshold)

25. Posted by Gerard Van der Leun | December 7, 2003 2:07 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

And to whom might you be underhandly pointing Monsieur Ofjay?

Posted on December 7, 2003 14:07

Don't listen to the people ... (Below threshold)

26. Posted by Patterico | December 7, 2003 2:52 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Patterico:

Don't listen to the people who want to shut this down, Kevin. It's been quite an enterprise, and I have run across a number of great new blogs as a result. Thanks are in order.

Posted on December 7, 2003 14:52

Gerard, it isn't you I have... (Below threshold)

27. Posted by OF Jay | December 7, 2003 2:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Gerard, it isn't you I have a problem with. Look at my TB on the front page.

Posted on December 7, 2003 14:57

Ah, I see and apologize.</p... (Below threshold)

28. Posted by Gerard Van der Leun | December 7, 2003 2:59 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Ah, I see and apologize.

As for M. Pattercio, all I can say is that blog lists like that one to the left here and on many others are prime for the clicking.

You don't need a compromised contest to know which way the blogs blow.

Posted on December 7, 2003 14:59

hehe, gotta love the commen... (Below threshold)

29. Posted by dabitch | December 7, 2003 4:34 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

dabitch:

hehe, gotta love the comment: "earn your votes the old fashion way: beg for them.". ;)

Posted on December 7, 2003 16:34

Gerard,Those blogs h... (Below threshold)

30. Posted by Pete | December 7, 2003 7:38 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Gerard,
Those blogs have been there for how long? Apparently they either haven't quite worked as well for Patterico or drawing attention to them with a little mor explanation is helpful.

Besides who, exactly, is being harmed by continuing to run the poll? Seems like it's a win/win all the way around (except, of course, for Kevin who has to deal with the whiners).

Posted on December 7, 2003 19:38

So what's with the "you may... (Below threshold)

31. Posted by Mary | December 7, 2003 9:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Mary:

So what's with the "you may only vote once in
every 12 hours?"

It seemed strange, but if others were going to vote
twice a day, I figured I would too. But of course,
it always said I had already voted.

Posted on December 7, 2003 21:39

Kevin's posted an explanati... (Below threshold)

32. Posted by Gerard Van der Leun | December 7, 2003 10:24 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Kevin's posted an explanation on my little essay about this little episode, but it doesn't address those who vote twice or three times. Before all this started I remember noting a spread of eight to ten votes in the front runners.

Seems to me if we are having a vote, in general, we should have a one person one vote rule. Anything more than that corrupts the process.

Since we have a situation in which one person may vote more than once we have, it would seem to me, a situation where the vote is corrupt.

It is corrupt in a small way on a small issue to be sure. But it is corrupt all the same and to pretend otherwise is wrong.

There's no "win/win" in something that's dishonest. There's just a lot of nodding and winking.

Posted on December 7, 2003 22:24

I have it on good sources t... (Below threshold)

33. Posted by coderman | December 7, 2003 11:02 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

coderman:

I have it on good sources that Diebold programmers were involved in the coding of the CGI form handling code.

Posted on December 7, 2003 23:02

Gerard, Gerard, Gerard...<b... (Below threshold)

34. Posted by Pete | December 7, 2003 11:33 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Gerard, Gerard, Gerard...
If you want to get really particular, I think you'd have a hard time naming a "fair" vote that has ever occurred. It doesn't get terribly much more fair than this. What's the difference between everyone having 2 votes a day and having 1 vote ever? None, really.

In a one-vote-ever system there will be people who are unable to vote for a variety of reasons. People not voting to their potential in a two-vote-per-day system is basically the same, it just has a different numerical result.

If the contest upsets your sensibilities so, why not just withdraw your blog (if you have a dog in the fight) or dismiss it as "tainted" (or whatever other holier-than-thou, indignant term you'd like) and quit trying to end it for people who are enjoying it and aren't going to nit-pick over petty details?

Again I have to ask... who is this harming? If the answer is "nobody but kevin" then where's the gripe? On principle? Keep your principles, I have my own, and I like them just fine, thanks. I can tell you a lot of sites are WINNING viewers, even if they're not winning polls.

Honestly. Go piss in someone else's cornflakes.

Posted on December 7, 2003 23:33

Why can I not submit a 2nd ... (Below threshold)

35. Posted by mathmantom | December 8, 2003 7:38 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

mathmantom:

Why can I not submit a 2nd vote even though 2 days have passed since my 1st ??

Posted on December 8, 2003 07:38

Well, Pete, the response ri... (Below threshold)

36. Posted by Gerard Van der Leun | December 8, 2003 10:52 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Cheaters

TrackBack

Comments (62)